How many points will it take to stay up?

[thebish]

but...but....we didnt beat them at home with a 4-4-2?
ergo - and with not a small amount of hindsight - 4-4-2 couldnt beat them at home because it didnt?

not at all - the fact that we didn't doesn't not mean it was impossible. I'm sure you'll see this if you have a cuppa and a piece of cake and consider the issue calmly!

the fact that we were CLEARLY not having a good go with 4-4-2 - SHOULD have led to Coyle changing it - but he didn't - which is his mistake - BUT I am not having it that it was impossible for those players to beat wigan in a 4-4-2 formation - cos that is clearly bollox with a hairy cardigan on!

Its not impossible for you to swim across the atlantic. However, I'd suggest it highly unlikely and a pretty stupid thing to try.

And you keep forgetting its not just the system, its the players he insisted on putting into that system and the roles they had to do.

you can whine and moan as hysterically as you like - but it is simply STUPID to claim that the possibility of us beating wigan with a BETTER lineup (no Robbo!) than last time we did it not very long ago and away from home with the same formation is somehow equivalent to the possibility that I might be able to swim the atlantic.

are you really not capable of discerning that there might be more than one problem at any one time?

I agree the formation was a problem.

BUT - it was certainly not the only problem (and yes - I spotted you questioning Bogdan over their goal - was it 4-4-2 that made him do that??)

[Armchair Wanderer]

I agree the formation was a problem.

Anyone got a frame?

The formation means we haven't got possession, and are under the cosh, thus putting more pressure on the defence / goalkeeper.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

I agree the formation was a problem.

Anyone got a frame?

The formation means we haven't got possession, and are under the cosh, thus putting more pressure on the defence / goalkeeper.

if that is a gimme i.e that our 4 in midfield couldn't cope with Wigan's 4 then we are truly fecked
i reckon its more to do with the idea that our 4 didn't play well - Eagles i thought started ok drifting inside to match them up but then became mired in the general shiteness of it all.

i reckon some of ours only thought they had to turn up.
some 'll say that's down to OC as well- but as the cliche goes "once you cross the white line" etc

[BWFC_Insane]

but...but....we didnt beat them at home with a 4-4-2?
ergo - and with not a small amount of hindsight - 4-4-2 couldnt beat them at home because it didnt?

not at all - the fact that we didn't doesn't not mean it was impossible. I'm sure you'll see this if you have a cuppa and a piece of cake and consider the issue calmly!

the fact that we were CLEARLY not having a good go with 4-4-2 - SHOULD have led to Coyle changing it - but he didn't - which is his mistake - BUT I am not having it that it was impossible for those players to beat wigan in a 4-4-2 formation - cos that is clearly bollox with a hairy cardigan on!

Its not impossible for you to swim across the atlantic. However, I'd suggest it highly unlikely and a pretty stupid thing to try.

And you keep forgetting its not just the system, its the players he insisted on putting into that system and the roles they had to do.

you can whine and moan as hysterically as you like - but it is simply STUPID to claim that the possibility of us beating wigan with a BETTER lineup (no Robbo!) than last time we did it not very long ago and away from home with the same formation is somehow equivalent to the possibility that I might be able to swim the atlantic.

are you really not capable of discerning that there might be more than one problem at any one time?

I agree the formation was a problem.

BUT - it was certainly not the only problem (and yes - I spotted you questioning Bogdan over their goal - was it 4-4-2 that made him do that??)

I've just said that as well as the system, the players selected in roles they cannot fill well was another problem.

Mark Davies did not track his man for the second goal (I accept you'd switched over to the Rugby by then...) was that because Mark Davies is a lazy good for nothing SOB? Or is it because he was caught up the pitch in a system and role that completely exposes him, trying to be the focal point for our attacks, leaving huge gaps in behind?

Answers on a postcard please.

What you still won't answer is IF it was down to "players not playing well", is WHY did they not play well. You don't seem to want to take that question on.

[ohjimmyjimmy]

haha well do we really have to get into a wider argument on what is possible and not possible..?
i will accept that it was not impossible before the game, in the same way thats its still not impossible for me to make the 2012 olympic team as a female javelin thrower...very little in life is impossible, but thats for another day !

it was clearly more possible than your gender-busting olympic dream - I am not merely talking about theoretical levels of possibility - hence the citing of the fact that we beat them already in a 4-4-2 formation with essentially the same lineup (and hamstrung by Robbo at left back!!!)

you're forgetting this was WIGAN ffs -they are shoite - we have more than enough quality to play 4-4-2 and beat them IF the players performed to their potential.. YES - maybe they might find it a bit trickier with a formation that does not suit their strengths - but is was eminently possible to beat them.

If Wigan are shoite, what are we?
Look, it's possible to beat ANY team home or away. Still got to play the right team on that day in the right formation, regardless of games gone by.

[stelios18]

Wigan is a poor team, I don't think this time they have enough quality to stay up and continue their strungling. About points to stay up I cannot calculate how much Bolton need but it depends from other clubs performence and calendar.

[jimbo]

Wigan is a poor team, I don't think this time they have enough quality to stay up and continue their strungling. About points to stay up I cannot calculate how much Bolton need but it depends from other clubs performence and calendar.

