Baldyboy 0 Posted February 13, 2008 for the first time last night i felt roeders substitutions were poor. why did he not bring on hux earlier for gibbs and attack down both flanks, we were at home for gods sake, too cautious i feel and pattison should have come on for russell as he was poor also i thought last night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
renegade tootsie 0 Posted February 13, 2008 Erm - what game did you watch? Pattison was shocking - so why bring him on for Russel who was not our worst player by a long way. Huckerby came on and looked like a player about to move on - also Gibbs was playing a tight midfield role (like smith did) and HUckerby cant do it.Also - people are simply underestimating the strentgth of that Hull side last night - it had height, strength, skill and a wealth of experience.[quote user="baldyboy"]for the first time last night i felt roeders substitutions were poor. why did he not bring on hux earlier for gibbs and attack down both flanks, we were at home for gods sake, too cautious i feel and pattison should have come on for russell as he was poor also i thought last night.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0 Posted February 15, 2008 It wasn''t his substitutions that bothered me it was the lightweight team (down the left hand side) that he put out to start the match that I found worrying. Hull are a big side that will niggle all night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baldyboy 0 Posted February 16, 2008 why shouldnt we have outmuscled someone for a change? maybe we ought to have gone for strength experience and skill, oh we did when hux came on with 12 mins left! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites