jbc.shrimp wrote:I thought Jordan Cranston was still suspended after being sent off, or is my timeline off ?
Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.
Halstead, then up front try and keep the same forward line for a few games instead of chopping and changing every week. I'd say Allesandra must start every game (until he leaves in January) for his creativity. O'sullivan play out wide and stay out wide to give us a bit of width. Midfield is always a who can play alongside Kenyon, if fit Tutte and Wildig doesn't work well. Tanner again while we have him. Old and Lavelle are all we have at centrehalf. Other squad members need to be trusted and given a chance. I mean it can't get much worse can it? But i don't know i don't even play football manager or fifa 2018Slanester wrote:Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.
Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.
Westgate Wanderer wrote:Halstead, then up front try and keep the same forward line for a few games instead of chopping and changing every week. I'd say Allesandra must start every game (until he leaves in January) for his creativity. O'sullivan play out wide and stay out wide to give us a bit of width. Midfield is always a who can play alongside Kenyon, if fit Tutte and Wildig doesn't work well. Tanner again while we have him. Old and Lavelle are all we have at centrehalf. Other squad members need to be trusted and given a chance. I mean it can't get much worse can it? But i don't know i don't even play football manager or fifa 2018Slanester wrote:Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.
Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.
Slanester wrote:Westgate Wanderer wrote: The entire team needs a shake -up.
Fair enough. Based on our current squad, who do you suggest, and where? Not too many left using your assessment.
Westgate Wanderer wrote:Roche, Kenyon and a guaranteed appearance from Kev at some point is the norm. Conlon is average at best, Buxton lacks pace. Cranston apart from his silly red card last week seemed to have dropped out of favour and now he will drop even further! The entire team needs a shake -up. Too many seem to walk into the side after injury or suspension. Others get dropped all too quickly too, making for a disorganised mixture on the field. I wonder how training has gone this week as it has been a very wet one!
Westgate Wanderer wrote:Was a low quality match and the result lived up to my expectations! Never too high just hit bottom. You must have loved watching our 4 shots on target and the mighty Bradford upping the tempo a little in the second half. Hey we have it a go as I'm sure you will say
al1 wrote:3 shots on target amazing,2 of them my 3 year old grandson would have saved and the other effort on target was from a city player!
Keith wrote:al1 wrote:3 shots on target amazing,2 of them my 3 year old grandson would have saved and the other effort on target was from a city player!
Crossbar twice, post once, a header a fraction over when it looked easier to score. TWENTY SIX* shots from us according to the BBC, five on target. Bradford take more away than we have home fans, but yeah, you are right, we should be beating teams like Bradford.
*Okay, I think that must be a typo!
BerlinWaller wrote:I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value
Keith wrote:TWENTY SIX*...
...*Okay, I think that must be a typo!
Keith wrote:BerlinWaller wrote:I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value
No. That's why I wrote:Keith wrote:TWENTY SIX*...
...*Okay, I think that must be a typo!
Are you saying you don't think we deserved anything from the game? That we weren't 'unlucky' with hitting the woodwork or heading narrowly over? That Bradford didn't, as the report says, score their second "against the run of play"? Your myopia may explain not reading my post correctly but surely you saw enough in the game today to think we were unlucky?
BerlinWaller wrote:Keith wrote:BerlinWaller wrote:I hope you aren't taking those stats at face value
No. That's why I wrote:Keith wrote:TWENTY SIX*...
...*Okay, I think that must be a typo!
Are you saying you don't think we deserved anything from the game? That we weren't 'unlucky' with hitting the woodwork or heading narrowly over? That Bradford didn't, as the report says, score their second "against the run of play"? Your myopia may explain not reading my post correctly but surely you saw enough in the game today to think we were unlucky?
Not unlucky but we were better than we have been. Masters of our own downfall when we dick about with it from side to side and back to Roche(better today). I thought Bratfud were unlucky but chose to try and walk it in when they countered us numerous times. Yes, we hit the woodwork but it was our usual late push. Much rather see us in the lead for 70mins than losing for 80 and having a mad 10mins. Like most teams, they found us out.
Against the run of play does Bratfud a disservice. They countered us with pace when we had to attack. I think they call it tactics.
BerlinWaller wrote:Not sure if you have had a drink this afternoon but will try and answer.
When Bradford went 2 up, they began to play on the counter attack. They did this well but overplayed it when they got within shooting distance. Not sure where I said their tactics were wrong though?
BerlinWaller wrote:The tactic was to counter attack.
The players made the wrong choices when in goal scoring positions. That is not a tactic.
It is similar to when Jim says they have prepared all week but the players make the wrong choices when on the pitch.
Not an insult at all
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 115 guests