To play the lad in goal was a pretty surprising decision by Tudor for me. A huge pressure match and throw a young lad in who has hardly played? Odd and it backfired dramatically.
I fully admit that I have wanted Kinsky to have been played, but to drop him in cold last night into a significant CL tie was bizarre to say the least.
The mistakes were tragicomic, but I'm still undecided as to whether the decision to sub him was the right one. It looks as if Romero played a part in it, but what his input was we do not yet know.
Personally, I don't think it was necessary: the game was gone already (arguably before the first whistle) and the only thing it has probably achieved is the end of the lads career.
What it does mean is we are saddled with just Flappicario and another underplayed stand-in for the most important 9 PL games we have ever faced.
Addendum:
After a coffee and a trawl of the post match comments I'm now firmly of the view that the substitution at that point was wrong, whoever made it. The lad has been made a scapegoat - probably by a coach desperate to protect himself.
If I squint really hard through powerful binoculars I can just about see why Tudor was thought to be the right person to follow Frank, but in the 4 weeks or so of his tenure he's shown nothing to suggest that he has the credentials. His demeanour on the training pitch, in the dug out and particularly in interviews is one of a very poor communicator. His team selections and substitutions have ranged from the bizarre to the ridiculous and his lack of man management has been obvious.
We were pretty much doomed before he arrived, so I'm certainly not blaming him for the fact that we are now even more likely to drop. But he had to find a way to at least motivate the players to show some commitment. His manner and his actions have demonstrated that he appears completely unable to do that.
Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, relegated! No survival for us, I fear. Off with his head!!
