Nigel defensive tactic and the last 10 minutes substitution

[XXL16 0]

Alright for the manager''s point of view, 2 points lost was still better than 3 points lost, because he can still say we were unbeaten; but for the fans, of course I love the team to win, but if we already tried our very best to try to attack but finally lost the game, I won''t really mind the result to be honest, because at least we have go for it, only for our quality was not good enough.

Take an example of the Millwall game recently (I was in this game at Carrow Road), they were down to 10 men after 75 minutes and the score was still 1-1, but I had seen Nigel made no reaction to change, we still played 4-4-2. No matter where were we in the league, hay but we were played against the team 2nd from bottom, and they were down to 10 men, and why? Why he did not make us play 3 up front, to give more pressure to their defence? I was really want to ask this question and wanted an answer. Did he afraid our defence will concede late goals against the poor Millwall side? Hay remember, if they were really good then they wouldn''t be 23rd!!!

He made the sub at 85th minutes of Ian Henderson came on, did Hendo a target man and we can play "route one" to try to win some balls up front? NO! Hendo can only make our team tactics be 3 up front, only can add more pressure to their defence. Pressure, was it a really threaten to a back-line who had played 85 minutes but only conceded one goal? I don''t think so.

Last season at the Reebok Stadium was a classic, Gary Doherty played up front after 88th minutes of the game! I cannot really say anything about it, because it was just stupid and silly, and "chicken hearted".

I think everyone played "PES 5" or "Championship Manager", I think when you are a goal down in the 1st half, then 2nd half you should start to change the up front players of midfielders, or change the tactics to play more striker up front and try to get the goals. That''s common sense, that''s only just common sense.