Adkins suicidal substitutions once again cost us!

[The Kraken]

Did not look like scoring... He got into good positions a few times despite play deeper..

 

Who would I want at the top of the park.. Lambert or Rodriguez... Hmmmm tough choice

 

Exactly. First half rolled one past the post, had a left foot drive saved by the keeper, shot over from a breakaway move in the second half.

[The Kraken]

I guess Adkins was willing to risk him if we were chasing the game but as we were 1-0 at the time, looked to shore us up instead.

 

The subs looked to have come 15 mins too soon if anything.

 

That's exactly what a couple of lads I was with said, especially Puncheon.

[egg]

Did not look like scoring... He got into good positions a few times despite play deeper..

 

Who would I want at the top of the park.. Lambert or Rodriguez... Hmmmm tough choice

 

To start a game, RL every day. That's not the issue though, its whether the sub was wrong and cost us three points.

 

There's a difference of opinion on here. My personal view is that JR offered more in the 2nd half, that RL was off the pace, that we needs someone to drop even deeper, and that Guly for RL was the correct choice.

[beatlesaint]

The point is that he didn't look like scoring this afternoon, and his work rate seemed to drop. We needed fresh legs and somebody to get on the ball a bit more.

 

Yeah, I have just read on the OS that he took Rickie off cos he wanted more pace up front. Obviously Mayuka and Guly are similar in terms of speed then

[loz20]

Taking Lambert off made sense as he was clearly not having a good day. Replacing him with Guly, who is worse than poor didn't make sense. Taking Puncheon off was bloody stupid/naive as he was the only option going forward.

 

I like Adkins and fair play for all he's done but unfortunately he's out of his league now. The king is dead, long live the next king

 

Lambert was played out of position and is always a threat.

 

Guly is not worse than poor, he is a player who can make things happen.

 

Puncheon was not our only option going forward. He put a great shift in down that wing and has shown he belongs in the premier league. Puncheon is only playing for us because Adkins/Cortese made a good decision to keep him and give him a second chance.

 

We will be lucky to keep Adkins. We are lucky we have loyal players like Lallana, Morgan, Kelvin and Lambert. Lucky to have people running our club who have ambition and determination.

 

Sacking managers didn't get us anywhere last time. I see no indication that our progression has halted. Give the bloke a chance.

[The Kraken]

Yeah, I have just read on the OS that he took Rickie off cos he wanted more pace up front. Obviously Mayuka and Guly are similar in terms of speed then

 

“We needed to be more compact with our shape when we looked at it,” he stated.

 

“Rickie was playing in the 10 position and Guly has been out of the team for a bit so had the energy to go in there and run around.”

[Graffito]

No problem with taking Puncheon off but Lamberts...ffs. They were crap at corners So why take Lambert off?

[pingwing]

Lambert was out the game at 55 mins, you could see Ruiz dropped deep meaning Lambert had to pick him up and nobody could remember just to pass the ball about. He was always going to come off as the passing game wasn't going his way sadly.

 

Punch had the same problem that he wasn't doing anything with the ball, get it, run then basically give it away.

 

Just no idea why Myukaka wasn't an option when Guly and Chaplow were...

[saintalan]

I get more depressed reading these 'NA out' threads than I do at the game!

[scotty]

Lambert was played out of position and is always a threat.

 

Guly is not worse than poor, he is a player who can make things happen.

 

Puncheon was not our only option going forward. He put a great shift in down that wing and has shown he belongs in the premier league. Puncheon is only playing for us because Adkins/Cortese made a good decision to keep him and give him a second chance.

 

We will be lucky to keep Adkins. We are lucky we have loyal players like Lallana, Morgan, Kelvin and Lambert. Lucky to have people running our club who have ambition and determination.

 

Sacking managers didn't get us anywhere last time. I see no indication that our progression has halted. Give the bloke a chance.

