this will make you laugh!

[Baldyboy 1]

it did me anyway!!

 

i had an interesting reply to an e mail from doncaster today with reference to martin and other youngsters. he said grant had intended bringing him on for the last 10 mins on sat but as we needed to go 3 at the back he brought robinson on!! i cant work that out when he had drury, shax and doc on to go to the back and could have put martin up front! this has confirmed to me that the current management set up have little clue when it comes to how to change the game. i was all for giving grant a chance but this makes me wonder where we will end up with the current set up!!

[7rew 0]

thats not funny, I perfectly understand it.  I would have brought martin on and moved dublin back. but I wouldn''t play drury in a back 3, or hucks in the midfield of a 3-4-3, which is what you appear to be suggesting, the altered formation looking like:Grant:             Gallacher       Doc Robbo Shacks  Croft    Etuhu    Safri    Drury      Dublin Brown HucksAs far as I can tell (from your post) you would have played (direct swap Martin <=> Colin):             Gallacher

       Doc  Shacks  Drury

Croft    Etuhu    Safri    Hucks

      Dublin Brown Martin

Whereas my choice would be:             Gallacher

       Doc  Dublin  Shacks

Croft    Etuhu    Safri      Drury

      Martin Brown  HucksGrant probably took the view that Dublin was more likely to score than Martin, which is a sensible choice.  My main problem with putting drury into the back 3 and bringing on Martin is acutally Huckerby in the midfield of a 3-4-3, which sounds like a recipe for conceeding again. In general I feel that a center half for a full back and pushing the other full back up to winger, and winger to striker is a perfectly legitimate way to change a game, certainly not a sign of cluelessness.

[Syteanric 1]

if we had neeed to go 3 at the back then surely taking a defender off and Bringing a STRIKER (martin) on would of been the thing to do! or even be Adventuros and play 2 at the back sticking a center back upfront for the height then pump the ball in there!

email him back and ask him to explain the logic.. i bet he cant!

jas :)

[Yellow Rages 0]

I think what he is saying to you is that if we were winning, Martin would have been given the last ten minutes. We were loosing and had to change formation as a priority so went to three at the back.

[Baldyboy 1]

yes but we brought on a defensive player so would it have mattered if wed lost 3-1 or 4-1? we still would have ended up with no points and it would have shown that grant was at least trying to change the game! he should have taken drury off and left colin in a three maybe?

[GMF 1,010]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

if we had neeed to go 3 at the back then surely taking a defender off and Bringing a STRIKER (martin) on would of been the thing to do! or even be Adventuros and play 2 at the back sticking a center back upfront for the height then pump the ball in there!

email him back and ask him to explain the logic.. i bet he cant!

jas :)

[/quote]

Jas - To be fair to the geezer, it''s not his job to explain football tactics, that''s the job of the manager