victorturner

How committed were BHA? And we played a different midfield.

Counter attacking is easier than attacking. Carlos went the same way.

Because the players and manager play a counter attacking game. With a busy team like Blackburn , that means they gain the ascendancy. It only works with a watertight defence.

Agree with last two sentences but he cannot expect two years. And no manager has just his own players. There is always a legacy. Pearson is improving Watford from the start.

How easy is it to attack with that formation and line up?

Good that the midfield was good at BHA but was it because the opposition was not totally committed?

I know and I see that. You seem to know more than me about types of injury and I bow to your expertise. But the original decision was flawed, even though it may just have been bad luck. There are a couple of other strikers available and with need for game time and although it's a personal viewpoint, I thought the three others who are less important for our efforts to get into the league play offs would have been selected. After that hat trick, Rhodes ought to have been playing more and although we never know whether players are fit or unwell, I would have been nursing Fletcher. Luhukay would have been hauled over the coals if it had been him and Monk is getting away with things.

I did misread it, apologies. Agree he has been finally fit. But Monk gave the impression that he does not discriminate between cup or league, does not decide in advance who will play in certain matches, didn't rest players for BHA ( which was a mistake you could see at the time and which has become a cause of great disturbance for the club ), if they played well last match they play again even if it's the cup. That sounds muddled thinking to me when Fletcher with all his limitations has become a better player and invaluable. Monk is walking on water with some of his decisions and the team unable to keep a lead. I know he is still in honeymoon period but this was a very bad mistake...which Lukuhay would have been slaughtered for.

Sorry if I misread. My point is therefore that he ought to have rested Fletcher, and there were lots of supporters I am sure who have watched Fletcher's record of fragility and scratched their head at this selection decision

I think his post match conferences except the last one have been 100% flannel. It is not just the players' fault that the team has failed to see out games when in the lead. It is poor coaching and management.

Expect we really should see Westwood on the bench. Unless more likely if not frozen out, he is managing his own injuries and looking for a move or at least a loan so he can retain his contract. Quite a few clubs looking for keepers with some movement in that department.

I actually don't think so. Strangely, he has the journalists under control and they give him the respect that they do not always give managers. "I don't rest players" is clearly a ridiculous statement. It was thought by lots of us that it was spectacularly ridiculous to play Fletcher at BHA when he is so fragile he often does not last 90 minutes in league matches.

He has worked hard to get really slim and reduce the strain on his knees. But he should never been picked for that match. Bad decision.

Wonder if he got the scorn Lukuhay got for doing the same at Millwall?

It was crazy picking him. I was very surprised. A major management blunder. SF is fragile and has been ever since he arrived. He had a chronic knee problem early on and maybe arrived with it.