ozleicester Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 Italics works well if you get it right. "Italics WORK well if you get THEM right".... Youre right, it do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON! I understand what he was doing bringing Hammond on, I felt we'd lost control and composure in the middle. And I guess he thought he would help regain that in there. But I think James is capable of that whilst offering more going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svensson Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 HOPE IT HELPS.... [/quote Not at all, in your case it just highlights further how wrong you are, you really do think you have a better understanding than Pearson... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 HOPE IT HELPS.... [/quote Not at all, in your case it just highlights further how wrong you are, you really do think you have a better understanding than Pearson... Cheer up chap... Are you this angry in real life? I was making light of the capitals, as a joke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverdaz Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 Knocky was getting kicked all over the place today and was already on a booking. Best thing to take him off. They were spoiling in the midfield so we needed more control and Hammond was the choice. The subs make sense if you dont look at them in the context of a defeat. I'm with Bert though. Stick 4 up. It hardly ever works but at least you can say you really went for it. Yes I think Knockaert would of gone himself sent off good subsitution by NP I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue army 1988 Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 MAYBE PEOPLE should USE LOWER CASE TO MAKE THE POINT INSTEAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artursteppe Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 I agree that the wide play was getting us nowhere and that playing through the middle with Drinkwater further forward won us the peno. Maybe Knockaert could have been pushed more central, though? Playing with wingers against a 4-5-1 never works. Dyer needs to use his pace and for that he needs space. It's OK when he is used through the middle sometimes, as it definitely is with Knocky. Best cross we had from the left flank against the florists in the second half came from Hammond with his right foot, where Liam should have hit the target with his header. Nigel needs to wise up about his tactics, especially with how and when to use Lloyd. Schlupp would have been a better bet on the left because of his strength. Putting Nugent there instead was bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artursteppe Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 I could understand him removing the wide players as we were getting nowhere really, so clearly the switch to go through the middle was worth a try. But as others have said Hammond really wasn't the player it called for. James would have been much more suitable at that moment. Or indeed putting Knockaert more central. Sadly, when one of our main three strikers is not in the squad, we lack serious options to change things. At both Doncaster and Forest we we missing a striker and had to rely on Schlupp up front. Forest showed almost zero attacking intent, and them scraping two scruffy goals compounded the problem as they could just sit back even more. How they lined up was very much like the Donny game which we also lost. We need to find a solution now, because this is what happened last year. Teams stopped trying to play us and just started trying to stop us Nothing wrong with having Hammond on the pitch. He was being used in a defensive midfield role to pick up their clearances to then prompt further attacks through our front 5 ( or 7 if you count the full backs ). Tactically that part I had no problem with. Dyer should have been taken off at half time and we should have started to play more through the middle with overlapping full backs. We should always do that against teams who are putting players behind the ball in large numbers. For example Dyer should never start against any team who are going to play against us in the way Barnsley did, or in the way the Florists did in the second half. It's freakin obvious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 Nothing wrong with having Hammond on the pitch. He was being used in a defensive midfield role to pick up their clearances to then prompt further attacks through our front 5 ( or 7 if you count the full backs ). Tactically that part I had no problem with. Dyer should have been taken off at half time and we should have started to play more through the middle with overlapping full backs. We should always do that against teams who are putting players behind the ball in large numbers. For example Dyer should never start against any team who are going to play against us in the way Barnsley did, or in the way the Florists did in the second half. It's freakin obvious! As I said in my second post, I know exactly the reasons he did bring him on, I just felt James could do that job, whilst also offering us a bit more going forward. If you can come up with a system that allows managers to know exactly how the opposition will line up, that would be very useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artursteppe Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 As I said in my second post, I know exactly the reasons he did bring him on, I just felt James could do that job, whilst also offering us a bit more going forward. If you can come up with a system that allows managers to know exactly how the opposition will line up, that would be very useful. Ok then, we all knew that the florists put 9 men and their goalkeeper behind the ball five minutes after the break, so do it then. ( Are you splitting hairs by the way? ) Who doesn't know that Barnsley and others will do the same from the first whistle, it happened in most of our home matches last season and we struggled using two wingers. I thought you were watching the home matches last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 Ok then, we all knew that the florists put 9 men and their goalkeeper behind the ball five minutes after the break, so do it then. ( Are you splitting hairs by the way? ) I'm not splitting hairs, you said he shouldn't start. And as I pointed out it's rather hard to know how the opposition are going to set up. Who doesn't know that Barnsley and others will do the same from the first whistle, it happened in most of our home matches last season and we struggled using two wingers. I thought you were watching the home matches last season. Yes I did watch the home matches this season, did you watch them this season when we outplayed them comfortably for most of the game and Dyer set up the first for Nugent? Whilst I agree Dyer struggles when he's not given space, and I'd agree he should have come off earlier against Forest. It's not always the case that he struggles against 5 across the middle, and you don't know how the oppo are going to line up. I thought Forest might actually try and play football, turns out that was the last thing on their minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain... Posted 11 November 2013 Share Posted 11 November 2013 You can justify each individual substitution, but to take off our most creative player and our only 2 players with pace and replace them with slow (Hammond) and unfit (Vardy) and both (GTF), was bizarre. You can make a case for each one coming off and each one coming on, but we were chasing the game and need a goal or a spark, you take off someone who isn't going to have an impact in their half. I would have taken of Konch or Moore, gone 3 at the back and brought on Vardy and just gone for it, maybe Hammond on for King too to give us a bit more cover, even if we conceded going for a goal, I would rather go out with a bang than a whimper. Very strange substitutions, NP made a mistake on Saturday and denying it is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.