Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

Thoughts from the game...

Recommended Posts

Finally treacked across London and on a train home after tonight''s game. A few thoughts....

- this is the 4th 2 goal lead we''ve thrown away in 2016 and we''ve not looked comfortable defending leads for a while. It is a huge concern that the same issues keep arising.

- no idea why Brady started over Pritchard. However I''m even more confused as to why Pritchard didn''t get on the pitch. West wasn''t at his best and Brady was poor all game so why he didn''t get a but of game time is beyond me.

- Pinto was our best player today, him and Murphy combined pretty well.

- Why on earth we waited until the 83rd minute to make out second change I will never understand.

- All in all it summed up why I still fail to be 100% convinced by Alex Neil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too had a few question marks over the line up but was happy to go with it and at half time things were looking good, even though we hadn''t really created much apart from the 2 pens we were fully in control.

Cannot understand why Pritchard wasn''t put on for wes, who clearly was tired over Naismith. A change I wanted us to make at half time. Wes'' legs looked heavy tonight, we replaced him with a guy who''s legs seem have gone permanently. Scott Parker outpacing him highlighted this further. We''ve bought him seasons too late.

This is where I may upset a few people. I just don''t rate Jacob Murphy and never have. Surprised you saw the link up with him and pinto as good I though pinto had one of his worst games for us and Jacob Murphy spent most of the game on his heels or losing the ball. Just as he has for the past two fixtures.

I appreciate he''s still a young lad with a lot of learning to do but as I see it he won''t becoming a premier league regular anytime soon.

Still all in all a good point although it may not feel like it right now. On we move.

Otbc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sorry but the idiots now claiming that they question team selection tonight after 99% of people on here say ''don''t change a winning side'' is beyond me.

That team we had out there tonight was plenty good enough to win premier league games.

We just lack the ability to keep focus for a full 90 mins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]But he did change a winning team?[/quote]

What one player like for like which actually made the team stronger on paper. You really are clueless Jim smith a proper tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A side that can''t keep focus for 90 minutes is now good enough to start winning premier league games for you?

Most who watched Saturday will have wanted Pritchard to start tonight although I think most will accept the reason why he didn''t. But to not bring Pritchard on for wes when the game was crying out for him and instead choose Naismith, that''s where the question mark is for me over selection. Along with leaving Murphy on far longer than he should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only guess would be that Brady would be a better defensive option.

I don''t have too many qualms about the starting XI, but have to agree on the subs. 60mins Wes change was okay, but then doing nothing until 80+ minutes was disappointing.

Definitely feels like 2 points lost, we really didn''t play in the second half until after conceding the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably played Brady because he is better defensively.

So it was basically the same side from the last away win.Makes perfect sense

The reason we keep conceding when we are 2 goals ahead is because we take so many 2 goal leads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, if he played Brady because he was defensively better then that tactic failed last night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]But he did change a winning team?[/quote]No, he selected the winning team that beat Wolves. Is the team that beat Rotherham somehow more of a winning team than the team that beat Wolves? Come to think of it, the winning team that beat Wolves was also the winning team that beat Burton, so that team was a double winning team; whereas the team that beat Rotherham had only beaten Rotherham. Doesn''t that mean that the team that beat Wolves (and Burton) was rather more of a winning team than the team that beat Rotherham? 
Where''s morty when we need him? [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am bemused by all the criticism. Yes, we were 2-0 up but anyone who was actually at the game will tell you that it really wasn''t a 2-0 game at half-time. We just about shaded the first half - McGovern made a great save at 0-0 - the first pen was a cert, the second no better a shout than one against Martin by McGovern a few minutes later. We got the rub in the first half.

Unfortunately there are two teams on the pitch. Fulham never let their heads drop and never let their tempo go down. Their manager showed at Watford how he wants his teams to play - high pressing, pacey, up tempo and in the second half they grabbed the initiative. I don''t think it was particularly because we gave it away.

Their first goal was a bit lucky. Their equaliser was a poor one, but came from the same source as Rotherham''s goal in the previous game - Dorrans being caught in possession, the ball being moved forward fast and our centre backs being completely exposed and over-run.

It was poor team game management, not poor centre back defending - although Martin should probably have closed down better, he was always second best to the ball that went to Chris Martin.

