Was last night really that bad?!

[Mr. Tom]

33 minutes ago, CLswfc said:

Make your own mind up and don't let others influence you. In your earlier post you actually said in grand scheme of things wern't that bad. Which one was it. 

 

Crikey, that sounded patronising! 

 

In the grand scheme of things, the *overall performance* wasn’t that bad, which is what I took the OP to be asking.

The first 20 minutes was woeful, so I made it clear to another poster that I wasn’t trying to excuse that part.

 

Hope that clears up my position a bit. I wasn’t being influenced, just trying to be a bit balanced.

 

There’s often a chronic shortage of it on here, I’m not at all sorry to add a bit here and there.

[DJMortimer]

3 hours ago, Colin Dobson said:

What DJ Mortimer has said about the Arsenal game is so true. With 18 minutes to go it was 1-1 and I genuinely thought we could go on to win! 

 

For those first 72 minutes I remember it being a really dull game with not too much goalmouth action. Even the atmosphere in the stadium was pretty subdued.

 

And then there was that ridiculous ending which gave the final score a thoroughly misleading and undeserved appearance.

[pgmetcalf]

On 11/04/2018 at 19:08, RUMBELOWS91 said:

Watched on a stream without commentary, so not swayed by anyone. 

 

Yes, the first 15 minutes were crazy- FF and Reach seemed to be playing for the opposition, the defence.looked like they'd just been introduced to each other, and Wildsmith had a stinker- but after that I thought we were decent.

 

Then today I hear the intro to FH and Rob Staton is saying what a shocking display it was. On here everyone seems up in arms and apparently we're back to where we were before the 3 wins.

 

So what was it? 15 minutes of madness, or a shocking all round performance?

 

 

Yeah RS really love us 

[cowl]

We lost the game in the first 15 minutes. There's no point saying the rest of the performance was okay because the rest of the performance was against a side that was very much in the driving seat; would hardly be surprising if any team took their foot off the pedal after going 3 up.

 

If anyone wants to take some kind of comfort from how we played for 75 minutes then they're deluding themselves.

 

Still, however many of the players could be singled out for a poor performance, it's hard not to question why on earth Jos chose Tuesday night to not only give Hunt and Venâncio a rest, but also revert to four at the back - and then at 2-4 down and just when it seemed as though we might actually mount a remarkable comeback we start making substitutions such that with still 10 minutes to go João, Nuhiu, and FF had been withdrawn. João and Nuhiu subbed because it seems they may have picked up knocks, but FF was our best chance to still get something out of the game. Like the Millwall and Bristol City away games, when we veer markedly away from the 3-5-2, the players look completely lost.

[Rance McGraw]

23 hours ago, Andoverowl said:

Reach neshed every 50/50

Reach has been cack for a good few games, physical player or not.

[cowl]

4 minutes ago, Hugh Jarce said:

Reach has been cack for a good few games, physical player or not.

 

Reach should've been the one rested on Tuesday, not Venâncio.

[toppOwl]

I thought making four changes was a bit odd, the start was horrendous QPR looked like scoring everytime they went forward, the Owls were probably the better side for the rest of the game, the penalty flattered the scoreline for the Hoops and had we got it back to 4-3 (we should have done) a 4-4 wouldn't have been a shock. If it was an experimental line up with nothing to play for than JL would have not got as much stick if he's admitted so.

[RoyCroppersHair]

We could have quite easily scored four ourselves, though after that first 15 minutes got everything we deserved