Hoolahan in, Bennett Out...

[Van wink 2,994]

Indeed, successfully playing the ball out from the back is somewhat dependent on having options, mostly there are few or none.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

Bassong and Bennett are no worse in their respective performances than most of the other players . For some it''s a scape goat ,, others seem to dislike a player without a genuine reason .

I just wish somebody was able to get a bit more out of a half decent squad who really should be making more of a fist of it .

[hogesar 9,657]

Well Bassong is considerably better than Bennett. Particularly in the air, which surprises me a bit. On average Bennett only wins 2.5 Aerial Duels per game, whereas Bassong is at 5.7

Conversely, Klose sits at 4.9

[hogesar 9,657]

Although Bennett gets a 75% pass success ratio, it''s not hard to achieve when you take responsibility and decide to play a short pass to either Bassong or Pinto, who are marked.

[hogesar 9,657]

*NO responsibility

[morty 0]

So stats don''t always tell the whole story?*strokes beard and nods

[HertsCanary93 222]

I actually felt a little for Bassong and Bennett on Saturday regarding the building from the back. Clearly AN had told Ruddy in the 2nd half to play it short to the CB''s, which is fair enough under certain circumstances.

I was getting pretty annoyed in the Barclay seeing our two defenders having to receive the ball with a Huddersfield striker already half way up their a***. Even when they did manage to turn and face up the pitch, our midfield gave them absolutely nothing. There was no one coming deep to pick the ball up, and no movement further forward. We might as well have just hit it long straight from the goal kick.

While i can find a lot of things to blame our defence for, I actually don''t think their on the ball antics in the 2nd half were completely their fault.

[morty 0]

[quote user="HertsCanary93"]I actually felt a little for Bassong and Bennett on Saturday regarding the building from the back. Clearly AN had told Ruddy in the 2nd half to play it short to the CB''s, which is fair enough under certain circumstances.

I was getting pretty annoyed in the Barclay seeing our two defenders having to receive the ball with a Huddersfield striker already half way up their a***. Even when they did manage to turn and face up the pitch, our midfield gave them absolutely nothing. There was no one coming deep to pick the ball up, and no movement further forward. We might as well have just hit it long straight from the goal kick.

While i can find a lot of things to blame our defence for, I actually don''t think their on the ball antics in the 2nd half were completely their fault.[/quote]I can agree with that, we looked to play it out from the back as much as possible, but its almost like the midfield didn''t get the memo...

[hogesar 9,657]

It became a problem once Dorrans went off. He''s the one that usually comes short for the ball. Not that he had a good game, mind.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I can''t even remember Huddersfield having a shot after Dorrans went off. We got the ball forward ok. Just didn''t take any of the opportunities to score.

[Indy 3,297]

I don''t think Huddersfield needed another shot, they shut up shop and stoppped us scoring! Job done!

[nutty nigel 7,527]

That was the end result Indy. But they didn''t stop us having chances to score.

[Indy 3,297]

No team can ever do that, but ultimately they did stop us scoring and won! Maybe had numbnuts kept on Oliviera it might have been different! Bassong as a striker, next thing he''ll be playing Whitts as a central midfielder!

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I thought the substitutions were catalyst for us getting on top. Mind you that could have been Naismith for Dorrans I guess. 

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Bennett has great pass accuracy. If you''re counting all his passes to the ball boy of course

[Indy 3,297]

We were on top but by design not because of the subs, they went ultra defensive and only looked to counter in the second half.

The right call was Wes and Jerome for Brady & Dorrans in my book, we needed to score, and his subs didn''t!

Only once this season have we come back from behind and only twice in two seasons, just shows how piss poor tactically AN is.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

There you have it. You''re judging what you saw on our record this season.

We got on top after the subs but in order to deny they were the cause you prefer to credit Huddersfield with what happened.

[Indy 3,297]

That''s just it, nothing did happen! Like I''ve pointed out you deal in facts and we didn''t change the outcome thus didn''t work!

No I''m not going on what I saw it''s what happened Bassong missed a great chance towards the end which might have been scored by a striker!

Tough as it is that''s footy, Huddersfield did a job on AN.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

It might have been scored by a striker. But the striker who went off had six attempts and scored none. So maybe not. Perhaps if Oliveira hadn''t started he may have had more success as a sub. There were valid questions about team selection and Oliveira was shattered when he went off. Lone striker twice in three days?

[Indy 3,297]

No he wasn''t shattered, pissed off yes, but not dropping down with cramp or such like, that''s a defence for AN by the likes of positive Percy types!

The same striker who''s scored 3 in 3 games, never should have been taken off, the game was lost we needed to score, a like for like sub didn''t work and worse as the arrogant twit said he''d do the same again, not learning is he?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy"]No he wasn''t shattered, pissed off yes, but not dropping down with cramp or such like, that''s a defence for AN by the likes of positive Percy types!

The same striker who''s scored 3 in 3 games, never should have been taken off, the game was lost we needed to score, a like for like sub didn''t work and worse as the arrogant twit said he''d do the same again, not learning is he?[/quote]He was looking to the bench before he was subbed.I think he was tired, and it was likely the right substitution.

[Indy 3,297]

Really Morty, why the reaction he gave then? Could it be he was looking to the bench for some helpup top not to be taken off?

I''m not going to get into another disagreement, we lost, we deserved to lose, and the tactics weren''t right as they didn''t change the outcome!

That''s it from me!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Indy"]Really Morty, why the reaction he gave then? Could it be he was looking to the bench for some helpup top not to be taken off?

I''m not going to get into another disagreement, we lost, we deserved to lose, and the tactics weren''t right as they didn''t change the outcome!

That''s it from me![/quote]Yeah we won''t get into trying to second guess what a player was thinking.Its easy with the benefit of hindsight, but putting a fresh legged striker on for another one, when we are dominating the game, but not scoring, really ain''t that crazy.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

It takes a huge stretch of the imagination to assume he wasn''t shattered after two high intensity championship games in three days as a lone striker.

I doubt he was ever going to play more than 70. Where hind sight comes into play was me suggesting he didn''t start but come on when they tired. That''s hindsight and I admitted as much on Friday night.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I concede the game plan could have been to play the inform line striker for the whole game after playing 3 days earlier. That would have made perfect sense so no criticism there.

Or to start with another striker and bringing the inform striker on if needed. That wouldn''t have brought any criticism would it?

Or play the inform striker until he tired. That seems to have drawn most criticism because it was the option chosen. To my mind the most sensible....

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Oops wrong thread. Or maybe not[;)]