Hughton says............

[Making Plans 936]

"Gary [Hooper] is a super finisher and he''s now up to speed with his

physical condition. He''s benefitting from a run of games in the team."So why didn''t you play him at Liverpool ??

[Warren Hill 0]

I think I''ve found a negative angle.....YEP.....come on guys, hop back up.....

I reckon he saw today as far more winnable and so held him back for this game....

[Syteanric 1]

here''s a question for you MP?Do you risk your best striker in a game which you are likely to get nothing out of, knowing there is a weaker side in 3 days time and he could be effective?or do you play him in every game and run him into the ground through fatigue or injury?

depending how you answer will give you what you are looking for.

[Hackedoff 0]

3 games in 8 days, didnt forsee us getting a result against liverpool?! More likely of getting a result today?!

[Mr Angry 1,544]

I''d rather we lost every game heavily against the bigger teams if we pick up wins against those in the bottom half.

[Guest]

Well done, that''s a great shout.

So, so far we have:

1. West Brom were extremely unlucky today, we were outplayed and the result had more to do with luck than tactics.

2. Hughton praiswd Hooper in his post win interview, so should have played Hooper against Liverpool.

Any other negatives we can think of from today? Pathetic that people can''t be consistent, and instead change the goalposts to suit their viewpoint.

[ricardo 7,333]

Keep a clean sheet and you have half a chance against anyone. In the games we''ve lost we have conceded first half goals. In the 5 games we''ve kept clean sheets we''ve won 4 and drawn 1.It''s not rocket science.

[ReadingCanary 0]

[quote user="Making Plans"]"Gary [Hooper] is a super finisher and he''s now up to speed with his

physical condition. He''s benefitting from a run of games in the team."So why didn''t you play him at Liverpool ??[/quote]The Barrel is being scraped

[Making Plans 936]

The point is this. First 15 minutes at Liverpool we looked good - lots of good crosses & attacking moves but our only capable and/or fit striker was warming the bench while theirs was scoring 4 goals. Could have been entirely different if we had scored first.Call my old fashioned but I don''t buy all this "keeping him fit for WBA" rubbish - playing 3 games in a week should not be a problem for any PL footballer. And besides he could just as easily been injured in the first minute today so the plan could easily have gone pear shaped.If Hughton truely believes that Hooper is now at the top of his form then he should be in the team every week no matter who we are playing.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

According to the experts that post on here WBA was a nailed on defeat and Hughton would be sacked, I would love to know what CH would have to say to them, I know what I would say...........

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

As was said this thread iks really scraping the bottom of the barrell. If we''d had RVW fit then one of them, probably RVW would have played at Liverpool. We needed Hooper today because RVW isn''t fit. Hughtom called it spot on. Whoever had have played up top wouldn''t have changed the defensive mistakes made.

 

 

[Surfer 1,547]

It could just be that Hooper has been injured and has only just got up to match fitness so yes, he was rested as 3 games in 8 days is too much at the moment?

[Surfer 1,547]

Alternatively CH really did think that Elmander and Hoolahan was better a combination against Liverpool?

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

1. West Brom were extremely unlucky today, we were outplayed and the result had more to do with luck than tactics.

Same could be said for the draw with Cardiff...were we unlucky?

Penalty against Hull was debatable...were we unlucky?