Father Ted Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 What did he do to get dropped yesterday for the long-haired useless Scotsman? Rested? Injured? Not picked? I'm absolutely clueless with that decision and nearly choked when I heard that Nielson was starting!
morris1234 Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 You are not the only one. I thought Neilson was poor!
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Same with Berner who is arguably our best player this season. But McGivern did play well.
dandannieldanok Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Both the full-back decisions were baffling, weakened the team no end. Palace's right winger had more joy against McGivern than all the wingers put together that Berner has faced.
StanSP Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Maybe Pearson wanted to change it around a little. Who gives a fook anywya. We won for god's sake.
Babylon Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Maybe I imagined it, but I thought I'd read Berner had a knock... can't be sure though.
jonw88 Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Maybe I imagined it, but I thought I'd read Berner had a knock... can't be sure though. I didnt see anything, but to not even be on the bench must mean he had some sort of problem.
Guest Mee-9 Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Probs rested, he's played every game (i think)
knowitall Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Both full-backs "rested" NP wanted to change things. Funny I thought the defence was great. It was the midfield and forwards I wanted changing.
maddog Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Both full-backs "rested"NP wanted to change things. Funny I thought the defence was great. It was the midfield and forwards I wanted changing. Here here!
Corky Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 Both full-backs "rested"NP wanted to change things. Funny I thought the defence was great. It was the midfield and forwards I wanted changing. Well it didn't harm things too much. Are both set to be back on Monday?
Munzie Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 McGivern had a solid debut and Neilson was as fustrating as usual. Morrison should definately be the preferred option.
BoneDog Posted 21 October 2009 Posted 21 October 2009 The only part of our team that needed tinkering was the attacking side. So it could only have been to rest them. Certainly was a risk though. Morrison and Berner must be starters at Reading and QPR
Raj Posted 22 October 2009 Posted 22 October 2009 Both full-backs "rested"NP wanted to change things. Funny I thought the defence was great. It was the midfield and forwards I wanted changing. NP wouldnt dare change the midfield and forwards as some of his 'cherubs' play in that area.....
Thracian Posted 22 October 2009 Posted 22 October 2009 I didn't see either of our full-backs as convincing and was a bit disappointed in my first sight of McGivern although he did seem to have the raw material to be my kind of full-back. On one occasion he made a fast and detemined 40-yard run to the outside of Dyer (I believe) - only for the winger to fail to give him the ball and thus leave him out of the game. I'd had been livid had I been McGivern and suppose you can hardly blame him for not bothering a second time. Pity we can't clone Gary Neville or Patrice Evra and get them in as our specialist coaches for attacking full-backs.
marbelladave Posted 22 October 2009 Posted 22 October 2009 I didn't see either of our full-backs as convincing and was a bit disappointed in my first sight of McGivern although he did seem to have the raw material to be my kind of full-back.On one occasion he made a fast and detemined 40-yard run to the outside of Dyer (I believe) - only for the winger to fail to give him the ball and thus leave him out of the game. I'd had been livid had I been McGivern and suppose you can hardly blame him for not bothering a second time. Pity we can't clone Gary Neville or Patrice Evra and get them in as our specialist coaches for attacking full-backs. There is something quite 'dirty' about the concept of cloning Garry Neville.....
Flynny Posted 22 October 2009 Posted 22 October 2009 There is something quite 'dirty' about the concept of cloning Garry Neville..... Is it because he's 32/33 (not bothering to check) and still can't grow a proper moustache?
Alexikokopops Posted 22 October 2009 Posted 22 October 2009 Is it because he's 32/33 (not bothering to check) and still can't grow a proper moustache? 34!
davieG Posted 22 October 2009 Posted 22 October 2009 34! Hmm, in two years we can consider signing him
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.