davieG Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 Our squad has been amazingly unfit all season, it seems. The previous regime somehow got the fitness program totally wrong, and the effects of that mistake are all too obvious - how many times have we suffered second half collapse? Too many is the answer. I'm inclined to blame the previous regime. The squad is clearly unfit - there's nothing a new manager can do about that in the space of two days. Again, I don't see how we can lay the blame entirely at Worthington's feet. If the squad is unfit, there's not a great deal you can do about second half performances when the game overtakes your entire team. Let's not forget that Fryatt's not had many games since being injured, so he would have become just as useless as the Horse around that time anyway. Sad fact is, this has been happening all season, and it's looking obvious that fitness levels are the root of all our second-half problems. You can't fight and scrap if you're so unfit you can barely move come minute 60. McAuley was a gamble that backfired badly.
lookwhaticando Posted 14 April 2007 Author Posted 14 April 2007 McAuley was a gamble that backfired badly. He's been out for a month and it was a last-minute decision on his fitness, almost. And yes, it went tits up, sadly.
lee7 Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 if hume had of pulled the ball back for fryatt,newton,jarret when he was on the byline it would of been 2-0 and the game would of probably dead and buried but instead he shot and hit the side netting
blue blood Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 if hume had of pulled the ball back for fryatt,newton,jarret when he was on the byline it would of been 2-0 and the game would of probably dead and buried but instead he shot and hit the side netting he did wait for the keeper to commit himself but yes should have cut it back 100%
De Vries The King Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 we're two points clear of relegation, a game in hand against Birmingham, we always perform well against big teams, we now have an ambitious chairman, we have funds to buy new players in pre-season, we have a manager who is experienced at this level, we're not going to be seeing forest next season and last of all WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN!!!!
blue blood Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 we're two points clear of relegation, a game in hand against Birmingham, we always perform well against big teams, we now have an ambitious chairman, we have funds to buy new players in pre-season, we have a manager who is experienced at this level, we're not going to be seeing forest next seasonand last of all WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN!!!! COME ON BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! silver linings and all - with the laws of averages we are overdue a win
Master Fox Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 I said we would lose today and i still believe we'll go down. We ****ing deserve it. I said from the first game of the season we would struggle but the stupid ignorant fans that follow this club were so naive There’s not one player who can possibly drag us of this mess. It’s been noting more than embarrassment supporting this football club. We've signed so many sh*t players since O'Neill left and appointed the worst manager possible. Our time is up, get ready for league 1 football everyone.
Guest Gist Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 we're two points clear of relegation, a game in hand against Birmingham, we always perform well against big teams, we now have an ambitious chairman, we have funds to buy new players in pre-season, we have a manager who is experienced at this level, we're not going to be seeing forest next seasonand last of all WE ARE NOT GOING DOWN!!!! When? We don't look like improving and until we do, I'd get ready to see Forest next season.
Thracian Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 Well it seems worthington is as big a bullshitter as his predecessor. I said if he didn't play a passing team he couldn't play a passing game...and he didn't cos he didn't have the nerva. He's played just about the slowest backline he could muster - what chance is there of those supporting attacks quickly and consistently for 90 minutes. He's played two hassling midfielders instead of the one player our team is crying out for in King and he's stuck to 4-4-2 with a right winger who's useless defensively. Finally, we've demonstrated all season that our two up front are not good enough - because Fryatt's still not fully fit and between them they're not tall enough or tough enough. We have to use Hammond up front with them to cause trouble with his pace - we get far more points when Hammond plays than Fryatt anyway, as I've said loads of times. The whole thing today pointed to 4-3-3 but no, we stick to what has failed before and we lost because, yet again, we cannot go for the throat when we get an advantage and we cannot stop conceding goals in the last quarter. It happens time and again and there are reasons. Are the people who run Leicester City so unseeing they cannot recognise that and make the changes that are necessary to at least give us the chance of winning. Times I've warned that two midfield hasslers = one goal maximum and times I've warned that we always concede at least one so have to score twice. Every decision we make should be aim at ensuring we score twwice - our team selections, our team tactics and our substitutions. I just wish someone of consequence would get all that into their head.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 Well it seems worthington is as big a bullshitter as his predecessor.I said if he didn't play a passing team he couldn't play a passing game...and he didn't cos he didn't have the soiddin bottle. He's played just about the slowest backline he could muster - what chance is there of those supporting attacks quickly and consistently for 90 minutes. He's played two hassling midfielders instead of the one player our team is crying out for in King and he's stuck to 4-4-2 with a right winger who's useless defensively. Finally, we've demonstrated all season that our two up front are not good enough - because Fryatt's still not fully fit and between them they're not tall enough or tough enough. We have to use Hammond up front with them to cause trouble with his pace - we get far more points when Hammond plays than Fryatt anyway, as I've said loads of times. The whole thing today pointed to 4-3-3 but no, we stick to what has failed before and we lost because, yet again, we cannot go for the throat when we get an advantage and we cannot stop conceding goals in the last quarter. It happens time and again and there are reasons. Are the people who run Leicester City so mentally deficient they cannot recognise that and make the sodding changes that are necessary to at least give us the chance of winning. Times I've warned that two midfield hasslers = one goal maximum and times I've warned that we always concede at least one so have to score twice. Every decision we make should be aim at ensuring we score twwice - our team selections, our team tactics and our substitutions. I just wish someone of consequence would get all that into their sodding head. None of them are fully fit, Worthington admitted as much on the radio afterwards. Rob Kelly is a fooking joke.