 

Its interesting how many posters who signed up on here and hardly posted anything previously have added comments to this thread. Just flicked through it, been at work most of the day, didnt see the game because of that and relied on a few texted updates and snippets of Solent. Can't comment on the game til I see the highlights, other than to say I did correctly predict the final score (albeit guessing that SRL would net our last-gasp equaliser.)

 

Incidentally, one of our forum regulars now owes me two pints.

[Hamilton Saint]

So players only contribute if they score? How about being available to receive the ball? Keeping the ball? Running at defenders, earning free kicks, adding energy and something different? Would you be moaning about RL going off if Gulys 20 yarder snuck in the corner?

 

Man, don't you read? As I already said, I'm not moaning!

[Wade Garrett]

I don't think it was a mistake to replace Puncheon. He wasn't great second half. But the subbing of Lambert was plain wrong. There were plenty of others players he could have replaced before Ricky.

[MAY-Z]

A few points

 

I think the subs were wrong and did at the time but people who keep saying that Chaplow was right because puncheon wasnt great defensively must not have seen fulhams first goal where riise was in acres of space because Chaplow wasn't defending him. By puncheon coming off if meant riise could play further forward as he knew there was less threat with Chaplow.

 

The reason lambert didn't much in the 2nd half was because we let fulham have nearly 70% possession in the second half and most of that possession was being used by puncheon on the right

 

The biggest tactical error was made at half time when we decided to play like we were 2 nil up with 5 mins to go and let the opposition attack with us getting bodies behind the ball instead of defending all over the pitch like we did in the first half

[The Kraken]

A few points

 

I think the subs were wrong and did at the time but people who keep saying that Chaplow was right because puncheon wasnt great defensively must not have seen fulhams first goal where riise was in acres of space because Chaplow wasn't defending him. By puncheon coming off if meant riise could play further forward as he knew there was less threat with Chaplow.

 

The reason lambert didn't much in the 2nd half was because we let fulham have nearly 70% possession in the second half and most of that possession was being used by puncheon on the right

 

The biggest tactical error was made at half time when we decided to play like we were 2 nil up with 5 mins to go and let the opposition attack with us getting bodies behind the ball instead of defending all over the pitch like we did in the first half

 

Amen to that.

[Junior Mullet]

Unless Punch substitution was injury drive (Lambos certainly wasn't), they were dire decisions. 3 subs today, we looked weaker after each one.

 

It was like Man Utd de ja vous and the crowd knew it. Thank goodness Fulham were as bad as they were otherwise they could have been out of sight.

[kpturner]

de ja vous......

:lol: quality pigeon French

[GAS]

Taking Puncheon off was no problem, his play in the second half reminded me of my school days when a skilful player would just run aimlessly with the ball into a crowd of players and always lose it. We have a lot to learn at this level and Adkins definitely has to learn that Lambert is a handful for any opposition and gives us a very needed presence up front. Taking him off today was just plain wrong. Two headed goals against a defensively poor team - who better to have up front?

[shurlock]

No problems with the subs themselves, though thought the personnel changes were odd.

 

Punch was our MOTM in the first half but tired in the second, repeatedly running into traffic as he cut inside - he is not a wide player. Chaplow, however, offered little defensively or offensively with the result that they were able to push further up. It was crying out for pace to attack Riise -hence why I assumed Mayuka was coming on.

 

The Lambert sub was fine -he didn't have a great game and I thought Guly brought some drive and aggression when he came on. Our mini resurgence towards the end arguably coincided with him coming on.

[Sour Mash]

It wasn't the substitutions that cost is the win, it was the tactics from the start of the second half.

 

First half we pressed Fulham's defence deep in their half. Second half we sat back much more.

 

The substitutes are a red herring IMO

Exactly this. But I can't quite work out what/why things changed so much after half time.

[LostBoys]

I di not agree with the substitutions apart from the imposed Richardson one and we lost out shape as a result. He should have adressed some wretched second half performances.

[saint-crinny]

For me, i think i understand why he looked to bring on Chaplow for Punch - Yoshi was having a really uncomfortable game and he thought Chappers would provide better cover, as well as a bit more bite in midfield.

 

But for me it was floored, because:

- Punch was having another good game and really, was our only out ball in the second half

- The game didnt require more bite - it was all about controlling possession

- The move actually put Yoshi under more pressure - he was massively uncomfortable on the ball and being able to find Punch was the only thing that was helping him out. Punch was able to take it from him, hang on to it and importantly, take the game forward

- All Chappers could do was lay it back to Yoshi again, and he looked more and more exposed

- If Punch was struggling with fitness, which i dont think he was, would have prepared JWP who could at least hold the ball, even under pressure

 

Agree with the sentiment on the Guly sub - for me, its the impact that Lambert coming off has on the team that is the real negative even if he isnt having a good game. Would have kept him on and brought on Mayuka for Jay. EVen when Lambo isnt performing well, he can still pick a pass through the defence and with Fulham chasing the game, it seemed well set for Mayuka to capitalise on this.

 

Frustrating - this can't keep happening, especially at home when every point is crucial.

 

For what its worth, I do think if Ramirez was fit we would have won the game. Easy to say i know...

[Sour Mash]

For me, i think i understand why he looked to bring on Chaplow for Punch - Yoshi was having a really uncomfortable game and he thought Chappers would provide better cover, as well as a bit more bite in midfield.

 

But for me it was floored, because:

- Punch was having another good game and really, was our only out ball in the second half

- The game didnt require more bite - it was all about controlling possession

- The move actually put Yoshi under more pressure - he was massively uncomfortable on the ball and being able to find Punch was the only thing that was helping him out. Punch was able to take it from him, hang on to it and importantly, take the game forward

- All Chappers could do was lay it back to Yoshi again, and he looked more and more exposed

- If Punch was struggling with fitness, which i dont think he was, would have prepared JWP who could at least hold the ball, even under pressure

 

Agree with the sentiment on the Guly sub - for me, its the impact that Lambert coming off has on the team that is the real negative even if he isnt having a good game. Would have kept him on and brought on Mayuka for Jay. EVen when Lambo isnt performing well, he can still pick a pass through the defence and with Fulham chasing the game, it seemed well set for Mayuka to capitalise on this.

 

Frustrating - this can't keep happening, especially at home when every point is crucial.

 

For what its worth, I do think if Ramirez was fit we would have won the game. Easy to say i know...

Considering what a makeshift partnership it was, I thought Chaplow and Yoshida did well, and managed to create a fair few attacking opportunites towards the end of the game down our right flank.

 

Our problem in the 2nd half was that we weren't retaining possession or controlling the game at all, which led to our makeshift defence being pushed further and further back. The subs weren't the problem. Puncheon and Lallana were constantly giving the ball away, that was more of an issue.

[PokingFun]

Did he though? When did he have a clear cut chance in the 2nd half exactly? The reality is we needed to freshen it up a bit up top. Jay Rodriguez gave us mobility and pace in behind, so it would have been foolish to replace him.

 

Guly came on and did exactly what he was supposed to do and gave us a little bit extra in the closing stage of the game.

 

As I've seen others say, the people moaning about the Lambert substitution are living on his goal record from previous games - not his contribution and performance in the 2nd half.

 

Personally, I think it was the right decision but wrong striker. Didn't have a problem with Punch coming off at all as he wasn't effective anyway.

 

When the substitution was made I thought we were being battered and we needed to go to a 4-3-3/4-5-1 to try to get some initiative back in midfield. Lambert was having a poor game by his standards but I reckon that may have been partly due to being played too deep where we do not get the best out of him. RL has been at his best this season when played up top as a lone striker with runners feeding off him and felt that we should have gone back to that approach. It seems to me that NA is trying to accommodate J-Rod a little at the moment but to be fair to the lad he had a decent enough game. He just looks a little lightweight to me to be leading the line in the Premier League.

[Griffo]

I've noticed a lot of the people shouting their Adkins out ******** have a very low number of posts. Can't help but feel they don't really go to watch Saints much and have only just started coming or have just come back now we're in the Prem.

