Jump to content

Bart on the bench


shurlock
 Share

Recommended Posts

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...