I like this word. Sort of implies a combination of struggling and bungling. As such we are currently 'strungling' our way through this season.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

if that is a gimme i.e that our 4 in midfield couldn't cope with Wigan's 4 then we are truly fecked

Wigan didn't play with four in midfield. They played 3-5-2, as they have on the majority of occasions since shortly after we beat their 4-4-2 at Dave's Stadium.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

looked more like a 3-4-3 to me.
with their two wide front players pushing on to Steinsonn and Ricketts- hence their uncomfortable afternoons

[Prufrock]

Was a 3-4-3/3-6-1 though. Utterly outnumbered us in the middle. We never got the ball because the only one who could tackle we had was NRC. Bish seems to have completely forgotten Wigan in his comparison. The Wigan side we played on Sat was very different to the one we played at the JJB. They improved massively and we got worse. A large part of that is due to the fact we had only one ball winner in a four man midfield. 4-5-1 with Muamba would have made us much more competitive, as it has noticebly and blatantly done in the last month. But the manager is a clueless twonk who gives us less chance of winning. Of course it wasn't 'impossible' to beat them with a 4-4-2, to say so was hyperbole, Bish knows it, BWFCi knows it, but the combination of no Muamba, plus only 4 in midfield absolutely was the main factor in why we got a dry bumming from Wigan.

Boggers not to blame this week, was from too close, absolutely was last week.

[thebish]

but...but....we didnt beat them at home with a 4-4-2?
ergo - and with not a small amount of hindsight - 4-4-2 couldnt beat them at home because it didnt?

not at all - the fact that we didn't doesn't not mean it was impossible. I'm sure you'll see this if you have a cuppa and a piece of cake and consider the issue calmly!

the fact that we were CLEARLY not having a good go with 4-4-2 - SHOULD have led to Coyle changing it - but he didn't - which is his mistake - BUT I am not having it that it was impossible for those players to beat wigan in a 4-4-2 formation - cos that is clearly bollox with a hairy cardigan on!

Its not impossible for you to swim across the atlantic. However, I'd suggest it highly unlikely and a pretty stupid thing to try.

And you keep forgetting its not just the system, its the players he insisted on putting into that system and the roles they had to do.

you can whine and moan as hysterically as you like - but it is simply STUPID to claim that the possibility of us beating wigan with a BETTER lineup (no Robbo!) than last time we did it not very long ago and away from home with the same formation is somehow equivalent to the possibility that I might be able to swim the atlantic.

are you really not capable of discerning that there might be more than one problem at any one time?

I agree the formation was a problem.

BUT - it was certainly not the only problem (and yes - I spotted you questioning Bogdan over their goal - was it 4-4-2 that made him do that??)

I've just said that as well as the system, the players selected in roles they cannot fill well was another problem.

Mark Davies did not track his man for the second goal (I accept you'd switched over to the Rugby by then...) was that because Mark Davies is a lazy good for nothing SOB? Or is it because he was caught up the pitch in a system and role that completely exposes him, trying to be the focal point for our attacks, leaving huge gaps in behind?

Answers on a postcard please.

What you still won't answer is IF it was down to "players not playing well", is WHY did they not play well. You don't seem to want to take that question on.

how are any of us supposed to know that??? there could be 100 reasons. it happens. why - sometimes they don't play well when we play 4-5-1. sometimes playes playing under the greatest manager in the world don't play well...

can you not even begin to see that it is possible for more than one thing to be wrong at a time? - seems obvious to me that we lost for two reasons - Coyle stubbornly refusing to change formations when he could see it wasn't working - AND players not delivering to their potential - even GIVEN the formation...

I have a depressing suspicion that this kind of fan reaction is at least in part down to football computer/console games..

it encourages the idea that by pressing this button and making that setting and selecting this combination - then turning the handle - a neat and predictable result pops out...

you don't play these games by any chance do you??

[Turkish Trotter]

how are any of us supposed to know that??? there could be 100 reasons. it happens. why - sometimes they don't play well when we play 4-5-1. sometimes playes playing under the greatest manager in the world don't play well...

can you not even begin to see that it is possible for more than one thing to be wrong at a time? - seems obvious to me that we lost for two reasons - Coyle stubbornly refusing to change formations when he could see it wasn't working - AND players not delivering to their potential - even GIVEN the formation...

I have a depressing suspicion that this kind of fan reaction is at least in part down to football computer/console games..

it encourages the idea that by pressing this button and making that setting and selecting this combination - then turning the handle - a neat and predictable result pops out...

you don't play these games by any chance do you??

[/quote]




If he does I hope he wins everything, otherwise there'll be a BWFCi is a tosser thread started by himself. We can do without that.

[Ianmooreslovechild]

how are any of us supposed to know that??? there could be 100 reasons. it happens. why - sometimes they don't play well when we play 4-5-1. sometimes playes playing under the greatest manager in the world don't play well...

can you not even begin to see that it is possible for more than one thing to be wrong at a time? - seems obvious to me that we lost for two reasons - Coyle stubbornly refusing to change formations when he could see it wasn't working - AND players not delivering to their potential - even GIVEN the formation...

I have a depressing suspicion that this kind of fan reaction is at least in part down to football computer/console games..

it encourages the idea that by pressing this button and making that setting and selecting this combination - then turning the handle - a neat and predictable result pops out...

you don't play these games by any chance do you?? [/quote]

I know nothing of these footy simulation games but I'd imagine if I selected a team playing 442 with one striker who never retains possession, 3 midfielders who cant tackle( two of which struggle to retain possession) and a pair of centre halves with the pace of a slug in traction I'd be demanding my money back if my selection won a game.

[Salford Trotter]

34 will do it and although difficult to see us getting 14 more points we do have some very winnable games QPR, Blackburn, WBA & Swansea at home with Villa and Wolves away where we could get draws.

[boltonboris]

Simple question on the title thread. with a simple answer

... Too fvckin' many