Had plenty of the ball? Forest had 58% of the possession. Last week Reading had over 60%.Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's not "negativity" it's creativity.
we don't have any, we had plenty of the ball in the first half yesterday, plenty and created nothing.
he's right not to go "open" away from home we'd be absolutely fucked up.
yesterday would have been probably 7-0 if we went 4-4-2.
Did we pay the price for being too negative .
+9
Dunkels King
Norpig
Bolton Nuts
Natasha Whittam
Reebok_Rebel
doffcocker
aaron_bwfc
kennster
scottjames30
13 posters
Go to page : 1, 2
21 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Sun Aug 18 2013, 13:20
waynagain
Tony Kelly
22 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Sun Aug 18 2013, 13:25
terenceanne
El Hadji Diouf
Being negative will always lead to doom ...... pack 11 men behind the ball like a lot of teams do when they go to Utd, Chekski etc....... all it means is that the winning goal comes nearer to the end of the game. Whenever you see an upset you find that the away team has had a good 'ol go at it.....for the most part.
On occasion we will nick a win this season playing for a draw.........it's not a promotion attitude IMO.
On occasion we will nick a win this season playing for a draw.........it's not a promotion attitude IMO.
23 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Sun Aug 18 2013, 13:41
Guest
Guest
I think Dougie has made the same mistake that Owen Coyle made. He expected Holden to come back and provide the creativity, with Holden injured he had to sign Spearing who is good at what he does but is limited as a footballer. When played with Medo we just don't have any creativity coming from the centre.
Before the season started Dougie said Chungy would be used sparingly because he wasn't fully fit, so why he played all game yesterday I have no idea. Only noticeable thing he did was kick a Forest player up in the air near the end.
With Eagles,Mavies,Holden and a fully fit Lee we could have walked this division. All I can see for the future is more matches like yesterday and hopefully a mid table finish.
Before the season started Dougie said Chungy would be used sparingly because he wasn't fully fit, so why he played all game yesterday I have no idea. Only noticeable thing he did was kick a Forest player up in the air near the end.
With Eagles,Mavies,Holden and a fully fit Lee we could have walked this division. All I can see for the future is more matches like yesterday and hopefully a mid table finish.
24 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Sun Aug 18 2013, 13:47
Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
I'm just using my eyes, in the first half yesterday we had plenty of the ball and absolutely no ability to do anything with it.waynagain wrote:Had plenty of the ball? Forest had 58% of the possession. Last week Reading had over 60%.Hipster_Nebula wrote:It's not "negativity" it's creativity.
we don't have any, we had plenty of the ball in the first half yesterday, plenty and created nothing.
he's right not to go "open" away from home we'd be absolutely fucked up.
yesterday would have been probably 7-0 if we went 4-4-2.
Tierney had the ball absolutely bloody loads but everything always broke down as soon as he passed the ball to an attacker
25 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Sun Aug 18 2013, 13:47
Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
nah.OneFinFreedman wrote:I think Dougie has made the same mistake that Owen Coyle made. He expected Holden to come back and provide the creativity, with Holden injured he had to sign Spearing who is good at what he does but is limited as a footballer. When played with Medo we just don't have any creativity coming from the centre.
Before the season started Dougie said Chungy would be used sparingly because he wasn't fully fit, so why he played all game yesterday I have no idea. Only noticeable thing he did was kick a Forest player up in the air near the end.
With Eagles,Mavies,Holden and a fully fit Lee we could have walked this division. All I can see for the future is more matches like yesterday and hopefully a mid table finish.
26 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Sun Aug 18 2013, 15:17
Guest
Guest
No.OneFinFreedman wrote:I think Dougie has made the same mistake that Owen Coyle made. He expected Holden to come back and provide the creativity, with Holden injured he had to sign Spearing who is good at what he does but is limited as a footballer. When played with Medo we just don't have any creativity coming from the centre.
Before the season started Dougie said Chungy would be used sparingly because he wasn't fully fit, so why he played all game yesterday I have no idea. Only noticeable thing he did was kick a Forest player up in the air near the end.
With Eagles,Mavies,Holden and a fully fit Lee we could have walked this division. All I can see for the future is more matches like yesterday and hopefully a mid table finish.
He signed Moritz/Hall to bring extra creativity, not Spearing.
27 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Mon Aug 19 2013, 03:36
waynagain
Tony Kelly
He took Hall off after 57 minutes and didn't even put Moritz on - maybe he thought we didn't need any 'creativity', but he did say the team played better after Hall came off.
28 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Mon Aug 19 2013, 09:05
Jamster26
Tony Kelly
The formation wasn't negative at all. The players just didn't perform. Look, we can blame tactics all day long but ultimately it's the players selected who aren't doing enough. I can see Dougie having a shakeup for the QPR game. I can see both Odelusi and Hall starting. Lee needs to be dropped.
29 Re: Did we pay the price for being too negative . Mon Aug 19 2013, 12:49
Natasha Whittam
Nat Lofthouse
He won't drop Lee, I guarantee it.Jamster26 wrote:I can see both Odelusi and Hall starting. Lee needs to be dropped.
Go to page : 1, 2
Similar topics
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum