Jump to content

Takeover Update


Arsene Titman

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I like this bit, from the wisdom of uncle 'arry...talking about Mel. 

“He was going to go for an experienced manager but I told him ‘you keep getting managers and then getting rid of them, you’ve not been very clever – take Frank Lampard’.

?

And if the mumblings were true wasn't it going to be Warnock? 

 

Bloody arry Redknapp 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

I thought it was because they wouldn't (or maybe couldn't) pay Frank what Frank thought he was worth? 

Maybe also they thought if they messed about a bit we would get desperate and sack him and then they would save on compo, never thought it was down to Frank 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DCFC Kicks said:

Being angry at Lampard for leaving is one thing, which I understand, but to suggest he intentionally lost the play-off final is totally far-fetched. Do you have any proof? How would it be possibly to have that much control over a league as unpredictable as the Championship?

I agree that if he had stayed we would be in a better position but there was no way we would have been able to re-sign Mount and Tomori, they were too good. 

If you remember we had a number of injury problems, with none of our strikers deemed capable of 90 minutes. We had Waghorn and Marriott, who at the time were banging the goals in, and we had Nugent and Bennett, who weren't.

Frank chose to start with Nugent and Bennett, with the only reason being using Bennett's strength to batter their central defenders. We played all right, keeping Grealish very quiet, but were behind to a couple of really lucky goals. It was crying out for him to bring our goal threat on because, as expected, Nugent and Bennett hadn't provided much up front. Sadly the substitutions came way too late. We actually scored within minutes of them coming on, and Villa were considering changing their shorts form brown ones, but it was too late. 

I cannot see any sense in starting a match in a way that may leave you trying to rescue it later on, but that is exactly what we did. Neither is there any sense in going for the rescue when it is way to late to complete the task. But that is exactly what Frank did. Seeing how scared Villa were when Waggy and Jack came on, Just what would have happened if we had actually started with our goal scorers, and left the duffers to see the match out? I think the game would have been over before half-time in our favour.

Even bringing the goal getters on just after half-time would have been enough, but he delayed it toooooo late.

WHY?

Edited by DavesaRam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

If you remember we had a number of injury problems, with none of our strikers deemed capable of 90 minutes. We had Waghorn and Marriott, who at the time were banging the goals in, and we had Nugent and Bennett, who weren't.

Frank chose to start with Nugent and Bennett, with the only reason being using Bennett's strength to batter their central defenders. We played all right, keeping Grealish very quiet, but were behind to a couple of really lucky goals. It was crying out for him to bring our goal threat on because, as expected, Nugent and Bennett hadn't provided much up front. Sadly the substitutions came way too late. We actually scored within minutes of them coming on, and Villa were considering changing their shorts form brown ones, but it was too late. 

I cannot see any sense in starting a match in a way that may leave you trying to rescue it later on, but that is exactly what we did. Neither is there any sense in going for the rescue when it is way to late to complete the task. But that is exactly what Frank did. Seeing how scared Villa were when Waggy and Jack came on, Just what would have happened if we had actually started with our goal scorers, and left the duffers to see the match out? I think the game would have been over before half-time in our favour.

Even bringing the goal getters on just after half-time would have been enough, but he delayed it toooooo late.

WHY?

Nugent? If Frank had started him I'd agree with the crackpot theory that he intentionally set us up to lose. Thankfully Nugent wasn't even on the bench.

Bennett didn't provide much, but he was very isolated. The players who would normally be expected to get up to support him were too busy trying to contain Villa. I don't think Villa's first was lucky. It was deserved after they'd dominated us for the first half. It was always going to be a massive call starting Bennett on his own. Lampard was rightly worried about Villa's attacking strength, but his plan didn't work. We know all too well what's become of Marriott since, but I'll never understand not starting him after the Leeds 2nd leg. The guy was on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

If you remember we had a number of injury problems, with none of our strikers deemed capable of 90 minutes. We had Waghorn and Marriott, who at the time were banging the goals in, and we had Nugent and Bennett, who weren't.

Frank chose to start with Nugent and Bennett, with the only reason being using Bennett's strength to batter their central defenders. We played all right, keeping Grealish very quiet, but were behind to a couple of really lucky goals. It was crying out for him to bring our goal threat on because, as expected, Nugent and Bennett hadn't provided much up front. Sadly the substitutions came way too late. We actually scored within minutes of them coming on, and Villa were considering changing their shorts form brown ones, but it was too late. 

I cannot see any sense in starting a match in a way that may leave you trying to rescue it later on, but that is exactly what we did. Neither is there any sense in going for the rescue when it is way to late to complete the task. But that is exactly what Frank did. Seeing how scared Villa were when Waggy and Jack came on, Just what would have happened if we had actually started with our goal scorers, and left the duffers to see the match out? I think the game would have been over before half-time in our favour.

Even bringing the goal getters on just after half-time would have been enough, but he delayed it toooooo late.

WHY?

That didn't work.  Bennett against mings was like a field mouse trying to escape a combine harvester. A wet fart had more strength than Bennett that day.   Mings crapped himself when Marriott came on though and basically dropped further and further back till he was stood on his own goal line.  A shame really as he stopped Marriott getting another with a last ditch hack off the bugger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Villa turned us over 3-0 and 4=0 in the league. 

They were big favourites. 

I'm not surprised Frank used a plan like he did and it nearly worked. Not for the first time, individual mistakes cost us goals whereas we had to work hard to get a few chances. 

I don't buy the "throwing the game" theory as it is predicated on us playing a whole game in the style of the one half we played at Leeds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Villa turned us over 3-0 and 4=0 in the league. 

They were big favourites. 

I'm not surprised Frank used a plan like he did and it nearly worked. Not for the first time, individual mistakes cost us goals whereas we had to work hard to get a few chances. 

I don't buy the "throwing the game" theory as it is predicated on us playing a whole game in the style of the one half we played at Leeds. 

Agreed.  I did think at the time this would only work at 0 0.  I was very surprised when he didn’t make the subs at half time.  Little point in playing those tactics when we needed a goal or 2

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...