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

Holla for Rosenior



Quinney

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2009
3,653
Hastings
Seemed a strange one for me. Bobby up front on his own and losing width and pace down the flank. Would have liked to have seen Manu giving a run.
 


RM-Taylor

He's Magic.... You Know
Jan 7, 2006
15,267
Hughton decided to switch to 4-5-1 which worked in the last two games but didn't unfortunately today. Maybe March could have played central just behind Bobby with Elvis on the left and Baldock on the right
 


theonesmith

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2008
2,328
Seemed a strange one for me. Bobby up front on his own and losing width and pace down the flank. Would have liked to have seen Manu giving a run.

Agree. But we were losing out in midfield, and you wonder if just putting another striker on would have been even more meaningless than Holla on.

I wonder if we should have set up differently from the start. I'm not convinced that Ince and Crofts can play a 442, and Holla's set pieces were far better than anyone else's out there. Should he have started in a midfield 3, maybe with Baldock, Hemed and March ahead of them?

(I know we couldn't have foreseen Murphy having such a poor game, but I also felt March had done more than enough to keep his place)
 


sdmartin1

Well-known member
Sep 23, 2008
1,258
We should have started Holla. Much better at going forward than Ince and how many set pieces did we **** up today? One good delivery in about 20.
 






Gwylan

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
31,324
Uffern
Holla didn't come on for Rosenior; he came on for Murphy. It was March who replaced LR

I thought Holla did OK when he came on; my thinking was there was someone needed for set-pieces as no-one else could take them
 


Quinney

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2009
3,653
Hastings
Holla didn't come on for Rosenior; he came on for Murphy. It was March who replaced LR

I thought Holla did OK when he came on; my thinking was there was someone needed for set-pieces as no-one else could take them

Apologies, had a few beers. Still seemed a strange substitution.
 


Turkey

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
15,568
Thought it made perfect sense. We'd lost the midfield. Ince and Crofts, quite understandably, struggling having not played a full 90 for some time.

Besides it's not like 4-3-3/4-5-1 is defensive. Plenty of side play that way with two wide men and target man up top.
 




Barry M

Active member
Jan 21, 2011
367
I find it strange that at 0.0 in a home match against inferior opposition you'd take off a winger for someone with no games under their belt this season. Surely we wanted to win it, so Elvis would have made more sense.
 


Quinney

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2009
3,653
Hastings
I find it strange that at 0.0 in a home match against inferior opposition you'd take off a winger for someone with no games under their belt this season. Surely we wanted to win it, so Elvis would have made more sense.

That was my original point. If Manu doesn't come on in that situation then I'm not sure what he's doing on the bench.
 


Turkey

Well-known member
Jul 4, 2003
15,568
That was my original point. If Manu doesn't come on in that situation then I'm not sure what he's doing on the bench.

If Kayal and Stephens had been playing, I suspect Manu would have come on. Unfortunately due to the circumstances we had two centre mids who haven't played a league 90 minutes for how long? Wasn't a good day at the office, one of those where you have to take what you can and look to next week.
 




midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
We were completely outnumbered and outclassed in midfield so it's a perfectly logical decision. If we can't even get the ball up top what could Elvis have possibly brought to the game? Certainly a good shout bring on a defensive midfielder considering the injury to Bong.
 




pottert

New member
Aug 12, 2009
3,020
Peacehaven
Crofts & ince today were invisible.At times today it looked like we had nobody in midfield.
I totally understood bringing Holla on for Murphy.
An extra body in midfield with march on one sde & boldock on the other.
 




Justice

Dangerous Idiot
Jun 21, 2012
18,247
Born In Shoreham
It was one of those games that if it was still going on now neither team would score better to take the point and move on, good sub IMO.
 


1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
Preston were doubling up on Murphy and so he wasn't getting any joy all game. In the 2nd half they were increasingly dominating midfield too and getting forward more. The Holla for Murphy sub was to address the imbalance.

Made sense really. We were never looking like breaking down a five man defence, and once you start getting overrun in midfield as well you're only heading for defeat. Best to shore it up there before things go fully pear shaped.
 


jamie the seagull

Well-known member
Jul 27, 2011
2,803
Holla for anyone make no sense.
Agree with going to a 5 man midfield as 442 was not working.
However, I would have put March behind Zamora and kept the pace out wide (Murphy/Rosenoir).
 




1066familyman

Radio User
Jan 15, 2008
15,185
Weird, defensive decision

At that point, I knew we'd settled for a home draw against a poor side

The thing is, as much as we may not like that, and I for one am all for shit or bust attacking football, in certain situations you have to just work with what you've got, stick rather than twist and move along to the next game.

Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win a war. I reckon CH knows exactly what he's doing when it comes to winning the war :thumbsup:

(Not a dig at you btw, just trying to draw some comfort from what was a very, very boring game of football today).
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here