[PokingFun]

It was clear as day we struggled once Lambert went off. He is the one player that makes us tick regardless of his own personal performance. We lost all attacking threat after gilt come on. Thankfully our set pieces were still good

 

We were struggling when he was on the pitch as well. Fulham bossed the second half from start to finish. Personally, I would not have taken Lambert off but reverted him to the main striker role as we were struggling to retain possession which is a key strength for RL when he plays up top. The ball sticks when he is there as he uses his physical presence very well. To say we struggled after he went off is plain wrong.

[tajjuk]

Subs were fine IMO, Lambert was maybe 10 minutes early aside from that they were logical.

 

Hooiveld was the only choice really, Richardson was already the back up and Cork is the versatile player who could have filled in.

 

Puncheon had been below his best most of the game, especially in the second half, too slow in possession and too often just ran into someone. He also wasn't helping Yoshida who was struggling, we were also winning at the time.

 

Lambert was knackered and we were struggling to retain the ball, Guly as Adkins pointed out brought some more energy and played pretty well when he came on.

 

What actually cost us the game was a bit off bad luck and the team sitting too deep in the second half, which Nigel recognised but the team didn't seem to respond. From his post match comments it seems he had words with them about it.

[Alain Perrin]

JRod needs a goal and I think that will make a difference to him.

 

People saying the substitutions cost us are grasping at straws. Individual errors, willingness to sit back, not biting ankles hard enough and Fulham stepping up cost us the game.

 

Arguably Fulham did to us what we did to them in the first half, they pressed us hard and we folded.

[Sour Mash]

JRod needs a goal and I think that will make a difference to him.

A goal would make the difference, but does anyone think he looks like a £6-7 million forward? Half that money would look generous now.

[trousers]

Subs were fine IMO, Lambert was maybe 10 minutes early aside from that they were logical.

 

Hooiveld was the only choice really, Richardson was already the back up and Cork is the versatile player who could have filled in.

 

Puncheon had been below his best most of the game, especially in the second half, too slow in possession and too often just ran into someone. He also wasn't helping Yoshida who was struggling, we were also winning at the time.

 

Lambert was knackered and we were struggling to retain the ball, Guly as Adkins pointed out brought some more energy and played pretty well when he came on.

 

What actually cost us the game was a bit off bad luck and the team sitting too deep in the second half, which Nigel recognised but the team didn't seem to respond. From his post match comments it seems he had words with them about it.

 

Sums it up nicely for me

[Sour Mash]

Subs were fine IMO, Lambert was maybe 10 minutes early aside from that they were logical.

 

Hooiveld was the only choice really, Richardson was already the back up and Cork is the versatile player who could have filled in.

 

Puncheon had been below his best most of the game, especially in the second half, too slow in possession and too often just ran into someone. He also wasn't helping Yoshida who was struggling, we were also winning at the time.

 

Lambert was knackered and we were struggling to retain the ball, Guly as Adkins pointed out brought some more energy and played pretty well when he came on.

 

What actually cost us the game was a bit off bad luck and the team sitting too deep in the second half, which Nigel recognised but the team didn't seem to respond. From his post match comments it seems he had words with them about it.

I agree with all that, but what I can't put my finger on is why we sat back so deep. I'm sure the players were aware it wasn't a good thing. We seemed to struggle fitness wise ti keep up the intensity of the first half - that's a worry. And we struggled to keep the ball and have the game played in Fulham's half. Not sure what the solution for those problems could be?

[Miltonroader07]

I have said it before and I will say it again; NA did great getting us to where we are BUT his Premiership credentials "aint there" so Nige but I am still in the Nige Out camp or maybe even slanting towards the Redknapp In Camp

[shurlock]

I agree with all that, but what I can't put my finger on is why we sat back so deep. I'm sure the players were aware it wasn't a good thing. We seemed to struggle fitness wise ti keep up the intensity of the first half - that's a worry. And we struggled to keep the ball and have the game played in Fulham's half. Not sure what the solution for those problems could be?

