Welcome Guest Active Topics | Log In


7 Pages «<34567>
Formation Guide Options
Sir_Mica
#81 Posted : Sunday, August 14, 2011 3:12:16 PM




Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 1/12/2010
Posts: 412
Points: 1,938
Location: Tomar
As this topic any purpose? I mean, any admin is thinking on updating more formation options during the next seasons?




13
#82 Posted : Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:59:33 PM





Rank: Expert
Joined: 8/19/2009
Posts: 1,998
Points: 9,203
Location: Tervuren
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure

My Characters + my teams
My championschips and awards:
FIDwiki:


Billi de Joy
#83 Posted : Monday, August 22, 2011 12:02:26 AM





Rank: Senior
Joined: 2/3/2010
Posts: 451
Points: 2,365
Location: SP
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure

Skype: rafael_brillinger







equisiteblue
#84 Posted : Monday, August 22, 2011 6:30:05 PM





Rank: Master
Joined: 1/8/2010
Posts: 1,790
Points: 10,207
Location: Nottingham
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!
mr-twilight
#85 Posted : Thursday, August 25, 2011 1:31:54 PM





Rank: Guru
Joined: 6/19/2010
Posts: 1,036
Points: 4,962
Location: utrecht
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10
| Manager | Martijn Vermeulen | Football Legacy (NED) | NED 1A |
| Side-Midfielder | Clarence Seedorf | Boondock Saints | Ned 2A |
| Ass. Manager | Martijn Vermeulen II | Football Legacy (IRL) | IRL 2A |
| Side-Midfielder | Marc Overmars | Football Legacy (IRL) | IRL 2A |
| Ass. Manager | Martijn Vermeulen III | Football Legacy (BIH) * | BIH 2A |

*At the moment the name of Football Legacy (BIH) is F.C. Štrumfovi, after season 12 the name will be changed.
Molnhulden
#86 Posted : Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:44:18 PM





Rank: Moderation
Joined: 2/9/2010
Posts: 2,902
Points: 11,256
Location: Lier
mr-twilight wrote:
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10


+11


Istai Orion - Manager

Current manager of:
-Juventus Moldova

RSCA
#87 Posted : Thursday, August 25, 2011 3:42:49 PM




Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/11/2010
Posts: 44
Points: 444
Location: Bramchkinea
Molnhulden wrote:
mr-twilight wrote:
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10


+11


+12
didothunder
#88 Posted : Thursday, August 25, 2011 5:36:49 PM





Rank: Master
Joined: 3/25/2010
Posts: 3,715
Points: 17,772
Location: Brandon
RSCA wrote:
Molnhulden wrote:
mr-twilight wrote:
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10


+11


+12


-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.


Brent Little - Hendon - England 1A
Simply... the best keeper in the game
World Keeper of the Year - Season 20 - Hendon


Formerly from


13
#89 Posted : Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:05:30 PM





Rank: Expert
Joined: 8/19/2009
Posts: 1,998
Points: 9,203
Location: Tervuren
didothunder wrote:
-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




It's like you sayed in your view but each player got his style and the reason the tactik would be better with 2 SM's instead off 2 CM's. is 1 cause there are more SM's in fid then CM's. 2th and for me to most important one is that it give's more freedom to the ACM, SM and WF to play. Cause like you sayed a wf and sm play wide so 3 players wide would be wierd. But with 2 cm you got only 1 side to attack from unless your acm plays the other side but then you just got a 4-3-3 Wall So with 2 sm's you get more attacking force on the side but also free mids while defending + it give's the ACM (in my case a playmaker) more options to pass to will attacking. + the WF doesn't really need to play on the side cause WF normally got more shooting then a sm so they can play like a shadow striker looking for a gap in the opponent defends. Hope you get why i'm in favoure off 2 sm's instead off 2 CM's Wink

My Characters + my teams
My championschips and awards:
FIDwiki:


tygra
#90 Posted : Thursday, August 25, 2011 7:11:44 PM





Rank: Senior
Joined: 7/5/2010
Posts: 226
Points: 1,730
Location: tor
didothunder wrote:

-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




Have to disagree with you. If the original diamond 4-4-2 uses SM's this one should also.
tibor_tisza
#91 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 10:57:14 AM




Rank: Senior
Joined: 6/6/2010
Posts: 351
Points: 1,814
Location: Antwerpen
tygra wrote:
didothunder wrote:

-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




Have to disagree with you. If the original diamond 4-4-2 uses SM's this one should also.



