Craig Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I see no-one is praising Pearson's decision to bring Kane on for Wellens; a change that worked very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I see no-one is praising Pearson's decision to bring Kane on for Wellens; a change that worked very well. That wouldn't fit in with the belief round here that Pearson hasn't got a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I see no-one is praising Pearson's decision to bring Kane on for Wellens; a change that worked very well. Me sir, me, me, I did sir, sir?........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Me sir, me, me, I did sir, sir?........... Ah yes, I didn't see that. Let me rephrase my post... I see only marbelladave is praising Pearson's decision to bring Kane on for Wellens; a change that worked very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I know you like to blow your own trumpet, but just to clarify when did you start saying we needed three in the middle? Your original point was about a DM, not having three in the middle so far as I remember. ? Read back through many posts I've advocated a defensive minded midfielder, just off the back four, with two in front of him. The wide men playing as primarily attack minded players. Lotsa times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Not really sure who'd sub a defender when all the defence was playing very well and coping admirably. Our problem was in retaining possession in their half - so, fresh legs & grafters up front was perfect subs. And taking off a forward player for a defender would have exacerbated the problem and just lead to more waves of attacks. People among our supporters really do just look for something to cling onto, to have a pop about. This would be true if... We were actually failing to retain possession prior to the late subs, we weren't. Cardiff were pressing but we were handling it all quite well....... And if we needed to make those subs, to my mind neither Wood nor Nugent seemed to be carrying new knocks and both were doing pretty well. So why, for no obvious reason, replace your 2 best strikers with your 4th and 5th shape and mess up our shape and momentum?........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 ? Read back through many posts I've advocated a defensive minded midfielder, just off the back four, with two in front of him. The wide men playing as primarily attack minded players. Lotsa times... Recently yes, that was not your original point though... just saying. PS. Actually think you've talked a lot of sense lately so don't take it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Ah yes, I didn't see that. Let me rephrase my post... I see only marbelladave is praising Pearson's decision to bring Kane on for Wellens; a change that worked very well. Can i keep my Gold Star, sir, please sir?........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitchandro Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I'm being objective when I say this, but looking at the goal Vardy really should have got out to the crosser quicker. He definitely shoulders some of the blame for the equaliser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daddylonglegs Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Pearson was going to bring Marshall on, I suspect for either Nugent or Vardy when the ball next went out of play after the corner, then Keane hit the bar and we scored about 30 seconds later. He brought Vardy on because he's the only player we had on the bench who does a lot of work off of the ball. I can't understand him bringing on Kane, as for the 3rd game running when ive seen him hes done **** all and shown no reason why weve got him on loan- he doesnt pass/shoot quick enough. 2 or three times last night he had a lot of space in front of him, allowed himself to be closed down and gave the ball away. Ultimately we were the better team and desserved three points, but if we played the way we did for 92 minutes last night for the rest of the season then we'll go up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 This would be true if... We were actually failing to retain possession prior to the late subs, we weren't. Cardiff were pressing but we were handling it all quite well....... And if we needed to make those subs, to my mind neither Wood nor Nugent seemed to be carrying new knocks and both were doing pretty well. So why, for no obvious reason, replace your 2 best strikers with your 4th and 5th shape and mess up our shape and momentum?........ Best at what? Scoring - certainly! Best at getting amongst, restricting opportunities for them to play better passes as they inevitably turn up the pressure more & more as the game goes on to its closing stages? Not imo, no. I think the subs & reasons behind the subs was sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Recently yes, that was not your original point though... just saying. PS. Actually think you've talked a lot of sense lately so don't take it personally. Quite right Babs....... Agreeing with you might go against my general principles but Col's original suggestion was for a 'hard case' central midfielder to be the ball winner in a team that, until recently was having no real problems winning the ball...... The emphasis on using this defensive player to release two of regular midfielders to play in front of him came much later. To be fair to Col he might always have seen it this way but that was not clear from his posts. Personally I still think it wrong headed, we need an attacking player to play in front of our two regular midfielders, not a defensive one to play behind them....... Back to last night, anyone else think it ironic that, after reinforcing midfield and getting ready for a fight, Cardiff player two center mids and never really pressed us?......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Best at what? Scoring - certainly! Best at getting amongst, restricting opportunities for them to play better passes as they inevitably turn up the pressure more & more as the game goes on to its closing stages? Not imo, no. I think the subs & reasons behind the subs was sound. I understand where you are coming from but Cardiff had been turning up the pressure and we were holding out pretty well. It was only after the substitutions that Cardiff became really dominant....... As I said, were Wood and Nugent flagging in any way, no they were not, why make a change and disrupt out shape and momentum? Had our forwards been flagging I would agree with you, but they weren't, no need to make any change at all....... Mind you, I do accept that hindsight is pretty wonderful........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty fox Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 wood should have scored his 1 on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 wood should have scored his 1 on 1 Waghorn would have scored that, Pearson should have subbed Wood earlier and we'd have won 2-0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Before the game "We are going to lose with that starting 11, might as well not bother. Wellens and Dyer for gods sake" After the game "Why did he change the starting 11 and bring on subs, he cost us two points" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Why change a winning side? So any manager who is winning a game should never make a subsitute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number 6 Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 The bloke cannot win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seenitall Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 The bloke cannot win. Nonsense, he beat Blackburn....granted its more losing and draws of late but he might turn it round, show some faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Nonsense, he beat Blackburn....granted its more losing and draws of late but he might turn it round, show some faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964FOX Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Just got back from Cardiff and I'm surprised there's not more positivity as we played well last night and were just unlucky that a side we made look poor scored in the last minute. If we play with as much spirit for our remaining games e ill easily stay in the play offs. Nigel got the full backing of the fans last night we were 100% supporting him. I have to give him his due we looked much more like the promotion contenders we have been all season last night than we have for several games. Cardiff couldn't cope with us, bring on the rams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muzzy1981 Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 This is a negative viewpoint, 1 minute longer and it wouldn't have been an issue. A 1-1 draw away to top of the league is a good result irrespective of how we played who was subbed etc. IMO the system we played very nearly worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickelbyfox Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 All I have to say is - he likes to bring in Waghorn who doesnt defend well IMO - but more so likes to bring on Vardy at right wing and the lad is woeful! Last time I remember him being subbed he gave away a needless penalty that luckily Kasper saved - and hearing comments from last night could have closed down the last cross. I am not saying NP is awful but did find the subs last night rather odd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Nonsense, he beat Blackburn....granted its more losing and draws of late but he might turn it round, show some faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfcsnow Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 All I have to say is - he likes to bring in Waghorn who doesnt defend well IMO - but more so likes to bring on Vardy at right wing and the lad is woeful! Last time I remember him being subbed he gave away a needless penalty that luckily Kasper saved - and hearing comments from last night could have closed down the last cross. I am not saying NP is awful but did find the subs last night rather odd Stubborn, simple as that. It's been 442 for months but even when the formation is changed and we perform better he's bringing Vardy on when it is blatant to everyone else it's the wrong move. Bringing those pair on would have been a great boost for Cardiff. At that point they can throw everything forward because any threat we had was gone, we'd have been better off adding another midfielder to help see the game out. Maybe having 5 in midfield at that point would have stopped the cross that led to the goal, who knows. He won't let it go though he'll continue to try justify signing him and it'll continue to cost us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.