Anish Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 Poor decisions (from our players, not the ref) and poor finishing cost us the match: 1. Hume being a greedy sh*thead and shooting instead of passing to Fryatt with an open goal; 2. Fryatt not finishing from 6 yards in the second half (ok keeper made a decent save but he still should've scored); 3. McAuley well and truly fooking up and slipping, leading to the penalty; and 4. Johansson heading straight at the keeper at the end - should've buried that chance. Besides that, it was a pathetic second half showing. We slowly let them creep back into the game by becoming far too defensive (midfield offering no support to the strikers when it was cleared), and deserved to lose the game.
Milky Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 3. McAuley well and truly fooking up and slipping, leading to the penalty; and He didn't slip, Huckerby blatantly tugged him down. trust me
Anish Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 He didn't slip, Huckerby blatantly tugged him down. trust me That's not what most people on here think. Besides, if he'd done the sensible thing and hoofed it out instead of trying to turn inside Huckerby, it wouldn't have mattered whether Huckerby tugged him or not.
Milky Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 That's not what most people on here think.Besides, if he'd done the sensible thing and hoofed it out instead of trying to turn inside Huckerby, it wouldn't have mattered whether Huckerby tugged him or not. They obviously were sitting on the blind side then. The pull down was staring me in the face.
davieG Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 That's not what most people on here think.Besides, if he'd done the sensible thing and hoofed it out instead of trying to turn inside Huckerby, it wouldn't have mattered whether Huckerby tugged him or not. That's strange because young Mattock is criticised for doing just that, admittedly we were chasing the game but surely you can't really criticise a player for trying to keep possession and play football.
Anish Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 That's strange because young Mattock is criticised for doing just that, admittedly we were chasing the game but surely you can't really criticise a player for trying to keep possession and play football. I didn't criticise Mattock for hoofing the ball, I said he had no other option (see the Mattock thread). I prefer my defenders to make the sensible decision and kick it out when under pressure. Admittedly, McAuley is usually a good footballing centre back but he has been caught out on a few occasions when I've seen him, and today it was a horrendous error in my opinion (regardless of whether he was being tugged back or not).
davieG Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 I didn't criticise Mattock for hoofing the ball, I said he had no other option (see the Mattock thread). I prefer my defenders to make the sensible decision and kick it out when under pressure. Admittedly, McAuley is usually a good footballing centre back but he has been caught out on a few occasions when I've seen him, and today it was a horrendous error in my opinion (regardless of whether he was being tugged back or not). Sorry I didn't mean to infer you criticised Mattock only that others had. As for McAuley he shouldn't have been on the pitch he was obviously way off the pace and his game, based on our recent horrendous defending it was gamble that NW took and it failed spectacularly.
STUHILL Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 I think no matter which manager came in, they would find it a really touch task. SImply because of the absolute shite we have in our squad. We have been led to believe that these players are just inconsistent and show their true self in games like Fulham (fa cup) and Cov 1st half. I say bollocks to that! I feel sorry for Wortho because he will get a lot of stick simply because he has to try make a winning team out of that crap we have!! If we stay up, I want a MASS clear-out!!
Hullfox Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 If we go down, I want a mass clearout. Do you mean a big poo?
hebangsthedrums Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 If we go down, I want a mass clearout. I think thats inevitable. Plus some of the crazy fools will probably think they are actually too good for League 1
Bryn Posted 14 April 2007 Posted 14 April 2007 Do you mean a big poo? We've already got one of those, he came off the bench today.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.