 

Hard truth is that we didn't have enough quality in possession. Even in the first half we gave the ball away very cheaply and were forced to do a lot of chasing. Part of the reason was that we were very direct -the most direct I've seen us play this season and invariably the ball kept coming back.

 

We clearly missed Ramirez who would have slowed things down. We also missed Clyne's width and pace which would have stretched and wore them down a bit more. Yoshida understandably sat back. For all Punch's industry, he can't go on the outside, making it easier for defenses -contrast it with the torrid time their 31 gave us. Finally don't know if the 4-4-2 helped -Davis and Morgan were good but they had men left over. 4-4-2 with Lambert/Jrod also encouraged us to go long which became a security blanket, gifting back possession.

Edited 8 October, 2012 by shurlock

[Sour Mash]

Hard truth is that we didn't have enough quality in possession. Even in the first half we gave the ball away very cheaply and were forced to do a lot of chasing. Part of the reason was that we were very direct -the most direct I've seen us play this season, meaning that the ball kept coming back.

 

We clearly missed Ramirez who would have slowed things down. We also missed Clyne's width and pace which would have stretched and wore them down a bit more. Yoshida understandably sat back. For all Punch's industry, he can't go on the outside, making it easier for defenses -contrast it with the torrid time their 31 gave us. Finally don't know if the 4-4-2 helped -Davis and Morgan were good but they had men left over. 4-4-2 with Lambert/Jrod also encouraged us to go long which became a security blanket, gifting back possession.

Agree we went long a lot. Partly as a result of Gazzanigga's excellent kicking, partly due to Hooiveld and Fox's inclusion and their love of a long, cross field ball, but partly as our only real option.

 

Why do you think we couldn't hold onto the ball? A midfield combination of Schneiderlin, Davis, Puncheon and Lallana should be half decent at retaining possession.

[tajjuk]

I agree with all that, but what I can't put my finger on is why we sat back so deep. I'm sure the players were aware it wasn't a good thing. We seemed to struggle fitness wise ti keep up the intensity of the first half - that's a worry. And we struggled to keep the ball and have the game played in Fulham's half. Not sure what the solution for those problems could be?

 

Don't think Nigel can either, I think he was plainly aware it was an issue and the team weren't obeying him which he why he looked so grumpy second half.

 

 

 

Hard truth is that we didn't have enough quality in possession. Even in the first half we gave the ball away very cheaply and were forced to do a lot of chasing. Part of the reason was that we were very direct -the most direct I've seen us play this season, meaning that the ball kept coming back.

 

We clearly missed Ramirez who would have slowed things down. We also missed Clyne's width and pace which would have stretched and wore them down a bit more. Yoshida understandably sat back. For all Punch's industry, he can't go on the outside, making it easier for defenses -contrast it with the torrid time their 31 gave us. Finally don't know if the 4-4-2 helped -Davis and Morgan were good but they had men left over. 4-4-2 with Lambert/Jrod also encouraged us to go long which became a security blanket, gifting back possession.

 

This to an extent, Ramirez's creativity was missing, it's something that neither Schneiderlin and Davis do well, they were excellent at getting the ball back on Sunday but too often failed to find a forward player. We also made a few crucial interceptions in Fulham's half (something Morgan has done brilliantly this season) but then slowed the play down and didn't utilise these opportunities. Sadly RL, AL and JP were all a bit off, they all worked hard but the crisp movement and passing we have seen this season wasn't there enough.

 

We were also too long, we had a spell of like 30+ passes in the first half and then gave up and humped it into the box, seeing as we were winning at the time the onus should have been on Fulham to come at us and us keeping possession like that was what we should have kept doing, it would have both tires them out and created some space.

 

Clyne and even Richardson was also a loss, we had no full back outlet on that side so lacked a threat.

[S-Clarke]

Agree we went long a lot. Partly as a result of Gazzanigga's excellent kicking, partly due to Hooiveld and Fox's inclusion and their love of a long, cross field ball, but partly as our only real option.

