knick4life
knick4life's Comments
More FanHouse Blogs
- FCS Playoff Schedule
- BCS Rankings Week 13
- Amir Sadollah Bloodies Phil Baroni
- Mark Martin Remains Sentimental Favorite
- UFC 106 Results
- Nate Robinson Shoots at Wrong Basket
- Broadcasters Suspended for Haddadi Comments
- UFC 106 Fight Card
- Stefanie Spielman Dies at Age 42
- Bears Shun NBC for Sunday Night Game
Stub Hub
The 2009 schedule has been released. Search for tickets!
Truth & Rumors
MOST POPULAR
-
1
Bills owner wanted Gruden
- Views
- 62195
- Comments
- 392
-
2
Parcells to Browns?
- Views
- 25863
- Comments
- 240
-
3
Why Knicks passed on Iverson
- Views
- 31351
- Comments
- 112
-
4
Raiders players happy with new QB
- Views
- 12624
- Comments
- 96
-
5
FSU to offer Bowden compromise?
- Views
- 4261
- Comments
- 94
Most Active Users
Comments + Blog Posts + Throwdowns
Message Boards
-
NCAAF > General NCAAF
2009's most disappointing team
- Views
- 786
- Replies
- 29
-
NCAAF > General NCAAF
CFB Game Day 11/21/2009
- Views
- 356
- Replies
- 145
-
NCAAF > LSU Tigers
Les Miles FIRE HIM
- Views
- 274
- Replies
- 27

Anne V
Shanon Lersh



Benfica's new coach Jorge Jesus is instituting a 4-3-1-2, so Adu would fit in perfectly as a backup to Pablo Aimar in the #10 position. And he would get plenty of playing time, between Aimar's frequent injuries, and the league games, the two cups, plus the Europa league. But instead they have been spelling Aimar with 33 yr old forward Nuno Gomes. So Adu could fit and get PT if Benfica really wanted him to. But Adu isn't the first young player to be signed and then forgotten by Benfica in recent years, and he likely won't be the last.
But your point is duly noted. As you said, the 3-5-2 can be a gamble, and I suppose I'm not the gambling type.
And thank you for disagreeing with me while not accusing me of having the slightest bit of football knowledge, etc.
I stated a *personal preference* for a conventional approach, and others here are ably making the case for it. I would have engaged in a serious discussion with you and even would have been open to persuasion, but judging by your very first comment you weren't interested in a discussion were you? This was all about puffing out your chest, as I wrote earlier.
So in lieu of a tactical discussion you showed no interest in having in good faith, I simply stated the obvious: It is not a statement that can be "refuted" or "debunked." Sorry if you don't get it "dude."
Just, next time, think before you write.
I will reiterate one last time. Your attack on my comment is based on a logical fallacy. My comment was more limited in scope than you're implying. You seem to think that by providing exceptions to a conclusory statement that I simply did not make that you are proving me wrong. You are providing a few bits of anecdotal evidence to the contrary of my personal preference, and that's fine, but it does not prove me wrong. (Just because the 3-5-2 has worked on occasion does not mean that the same team couldn't also win had they worked all year out of a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3, for example.) Clearly nothing else I can say will help you understand this critical distinction. So, figure it out for yourself if you can.
Again, I did not say there was never a team that played it and was successful. But if I ran a team, I would have a personal preference for 4 Ds. I think there's a few top-flight managers who would agree with me, no?
Yet you began with the assumption that I made a conclusory statement like "the 3-5-2 always fail" and then concluded that you had "refuted" me. Perhaps you heard that in your mind because you wanted to "smackdown" a "noob" or something of the sort and perhaps get a pat on the back from D-Wreck. I am sorry my friend. Your futile effort to prop up and knock down a straw man has failed, and worse, been exposed. Better luck next time.