Thracian Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Okay there were serious problems of fatigue, upcoming matches and so on to consider. But was anyone else baffled by the logic of Kelly substitutions against Villa?. I was concerned against Palace that we didn't have an alternative to the two wingers approach (something I like, don't get me wrong) when we seemed to be getting nowhere. And the same seemed to be the case yesterday. Sylla whipped in some decent dead balls but he made little progress down the right and never really brought others into play. Welsh ran alongside rather than past his man but always seemed to have a chance and to pose some sort of threat. Hammond challenged for everything and tried to stretch a very competent Villa back line. So why leave Sylla on (til he got hurt) and take Welsh off and then, only to replace like with like tactically? Why not supplement the front two with the clever, close-passing touch play of Odihambo and see if we could go through the middle as a variation?. The high crosses approach was less likely to work anyway, the fewer people we were getting in the box. It has always seemed logical to me that the more tired a team gets, the more passers you need. Low and Sylla aren't passers. Anyway, I've chucked this in for opinions really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Okay there were serious problems of fatigue, upcoming matches and so on to consider. But was anyone else baffled by the logic of Kelly substitutions against Villa?. I was concerned against Palace that we didn't have an alternative to the two wingers approach (something I like, don't get me wrong) when we seemed to be getting nowhere. And the same seemed to be the case yesterday. Sylla whipped in some decent dead balls but he made little progress down the right and never really brought others into play. Welsh ran alongside rather than past his man but always seemed to have a chance and to pose some sort of threat. Hammond challenged for everything and tried to stretch a very competent Villa back line. So why leave Sylla on (til he got hurt) and take Welsh off and then, only to replace like with like tactically? Why not supplement the front two with the clever, close-passing touch play of Odihambo and see if we could go through the middle as a variation?. The high crosses approach was less likely to work anyway, the fewer people we were getting in the box. It has always seemed logical to me that the more tired a team gets, the more passers you need. Low and Sylla aren't passers. Anyway, I've chucked this in for opinions really. Not sure mate, what you have said is logical but I suppose Sylla was kept on for set piece deliveries!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teblin Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Odihambo didn't look ready to step up in all honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LestaMed Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Last night was the first match id been to this season.. i would have preffered Sylla to be subbed and maybe stick Hammond on the wing? Bit of pace on the wing and then add another striker to try and win the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 I don't know. Low on the left was an awful substitution and Odihambo couldn't get in the game at all but you can't be sure how many of these things are down to fitness. Welsh and Hammond have played a few games without being match fit lately and might have been carrying knocks or whatever. We were really short of options on the bench anyway and Kelly had so little to work with that I was just glad we competed so heroically in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Odihambo didn't look ready to step up in all honesty. Completely agree. The poor lad looked well out of his depth. Showed a neat touch during extra time to take the ball down and beat his man, but in all honesty, I think Villa were quite pleased when he came on. Odhiambo was simply not ready, nor do I suspect are some of the other youngsters. In a few years, they could be very good, just not yet. Still, last night should have been a good indication to Odihambo to work hard to reach that next level. Josh Low substitution baffled me. I thought Welsh looked good last night and had the freedom down that left side. Made Villa's rightback looked poor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Why does Eric have two entries on the OS? (rhetorical question as we all know why) http://www.lcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Match...4~37681,00.html And: http://www.lcfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/Match...4~37683,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 25 October 2006 Share Posted 25 October 2006 Neither Welsh nor Hammond looked knackered to me. I think Kelly bought Low on because of his height and because we were chasing the game and that always leads to teams hoofing the ball that Low might cause some aerial problems. What Kelly should have realised was that Low is terrible in the air and it didn't help matters. I think Kelly took Hammond off because he wanted to give Odihambo a night to remember and I can't disagree with that. He might of looked abit lost at first but he did a decent job of pushing the defence back when he made diagonal runs across the back four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.