Declan John

[Tandy]

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.

[Ian Gibson's pencil]

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?

[Fine Lines]

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?

Spot on ��

[City123]

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.

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

[WJ99mobile]

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

[Eric the Half a Bee]

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.

Glad to see you're showing such loyalty to Warnock, seeing as you accused me of not showing loyalty.

[Robin Friday's Ghost]

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.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[Dr Lecter]

Yeah, that makes sense.

Tandy always makes sense.

He's a very knowledgeable poster.

The Stephen Hawking of this board.