 

Why do you think we couldn't hold onto the ball? A midfield combination of Schneiderlin, Davis, Puncheon and Lallana should be half decent at retaining possession.

 

One of the main changes I noticed in the 2nd half was how Fulham pushed up as a unit. In the first half they stood off and allowed us the time and space to move it around. And this was the period where we should have killed the game off, most PL teams would have done so. But then with a Fully fit squad I think we would have, we just cannot afford injuries to the players that are currently injured. That's as simple as it is really.

 

It looks like their clear instruction in the 2nd half was to get in our faces, press and deny the space. That's exactly what happened and we panicked and tried to get rid of the ball quickly, rather than taking the care that we did in the first half.

 

Psychologically I believe this move from Fulham also pushed us deeper, and deeper and as the half went on they were more and more in our half - and the goals were coming, let's be honest. What we needed in that 2nd half was a bit of a calming influence and pace down the sides and in behind to take advantage of the gaps they were leaving behind (which there were). Unfortunately, we had neither and that's more down to the players we had available as opposed to tactics.

 

Alot is being made of the substitutes, but we'd lost our way even with those players on the pitch. The substitutes, if anything, changed the tide slightly. I thought Guly was excellent actually.

Edited 8 October, 2012 by S-Clarke

[Thedelldays]

At the end of the day... I would have hoped.. Expected last season's team to have beaten that Fulham team (with their players missing) at home... And to play a lot better

 

We played poorly and were in such chaos at the back..... Fonte was superb... But leaving Yoshida at rb (and leaving Jos on) was criminal... Taking Lambert off again with 25 bloody minutes to go is a joke

[terry hurlock]

At the end of the day, no matter how bad a game Lambert is having. As an opposition defender you breath a massive sigh of relief if he goes off the pitch. That's what i don't understand - he will always keep them occupied. No matter if he can't run around like a 21 year old. He sees things, calms the game down, takes pressure off the team and makes fantasic passes, flick-ons etc.

 

This substition didn't cost us the game though, there were plenty of other reasons which have all been said. Main one was defence sitting way too deep. And give a little credit to Fulham who got their game going. Draw was a fair result.

[S-Clarke]

At the end of the day... I would have hoped.. Expected last season's team to have beaten that Fulham team (with their players missing) at home... And to play a lot better

 

We played poorly and were in such chaos at the back..... Fonte was superb... But leaving Yoshida at rb (and leaving Jos on) was criminal... Taking Lambert off again with 25 bloody minutes to go is a joke

 

We had no full backs on the bench though. I'm not sure what else NA could have done there.....we're being crippled by injuries and that's half the problem, well probably more than half the problem.

[Thedelldays]

We had no full backs on the bench though. I'm not sure what else NA could have done there.....we're being crippled by injuries and that's half the problem, well probably more than half the problem.

 

Hasn't Reeves played there?

We had what... 2 players from the villa game out?

 

Clyne and Ramirez?

 

Fulham had lost their first choice attack completely.. And other players... We're terrible and we still shipped our customary handful of goals

[S-Clarke]

Hasn't Reeves played there?

 

Reeves is an attacking midfielder, who was converted from a LB.

 

To accommodate Reeves, we'd have to either put him at RB which would have been a bit of an issue - or we could have shifted Fox to RB, again - a bit of an issue. We could only play square pegs yesterday, that's the problem.

 

I'd be a bit more comfortable with a Japanese international at RB, rather than a young player who has only ever played 10mins in the PL and is primarily an attacking midfielder.

[Sour Mash]

At the end of the day... I would have hoped.. Expected last season's team to have beaten that Fulham team (with their players missing) at home... And to play a lot better

 

We played poorly and were in such chaos at the back..... Fonte was superb... But leaving Yoshida at rb (and leaving Jos on) was criminal... Taking Lambert off again with 25 bloody minutes to go is a joke

I agree we were great yesterday, but what else could Adkins have done regarding the defensive line-up? Do you honestly feel we played worse after Lambert and Puncheon went off?