Amen !
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

Headmanager :




Sigma
#92 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 4:54:45 PM





Rank: Expert
Joined: 11/4/2009
Posts: 1,373
Points: 6,767
RSCA wrote:
Molnhulden wrote:
mr-twilight wrote:
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10


+11


+12

+13
didothunder
#93 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 6:05:34 PM





Rank: Master
Joined: 3/25/2010
Posts: 3,715
Points: 17,772
Location: Brandon
tygra wrote:
didothunder wrote:

-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




Have to disagree with you. If the original diamond 4-4-2 uses SM's this one should also.


This is not a traditional 4-4-2 diamond. It was a make shift formation to begin with to give a WF another option that has one "Wide Player" and one "Striker". So it has nothing to do with it.

I see what your saying more teams have SM's and it would give them another option. but if you make an SM with a WF they are essentially running the same routes if played properly... just the SM a tad deeper when in the defensive end which really to me defeats the purpose of OOP's and finding the right players to fit your style of play. It's not a bad thing for me to disagree, as I say I don't care really. Just saying "logically" it is not a viable formation. Will it be better for the game, perhaps. But strongly feel it is just another make shift formation to get rid of OOP's and not one that would logically be used.
Brent Little - Hendon - England 1A
Simply... the best keeper in the game
World Keeper of the Year - Season 20 - Hendon


Formerly from


DanielDimovski
#94 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 7:41:05 PM




Rank: Guru
Joined: 5/27/2010
Posts: 2,372
Points: 8,727
Location: Pehchevo
Maybe adding SS (Second Striker) in some formation won't hurt?

p.s. SS is a player that plays just behind the CF and in front of the ACM and he is playing all-over in the attack.

p.p.s. +1 to Brent's opinion
Macedonian Moderator







13
#95 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 10:13:43 PM





Rank: Expert
Joined: 8/19/2009
Posts: 1,998
Points: 9,203
Location: Tervuren
didothunder wrote:
tygra wrote:
didothunder wrote:

-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




Have to disagree with you. If the original diamond 4-4-2 uses SM's this one should also.


This is not a traditional 4-4-2 diamond. It was a make shift formation to begin with to give a WF another option that has one "Wide Player" and one "Striker". So it has nothing to do with it.

I see what your saying more teams have SM's and it would give them another option. but if you make an SM with a WF they are essentially running the same routes if played properly... just the SM a tad deeper when in the defensive end which really to me defeats the purpose of OOP's and finding the right players to fit your style of play. It's not a bad thing for me to disagree, as I say I don't care really. Just saying "logically" it is not a viable formation. Will it be better for the game, perhaps. But strongly feel it is just another make shift formation to get rid of OOP's and not one that would logically be used.


Still disagree with the WF part overlapping in running routes with a SM. A side mid plays more to the side then a WF does. So the defenders will have to choise who to mark when they show up on one side. So like i see the tactic logicly the Wf will need to creat the space into the attack.

My Characters + my teams
My championschips and awards:
FIDwiki:


didothunder
#96 Posted : Friday, August 26, 2011 10:21:53 PM





Rank: Master
Joined: 3/25/2010
Posts: 3,715
Points: 17,772
Location: Brandon
13 wrote:
didothunder wrote:
tygra wrote:
didothunder wrote:

-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




Have to disagree with you. If the original diamond 4-4-2 uses SM's this one should also.


This is not a traditional 4-4-2 diamond. It was a make shift formation to begin with to give a WF another option that has one "Wide Player" and one "Striker". So it has nothing to do with it.

I see what your saying more teams have SM's and it would give them another option. but if you make an SM with a WF they are essentially running the same routes if played properly... just the SM a tad deeper when in the defensive end which really to me defeats the purpose of OOP's and finding the right players to fit your style of play. It's not a bad thing for me to disagree, as I say I don't care really. Just saying "logically" it is not a viable formation. Will it be better for the game, perhaps. But strongly feel it is just another make shift formation to get rid of OOP's and not one that would logically be used.


Still disagree with the WF part overlapping in running routes with a SM. A side mid plays more to the side then a WF does. So the defenders will have to choise who to mark when they show up on one side. So like i see the tactic logicly the Wf will need to creat the space into the attack.


Ah well, agree to disagree then Biggrin.

