BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 20, 2009 What would have happened?Of our 7 substitutes not one was a specialised defender.I have mentioned before that this seems unnecessarily rash.Who can venture an explanation - and suggest who would have replaced an injured Otsemobor/Askou/Doherty/Drury?OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mook 0 Posted October 20, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]What would have happened?Of our 7 substitutes not one was a specialised defender.I have mentioned before that this seems unnecessarily rash.Who can venture an explanation - and suggest who would have replaced an injured Otsemobor/Askou/Doherty/Drury?OTBC[/quote]If it was CB injury, Lappin would have gone to left-back and Drury would have moved across. Lappin can play left back and Rusty would have covered right back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 20, 2009 [quote user="Mook"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]What would have happened?Of our 7 substitutes not one was a specialised defender.I have mentioned before that this seems unnecessarily rash.Who can venture an explanation - and suggest who would have replaced an injured Otsemobor/Askou/Doherty/Drury?OTBC[/quote]If it was CB injury, Lappin would have gone to left-back and Drury would have moved across. Lappin can play left back and Rusty would have covered right back.[/quote]You''re probably right Mook. But hasn''t persistently playing people out of position been a weakness of ours in recent years?If we had on the bench (i) a goalkeeper, (ii) a wide midfielder, (iii) a central midfielder, and (iv) say2 strikers, then with the new dispensation of 7 substitutes instead of 5 there are still another 2 places to fill - it just seems very odd and rash not to fill at least one of these spots with a specialised defender.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 21, 2009 Is there nobody out there who can tell us why there was no specialised defender amongst the 7 substitutes on the bench against Leeds? Or if this point is unimportant, can somebody please explain why? [:(]OTBC [:(]OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted October 21, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Is there nobody out there who can tell us why there was no specialised defender amongst the 7 substitutes on the bench against Leeds? Or if this point is unimportant, can somebody please explain why? [:(]OTBC In my opinion Lambert wanted to go for the win and decided to have attackers on the bench rather than defenders. He knew that if a disaster did occur then he had options already on the pitch, as previously stated. [:(]OTBC [/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted October 21, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] Is there nobody out there who can tell us why there was no specialised defender amongst the 7 substitutes on the bench against Leeds? Or if this point is unimportant, can somebody please explain why? [:(]OTBC [:(]OTBC [/quote] In my opinion Lambert wanted to go for the win and decided to have attackers on the bench rather than defenders. He knew that if a disaster did occur then he had options already on the pitch, as previously stated. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Jedi 0 Posted October 21, 2009 In my opinion, also, Lambert wanted to go for the win and decided to have attackers on the bench rather than defenders. He knew that if a disaster did occur then he had options already on the pitch, as previously stated. (Sorry to nick your post Paul, but Bly is usually blind to most things, like your first reply, so I thought it might be worth repeating) ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted October 21, 2009 [quote user="paul moy"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] Is there nobody out there who can tell us why there was no specialised defender amongst the 7 substitutes on the bench against Leeds? Or if this point is unimportant, can somebody please explain why? [:(]OTBC [:(]OTBC [/quote] In my opinion Lambert wanted to go for the win and decided to have attackers on the bench rather than defenders. He knew that if a disaster did occur then he had options already on the pitch, as previously stated. [/quote] Yeah! [Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 21, 2009 [quote user="First Jedi"]In my opinion, also, Lambert wanted to go for the win and decided to have attackers on the bench rather than defenders. He knew that if a disaster did occur then he had options already on the pitch, as previously stated. (Sorry to nick your post Paul, but Bly is usually blind to most things, like your first reply, so I thought it might be worth repeating) ;)[/quote]So why didn''t he use them?OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lambo 0 Posted October 21, 2009 Because he felt the 11 players who would be most likely to win us the game were already on the pitch?? Just gonna throw that one out there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted October 21, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="First Jedi"]In my opinion, also, Lambert wanted to go for the win and decided to have attackers on the bench rather than defenders. He knew that if a disaster did occur then he had options already on the pitch, as previously stated. (Sorry to nick your post Paul, but Bly is usually blind to most things, like your first reply, so I thought it might be worth repeating) ;)[/quote]So why didn''t he use them?OTBC[/quote]I just knew that that would be the next question, when I wrote my first reply ;) My answer to that is that he was happy with the way that the game was panning out, and decided that he would later settle for a point. Unfortunately, it didn''t work out as he had hoped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 21, 2009 7 subs are now on the bench rather than 5.37-46% of an 11 man team are specialised defenders depending on whether one plays a 4 or 5 man back line.If the answer is that Lambert is prepared to play midfielders out of position in a specialised defensive position rather than include even 1 defender in the 7 then I think he is being foolhardy to say the least.For too long one of the achilles heels we have suffered from has been playing people out of position to no good effect. If there were still 5 on the bench maybe I could buy it, but with the 7 allowed now - no way.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Robert N. LiM 6,282 Posted October 21, 2009 Good question Bly. Is the answer that we simply don''t have the players? Spillane - injured, Nelson - injured, Wiggins - not yet fit? Who else is there? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paul moy 235 Posted October 21, 2009 I think another reason that he packed the bench with midfielders is that he remembered the MK Dons game where we were kicked off the pitch (eg Hughes) by a physical team. He knew that he needed some insurance, but fortunately we came through this game with no bad injuries so he did not need to use them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted October 21, 2009 [quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Good question Bly. Is the answer that we simply don''t have the players? Spillane - injured, Nelson - injured, Wiggins - not yet fit? Who else is there?[/quote]What about young Stephens who came on for Doherty at Gillingham?If they''re good enough (and in this case big enough), then they''re old enough?OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
