Wrong team selection for me!

[ca 1]

Why did we change a winning team??

Really disappointed with the team selection tonight which looks like it was changed to accomodate young Gibbs and maybe keep Arsenal happy ( Arsenal youth coach/manager were in the directors box according to radio Norfolk)

Gibbs was a lad trying to do a mans job, never got into the game and to me looked completely out of his depth. Is he really any better than Bertrant, Pattison or Hucks who can play there?

When we took Gibbs off why wasn''t he replaced by Hucks because Crofty was having a good game so why take him off?

Don''t want to knock Glenn because he''s done well but tonight I thought he got it wrong!

Still 13 games unbeaten and we''ve come a long way but can''t help feeling that an unchanged team would have been the better option.

[First Wazzock 902]

Can''t disagree with any of that CA.

[DONT REMEMBER YOUR TENURE AS ENGLAND MANAGER 0]

Hucks certainly did enough to warrent a starting place, however Gibbs was bullied out of the game and will come good. I for one however will not be questioning Mr Roeders team selection after what he has acheived. 13 games unbeaten and well happy to finish midtable after the Grant debacle

[Robert N. LiM 4,342]

Totally agree, especially with the benefit of hindsight. The only thing I can say in GR''s defence is that, having got these players in, you have to give them a game, see if they improve the team. There was no real need to put Bertrand in ahead of Pattison a few weeks back, but Bertrand has been a star. Equally, putting Bates in for Otsemobor has given Semmy a valuable break and I thought he looked excellent when he came on yesterday, fresher than he''s been for weeks. Gibbs is very highly rated and it''s worth seeing what he can add to the team. On last night''s evidence, very little, but Wenger''s rarely wrong about young players...It''s going to be an ugly battle on a terrible pitch on Saturday, and I wouldn''t be surprised to see Camara and Pattison on our left hand side.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Why did we change a winning team??

Really disappointed with the team selection tonight which looks like it was changed to accomodate young Gibbs and maybe keep Arsenal happy ( Arsenal youth coach/manager were in the directors box according to radio Norfolk)

Gibbs was a lad trying to do a mans job, never got into the game and to me looked completely out of his depth. Is he really any better than Bertrant, Pattison or Hucks who can play there?

When we took Gibbs off why wasn''t he replaced by Hucks because Crofty was having a good game so why take him off?

Don''t want to knock Glenn because he''s done well but tonight I thought he got it wrong!

Still 13 games unbeaten and we''ve come a long way but can''t help feeling that an unchanged team would have been the better option.

[/quote]yep - didn''t come off for roeder - first time in a while - but got it wrong.  but a draw against a tough tackling energetic side is good - but i left feeling we''d slipped up when 3 points could''ve been ours.  roll on to leicester.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Why did we change a winning team??

Really disappointed with the team selection tonight which looks like it was changed to accomodate young Gibbs and maybe keep Arsenal happy ( Arsenal youth coach/manager were in the directors box according to radio Norfolk)

Gibbs was a lad trying to do a mans job, never got into the game and to me looked completely out of his depth. Is he really any better than Bertrant, Pattison or Hucks who can play there?

When we took Gibbs off why wasn''t he replaced by Hucks because Crofty was having a good game so why take him off?

Don''t want to knock Glenn because he''s done well but tonight I thought he got it wrong!

Still 13 games unbeaten and we''ve come a long way but can''t help feeling that an unchanged team would have been the better option.

[/quote]I only listened to this game on Canary World but for what it''s worth, I came to the same conclusion on every single point you have raised there CA

[macdougalls perm 0]

Yeah, I''d have to agree with all of this.

[alex_ncfc 662]

Totally agree with everything mentioned CA, and if Arsenal (or indeed any other loanee parent club) are demanding that their players get a starting place, then we should send them back now. We need to pick our own (best) team, not be dictated by other clubs.

[First Wizard 0]

I don''t want to bash Roeder, especially as I didn''t go the game, but why change a winning team? if Camara is fit, he should be first choice surely.

Rather than stirring up Colney, could these latest young loanees actually divide the team somewhat?.[:O]

[SouthamptonCanary 0]

Ok i wasn''t at the match so my opinion probably doesn''t count for much but the way i see it is that in Hull we played a very good team last night who unlike ourselves have been consistent all season.  A draw is a good result against a team like Hull with lots of ex-prem players so lets not be negative and remember where we were and where we are now under GR.

