JB 115 Posted December 30, 2017 We all hear and see how clubs of late treat cup games as a chance to put out a weakened team to preserve the better players for the more high profile games, and this is how it feels today. This game should never have been treated with such disregard. Burton are in the same league as us, and on merit, and we shouldn''t have seen this as a chance to effectively rest players, which is what seems to be the idea here.Why should we treat Burton any differently to Millwall after all? This league is cutthroat, and this is surely a well known fact of The Championship. Should never have taken anything for granted in thinking we have a "super strength" squash with the capability of rotating as such. I was there at the Brum game, and we were decent. To make those changes is wrong, one such a vast level at least. Please learn: NOT A CUP GAME, and THREE POINTS at stake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crabbycanary3 994 Posted December 30, 2017 Mmm, dunno, ''squash'' worked also. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
STAN 29 Posted December 30, 2017 Left a bitter taste Supermarket double strength is no match for Robinsons fruit n’ barley Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JF 694 Posted December 30, 2017 I can’t understand why the Millwall game holds significance over this one. We’ve come off the back of 3 points against another of the bottom 3 teams, so another 3 points here would have extended the gap and built some momentum going into Monday. I can only conclude that after the toxic atmosphere of the last home game, they are targeting Millwall as a higher priority to avoid that scenario again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735 Posted December 30, 2017 If anything this one should have taken precedence over millwall. ...a chance to increase a gap over a team currently in the bottom 3At least we''ll have our players free for this upcoming crucial 13th v 14th on Monday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alfie54 76 Posted December 30, 2017 Let''s just hope that Farke doesn''t make them too nervous for this crucial mid table clash! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Making Plans 936 Posted December 30, 2017 [quote user="JF"]I can’t understand why the Millwall game holds significance over this one. We’ve come off the back of 3 points against another of the bottom 3 teams, so another 3 points here would have extended the gap and built some momentum going into Monday. I can only conclude that after the toxic atmosphere of the last home game, they are targeting Millwall as a higher priority to avoid that scenario again.[/quote]The truth is that we are simply not good enough to be trying to pick which games we want to win. If Farke, Webber etc think you can do that just to stop a few protests should we lose to Millwall then we are really in trouble.Surely you pick you best team and go out with the intention of winning every game you can but clearly that didn''t happen today.We hoped we would win it instead of going out with the intention of winning it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miss Demeanor 67 Posted December 30, 2017 After seeing the team announced I said the exact same thing to my son! I still can''t work out why he dropped six first choice players when only three can be used as sub''s. Three changes, with three first team as cover works for me but that team was unbelievable.The performance also begs the same question, we were terrible and thank goodness Burton were also Shite! Must win on Monday for me otherwise it will prove to be a massive mistake. Surely a settled team winning two on the bounce would give us a better chance of a result on Monday! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219 Posted December 30, 2017 Momentum is hard won and easily lost in football.Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219 Posted December 30, 2017 ....if I was less cynical and didn’t know better I might think that there were elements of ‘this is what we look like without Maddison, Klose and Pritchard’ about it.....Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 9,713 Posted December 30, 2017 [quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]....if I was less cynical and didn’t know better I might think that there were elements of ‘this is what we look like without Maddison, Klose and Pritchard’ about it.....Parma[/quote]Hmmmm... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219 Posted December 30, 2017 ‘...poor pitch, they play long ball, disruptive tactics, lots of games, technical players not suited...’.....just before January transfer window though..rare momentum..6 changes after important win after 10 games without..investment issues...booing at home games...senior players ending contracts...uncertainty surrounding who is to be sold...others being ‘protected’ ahead of sale....Not a classic scenario for stability on and off the field..so was that really the time for 6 changes? Did the Sporting Director have any input in such a dramatic decision? If so, what did he say and why?Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,578 Posted December 30, 2017 If the sporting director is having input on team selection then we''ve got proper issues.The only possible reason for that would be we''ve got one lined up to be sold- Jerome or Wildschut seem the obvious ones but neither were dropped from the starting xi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219 Posted December 30, 2017 ...but equally King it would be foolish not to liaise pragmatically between Sporting Director and Head Coach regarding who is a key asset, who is to be sold, who must be protected from injury, who is a key part of the future, what the situation was like at the last home game........given such liaison is logical, necessary and advantageous, it must then stand to reason that protecting the philosophy, the model and even sending the occasional upwards message might be discussed. It need only be a passing consideration to have some influence...Given that we must expect key assets to be sold - and this game appears to have rather disrespectfully been treated as a free hit - a line up of Gunn(loan), Pinto, Zimmerman, Hanley, Husband, Trybull, Reed (loan), Watkins, Vrancic, Hoolahan, Oliveira (no substitute) does look rather like a post-cuts type of side....(then less Oliveira and Hoolahan note). Perhaps this was an experiment/message/glimpse into the reality of the future (as well as all of Farke’s points being true (though perhaps unlikely to be the full picture).....I genuinely find myself at a loss to explain the logic of the huge changes at such a juncture....just thinking out loud mind....Parma Share this post Link to post Share on other sites