From where I was sat and replays he should have shot earlier !
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Izquierdo: was he right to shoot?
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Good post @Acker79 , Murray was running on empty, surely Kayal instead of Brown would have been better, giving the amount of ball Bournemouth were gaining towards the end.
maffew
Well-known member
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
He had no choice in the end as he inadvertently touched the ball with his left foot whilst looking up to see where the goalie was. This pushed the ball too far ahead of him and too close to the goalie. A mistake. It happens.
He was fantastic today other than that.
He was fantastic today other than that.
Mr Putdown
Well-known member
If Izquierdo had squared that ball rather than had a shot, you’d have won.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
Hughton always seems reluctant to use his subs. I know he wasn't on the bench but I think Baldock would have enjoyed that today
Worried Man Blues
Well-known member
Surely he practices going round keepers, really poor. Cole used to practice till it was second nature.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,239
And even if he tries and fails, the slightest contact by the keeper and it's a penalty and maybe a red card bonus thrown in.
GT49er
Well-known member
This with knobs on - not hindsight either; I guessed as soon as Smug Eddie started shaking up his line up he would out-substitute CH; really disappointed with that today.
GT49er
Well-known member
Like Michael Robinson did, eh? Works every time, doesn't it.............
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,448
agreed - giving Brown 4 minutes was ridiculous, we had players out on their feet at 75 mins and we should have changed. Howe made changes and they really had an impact, credit to him....
We'd decided to give Izquierdo the full 90 fairly early as he was thrown an energy gel around 65 mins and they were terrified of him. The issue was Bruno having to come on. That meant only 2 of the attacking 4 could possibly have been changed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That does nothing to explain:
-why we didn't use the third substitution
-why take gross off when propper and stephens are dead on their feet and being passed by by the game
-why wait until the 87th minute to take gross off.
You're right of course, I should have written more. I really meant our plans were too fluid. We'd gambled on Izquierdo doing a full 90 but with the game so close we were neither in a position to attack it, nor shut up shop. A goal either way then changes the required player and we only had two to choose from. In the end we decided to stick with what we had. I don't agree with it necessarily and think you're right about midfield and the third sub. However, about 5 of our players were knackered and with no game changers on the bench we could only have made a tactical sub.
In other words CH caught in 2 minds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Withdeanseagull
Member
Two Bournemouth players were around Propper so it was the right descion to shoot imo.
Tesco in Disguise
Where do we go from here?
Of course not. Taking the course of action he did gave us a reasonable chance of scoring (say, 60%). Had he squared to propper we would have had something like a 95% chance. Seeing as contributing to victory should be every player's objective he made the wrong decision.
On a separate note, an excellent and exciting performance.
On a separate note, an excellent and exciting performance.