I don''t think there is anything wrong in changeing a winning team when you''ve got 3 games in 8 days as we have this week.  Rotation of a squad is essential to keep a freshness to the team game in game out.  It also keeps the players on there toes and reminds them that there is always someone waiting to take there place.

I''m happy with last nights result and fully expect us to take all 3 points away to Leicester at the weekend and make it 14 unbeaten

[nutty nigel 7,533]

If Camara wasn''t injured then I totally agree that the team selection was poor. And I assume Bates played because Otsemebor is carrying an injury, otherwise I would never make changes to the back four of Otsemebor - Doherty - Shackell - Camara who have defended so well throughout this run. I hope we don''t make changes just to accommodate loan players and I don''t think Roeder would do that. But he''s not above criticism and I believe he got it wrong before when he played Russell at right back to accommodate the three central midfielders in ther same team.

If it''s not broke it don''t need fixing.

 

[Paul Spector 0]

You can say anything with the benefit of hindsight.

Personally, I was very optimistic regarding the team selection pre-game last night. I thought Roeder had picked the team I probably would have, perhaps with the exception of Semmy, but it soon became clear that the left hand side was quite exposed with two youngsters there. Having said that, I can''t see Huckerby having added more protection down the left than Gibbs.

Perhaps Mohammed is a more influential player than we realised!?

[1st Wizard 0]

I have to say, I disagree with one of the points you make CA.

I agree with the not changing the winning team, but as for putting Huckerby on I have to disagree.

It wasn''t just me as well, most of the fans sitting around me feel like he has lost it..

Yes there was all energy and a bit of running but no end product, in fact he gave the ball away most times.

I remember a month or so ago that a lot of people were saying the same about croft but also slating him for it, where as everyone on here seems to think it meant Huckerby played well?!

 

[ca 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

If Camara wasn''t injured then I totally agree that the team selection was poor. And I assume Bates played because Otsemebor is carrying an injury, otherwise I would never make changes to the back four of Otsemebor - Doherty - Shackell - Camara who have defended so well throughout this run. I hope we don''t make changes just to accommodate loan players and I don''t think Roeder would do that. But he''s not above criticism and I believe he got it wrong before when he played Russell at right back to accommodate the three central midfielders in ther same team.

If it''s not broke it don''t need fixing. [/quote]

 

He wasn''t injured Nutty he was being rested and Semmy was fit too( as he proved when he came on) .

I''m still very happy with Roeder but as I said I think he got it wrong last night.

 

[Baldyboy 0]

w did hux warrant a starting place? did his usual head down and run without looking to pass too often again, should have been on left not right.

[ca 1]

[quote user="Poor mans Earnshaw"]

I have to say, I disagree with one of the points you make CA.

I agree with the not changing the winning team, but as for putting Huckerby on I have to disagree.

It wasn''t just me as well, most of the fans sitting around me feel like he has lost it..

Yes there was all energy and a bit of running but no end product, in fact he gave the ball away most times.

I remember a month or so ago that a lot of people were saying the same about croft but also slating him for it, where as everyone on here seems to think it meant Huckerby played well?!

 

[/quote]

 

Fair enough - just think once that Roeder had decided that he was bringing Hucks on, he should have gone to his natural left wing position and we should have left Croft on. Or if Camara had been on the bench he could have came on and Bertrand could have played left wing instead of Gibbs.

I do agree Hucks didnt have any end product but to me he would have been a better option than an untried teenager. I''m sure Gibbs will come good but do we have time to bleed youngsters in for other clubs?

My team would have been

Marshall

Semmy, Doc, Shacks, Camara

Croft Russell Fozzy Bertrand

Dion Evans

Subs  Gilks, Bates, Hucks, Pattison, Henry

 

[renegade tootsie 0]

Huckerby showed last night that it is time for him to depart.  Starting with him on the left would have been suicide.  Was gibbs out of his depth or merely beind asked (just like smith) to play a halfway-house position in a tight midfield with one winger (croft).

 

[quote user="cityangel"]

Why did we change a winning team??

