Carlos "Derby was an important game"

[Holmowl]

4 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:

Hooper was injured. Wallace went off injured.  Fletcher the same.  Rhodes was a fingertip from the winner but most important of all EVERY team in the play offs went "safety first".

 

Fulham abandoned being Barcelona, Reading did it all season and Huddersfield practiced for it when they dropped out of the autos.  There is simply that much at stake at that stage of the season.

 

 

 

You think Carlos would have started Hooper-Fletcher, rather than Hooper-FF? Course not. He would have reverted to the tried and failed Hooper-FF. 

 

His starting line-up had 3 CMs. Again, the tried and failed negative approach. 

 

Through injuries he had been gifted an approach that delivered six straight and vital wins, that dragged us from a tailing-off 7th to 4th.

 

He had two choices...

 

1. Stick with the successful approach, by playing Reach and Wallace. And by playing two proper strikers, Fletch and Rhodes.

 

or

 

2. Revert to the side that failed at Wembley and was on the verge of a 7th place finish, i.e. FF and one striker. And only one of Wallace and Reach, not two.

 

He chose the latter. What possessed him?

 

 

[oldishowl]

 

Carlos played this so called balanced midfield in the away leg at Huddersfield. He trusted it in the biggest game of the season .

It let him down, we couldn't get out of our own half. 

It was not up to the intensity of the opposition. Never won a tackle 

A fantastic performance from the back four got us a draw.

 

It just isn't as simple as some on here think it is

 

 

[Holmowl]

3 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

Carlos played this so called balanced midfield in the away leg at Huddersfield. He trusted it in the biggest game of the season .

It let him down, we couldn't get out of our own half. 

It was not up to the intensity of the opposition. Never won a tackle 

A fantastic performance from the back four got us a draw.

 

It just isn't as simple as some on here think it is

 

 

 

Come on. Watch the match again. Look how awful the Fletch-FF strike "partnership" was. They played so far apart they gave the impression they were deadly enemies. Every time the ball went upfield it came straight back. It was attack v defence.

 

Even if you are one of those who heralded it as a tactical masterpiece, to then go to an even more defensive line-up at home tells you everything about Carlos.

 

 

[brian joicey]

22 minutes ago, Holmowl said:

 

You think Carlos would have started Hooper-Fletcher, rather than Hooper-FF? Course not. He would have reverted to the tried and failed Hooper-FF. 

 

His starting line-up had 3 CMs. Again, the tried and failed negative approach. 

 

Through injuries he had been gifted an approach that delivered six straight and vital wins, that dragged us from a tailing-off 7th to 4th.

 

He had two choices...

 

1. Stick with the successful approach, by playing Reach and Wallace. And by playing two proper strikers, Fletch and Rhodes.

 

or

 

2. Revert to the side that failed at Wembley and was on the verge of a 7th place finish, i.e. FF and one striker. And only one of Wallace and Reach, not two.

 

He chose the latter. What possessed him?

 

 

as soon as i saw that line up i knew how it would be , and so it proved 

[oldishowl]

1 minute ago, Holmowl said:

 

Come on. Watch the match again. Look how awful the Fletch-FF strike "partnership" was. They played so far apart they gave the impression they were deadly enemies. Every time the ball went upfield it came straight back. It was attack v defence.

 

Even if you are one of those who heralded it as a tactical masterpiece, to then go to an even more defensive line-up at home tells you everything about Carlos.

 

 

 

Here we go

It is never Bannan's fault 

It is never Wallace's fault

It is always FF's fault 

 

I don't need to watch the game back I was there. The midfield never made a tackle or picked up a second ball. That is why it was attack against defence.

 

What are you on about with "tactical masterpiece " Have you lost it.

 

Sometimes your balanced midfield will work and sometimes it won't.

It depends on players playing well but also how the opposition play against us. If they push on us , making it a physical game it struggles.

 

For what it's worth Carlos made two mistakes in the playoffs 

In the absence of Hooper he should have played 433 in both games

He played too many players who were not 100% fit which is unforgivable in two important games so close together and in the end that is what cost us.

[sonofbert2]

3 minutes ago, brian joicey said:

as soon as i saw that line up i knew how it would be , and so it proved 

 

So many things happened between the team announcement and the end of the game and I'm pretty sure you didn't know that really.  

[Holmowl]

17 minutes ago, oldishowl said:

 

Here we go

It is never Bannan's fault 

It is never Wallace's fault

It is always FF's fault 

 

I don't need to watch the game back I was there. The midfield never made a tackle or picked up a second ball. That is why it was attack against defence.

 

What are you on about with "tactical masterpiece " Have you lost it.

 

Sometimes your balanced midfield will work and sometimes it won't.

It depends on players playing well but also how the opposition play against us. If they push on us , making it a physical game it struggles.

 

For what it's worth Carlos made two mistakes in the playoffs 

In the absence of Hooper he should have played 433 in both games

He played too many players who were not 100% fit which is unforgivable in two important games so close together and in the end that is what cost us.

 

Who's blaming FF?

 

Im blaming Carlos.

[Guest RocketOwl]

21 hours ago, oldishowl said:

 

I find this reaction a bit strange really.

Not the anger about the defeat, we all hated that,  but the total blame being aimed at the manager without one mention of the performance of the players.

Our two centre halfs gave two of  the worst performances I can ever  remember from Wednesday defenders . Would everybody had played them before the game, yes . Could Carlos have expected Tom Lees as his captain to do better , absolutely. Could Carlos do anything about the way Tom Lees played, nothing at all.

Same in midfield. Most people would have played it but all 4 were very poor first half. Do I read posts on here slagging off Bannan for disappearing first half  . No I don't.

 

What I found absolutely embarrassing that day was the absolute total lack of bottle shown by experienced professional footballers who let us down. Yes the manager has to answer for some of it but how the players continue to escape blame is beyond me.

But did he pick an injured Westwood?

[sonofbert2]

He should have played Loovens in a wheelchair.