Ollies substitutions

[Head Honcho]

A lot has been made of Ollies substitutions yesterday (mainly by people who weren't at the game) but it did seem his decision to replace Mattock with Chambers was a point saver.

Mattock did seem to be struggling with Lee Croft for most of his time on the pitch and fair do's to Holloway he didn't ruin the guys confidence by bringing him off too soon. He perservered with him and Mattock will certainly learn from the experience.

What do the guys and gals who were at the game think?

.............................and feel free if you weren't at the game to express your opinion

[Jimmy]

A lot has been made of Ollies substitutions yesterday (mainly by people who weren't at the game) but it did seem his decision to replace Mattock with Chambers was a point saver.

Mattock did seem to be struggling with Lee Croft for most of his time on the pitch and fair do's to Holloway he didn't ruin the guys confidence by bringing him off too soon. He perservered with him and Mattock will certainly learn from the experience.

What do the guys and gals who were at the game think?

.............................and feel free if you weren't at the game to express your opinion

the live match console thingy said Mattock coming off was due to injury

[Fez of Mahrez]

Yeah Mattock was limping quite heavily. Laczko was never fit either. They were fairly obvious substitutions to be honest.

[Head Honcho]

Yeah Mattock was limping quite heavily. Laczko was never fit either. They were fairly obvious substitutions to be honest.

My mistake then.

I thought it was a tactical substitution.

Just shows you can't believe everything you hear on the radio

[Jimmy]

the only 1 you could even slightly question was bringing King on and not Fryatt in order to truly push for the win, but the way Norwich were playing (from what I heard) that would of been suicide

[CKB]

A good decision me thinks from Ollie, from what i read Mattock was injured and getting the run around by Croft! I wouldn't be surprised if Ollie doesn't start Chambers next week on the left, or a new left back arrives...

[Jimmy]

A good decision me thinks from Ollie, from what i read Mattock was injured and getting the run around by Croft! I wouldn't be surprised if Ollie doesn't start Chambers next week on the left, or a new left back arrives...

or he just brings Sheehan in as he wasn't on the bench, Chambers is always the better bench option of the 2 as he covers more positions

[MPH]

Goodness me. Chambers , bless him is sure being put around the positions...

Fair play to the lad. Hope he isnt the one who is thinking of leaving.

[Daggers]

My mistake then.

I thought it was a tactical substitution.

Just shows you can't believe everything you hear on the radio

*ker-ching*

[CKB]

or he just brings Sheehan in as he wasn't on the bench, Chambers is always the better bench option of the 2 as he covers more positions

You know i totally forgot about Sheehan for a mo! yeah he could come in, but i don't think Ollie rates him much so he could still start Chambers if that's the case!

[Head Honcho]

*ker-ching*

I thought you'd like that one

[Calum McDermott]

A lot has been made of Ollies substitutions yesterday (mainly by people who weren't at the game) but it did seem his decision to replace Mattock with Chambers was a point saver.

Mattock did seem to be struggling with Lee Croft for most of his time on the pitch and fair do's to Holloway he didn't ruin the guys confidence by bringing him off too soon. He perservered with him and Mattock will certainly learn from the experience.

What do the guys and gals who were at the game think?

.............................and feel free if you weren't at the game to express your opinion

I disagree, Mattock dealt with lee croft extremmely well, croft only got about tow crosses in against mattock and he attempted to cross or beat mattock about 10 times.

[Head Honcho]

I disagree, Mattock dealt with lee croft extremmely well, croft only got about tow crosses in against mattock and he attempted to cross or beat mattock about 10 times.

Going back to Chambers. I think his versatility is is undoing and he's made to sit on the bench.

I think he's wasted on the bench. I'd like to see him start at RB and with a few good performances he could make the position his. There's always the option to use him elsewhere during the game.

[Staf]

I thought Mattock played alright he dealt with Lee Croft ok and Croft is a good player at this level i think he was taken off due to injury

[Thracian]

If Mattock was injured there's no doubt he had to come off.

However, it seemed to me that Mattock's job was made considerably harder by Holloway not figuring sooner that Croft was a dangerman and making sure Mattock had cover and support.

Second half he clearly addressed that even before making his substitution but, from the impression given, Chambers was hardly comfortable at left back.

Barber said he forever had to manoeuvre to get the ball onto his right foot therefore slowing City's momentum when we tried to go forward. Was he right or simply making it up?

[Bert]

If Mattock was injured there's no doubt he had to come off.

However, it seemed to me that Mattock's job was made considerably harder by Holloway not figuring sooner that Croft was a dangerman and making sure Mattock had cover and support.

Second half he clearly addressed that even before making his substitution but, from the impression given, Chambers was hardly comfortable at left back.

Barber said he forever had to manoeuvre to get the ball onto his right foot therefore slowing City's momentum when we tried to go forward. Was he right or simply making it up?

He was right, but he was surely better than Barber was making out - Croft wasn't as good whne Chambers was marking him thats for sure.

[Thracian]

He was right, but he was surely better than Barber was making out - Croft wasn't as good whne Chambers was marking him thats for sure.

There's no dispute about that. Barber made it clear that Holloway had stemmed the flow of opportunities from that side with his changes - but he also suggested that Chambers got proper assistance and Mattock didn't.

[Jimmy]

There's no dispute about that. Barber made it clear that Holloway had stemmed the flow of opportunities from that side with his changes - but he also suggested that Chambers got proper assistance and Mattock didn't.

Well Mattock had an unfit Laczko, Chambers had a fully fit Bori, also Chambers added experience would of undoubtedly helped

[Bob666]

Well Mattock had an unfit Laczko, Chambers had a fully fit Bori, also Chambers added experience would of undoubtedly helped

Agreed; although Croft tired in the second half. First half, 90% of Norwich's out balls were to the right wing. I thought Mattock did well to cope against the experience of Croft but he couldn't contain him on his own & on the overlap. Luckily, Norwich didn't have another decent striker besides Dublin. However, I think it was a good to move to bring on Chambers for Mattock second half as something needed to be done as it was becoming a so easy ball for Norwich.

[Bert]

There's no dispute about that. Barber made it clear that Holloway had stemmed the flow of opportunities from that side with his changes - but he also suggested that Chambers got proper assistance and Mattock didn't.

Mattock had been told to tuck in though.

[stevie909]

where was sheehan in all of this? was he even on the bench?

[Jimmy]

where was sheehan in all of this? was he even on the bench?

no, the bench was J. Chambers, Fryatt, Hayles, Henderson & King

[Bert]

Don't be surprised if Sheehan goes.

[hebangsthedrums]

Don't be surprised if Sheehan goes.

Now hes played a bit for us we should get a fee as well.

[Jimmy]

If we could get close to £250k for Sheehan it'd be a good deal