Really disappointed with the team selection tonight which looks like it was changed to accomodate young Gibbs and maybe keep Arsenal happy ( Arsenal youth coach/manager were in the directors box according to radio Norfolk)

Gibbs was a lad trying to do a mans job, never got into the game and to me looked completely out of his depth. Is he really any better than Bertrant, Pattison or Hucks who can play there?

When we took Gibbs off why wasn''t he replaced by Hucks because Crofty was having a good game so why take him off?

Don''t want to knock Glenn because he''s done well but tonight I thought he got it wrong!

Still 13 games unbeaten and we''ve come a long way but can''t help feeling that an unchanged team would have been the better option.

[/quote]

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="SouthamptonCanary"]

Ok i wasn''t at the match so my opinion probably doesn''t count for much but the way i see it is that in Hull we played a very good team last night who unlike ourselves have been consistent all season.  A draw is a good result against a team like Hull with lots of ex-prem players so lets not be negative and remember where we were and where we are now under GR.

I don''t think there is anything wrong in changeing a winning team when you''ve got 3 games in 8 days as we have this week.  Rotation of a squad is essential to keep a freshness to the team game in game out.  It also keeps the players on there toes and reminds them that there is always someone waiting to take there place.

I''m happy with last nights result and fully expect us to take all 3 points away to Leicester at the weekend and make it 14 unbeaten

[/quote]

 

Totally agree with this, and we were at the match last night.

I think trouble is some fans will come down to earth with a bump when we lose a match, people get used to winning, and most have forgotten that not so many weeks ago we were facing relegation.  It''s called being grateful for small mercies.  It''s 1 point and not a loss, which IMHO is a bonus. 

Hull were playing very well last night, and a draw was a fair result.

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"]w did hux warrant a starting place? did his usual head down and run without looking to pass too often again, should have been on left not right.[/quote]I don''t think anyone is suggesting Hux warrants an automatic place but from a radio listeners point of view, not much was happening down the left side of the pitch, things seemed ok down the right, Hux is only half the player playing on the right, so changing Hux for Croft wasn''t really going to make the desired impact, unless Croft was tiring or injured? GR has done an exceptional job so far but that decision did seem rather odd. Of course I''m looking at it from a radio listeners perspective, so you can tell me to stick my opinion up my @rse if you want lol

[Buncey 1]

Completely agree CA. Roeder should have named an unchanged except maybe for semmy at RB again. Semmy looked very good and fresh again, he looked as though he was struggling not to long ago. I was a bit annoyed when croft came off because him and semmy were wroking well and gelling and we looked a lot more dangerous but hux could have easily gone on the left, Hull were only really attacking through the middle with frazier campbells pace. The players themselves didn''t play great but I think it was roeder''s fault it went wrong last night. I see that as 2 points dropped again. Really we should win most of our home games and we just seem incapable of doing so.

[YellowIce 0]

Croft should have done beeter against th RB who was a striker playing due to selection issues.

 

He really flatters to deceive. The sooner Chadders is back the better. Then we can have an attacking left wing, whilst still having a player who can attack and defend on the right.

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

Glenn might have made a rod for his own back by bringing so many loanees in at the same time, although evidently he needed that number to help bolster such a thin squad. Having brought these lads in, he must feel obliged to give them all a fair crack of the whip in order to try to keep their clubs happy. After all, if he wants a sympathetic ear from the likes of Arsenal in future when he asks if they can spare anybody on loan, I should imagine they will be somewhat reluctant to cooperate if they feel their players are merely going out  to warm the bench at Carrow Road. The trouble is by trying to keep these loan players parent clubs sweet, he could adversely affect the balance of our team. It''s a bit of a Catch 22 situation.

[ca 1]

[quote user="JaundicedJockGeorgy"]Glenn might have made a rod for his own back by bringing so many loanees in at the same time, although evidently he needed that number to help bolster such a thin squad. Having brought these lads in, he must feel obliged to give them all a fair crack of the whip in order to try to keep their clubs happy. After all, if he wants a sympathetic ear from the likes of Arsenal in future when he asks if they can spare anybody on loan, I should imagine they will be somewhat reluctant to cooperate if they feel their players are merely going out  to warm the bench at Carrow Road. The trouble is by trying to keep these loan players parent clubs sweet, he could adversely affect the balance of our team. It''s a bit of a Catch 22 situation.[/quote]

 

Thats exactly what I was thinking.