Reply With QuoteIn fairness I can think of a few players who would have scored. Not sure it was that difficult a chance.Originally Posted by Tandy
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Cost us the game, how the hell he missed that chance god only knows.
No one would have scored that.
In fairness I can think of a few players who would have scored. Not sure it was that difficult a chance.
Last edited by Ian Gibson's pencil; 25-02-17 at 20:06. Reason: W
Gibbo don't bother wasting your time with this gimp mate. He's just fishing for bites in his usual predictable manner
Declan is not a match winner so why he was brought on is a mystery.
IT was a quite simple tactical solution actually. Noone was getting tired and was having little joy up against Malone. Malone was becoming quite influential in their attacking play during the last ten minutes.
The decision to switch Harris to that side with his extra pace limited Malone's opportunities to maurade forwards. Declan gave us balance on the left hand side and he could provide extra defensive cover against Fredicks.
In fairness he nearly, and possibly should have, won us the game. Then it would have been an inspired substitution. Warnock would have been hailed as a genius but for the width of a post.
Great reply, however I have to say that the game was for the taking and by bringing on Declan was a negative move imo.
We were under the cosh for the last 25 so we needed a player that could change the game ie Whitts.
Sorry but he wouldn't have had the kegs for that game today. The tempo from both teams was of high intensity.
How could he have prevented their control of possession? Would he have found himself in the position John got into? Could he have prevented their full backs maurading forward? Could he have stopped Cairney asserting his authority?
Nothing I have seen in the last three years would suggest he could. Who would you have replaced for Whittingham? For what tactical purpose?
I wouldn't say Whitts is the player I'd bring on when we're under the cosh, to be honest. I thought that bringing on John with his extra pace was a good idea and he proved it by hindering Fulham's wing backs and offering Richards support, also in fairness to the guy it was a fairly slim area to aim at with the ball dropping at speed whilst he was under pressure, plus he's a full back
My only qualm with the substitution is that it happened way too late, we used 1 sub and it was in the 86th minute for God's sake! It was fairly apparent from around the 70th minute onwards that a few players, Hoilett in particular, were tiring and we needed some changes as Fulham grew stronger, buoyed by their energetic subs
This 100%.
When we looked lethargic and just lacking something from about 70 onwards there should have been 2-3 subs.
It was poor management in my opinion not to take off Hoilett who could barely walk
I was calling for Harris to swap wings from the 70th minute. Their number two was very quick and Harris couldn't get behind him..
Spot on ��
Harris is my favourite player but he struggled today in defence.
Glad to see you're showing such loyalty to Warnock, seeing as you accused me of not showing loyalty.
Well you came and you gave an opinion without thinking
We'd like to send you away, oh Tandy
When you miss all the facts that we're stating
Try and **** off forever, oh Tandy
Any chance of you contributing any thing useful to the thread dickhead?
KABOOOM! That's just blown the CCMB irony detector
KABOOOM! That's just blown the CCMB irony detector
He's contributed more of use than you ever will.
Back to the original point of the thread, I can't see how you can blame Declan John for us not winning the game based on the amount of chances we squandered in the first half
Last edited by City123; 25-02-17 at 23:29.
Reply to the thread or do something useful.
I already have but you avoided it.
Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again. I await your reply.
"Glad to see you're showing such loyalty to Warnock, seeing as you accused me of not showing loyalty."
As someone said the missed chances first half cost us the win however why Witts and Pilks werent bought on for the tiring Harris and Holliet for the last 10 mins I dont know
He didn't want to risk Pilkington apparently as he was carrying a knock. In which case, why have him in the bench ?
Bennett was also an option- I would have brought Noone, Harris and Hoilett off as all were knackered.
So we're Gunnar and Zohore, but both seemed to be able to get on with it. No one had disappeared and Harris had lost his technique through fatigue.
3 of John, Halford, Bennett or Pilks could have come on to shore it up.
Whitts wouldn't have been the man for the job a son for the last 15 we were under the cosh, unless you played him in a Hoilett's place just behind Ken ?
I agree with the above that something should have been done earlier, however I though John did well and isn't it nice to see a full back at the far post on the end of a cross.
I was a long way away, but it didn't look an easy chance to me.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Tandy always makes sense.
He's a very knowledgeable poster.
The Stephen Hawking of this board.
Posting Permissions