Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:31 pm

Swansea 4 Wolves 1

It's now 4-4.

Doing a Cardiff, are they?

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:51 pm

nerd wrote:Swansea 4 Wolves 1

It's now 4-4.

Doing a Cardiff, are they?

seems like the ball retention isn,t working today then :lol:

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 3:54 pm

jtc wrote:
nerd wrote:Swansea 4 Wolves 1

It's now 4-4.

Doing a Cardiff, are they?

seems like the ball retention isn,t working today then :lol:


They seem to be retaining it in their own net...

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:00 pm

nerd wrote:
jtc wrote:
nerd wrote:Swansea 4 Wolves 1

It's now 4-4.

Doing a Cardiff, are they?

seems like the ball retention isn,t working today then :lol:


They seem to be retaining it in their own net...
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:26 pm

........Think I'll just pop over to Planet Caravan and start a "controversial" post to see who I can bait. Nah.
Why would I even consider doing that - what a completely sad waste of my time that would be. Only badly-dressed small-minded small-cocked six-fingered backwards twats with inferiority-complex's and zero-lives would even consider doing something like that.

That said, we'll probably see some of the retards over here later with their "controversial" comments. Don't waste your time engaging with any text, simply leave their "seal" of approval as a reply. Here it is:

We Inbreeds We Does.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:42 pm

Thats a bit harsh…..I prefer Swansea fans to South Wales plastic fans like Liverpool…………...

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 pm

jesus we were lucky to steal a point.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:52 pm

sa1 jack wrote:jesus we were lucky to steal a point.


Perhaps secomd season syndrome is kicking in for you already? :?

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:52 pm

Blazing Saddles wrote:Thats a bit harsh…..I prefer Swansea fans to South Wales plastic fans like Liverpool…………...


......or Chelski, Man Uneedit, Man-al-ahmad-City, Tottenham Yidspur, Goonies etc. Get's on my tit-end when they've got City on their doorstep. And Clarksie's.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:03 pm

Blazing Saddles wrote:
sa1 jack wrote:jesus we were lucky to steal a point.


Perhaps secomd season syndrome is kicking in for you already? :?

after todays performance just happy to have a second season syndrome.

good luck in the play off's didn't think you would be there this year, thought there was to much upheaval after last year.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:06 pm

sa1 jack wrote:
Blazing Saddles wrote:
sa1 jack wrote:jesus we were lucky to steal a point.


Perhaps secomd season syndrome is kicking in for you already? :?

after todays performance just happy to have a second season syndrome.

good luck in the play off's didn't think you would be there this year, thought there was to much upheaval after last year.


Cheers ….it's like a saturday evening welsh football fan love-in! :lol: ;)

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:13 pm

We are safe that's all that matters, tried a new formation, it worked going forward just sort out defence side of it, ah well, good luck in the play offs!

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:03 pm

Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:24 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:33 pm

swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..


To be honest I'm not sure how that can be considered a success in any way.

Yes you scored four against them but West Brom and Man U scored five passed them just a few weeks ago and that was without conceding more than one goal.

You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:38 pm

Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..


To be honest I'm not sure how that can be considered a success in any way.

Yes you scored four against them but West Brom and Man U scored five passed them just a few weeks ago and that was without conceding more than one goal.

You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


We went with the 3-4-3 for the first 30 odd mins and were 4-1 up. It then switched to a 4-3-3 but had Caulker at right back and Orlandi at left back.

For that first half hour or so it looked like it was going to end up about 12-6 :lol:

At half time Taylor came on for Orlandi (who was mom at that point).

Matt Jarvis killed us down our right side second half especially as Caulker was stuck out there and demonstrated that while he is a quality centre back, he is no right back.

The experiment worked in as much as it showed that with the 3-4-3 we were hugely creative and scored 4 goals. It did leave us very exposed out wide at the back though. It was a success in that is showed that it can be used as an option when chasing a game if behind.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:43 pm

NJ73 wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..


To be honest I'm not sure how that can be considered a success in any way.

