Anyone back yet? What went wrong?

biddles911 · Mar 9, 2016

BBassic said:
For me it was this:

We started with two defensively minded midfielders in Sidwell and Stephens so we had no creativity in the middle of the park.
Knockaert and Murphy both seemed off so we had little creativity outwide.
Hemed and Baldock were anonymous entirely so we had little upfront.
The ref, on par for Championship refs this season was f**king woeful.

There was nothing, absolutely nothing, to be positive about tonight.

Goldson was the least s**t player on the pitch and rightly got MoM.

And here's me thinking that a point against a good team, 3rd place in the table and a clean sheet were some consolation... You're right; I'll shoot myself right now!

Yes, your analysis is broadly accurate just don't agree with your conclusion.

Absolutely agree that no Kayal was the difference, which is a big worry for future games unless SS improves vastly?

On the assumption that Kayal didn't play because he's carrying an injury think CH tried to win the game. At least he didn't do his usual trick of pulling off a striker and putting on another defender to try to see out the game.

Only real quibble, apart from the cold, the rain, the traffic and the crap wine at the Amex, is their habit of leaving no one up field every time the opposition gets a set piece near the goal so the ball invariably comes flying back to us after we've tried to clear it away.

Can't we just leave one player up to hold up the ball or at least harry the opposition?

Deleted member 2719 · Mar 9, 2016

Thunder Bolt said:
The injury he was having treatment for, at Rotherham, during the match. He has been carrying a niggling groin injury for weeks.

If he was still injured why was he on the bench? If he was carrying an injury then why did CH not just say Beram has a slight injury and I didn't want to risk him rather than saying I was just resting him?

BBassic · Mar 9, 2016

biddles911 said:
And here's me thinking that a point against a good team, 3rd place in the table and a clean sheet were some consolation... You're right; I'll shoot myself right now!

Yes, your analysis is broadly accurate just don't agree with your conclusion.

Absolutely agree that no Kayal was the difference, which is a big worry for future games unless SS improves vastly?

On the assumption that Kayal didn't play because he's carrying an injury think CH tried to win the game. At least he didn't do his usual trick of pulling off a striker and putting on another defender to try to see out the game.

Only real quibble, apart from the cold, the rain, the traffic and the crap wine at the Amex, is their habit of leaving no one up field every time the opposition gets a set piece near the goal so the ball invariably comes flying back to us after we've tried to clear it away.

Can't we just leave one player up to hold up the ball or at least harry the opposition?

I'd like to qualify my ranting last night with the admission I was several pints deep and incredibly frustrated having gone to Preston at the weekend to see largely the same game played out.

My lesson learnt: don't go on the internet when smashed.

Pretty pink fairy · Mar 9, 2016

NOT GOOD ENOUGH............ FACT
regards
DR

BensGrandad · Mar 9, 2016

Basically we unable to break down a very well organised and disciplined defence for whom the CBs were very dominant.

Guy Fawkes · Mar 9, 2016

Mouldy Boots said:
If he was still injured why was he on the bench? If he was carrying an injury then why did CH not just say Beram has a slight injury and I didn't want to risk him rather than saying I was just resting him?

You can have a player on the bench with the intention of not using him unless desperate measures are called for (ie, injury to a starter forces the change, a red card or someone having an absolute mare)

dazzer6666 · Mar 10, 2016

BensGrandad said:
Basically we unable to break down a very well organised and disciplined defence for whom the CBs were very dominant.

Not just the CBs......they doubled up on our wingers every time, cutting off any supply. It's not Hemed or Baldocks (or BZ or Wilson's) fault they didn't get a shot off - they never had any service, either from the wings, or through the middle because Kayal was missing and Sidwell sent everything backwards or sideways.

darkwolf666 · Mar 10, 2016

Mouldy Boots said:
If he was still injured why was he on the bench? If he was carrying an injury then why did CH not just say Beram has a slight injury and I didn't want to risk him rather than saying I was just resting him?

Possibly because CH doesn't want all future opponents to know that Kayal has a niggling injury and one which they could possibly exploit and target?

darkwolf666 · Mar 10, 2016

dazzer6666 said:
Not just the CBs......they doubled up on our wingers every time, cutting off any supply. It's not Hemed or Baldocks (or BZ or Wilson's) fault they didn't get a shot off - they never had any service, either from the wings, or through the middle because Kayal was missing and Sidwell sent everything backwards or sideways.

So what you are saying then, is that every single thing that went wrong on Tuesday night was down to Steve Sidwell - that to say the least is unfair!

I am not a great fan of Sidwell, but don't think the guy can be hung out to dry and blamed for all the ills in the world, as seems to be the case at the moment. He admitted he had a poor game, which I think was a very noble thing to do, but there were another 13 players on the pitch (at various times), all of which have some degree of culpability.

Icy Gull · Mar 10, 2016

darkwolf666 said:
So what you are saying then, is that every single thing that went wrong on Tuesday night was down to Steve Sidwell - that to say the least is unfair!

