Bailey Posted 27 January, 2009 Posted 27 January, 2009 http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11281 Thoughts?
Ponty Posted 27 January, 2009 Posted 27 January, 2009 I think he justifies his starting line up fairly. I don't necessarily agree with his choices but he's definitely more lucid when explaining his tactics than Jan ever was.
Bailey Posted 27 January, 2009 Author Posted 27 January, 2009 To be fair, I have been impressed with Wotte's interviews thus far. He doesn't mince his words and says it how it is. I particularly like the comment about how choosing the side for the Swansea game will be alot easier after tonight! Can we expect to see 4-4-2 with McGoldrick and Saga upfront? Would be the best option IMO. Will be interesting to see if Drew or Schneiderlin feature at the weekend too. Maybe Surman at LB as I'm not convinced by Molyneux.
gordonToo Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 A good honest summary. "The Dutchman also agreed that his side's second half performance has made certain decisions easier for the match against Swansea." "The 4-3-3 system is a good system but there are other systems which are equally good and I'm not naïve or a fool."
Hamilton Saint Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Sounds like he's already decided on Saga and McG up front for the next game. Which means 4-4-2, I suppose.
Bailey Posted 28 January, 2009 Author Posted 28 January, 2009 Sounds like he's already decided on Saga and McG up front for the next game. Which means 4-4-2, I suppose. Here's hoping!
Arizona Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 He let off the hook big time for chosing that starting line-up. I can only hope he has learned and we get Saga, Euell and Skacel back in for Saturday.
NickG Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 all seem reasonable comments, even negative Merrington was impressed with tactics, proof will be how many wins he can get rather than how he sounds but ok start
Mole Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 I think he justifies his starting line up fairly. I don't necessarily agree with his choices but he's definitely more lucid when explaining his tactics than Jan ever was. His starting line up cannot be justified as we need wins and that starting line up was all about trying to defend for 90 minutes to get a 0-0 draw. Playing with such negative tacticts just invites pressure as the opposition know we'll offer little in reply. In the second half we played a typically English style and that made it end to end and we got rewarded. As a squad of players we're not good enough to defend out games, for us the best form of defence is to attack and go for 3-2 or 4-3 wins.
NickG Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 its the formation that has got a poor team with a poor manager the most away wins in bottom half
hypochondriac Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 its the formation that has got a poor team with a poor manager the most away wins in bottom half And the least amount of home wins in the league....
Saint Fan CaM Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 He let off the hook big time for chosing that starting line-up. I can only hope he has learned and we get Saga, Euell and Skacel back in for Saturday. Completely agree with your thoughts here Arizona.
Faz Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 And the least amount of home wins in the league.... We weren't playing at home.
Fowllyd Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Interesting to note this from the OS article: That was "Plan B" and it clearly worked Is this a not-so-tacit acknowledgement of so many comments - not just on here - about our consistent lack of said Plan B?
Bourno Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 In the first half we were absolutely woeful, any half decent side would have buried us and would not have allowed us to comeback. But fair play for the 2nd half performance. This was a game between 2 poor teams.
Ponty Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Interesting to note this from the OS article: Is this a not-so-tacit acknowledgement of so many comments - not just on here - about our consistent lack of said Plan B? Maybe, but then "Plan B" is a quite well-used expression really.
NickG Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 And the least amount of home wins in the league.... sorry, my fault didnt make it clear but that exactly my point -its been working away not home!
david in sweden Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Completely agree with your thoughts here Arizona. Although I am loathed to say this; I think we should put the " pretty football " back on the shelf, and get the experienced guys first shout and battle it out every game (considering our league position). Once we start moving up the table, we can try and introduce a bit more flair. I admire the experiment, (and sorry for JP's sake that it failed) but this is a cloggers division and Wotton has played in it for years, so too has Thomas - ....pity he's still out. Euell has experience so they should start. Most matches are games of two halves and so we can try the younger legs - in the second half.
Saint_clark Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Interesting that it sounded like he wouldn't have used Saga unless we were a goal or two down.
redstripe Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 At least he had a plan B and didnt take too long putting it in to place. Good luck to him.
ottery st mary Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 Think we should also have plan 'C' available as a back up in case plan'B' gets spotted bt the opposition.
Bourno Posted 28 January, 2009 Posted 28 January, 2009 It would be good if plan A didn't get us 2-0 down in the first place.
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