At 2-2 we could have lost it; we could have won it. In the end I think a draw was a fair result and here''s the point - it really was a great game to watch. Of course you are disappointed nit to close a game out at 2-0 up, but no one I spoke to afterwards had any complaints about the way it went. The best player on the park was Aluko and the stats say Fulham had 60% possession - hardly "dominant" from Norwich. I appreciate that all fans are biased but let''s keep things sensible.

Not every goal we concede is someone''s fault - sometimes the opposition do some good stuff.

Against Wolves and Rotherham we deserved the win; against Newcastle and Fulham we really didn''t, so that could be why we didn''t close them out - the opposition were as good and possibly a bit better than we were on the night. It happens. This really was a point won, not two lost - anyone who thinks otherwise can''t have been at the game.

Fulham will be in the mix at the end of the season. So will we.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You make an interesting point, it''s like an attitude that we have a God given right to win every game, regardless of what say the opposition has in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A fair response Morty

Sure we will be in the mix come end of season

Off to bed too much Clinton/Trump TV roll on January

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t think we have a God given right to win any game. I went into this game predicting a draw. However I do expect us to win when we go 2-0 up and I''m pretty sure Alex Neil does too.

Sgncfc is right in that we didn''t dominate and were probably a bit lucky to be 2-0 up at half time but I don''t see how that changes our inability to defend a two goal lead.

If this game was a one off I would be less concerned. But as I said we''ve given away a 2 goal lead 4 times in 2016 and have consistently struggled to see our games.

I was at the game and don''t see it as a point won, because when you go 2-0 up you should win, regardless of whether you deserve to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems to be a recent thing, in essence ever since we got promoted. When we were 2-0 up at Wembley for the vast majority of that game we looked so solid and there was never a feeling that we would do anything but see it out. Since then we have looked nervous and jittery when ahead, did the Prem experience e.g. against Newcastle and Liverpool erode AN''s confidence?

Even against Rotherham who never showed anything we concede a poor goal from nowhere and that gives them a little boost to try to nick a point when a real hiding was on the cards. Its got to be the coaching and/or the mental preparation of the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tumbleweed"]Seems to be a recent thing, in essence ever since we got promoted. When we were 2-0 up at Wembley for the vast majority of that game we looked so solid and there was never a feeling that we would do anything but see it out. Since then we have looked nervous and jittery when ahead, did the Prem experience e.g. against Newcastle and Liverpool erode AN''s confidence?

Even against Rotherham who never showed anything we concede a poor goal from nowhere and that gives them a little boost to try to nick a point when a real hiding was on the cards. Its got to be the coaching and/or the mental preparation of the players.[/quote]I think you''ve got it the wrong way round, it was the Wembley performance that was the exception. Our inability to close down a game and protect a lead has been evident for far longer than last season and extends back well before AN took over. Carry on regardless or address the issue by prioritising upgrading midfield which is where the weakness lies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@westcoast

I agree to an extent. I''m not a huge fan of our center back options but if I could upgrade anyone it would be Tettey. I like him but I think a more disciplined holding player would be of huge benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]@westcoast

I agree to an extent. I''m not a huge fan of our center back options but if I could upgrade anyone it would be Tettey. I like him but I think a more disciplined holding player would be of huge benefit.[/quote]One really can''t fault Tettey; he gives his all every time he plays, never seems to grumble, wears the shirt with pride. I''d say he''s made the best of himself without quite living up to the promise he showed as a youngster before his move to France and the injury-caused hiatus in his career from which Chris Hughton offered him escape. The role he performs for us is so crucial however, and the evidence of two campaigns in the top flight is that we need more in that position than the admirable Tettey can offer. It''s not just a matter of greater discipline either; with full backs licensed to go forward, we need a DM who can more naturally drop back into central defence between the two split CBs. I think we''d be amazed by the difference in our goals against column had we had such a player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little harsh that for me West Coast. The way we play tends to put the onus on Tetty to do more than can reasonably be expected IMO. We look to him to stop opposition break always, drop back between the centre halves when the full backs bomb forward and cutout through balls, like the one Fulham scored from.

That''s too big an ask for anyone other than the very top players, caused by the style of play we employ.

If we carry on with our style of play we are likely to let in goals, regardless of who the holding midfielder is.

Trying to outscore the oposition is a good positive tactic and we manage it more often than not but what we need to do is change our game management when we get two up and offer the over run Tetty some support

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×