Nuneaton

[oxo]

BOSTON UNITED PLAYED AT NUNEATON AND DREW 2-2 AND ALL I READ ON HERE IS ARGUMENTS ABOUT BLOODY BREXIT AND FOREIGNERS WHO DON'T WANT TO WATCH FOOTBALL.

[The Third Twin]

BOSTON UNITED PLAYED AT NUNEATON AND DREW 2-2 AND ALL I READ ON HERE IS ARGUMENTS ABOUT BLOODY BREXIT AND FOREIGNERS WHO DON'T WANT TO WATCH FOOTBALL.

don't read it then....simple. It may not be to your taste, but these are issues that cannot be avoided in our town, and they spill into all walks of life, including Boston United.

[The Big M]

I agree with oxo pointless talk on an issue thats been decided. And you coukd take your own advice

[oxo]

Fair enough I'll discuss BUFC on other forums and leave this one to those ( some who do not go to games) to hijack for their own political views.

[Oakham Pilgrim]

I didn't get to the match yesterday, but am interested to read the comments about dropping deep once ahead. Why is it managers (and DG is very far from being the only one - it happens at every level including the top) change the tactics that have got a team into a winning position and just invite trouble? I simply don't understand it. Sometimes we and other teams have been fortunate to hang on like that (which is of course pointed out by the managers concerned), but I've seen us and other teams throw away a win.

I know I don't understand anything about football like the pros, so can someone explain please?

[Pilgrim86]

Because teams when losing, generally stick on extra attacking players. You have to counter that, by either bringing on a defender in place of an attacker, or by dropping the formation deeper. We used to bring on Galinski to strengthen our defence - he made 20 sub appearances in 2013/14! Burgess has been doing that role over the past 6 months, coming on in a defensive midfield role.

It invites pressure, but losing teams will usually revert to desperation and play direct football (more often than not, it doesn't work and it tires them out). If you're equipped to deal with it, then it shouldn't be an issue. You hope to catch them on the counter, and increase your lead.

[The Third Twin]

Fair enough I'll discuss BUFC on other forums and leave this one to those ( some who do not go to games) to hijack for their own political views.

I have not made any political viewpoint whatsoever. This forum has long since ceased being only a BUFC discussion list. It it what it is, like it or not.

[Bannovallum Bill]

Have to admit as a relative newcomer to this site I am disgusted that patter is turning into a political forum encouraged by some dubious postings by people who try have tried but only thinly disguised their heavy involvement at your club and have some alternative agenda which they are happy to bully other posters if they disagree. You know who you are. I will be ceasing my account today as this is no longer purely a footballing site. At least we are transparent at my own club. Wish BUFC all the best for the rest of the season but please feel free to come along to watch the Wongers from Horncastle sometime!

[Winging It]

Because teams when losing, generally stick on extra attacking players. You have to counter that, by either bringing on a defender in place of an attacker, or by dropping the formation deeper. We used to bring on Galinski to strengthen our defence - he made 20 sub appearances in 2013/14! Burgess has been doing that role over the past 6 months, coming on in a defensive midfield role.

It invites pressure, but losing teams will usually revert to desperation and play direct football (more often than not, it doesn't work and it tires them out). If you're equipped to deal with it, then it shouldn't be an issue. You hope to catch them on the counter, and increase your lead.

Spot on Scotty.  Now...Galinski, that is a name i would welcome back. Rated him while he was here as he looked a good leader at the back when he did make an appearance.  Am sure he could step up to this level again.

[oxo]

Because teams when losing, generally stick on extra attacking players. You have to counter that, by either bringing on a defender in place of an attacker, or by dropping the formation deeper. We used to bring on Galinski to strengthen our defence - he made 20 sub appearances in 2013/14! Burgess has been doing that role over the past 6 months, coming on in a defensive midfield role.

It invites pressure, but losing teams will usually revert to desperation and play direct football (more often than not, it doesn't work and it tires them out). If you're equipped to deal with it, then it shouldn't be an issue. You hope to catch them on the counter, and increase your lead.

Spot on Scotty.  Now...Galinski, that is a name i would welcome back. Rated him while he was here as he looked a good leader at the back when he did make an appearance.  Am sure he could step up to this level again.

Difficult to replace an attacker with a defender when all the subs are attackers so why change at all?

[Dipdodah]

BOSTON UNITED PLAYED AT NUNEATON AND DREW 2-2 AND ALL I READ ON HERE IS ARGUMENTS ABOUT BLOODY BREXIT AND FOREIGNERS WHO DON'T WANT TO WATCH FOOTBALL.

No need to shout. I saw no comments on this thread  about Brexit or foreigners.  If you are talking about the In or Out thread you have posted on it before. Perhaps it is time to lock that thread Ken.  Maybe  it is  passed it's sell by date it's only had nearly  22,000 views.

[Pilgrim86]

Because teams when losing, generally stick on extra attacking players. You have to counter that, by either bringing on a defender in place of an attacker, or by dropping the formation deeper. We used to bring on Galinski to strengthen our defence - he made 20 sub appearances in 2013/14! Burgess has been doing that role over the past 6 months, coming on in a defensive midfield role.

It invites pressure, but losing teams will usually revert to desperation and play direct football (more often than not, it doesn't work and it tires them out). If you're equipped to deal with it, then it shouldn't be an issue. You hope to catch them on the counter, and increase your lead.

Spot on Scotty.  Now...Galinski, that is a name i would welcome back. Rated him while he was here as he looked a good leader at the back when he did make an appearance.  Am sure he could step up to this level again.

Difficult to replace an attacker with a defender when all the subs are attackers so why change at all?

Hence my 2nd option of "either bringing on a defender in place of an attacker, or by dropping the formation deeper". Essentially, you ask your defenders to stay on their feet, get the wingers to drop back and force the opposition to hit hopeful balls into the box or shoot from long range.

[Ernie100]

Every soldier knows "the best form of Defence is Attack" - that's what it appears we did in the first half, so why change it??

[green hats mate]

Every soldier knows "the best form of Defence is Attack" - that's what it appears we did in the first half, so why change it??

Those were great days in the home guard Ernie 

[Pilgrim86]

Every soldier knows "the best form of Defence is Attack" - that's what it appears we did in the first half, so why change it??

Is that what the Japanese Kamikaze pilots said too?