broughtonblue Posted 14 January 2012 Posted 14 January 2012 Thought the subs bench today was really defensive, two defenders and a defensive midfielder didn't really give us many options if the game wasn't going in our favour, which obviously it didn't! Does this mean Pearson thought we would be winning and then could change it to hold on for the points, or is the squad that thin that he didn't have an alternative?
Guesty Posted 14 January 2012 Posted 14 January 2012 Apart from youth team players there isn't really anyone else. Howard banned, Johnson still isn't match fit after 6 months, Vassell, Schupp injured. Probably didn't think it was fair to chuck a youth team player in unless they were ready.
broughtonblue Posted 14 January 2012 Author Posted 14 January 2012 Weale, St ledger, Kennedy, Abe, beckford
JamesAnderson Posted 14 January 2012 Posted 14 January 2012 we havent got the players to come in and do a job because their either suspended, injured or 'not match fit'
davieG Posted 14 January 2012 Posted 14 January 2012 The squad appears to have gone from too big when Pearson signed up to too small.
Swalker Posted 14 January 2012 Posted 14 January 2012 Weale, St ledger, Kennedy, Abe, beckford Shocking!!! Abe is a good player to have as sub. Beckford yes is an attacking player Weale- need a keeper SSL- need CB cover Kennedy- no. Should have been more attacking like Moussa or Hopper (give youth a go!!)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.