a1canary 0 Posted November 7, 2011 The weekend''s result reminded me of the time we went to Doncaster around this time last year and tried a different formation. There was another game which someone will need to remind me of when we tried 3 centre backs. That backfired too! No-one can question the decision to bring Holt off the bench, and indeed Holt more or less vindicated the decision to give him his own starting place. But the switch to 4-4-2 and the slightly risky approach of putting pilks, wes and bennett in to the midfield seemed to leave us pretty vulnerable. No defenders like to have to deal with low crosses while facing their own goal, least of all ours. It seemed that our full backs were under a lot more pressure than they have been and were unable to stop these crosses coming in. Was this down to the formation and to them playing lower down the pitch? Nor having the protection of Fox and Johnno? It''s tough on Holt, but even if we had say crofts and johnson in between the two wingers, i can stilll see us being exposed on the wings. If we are going to take that route, how about De Laet at right back? Is he a bit more defensively minded and experienced than Naughton? I like Naughton but he has been exposed the last few games. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,902 Posted November 8, 2011 I reckon Lambert picked a team to get a positive result from the game. He was quite close too wasn''t he? We weren''t beaten comprehensively like we were at Doncaster last year. On another day we''d have drawn this game two each and Lambert would still be the messiah. Can anyone honestly say they think we''d have got a better result playing an unchanged team? We lost the game 3-2 and struggled to cope with Abonlahor''s pace and Bent''s movement. However we were never out of the game, had 52% possession and had 6 corners ( The same as Villa). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
