Just thinking about whether there would have been a different result if Brendan was on the touchline for the gunners game, obviously his family comes before the game and I am not suggesting anything else. But did we play the right tactics for the game with pascoe & curtis in charge ? Do you think things could have been different with the gaffer there ? The gunners for my mind were there for the taking, think we should have brought on dobbie straight in after the first half, and maybe lita as well, for a more attacking side. Anyone know what happened to Routledge , he never made the bench for the game ?
What else could have been done? Think that the result could only have been different if we had taken our chances, Sinclair was unlucky with the woodwork, Dannyboy needs to chill out in front of goal, and hit the back of the net, for Pete's sake, and you'll not see a bizarre gaff like that one of Vorm's for a long long time! I don't think Lita coming on would have done anything, though Moore was like a statue the minutes he had on the park, let's hope Graham breaks his duck, with WBA, by the way the boys did great today, apart from the score.......................... please log in to view this image
The starting team was obviously picked by Brendan, and the substitutions were pretty much as expected. Surprised Moore came on, not Lita, but Dobbie for Allen was always going to be the change if we needed a goal
Tough to say whether things wound have been different, but I agree Lita would have been the more aggressive substitution over Moore. And I would have preferred Dobbie for Britton instead of Allen as Allen is the mire dynamic of the two. We need to find a way of getting Singlair more involved in the game. He appears to spend stretches of the game where he is hugging his touch line and never sees the ball.
Easy, routledge left wing, dyer right wing. sinclair free role in front of midfield with graham up front
Routledge was our injured. Have to agree with you Swimaway it was mentioned by Ian Walsh (Can't stand the fella) but he did have a good point. This might take a bit of pressure off Graham knowing that Sinclair would be playing off him.
One possible permutation. If Dobbie struggles to be effective in his role at thus level I think we're going to see a number of permutations tried across the line of Sinclair-XXX-Dyer. We've already seen Routlege playing in preference to Dobbie and I think that will continue. But why do the roles have to be fixed - Sinc!s hugging the line all game is what gets him lost. The three players in that line should be fluid and interchange their positions throughout the game assuming the "role of the moment" depending on whether we have the ball or not and where they are on the field in relation to either full back or the holding midfield players. We are too static now when we have the ball and this means we are too easily defended. A more dynamic and fluid approach is what is needed to breach defenses that have dropped back and organized while Vorm and the defense play keep ball.
On another angle to the original point of the article .... Sousa v Rogers ... Yesterday was a bit of a stale mate on the field. Who would have been better tactically to break that stale mate, Sousa or Rogers .... or Curt and Pascoe. I vote Sousa.
Nobody could have kept it at 0-0 cause of Vorm's blunder ... the question is given the 1-0 deficit who would have been better at breaking the stake mate we were facing. Moore was not the solution and yesterday neither was Dobbie. Graham's OMG at the end would have frustrated everybody. ... So which manager would have had more vision and guile to see and effect a tipping of the balance.
Yankee the situation would have never arisen with Sousa IMO , but to get the goal back it would have been Brendan I think , he has the footballing brain to get goals, just wish we had forced the situation more yesterday, bringing on more attacking players would have paid dividends .