[Window Cleaner]

Agree we went long a lot. Partly as a result of Gazzanigga's excellent kicking, partly due to Hooiveld and Fox's inclusion and their love of a long, cross field ball, but partly as our only real option.

 

Why do you think we couldn't hold onto the ball? A midfield combination of Schneiderlin, Davis, Puncheon and Lallana should be half decent at retaining possession.

 

Lallana isn't all that great when it comes to holding on to the ball, I don't think his passing success rate is all that great either.

[saint-crinny]

Im not totally comfortable with putting so much faith in a young kid at this level (maybe neither is Nige), but think JWP introduction might have helped in the second half. He does retain possession well and it wasnt like there were any big tackles going or much physical stuff that would have been too much for him. Posession is everything in the Prem - we dominated it in the first half and looked in control, lost it in the second and almost lost the game.

 

Mentioned earlier i think the worst thing about taking Lambert off for us is the way it seems to sap the confidence of the players not having him there. So i dont totally disagree with taking him off - he wasnt really having much impact, but it doesnt really seem to matter if he is playing well or not, its just the players reaction when he goes off. Worrying, but i guess he is the one they look to, as well as Gaston, who we badly missed too. Especially when the game opened up. He would have run riot with that amount of space.

 

Shame Mayuka didnt get on though - pace to burn and as many have said, he would rinsed them in behind. As good a CB as Hangeland is, he is not quick.

[Thedelldays]

Lallana isn't all that great when it comes to holding on to the ball, I don't think his passing success rate is all that great either.

 

That is another bugbear with Adkins...

Puncheon, in most games this season has been miles better than lallana... Yet he is taken off every game and the wandering skipper remains

[Sour Mash]

Lallana isn't all that great when it comes to holding on to the ball, I don't think his passing success rate is all that great either.

Not seen any stats on it, but reckon him and Puncheon gave it away plenty in the 2nd half. That combined with their lack of tracking back really put our defence under pressure.

[S-Clarke]

That is another bugbear with Adkins...

Puncheon, in most games this season has been miles better than lallana... Yet he is taken off every game and the wandering skipper remains

 

Puncheon was rubbish in the 2nd half.

[Thedelldays]

Puncheon was rubbish in the 2nd half.

 

And still better than lallana

[channonball]

Man City - Lambert came on = stronger

Man U - Lambert came off at 1-0 = lost the next part off the game 2-1

Fulham - Lambert came off at 2-1 = lost the next part off the game 2-0

 

Rodriguez is making £7m look iike a complete waste, and fluffed a pretty easy header to win the game before they scored to go 2-1 up. He is weak and doesn't have the ability to hold up a single ball. How Lambert was taken off I will never know. IMO he should have taken off Rod and put on Ward Prowse and moved Lambert up on his own to give us an out ball. Punch should have stayed on also.

 

Sadly they only game NA has got right so far is Villa and it's cost us a good few points.

[Turkish]

Reeves is an attacking midfielder, who was converted from a LB.

 

To accommodate Reeves, we'd have to either put him at RB which would have been a bit of an issue - or we could have shifted Fox to RB, again - a bit of an issue. We could only play square pegs yesterday, that's the problem.

 

I'd be a bit more comfortable with a Japanese international at RB, rather than a young player who has only ever played 10mins in the PL and is primarily an attacking midfielder.

 

He came on at left back against Everton and looked comfortable by all accounts. I really dont understand why he was on the bench if he wasn't going to be brought on when needed. By bringing Hooliveld on and moving Yoshida you make 2 changes to the back 4. Yoshida was poor at right back, not his fault as he isn't a right back and Hooliveld was his usual error ridden self this season when he came on. As well as the first goal he almost let Rodeliga in in the first half when he didnt deal with a straightforward long ball into the area. Fonte held that defence together yesterday and we'd have been smashed out of sight by a better team.

[Dig Dig]

And still better than lallana

 

 

So no one would complain had he taken off Lallana, Puncheon and Lambert then?