Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Or maybe he was just knackered and couldn't be an effective player anymore? His role was basically running all of the place harassing the Birmingham players, wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't able to keep that up for the full 95 minutes.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HarpurOwl said:

Apologies if this has been discussed already but the more I think about it the substitution of Paterson for Pelupessy was bonkers! - with Joey going straight into the back line leaving just Marriott up front meant that every time we cleared the ball out of defence it came straight back - if we had left Paterson on (or even substituted Rhodes for Paterson) then having 2 up front would have given us a much better chance of holding onto the ball.

 

As it was we had that nail biting final 10 minutes of last desperate tackles and amazing blocks - well done to all the team for a well deserved result but please don’t keep putting us through the agony we went through yet again yesterday.

In the 91st minute !!!!!!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HarpurOwl said:

Apologies if this has been discussed already but the more I think about it the substitution of Paterson for Pelupessy was bonkers! - with Joey going straight into the back line leaving just Marriott up front meant that every time we cleared the ball out of defence it came straight back - if we had left Paterson on (or even substituted Rhodes for Paterson) then having 2 up front would have given us a much better chance of holding onto the ball.

 

As it was we had that nail biting final 10 minutes of last desperate tackles and amazing blocks - well done to all the team for a well deserved result but please don’t keep putting us through the agony we went through yet again yesterday.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't have taken Widnass off, he's more mobile than Paterson and closes down from the front better than anyone.

 

Need to make sure we keep pressing from the front right to the 90th minute.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally bonkers winning 1-0 away at Birmingham.

 

Should have taken Paterson off for Rhodes and possibly conceded in injury time to draw. But that's Ok because Joey didn't get on and happy with a point. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The hanging on to 1-0 leads is painful (it generally doesn't go too well for us either), I'd rather have an outlet whereby we're as likely to nick a 2nd rather than merely holding on. CC use to do it pretty well I remember, Monk less so. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, HarpurOwl said:

Apologies if this has been discussed already but the more I think about it the substitution of Paterson for Pelupessy was bonkers! - with Joey going straight into the back line leaving just Marriott up front meant that every time we cleared the ball out of defence it came straight back - if we had left Paterson on (or even substituted Rhodes for Paterson) then having 2 up front would have given us a much better chance of holding onto the ball.

 

As it was we had that nail biting final 10 minutes of last desperate tackles and amazing blocks - well done to all the team for a well deserved result but please don’t keep putting us through the agony we went through yet again yesterday.

Get used to it it’s the Monk way. Thankfully JVA came to the rescue

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, briggowl said:

The hanging on to 1-0 leads is painful (it generally doesn't go too well for us either), I'd rather have an outlet whereby we're as likely to nick a 2nd rather than merely holding on. CC use to do it pretty well I remember, Monk less so. 

Reach was always pretty useful in those situations, breaking forward when our opponents had committed players to attack

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

Paterson didn't come off until the 91st minute, by which point he looked knackered after chasing and harrying Birmingham's defenders for more than an hour and a half.

 

Rhodes doesn't offer the same energy and closing down, nor does he help us to hold up the ball, so bringing him on at that stage would most probably have been a complete waste - I doubt he'd have got a touch of the ball.

 

Bringing on a defensive midfielder to try to shore up the defensive when the opposition are piling on the pressure in injury time is a fairly standard tactic which is employed up and down the leagues on a weekly basis - it seems an odd stick to beat the manager with, to be honest.

But then you don’t ask him to sit with the centre backs - who know whether that’s instruction from Monk or Pelupessy own mind

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, S6ToBerlin said:

Or maybe he was just knackered and couldn't be an effective player anymore? His role was basically running all of the place harassing the Birmingham players, wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't able to keep that up for the full 95 minutes.

The poster suggested swapping him for another striker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...