Yes you scored four against them but West Brom and Man U scored five passed them just a few weeks ago and that was without conceding more than one goal.

You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


We went with the 3-4-3 for the first 30 odd mins and were 4-1 up. It then switched to a 4-3-3 but had Caulker at right back and Orlandi at left back.

For that first half hour or so it looked like it was going to end up about 12-6 :lol:

At half time Taylor came on for Orlandi (who was mom at that point).

Matt Jarvis killed us down our right side second half especially as Caulker was stuck out there and demonstrated that while he is a quality centre back, he is no right back.

The experiment worked in as much as it showed that with the 3-4-3 we were hugely creative and scored 4 goals. It did leave us very exposed out wide at the back though. It was a success in that is showed that it can be used as an option when chasing a game if behind.


Chasing a game against a side that had already been relegated, has been on the worst run of form in the top flight and hadn't scored four goals in a match in god knows how long.


Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning but I just don't think Wolves are the best side to base formation success around.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:57 pm

Aramore wrote:
NJ73 wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..


To be honest I'm not sure how that can be considered a success in any way.

Yes you scored four against them but West Brom and Man U scored five passed them just a few weeks ago and that was without conceding more than one goal.

You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


We went with the 3-4-3 for the first 30 odd mins and were 4-1 up. It then switched to a 4-3-3 but had Caulker at right back and Orlandi at left back.

For that first half hour or so it looked like it was going to end up about 12-6 :lol:

At half time Taylor came on for Orlandi (who was mom at that point).

Matt Jarvis killed us down our right side second half especially as Caulker was stuck out there and demonstrated that while he is a quality centre back, he is no right back.

The experiment worked in as much as it showed that with the 3-4-3 we were hugely creative and scored 4 goals. It did leave us very exposed out wide at the back though. It was a success in that is showed that it can be used as an option when chasing a game if behind.


Chasing a game against a side that had already been relegated, has been on the worst run of form in the top flight and hadn't scored four goals in a match in god knows how long.


Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasoning but I just don't think Wolves are the best side to base formation success around.


You misunderstand. We used it from the kick off today in order to experiment with a so called "plan b". It worked in as much as we scored 4 goals in 30 mins with it, although leaving big gaps out wide, before switching to a 4-3-3 which is when we started to struggle as we didn't have the right personnel on the field to play the 4-3-3.

So seeing as we created lots and scored 4 with the 3-4-3 formation, albeit against a poor Wolves defence, I'd regard it as a successful experiement if this "plan b) is to be used when chasing games late on.

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:00 pm

seems to be excuses excuses for the jacks tonight!... tried a new this, tried new that! fact is, you let a 3 goal lead slip away against already relegated strugglers, you have no excuses, if you were 4-1 up why did your manger feel the need to change anything?! :lol:

Re: Jacks...

Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:14 pm

Jarvis giving Brendan a hint that he wants to stay in the prem.

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:13 am

Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..




You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


or Peterborough. :thumbup:

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:25 am

6 bysedd wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..




You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


or Peterborough. :thumbup:

Thanks for the reminder.....

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:28 am

Gareth (Wilts) wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..




You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


or Peterborough. :thumbup:

Thanks for the reminder.....

Im surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier Gareth :D

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:32 am

6 bysedd wrote:
Gareth (Wilts) wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..




You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


or Peterborough. :thumbup:

Thanks for the reminder.....

Im surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier Gareth :D


It was.

In the very first post in this thread.

Oops.

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:49 am

nerd wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:
Gareth (Wilts) wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..




You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


or Peterborough. :thumbup:

Thanks for the reminder.....

Im surprised it wasn't mentioned earlier Gareth :D


It was.

In the very first post in this thread.

Oops.

You and I both know that your 'doing a Cardiff' quip was nothing to do with your collapse at London Road though eh Nerd and more your annual playoff misery.

Nice try though.

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:57 am

6 bysedd wrote:You and I both know that your 'doing a Cardiff' quip was nothing to do with your collapse at London Road though eh Nerd and more your annual playoff misery.

Nice try though.