I am not a great fan of Sidwell, but don't think the guy can be hung out to dry and blamed for all the ills in the world, as seems to be the case at the moment. He admitted he had a poor game, which I think was a very noble thing to do, but there were another 13 players on the pitch (at various times), all of which have some degree of culpability.

True, although I'm not sure you can blame the defence for anything, they were the ones that made sure we got a point. The ball lumped ball was almost certainly something they were told to do by CH, as it's the way we play now.The midfield and forwards were hustled out of the game and came up very short on flair and incisiveness. Sidwell replacing Kayal means we lost any creativity in midfield, so it made him standout as the poorest player on the pitch.

Deleted member 2719 · Mar 10, 2016

Guy Fawkes said:
You can have a player on the bench with the intention of not using him unless desperate measures are called for (ie, injury to a starter forces the change, a red card or someone having an absolute mare)

i agree with above but my point is, why would you waste your bench with half fit players would you not put a fully fit player on the bench instead, I would be a bit pissed off if I was a fully fit player that could not even make the bench with a injured person ahead of me.

darkwolf666 said:
Possibly because CH doesn't want all future opponents to know that Kayal has a niggling injury and one which they could possibly exploit and target?

How will future opponents exploit a 'so called groin injury', grab hold of him and pull his leg, make him do the splits

pastafarian · Mar 10, 2016

Mouldy Boots said:
If he was still injured why was he on the bench? If he was carrying an injury then why did CH not just say Beram has a slight injury and I didn't want to risk him rather than saying I was just resting him?

exactly
this theory makes no sense given our depth in the squad

if you are on the bench you are fit and can play,whether its 10 mins,30 mins or nearly 90 mins(in case of something odd)
you dont put an injured bloke on the bench in 2016.......1978 maybe

Icy Gull · Mar 10, 2016

pastafarian said:
exactly
this theory makes no sense given our depth in the squad

if you are on the bench you are fit and can play,whether its 10 mins,30 mins or nearly 90 mins(in case of something odd)
you dont put an injured bloke on the bench in 2016.......1978 maybe

You'd think, but then how do you explain picking a player who pukes up on the pitch before a game and is obviously not at all well?

darkwolf666 · Mar 10, 2016

Mouldy Boots said:
i agree with above but my point is, why would you waste your bench with half fit players would you not put a fully fit player on the bench instead, I would be a bit pissed off if I was a fully fit player that could not even make the bench with a injured person ahead of me.

How will future opponents exploit a 'so called groin injury', grab hold of him and pull his leg, make him do the splits

Don't be so naive, if your opponents know your players have a weakness they will target that player... Always has been that way and always will!

Deleted member 2719 · Mar 10, 2016

darkwolf666 said:
Don't be so naive, if your opponents know your players have a weakness they will target that player... Always has been that way and always will!

OK, so they will grab kayal and pull his leg to stretch his groin.......who's naive?

pastafarian · Mar 10, 2016

Icy Gull said:
You'd think, but then how do you explain picking a player who pukes up on the pitch before a game and is obviously not at all well?

actually i will concede that,its a fair point and he clearly wasnt ready
but i wonder how much players are desperate to play and tell all and sundry they are fit and ready

whoever it was on the radio at a recent away game picked up on this point and said (as he was an ex player) all players lie to the docs and say they are ready when they are not

darkwolf666 · Mar 10, 2016

Mouldy Boots said:
OK, so they will grab kayal and pull his leg to stretch his groin.......who's naive?

Ok, I give up -

Grombleton · Mar 10, 2016

Mutts Nuts said:
The one that got away was our first season at the Amex, if we had kept Glenn we would be in the PL Tony would not give him the pay rise that he deserved, that is going to cost us for a long time to come

The one where we finished 10th...9 points away from the play-offs?

Clueless as always.

dazzer6666 · Mar 10, 2016

darkwolf666 said:
So what you are saying then, is that every single thing that went wrong on Tuesday night was down to Steve Sidwell - that to say the least is unfair!

I am not a great fan of Sidwell, but don't think the guy can be hung out to dry and blamed for all the ills in the world, as seems to be the case at the moment. He admitted he had a poor game, which I think was a very noble thing to do, but there were another 13 players on the pitch (at various times), all of which have some degree of culpability.

Not at all - Weds

set themselves up well to deal with our wingers.......that ordinarily might have left some space in the middle to exploit but the best player we have at doing that was on the bench.

darkwolf666 · Mar 10, 2016

dazzer6666 said:
Not at all - Weds �� set themselves up well to deal with our wingers.......that ordinarily might have left some space in the middle to exploit but the best player we have at doing that was on the bench.

So, what game over because Wednesday got their tactics right!

That is a great pity and appears we don't / didn't have a plan B to combat the way they snuffed out our wingers, other than launch long balls at Bobby Zamora. If other teams find it so easy to negate our wide men we may well struggle more towards the end of the season then I imagined.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Anyone back yet? What went wrong?

New member

Deleted member 2719

Guest

I changed this.

Banned

New member

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Back on the rollercoaster

Deleted member 2719

Guest

Well-known member

Back on the rollercoaster

Well-known member

Deleted member 2719

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Surrounded by <div>s

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page