Jump to content

Substitutes second half


MackworthRamIsGod

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I got the impression,both in the game and after, with rowetts interview,that he had given upon us getting a result by half time and didn't want to risk vydra in that circumstance.

If so,that's not the attitude......we had chances in the last fifteen minutes to equalize and what happened to the never give up attitude that GR professes to hold dear??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RamNut said:

With a bit of umph and half time action, this could have been another Ipswich 4-4

It could,definitely......changes should have been made at half time....Mac and simmo wouldn't have given up that easily.

Mind you it was still pretty exciting at the end I thought....not good but exciting.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the needle between their keeper and Nugent and Martin....both got yellows for giving him a shove,which he rightly deserved.

Great to see our strikers dishing it out,loved that!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think the early change of Keogh affected the subsititutions, i was amazed we didnt do any at half time.

Not using the final one sort of indicated the game was given up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we actually lost the game with the first substitute. Losing keogh’s passing ability is huge and I think it was a good opportunity to drop Huddlestone into the back 4 and put Thorne into midfield. Having Davies and Pearce as a back 2 changes everything about the way we’ve been playing recently as neither of them has the ability or confidence to step out with the ball. I hope, if keogh is out for a while, that we’d do this rather than playing Pearce. I’m sure Davies and Huddlestone would know each other’s game pretty well from their time at Hull. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kirkbyram said:

I think we actually lost the game with the first substitute. Losing keogh’s passing ability is huge and I think it was a good opportunity to drop Huddlestone into the back 4 and put Thorne into midfield. Having Davies and Pearce as a back 2 changes everything about the way we’ve been playing recently as neither of them has the ability or confidence to step out with the ball. I hope, if keogh is out for a while, that we’d do this rather than playing Pearce. I’m sure Davies and Huddlestone would know each other’s game pretty well from their time at Hull. 

Good shout, the only hope for Huddlestone at the minute is in defence, he is woeful in midfield at the minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

We went for it with the same team at the start of the second half yesterday, were all over them looking like we could get the goal before an inexplicable defensive error completely killed the game!

Substitutions yesterday were irrelevant!

So the performance of the players on the pitch was so good none of them deserved consideration for being substituted? Don't know what game you were watching.When you are 2 or more goals behind there is always a case for making a substitution. The problem is Rowett doesn't sufficiently value what Thorne or Vydra might have offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kirkbyram said:

I think we actually lost the game with the first substitute. Losing keogh’s passing ability is huge and I think it was a good opportunity to drop Huddlestone into the back 4 and put Thorne into midfield. Having Davies and Pearce as a back 2 changes everything about the way we’ve been playing recently as neither of them has the ability or confidence to step out with the ball. I hope, if keogh is out for a while, that we’d do this rather than playing Pearce. I’m sure Davies and Huddlestone would know each other’s game pretty well from their time at Hull. 

Great post. And moving TH back there sort of saves us a sub. Then later go 3 at the back and keep adding attacking players seemed sort of obvious when we we were 2 even 3 goals down. The “not risking Vydra” argument seems like he’d abandoned hope in the game and was saving him for the “big one” whatever that might be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

What was the point of Vydra warming up?

There wasn't other than he was cold! According to Gary he wasn't fit and fans don't know the full story, so my take is completely irrelevant him being there. 

Gaz don't half leave himself open to contradictory criticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Zag zig said:

There wasn't other than he was cold! According to Gary he wasn't fit and fans don't know the full story, so my take is completely irrelevant him being there. 

Gaz don't half leave himself open to contradictory criticism.

Yes he seems to like the 'don't know the full story' line. So come on the Gary, we are intrigued, do tell.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kirkbyram said:

I think we actually lost the game with the first substitute. Losing keogh’s passing ability is huge and I think it was a good opportunity to drop Huddlestone into the back 4 and put Thorne into midfield. Having Davies and Pearce as a back 2 changes everything about the way we’ve been playing recently as neither of them has the ability or confidence to step out with the ball. I hope, if keogh is out for a while, that we’d do this rather than playing Pearce. I’m sure Davies and Huddlestone would know each other’s game pretty well from their time at Hull. 

No I think it would be better to bench Huddlestone  Put Wisdom in with Davies and Baird at right back he played really well there earlier in the season  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...