No, because it wasn't 4-1 at Peterborough at all. Not at all.

Everyone here other than you Jacks knew what the reference was. Sorry, but I target my posts to our fans, I don't really feel I should have to spell out in very small words everything for the benefit of visitors.

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:03 am

nerd wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:You and I both know that your 'doing a Cardiff' quip was nothing to do with your collapse at London Road though eh Nerd and more your annual playoff misery.

Nice try though.


No, because it wasn't 4-1 at Peterborough at all. Not at all.

Everyone here other than you Jacks knew what the reference was. Sorry, but I target my posts to our fans, I don't really feel I should have to spell out in very small words everything for the benefit of visitors.

Ah right.It's just you commented on my thread yesterday regarding 'Doing a Cardiff'. ;)

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77894

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:08 am

6 bysedd wrote:
nerd wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:You and I both know that your 'doing a Cardiff' quip was nothing to do with your collapse at London Road though eh Nerd and more your annual playoff misery.

Nice try though.


No, because it wasn't 4-1 at Peterborough at all. Not at all.

Everyone here other than you Jacks knew what the reference was. Sorry, but I target my posts to our fans, I don't really feel I should have to spell out in very small words everything for the benefit of visitors.

Ah right.It's just you commented on my thread yesterday regarding 'Doing a Cardiff'. ;)

http://www.cardiffcityforum.co.uk/viewt ... =2&t=77894


Basic English comprehension / literacy might help you.

Your point was relating to the playoffs.

My point was relating to an individual match.

I realise the fact that different posts have different contexts might be a concept that causes several neural synapses in that head of yours to spontaneously combust, leading to stroke like symptoms, but do please try to educate yourself. Unless your goal in life is a McJob near your stadium.

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:11 am

NJ73 wrote:
Aramore wrote:
swansealad69 wrote:Trying out a plan b,,and to be fair it worked as we were 3 up in 15..we had 3 center backs in defence and no left or right back .but they soon worked that out and in the end lucjy to get a point..but hey nuce to be in a position to f**k about with 3 games left as we were safe..


To be honest I'm not sure how that can be considered a success in any way.

Yes you scored four against them but West Brom and Man U scored five passed them just a few weeks ago and that was without conceding more than one goal.

You had an outright collapse against the worst team in the league. I would personally be embarrassed if that happened to us against Doncaster or Coventry.


We went with the 3-4-3 for the first 30 odd mins and were 4-1 up. It then switched to a 4-3-3 but had Caulker at right back and Orlandi at left back.

For that first half hour or so it looked like it was going to end up about 12-6 :lol:
works for wigan though

At half time Taylor came on for Orlandi (who was mom at that point).

Matt Jarvis killed us down our right side second half especially as Caulker was stuck out there and demonstrated that while he is a quality centre back, he is no right back.

The experiment worked in as much as it showed that with the 3-4-3 we were hugely creative and scored 4 goals. It did leave us very exposed out wide at the back though. It was a success in that is showed that it can be used as an option when chasing a game if behind.

Re: Jacks...

Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:11 am

nerd wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:
nerd wrote:
6 bysedd wrote:You and I both know that your 'doing a Cardiff' quip was nothing to do with your collapse at London Road though eh Nerd and more your annual playoff misery.

Nice try though.


No, because it wasn't 4-1 at Peterborough at all. Not at all.

Everyone here other than you Jacks knew what the reference was. Sorry, but I target my posts to our fans, I don't really feel I should have to spell out in very small words everything for the benefit of visitors.

Ah right.It's just you commented on my thread yesterday regarding 'Doing a Cardiff'. ;)

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77894


Basic English comprehension / literacy might help you.

Your point was relating to the playoffs.

My point was relating to an individual match.

I realise the fact that different posts have different contexts might be a concept that causes several neural synapses in that head of yours to spontaneously combust, leading to stroke like symptoms, but do please try to educate yourself. Unless your goal in life is a McJob near your stadium.

:lol: :lol: Peterborough needed mentioning in name,it wasn't so f**k off :lol: ;)