Not really fussed either way, just stating my opinion as I don't think I have ever seen a team play like that.
Brent Little - Hendon - England 1A
Simply... the best keeper in the game
World Keeper of the Year - Season 20 - Hendon


Formerly from


13
#97 Posted : Sunday, October 02, 2011 9:22:31 PM





Rank: Expert
Joined: 8/19/2009
Posts: 1,998
Points: 9,203
Location: Tervuren
didothunder wrote:
13 wrote:
didothunder wrote:
tygra wrote:
didothunder wrote:

-1 Honestly....

In my view... a SM is a wide player that plays in the wide midfield but makes the attacking runs up the wing. This formation has a WF which is meant to be the wide player. It would not be logical to play the WF with 2 SM's and we can't have formations put in just for the sake of making them, despite the fact even making this formation with a WF and CF was a stretch.

To be more realistic, I could see a formation with 2xsd 2xcd 2xcm 1xacm 1sm 1wf and 1cf

set up like the 4-4-1-1 except having the WF on one side and be really aggressive and the SM on the other side play more like a midfielder.

Anyway, if it comes in it comes in. Not really fussed. Just think we can't bring in formations just to accommodate that don't make true sense... it is the managers job to bring players in to suit the formations not the other way around.




Have to disagree with you. If the original diamond 4-4-2 uses SM's this one should also.


This is not a traditional 4-4-2 diamond. It was a make shift formation to begin with to give a WF another option that has one "Wide Player" and one "Striker". So it has nothing to do with it.

I see what your saying more teams have SM's and it would give them another option. but if you make an SM with a WF they are essentially running the same routes if played properly... just the SM a tad deeper when in the defensive end which really to me defeats the purpose of OOP's and finding the right players to fit your style of play. It's not a bad thing for me to disagree, as I say I don't care really. Just saying "logically" it is not a viable formation. Will it be better for the game, perhaps. But strongly feel it is just another make shift formation to get rid of OOP's and not one that would logically be used.


Still disagree with the WF part overlapping in running routes with a SM. A side mid plays more to the side then a WF does. So the defenders will have to choise who to mark when they show up on one side. So like i see the tactic logicly the Wf will need to creat the space into the attack.


Ah well, agree to disagree then Biggrin.

Not really fussed either way, just stating my opinion as I don't think I have ever seen a team play like that.

Barca plays like this as there CM's play more to the side like SM's

My Characters + my teams
My championschips and awards:
FIDwiki:


ARINHO
#98 Posted : Monday, October 17, 2011 11:35:44 PM





Rank: Moderation
Joined: 11/2/2010
Posts: 4,667
Points: 15,191
Location: Sparta
No + or - from me, just thanks for this topic smiling

Best player EU

Funny quote below

Best excuse EU below

ARINHO's school of GKing
Halamario
#99 Posted : Thursday, October 20, 2011 9:16:20 PM





Rank: Junior
Joined: 5/31/2010
Posts: 106
Points: 604
Location: Lausanne
Sigma wrote:
RSCA wrote:
Molnhulden wrote:
mr-twilight wrote:
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10


+11


+12

+13

+14
Sanderr
#100 Posted : Friday, October 21, 2011 6:57:12 AM





Rank: Expert
Joined: 4/27/2010
Posts: 2,516
Points: 10,209
Location: Bussum
Halamario wrote:
Sigma wrote:
RSCA wrote:
Molnhulden wrote:
mr-twilight wrote:
equisiteblue wrote:
Billi de Joy wrote:
13 wrote:
McManager wrote:
Edo_Majka wrote:
Theow wrote:
DON_MItchi wrote:
tibor_tisza wrote:
Runeic wrote:
Angel_Eye wrote:
4-4-2 Diamond (WF) Formation



1 GK
______
2 CD
2 SD
______
1 DCM
2 CM
1 ACM
______
1 CF
1 WF

change the CM's to SM's! This formation needs SM's

+1
Shouldn't be so hard, I don't understand why there was no SM positions in this formation or others without SM's in the first place


+2
It's a really good formation, but not with 2 CM's.


+3 for 2 SM Cool

+4 Wink
+5Whistle


+6...this needs sm's

+7 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+8 this formation need 2 SM's for sure


+9 Definitely!!


+10


+11


+12

+13

+14

+15. Wanted to use this but thought it was with two SMs. Who the hell would want 4 central midfielders anyway?
Vicestab wrote:
tears there were, yes, but all yours.
Users browsing this topic
guest (2)
7 Pages «<34567>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Official FID Theme by FIDAdmin1 (the one and only)
Powered by YAF 1.9.3 | YAF © 2003-2009, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.931 seconds.

© 2010 CommuniSport AB - User Agreement and Policy

Advertise on Footballidentity