shurlock Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 Anyone know why he featured yesterday? Was NA just being prudent? Or was SDR or another outfield player injured? Having been used to five outfield players on the bench, our options did look a little limited, especially as we brought Morgan on to sharpen our attack!
Thedelldays Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 because we are so close.....imagine going into saturdays game and davis gets injured in the 5th min....
Saint Garrett Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 But to be fair we've been so close for a while now.I just think we were lacking options. SDR injured and Punch awol again?!? Wouldn't surprise me.
the saint in winchester Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 I saw that too, and put it down to (dear) prudence. That game was crying out for SdR to run AT them. Shame he wasn't available.
shurlock Posted 22 April, 2012 Author Posted 22 April, 2012 because we are so close.....imagine going into saturdays game and davis gets injured in the 5th min.... Yep can understand that, but as St Garrett says we were so close at Palace and P'boro too.
Thedelldays Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 Yep can understand that, but as St Garrett says we were so close at Palace and P'boro too. indeed..but yesterday was it...win that and it was done...which was not the case before. imagine leading 1-0 and davis going off with an injury and losing it...there would have been hell on here about adkins.. I would not be surprised to see bart on the bench on saturday if we have to win it
Depressed of Shirley Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 I think that they were a little bit worried about Davis before the game. He did a warm up half an hour before kick off, and the GK coach gave a thumbs up to Adkins after a chat with Davis. They seemed to be working on catching and punching as if he was having trouble stretching.
Window Cleaner Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 Yep can understand that, but as St Garrett says we were so close at Palace and P'boro too. Boro are probably a much more physical side though,perhaps Kelvin wasn't 100% yesterday.
hamster Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 So the concensus is that it was to ensure a clean sh!t? No Jaidi though!!!!
Matthew Le God Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 It was a sensible decision to have Bialkowski on the bench. I still don't understand why Adkins moved away from this over the last two months. It isn't difficult to give enough options from the bench with four outfield players. One centre back, one defensive midfielder or full back, two attacking players (wingers, central midfielders or strikers).
CanadaSaint Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 It's a big risk not to put a keeper on the bench - unless one of the outfield players could do the job in a crisis. What did for us yesterday IMO was not having Bart on the bench but failing to have someone there who could keep our balance and blend on the right side. We were all over them when Chappers went off but Guly's arrival changed our shape and balance completely. I'd love to know the story with Puncheon because his versatility makes him an automatic for the bench in my book.
Window Cleaner Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 (edited) It's a big risk not to put a keeper on the bench - unless one of the outfield players could do the job in a crisis. What did for us yesterday IMO was not having Bart on the bench but failing to have someone there who could keep our balance and blend on the right side. We were all over them when Chappers went off but Guly's arrival changed our shape and balance completely. I'd love to know the story with Puncheon because his versatility makes him an automatic for the bench in my book. apparently we have 2 reasonable competent sub keepers but Richardson wasn't even on the bench and Morgan's knee isn't quite right so we went safety first I guess. Edited 22 April, 2012 by Window Cleaner
shurlock Posted 22 April, 2012 Author Posted 22 April, 2012 It was a sensible decision to have Bialkowski on the bench. I still don't understand why Adkins moved away from this over the last two months. It isn't difficult to give enough options from the bench with four outfield players. One centre back, one defensive midfielder or full back, two attacking players (wingers, central midfielders or strikers). What happens if you want to go for it i.e. you're chasing a game and need three attackers on? Either way, we only had one attacker on the bench. Perhaps 4 outfield players were sufficient - just that NA picked the wrong options. Somebody says that Davis might have been struggling with something. I'm more inclined to believe that or another outfield player was injured than NA having a change of heart. He's gone without Bart in some massive games including West Ham away and Reading home.
Badger Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 It's a big risk not to put a keeper on the bench - unless one of the outfield players could do the job in a crisis. What did for us yesterday IMO was not having Bart on the bench but failing to have someone there who could keep our balance and blend on the right side. We were all over them when Chappers went off but Guly's arrival changed our shape and balance completely. I'd love to know the story with Puncheon because his versatility makes him an automatic for the bench in my book. Agree that at this critical stage of the season it is prudent to have a sub GK. I don't agree re Guly though. I have been one of his critics after some lacklustre displays, but you can't really lay the blame for yesterday's defeat on him. On the topics of subs though I was disappointed that we were short of a real attacking option there. Was SDR injured ? Ideally I would have liked an option of SDR or Barnard to join the attack as we pressed for a wiiner, let alone equaliser.
CanadaSaint Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 Agree that at this critical stage of the season it is prudent to have a sub GK. I don't agree re Guly though. I have been one of his critics after some lacklustre displays, but you can't really lay the blame for yesterday's defeat on him. On the topics of subs though I was disappointed that we were short of a real attacking option there. Was SDR injured ? Ideally I would have liked an option of SDR or Barnard to join the attack as we pressed for a wiiner, let alone equaliser. I wasn't blaming Guly - just saying that our shape and balance changed completely when he came on. I think we're actually agreeing that the lack of a right-side option on the bench cost us. It's not Guly's fault that he's not the guy to provide that.
Badger Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 I wasn't blaming Guly - just saying that our shape and balance changed completely when he came on. I think we're actually agreeing that the lack of a right-side option on the bench cost us. It's not Guly's fault that he's not the guy to provide that. Agree, I was not picking a 'Guly argument' on the point, but as you are aware it can soon spiral into a witch hunt on here (and I am by no means a member of the 'Guly Defence League' as someone termed it ater the pompey match). There were however a number of other contributory factors yesterday though, not just the loss of our shape on the right hand side of midfield.
Icey Saint Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 Maybe SDR is the chosen sub keeper and he was injured ??
Whitey Grandad Posted 22 April, 2012 Posted 22 April, 2012 Perhaps Bart could play centre forward? Only joking.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now