lucky green trainers 0 Posted November 26, 2005 Can''t see the value in taking off hughes & putting Brennan incentre midfield - asking for trouble. Hope I''m proved wrong, but can''tsee us beating coventry now, unless they throw it away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rudolph Hucker 0 Posted November 26, 2005 This had better be an after match question to the manager. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rudolph Hucker 0 Posted November 26, 2005 I bet Worthy took Hughes off because he thought he might get sent off as he is on a yellow! If the Ref is playing it strong then we should be looking to play proper football. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucky green trainers 0 Posted November 26, 2005 it looks like worthy took off hughes to accomodate McVeigh onleft - pushing brennan into midfield. shouldn''t worthy have replacedhuckerby with McVeigh in the firwst place though? Unless Hughes washaving a poor game, but it didn''t sound like he was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 0 Posted November 26, 2005 Why not make a mountain out of a molehill,lads ?Brennan on for Hucks just before half-time because he''s left footed.Cant see a problem there.Mcveigh on for Hughes to give us some much needed creativity.Whats the problem ?And by the way , Fleming - terrific goal saving clearance last week and a goal this afternoon - good job Worthy doesn''t listen to everything the moaners say... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lucky green trainers 0 Posted November 26, 2005 Cos if robinson hadn''t played a blinder for 90mins maverick, we couldhave been exposed in centre midfield and a better team thancoventry would have gone on to beat us. If hughes playing poorly, thensure sub him, but if not then playing brennan centre midfield couldhave been a gamble that backfired. I''m pleased it didn''t. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Boy 0 Posted November 26, 2005 Whatever, it worked. Deal with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LinkNR9 0 Posted November 26, 2005 Apparently, Hughes had a hamstring tighten up; Worthington gave him 5 minutes after the break to see if he could tear it and put him out for several weeks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 0 Posted November 27, 2005 ''If'' this , ''If'' that... the point is , it worked so give a bit of credit and stop whining for the sake of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rossi 0 Posted November 27, 2005 You seem to miss the point mav. I think what you are missing is why bring Brennan on in the first place. I''d much rather have Hughes on than Brennan, and at the end of the day he is the captain. McVeigh could have been a straight swop with Huckerby.The only reason I can think of is that maybe Worthy was planning for when Hughes is banned next match Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 0 Posted November 27, 2005 I disagree again , Rossi , old bean.As I said in my original post , Brennan is a left footer and the natural replacement for Hucks on the wide left.(Regardless of the fact that he is garbage).Mcveigh (even though he has been employed as left sided midfield in the past) is naturally right footed.I thought everyone had had enough of playing players out of position ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rossi 0 Posted November 28, 2005 oh dear mav, i dont think we are going to agree on this one - you appear to be in a flat spin heading out to sea. It may not matter to you that Brennan is garbage, but it does me. I prefer to look at the angle that associates itself with where players play best, not what foot they kick with. The arrival of Huckerby saw McVeigh slowly slide from week in week out football to a game every few weeks. McVeigh has always played better on the left than the right. Huckerby too is a right footer - should he be played on the right ? You say that you thought everyone had had enough of playing people out of position. That is exactly why this post was originated - it doesn''t make sense to bring on Brennan to play him wide left for a few minutes, then bring WLY on, take Hughes off and put Brennan in the centre. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Temp the Revelator 0 Posted November 28, 2005 Rossi, have you still not understood that the substitutions were not tactical, but enforced? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rossi 0 Posted November 28, 2005 hindsight is a wonderful thing, when the thread started hughes'' injury was unknown Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eldrich canary 0 Posted November 29, 2005 Brennan for Hucks rather than bringing on WLY makes some sense cosHucks has just been taken off from a bad tackle and WLYis the lightestsmallest bloke on the pitch, if that guys smashed into WLY in the sameway he did Hucks then WLY would have been a strecher job. Worthy made some god subs this time, I''m not convinced by the Hugheshamstring thing, from what the radio said Hughes obviously thought hewas okay to stay on and didn''t signal to come off. A very bravedecision by Worthy to pull the captian for the creative WLY. If Hucks can''t recover in 3 days from a match, which I can understandcos I know I''m knackered for a day or two after I play and I don''t getthe lumps he does. Then we should look at playing him for only 60minsor so but getting him really worked up for those 60mins.1st half,Hughes, Safri, Robinson, Hux2nd halfHughes, Etuhu, Robinson, WLYget Saffs and Hux fired up for 45-60mins and replace them with Ettieand WLY and our midfield should then be shored up quite abit, More contraversally I''d pull Ashton after 60mins as well and put onHendo, I think Thornes experience and vision will really work well withAsh and Hendo, Thorne is quality at setting up stuff and will be atscoring and I think he can restore Ash''s confidence and also bringHendo on to be a huge future asset.Eldrich Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Maverick 0 Posted November 29, 2005 Since when should we be playing people for 60 minutes because they get tired ? If they cant play 90 minutes per match and be effective for the whole 90 minutes , they should go to a club that will accomodate that attitude.Poor lambs - perhaps if Hucks and Safri dont like playing 2 games a week , they should have tried a bit harder to keep us in the Prem where they play less games and get more money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rudolph Hucker 0 Posted November 29, 2005 Does Mark Rivers every play 90 minutes these days...he seemed to hate training, perhaps it was too hard for him, he said he needed games to get fit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites