Thought, by taking off Dids and bringing on Smith, he invited pressure and when the ball was cleared it came straight back!! Its ok trying to see a game out when a couple up but when you are only one up and playing one of the top sides, i feel you are asking for trouble!! Rather than try and defend a slender lead, why not take the game to them and let them worry about us? It is a fault of Micks but hopefully he will learn from it, as he has learnt that playing more attack minded players brings rewards!! All in all a good result but it dont arf feel like a defeat!!
Completely agree Spanish, amen brother. I thought Anderson for McGoldrick may have been the better option.
From what I could see on the stream I have to agree Spanish. Went into our shell...became all defensive...gave acres of space...their forwards license to roam....and cross balls at will. Constant pressure bound to cause errors and easy give-aways. But nevertheless..a very good result, and if we keep beating teams we should, and giving as good as we get and pick up valuable points against the top teams, I am sure we will stay in the mix.
I thought second half we looked really stretched and looked really light in midfield as we had 3 in attack, our fullbacks bombing on and it seemed we were often left with just Skuse and our 2 CBs at the back, it almost reminded me a little of the Paul Jewell days, except we had 2 outstanding CBs. I don't think taking McGoldrick off was the wrong choice but I think we should've probably gone 442 or put more players into midfield rather than bringing on a CB, because as you say bringing on a CB can often mean you bring pressure on yourself!!
Spanish all I can really comment with is.... I really thought you had learnt your lesson but clearly you haven't! It is the typical TWTD mentality of criticising for the sake of it.
Oh **** off Warky, things are good but that dont mean now and then our manager makes mistakes, not as if i am calling for his ****ing head is it, just giving my opinion on what happened, if you dont like it, dont ****ing bother replying, idyat!! Oh and at least i ****ing admit i was and still am anti MM, where as you chop and change like the fecking wind! Sorry but you really pissed me off with your childish comments!! What was i supposed to say, we were fab and mick got everything right because that would be a lie, after all, we were hanging on in the end!!
I would have liked a positive practical change and brought on fresh legs to chase and harry in the middle...and up front to keep pressing them. They had 7-8 players in attack at times! Not an attack on MM...just stating the obvious...we were blown out for last 15. But still delighted where we are....and my testicles are still dangling in one piece!
It seemed a very logical change to make with 15 minutes to go and protecting a slender lead! The majority of managers would have made a similar change under the same circumstances! Sometimes it works for you and sometimes it doesnt. No point slating Mick for making what was a logical change. You cant legislate for conceding a sloppy set peice goal which Gherkin was completely at fault for!
Not Skuse for slicing it out for a corner, sorry but dont agree with the change made, imo it cost us two points but as i said IT WAS STILL A GOOD RESULT!! Now go act like a twat on the budgie board and leave me alone!!
No Hoppers I'm not taking the piss. We lost the game due to tiredness - but putting Smith on and playing with a back 5 with the rest of the team out on their feet invited pressure. We needed someone fresh further up the pitch, Anderson runs his nuts off and could have carried the ball at times also. Bought some free kicks. Warkie, for once I'm sticking up for Spanish here. He isn't being a **** about it, his opinion is Mick got the subs wrong and I agree with him. I'd have settled like all of us for a point before the game, but at 2-1 up with Forest creating sod all it feels like a defeat. I will back Mick all day long and love him as manager, but he doesn't always get everything right and he definitely isn't beyond criticism. If people want to moan, do it subjectively and Spanish has here so fair shout
I was at Forest and it was the correct change, Didsy had been poor all game, he gave the ball away countless times, on a couple occasions Forest broke and nearly scored as a result. The issue with the change was that we should have played 5-3-2 instead it ended up being two banks of five, now is that MM decision or the players not carrying out instructions.? Also factor in fatigue, our style of play is a high tempo pressing game that is going to take its toll towards the end of matches.
Also Spanish - I cannot believe Skuse sliced it out for a corner it was embarrassingly given away. As soon as that happened I had a feeling a goal would result. That said we all make mistakes and Skuse played very well in general, much better.
Ah ballbags Hoppers got that wrong! * Looks at subs bench... Bru in that case. He ran 13.5 km away at Derby.
I don't think taking McGoldrick off was the wrong decision just not beefing up the midfield which looked to be the area we were lacking so should've brought on a midfielder instead of a CB IMO as that certainly invited more pressure on us
Would've been a different game if Hyam hadn't gone off, or their lad Wilson. It is what it is and at the time I thought it was a good move from Mick to bring Tommy on. It would've worked too if not for the final corner that Skuse gave away unintentionally.
