mrpotatohead wrote:To be fair to duffy, he is a winger so as we are a bit short up front he was doing a job he was not 100% up to speed with.
I think waynaldo must wonder how short of strikers we are before he gets a crack at center forward
DawZi wrote:the way things are with the squad and injuries and plus with losing Hackney on loan
ive been looking at what players we have and options , id be tempted because we are playing away to keep the back line the same and ask Wilson to play left midfield
--------------Roche
--Parrish---Bentley---Artell---Moss
Wainwright-Stanley-Drummond-Wilson
--------------Duffy
--------------Mullin
id thought about Hunter on the right-side but we need to go for it and attack, and Wainwright is better running with the ball and beating fullbacks to cross a ball
RedRedWine wrote:I thought we were very lucky to get three points. John Still has come out and said that we probably edged it, but I don't buy that. Yes we missed some guilt edged chances in the first half, but even those seemed to have stemmed from Dagenham errors and we actually created little.
Keith wrote:RedRedWine wrote:I thought we were very lucky to get three points. John Still has come out and said that we probably edged it, but I don't buy that. Yes we missed some guilt edged chances in the first half, but even those seemed to have stemmed from Dagenham errors and we actually created little.
We had twenty attempts on goal, they had six... why don't you buy that? I thought we should have had it sewn up by half time and we were the only side who looked likely to win it.
Keith wrote:RedRedWine wrote:I thought we were very lucky to get three points. John Still has come out and said that we probably edged it, but I don't buy that. Yes we missed some guilt edged chances in the first half, but even those seemed to have stemmed from Dagenham errors and we actually created little.
We had twenty attempts on goal, they had six... why don't you buy that? I thought we should have had it sewn up by half time and we were the only side who looked likely to win it.
RedRedWine wrote:Keith wrote:RedRedWine wrote:I thought we were very lucky to get three points. John Still has come out and said that we probably edged it, but I don't buy that. Yes we missed some guilt edged chances in the first half, but even those seemed to have stemmed from Dagenham errors and we actually created little.
We had twenty attempts on goal, they had six... why don't you buy that? I thought we should have had it sewn up by half time and we were the only side who looked likely to win it.
I'm actually shocked that we had 20 shots as that sounds like an entertaining game. I guess the problem with that stat is it includes efforts that never really threatened a net ripple. Quite a few of our chances seemed a little ambitious and from distance, step forward Mr Stanley. I missed the first 5-10 mins as I was running late, but I thought other than 10 mins before half-time where we hit the post, Drummond missing a near open net, a goal mouth scramble and the wonder goal from Moss, the bits inbetween were really drab. Our passing and movement were quite sloppy all afternoon, and there were quite a few aimless balls pumped forward in the second half. Our defence played really well in limiting Dagenham to only 6 attempts, especially given that they must have had more than 10 corners and enjoyed more possession than ourselves. I've seen us play much better and get nothing this season.
Keith wrote:RedRedWine wrote:I thought we were very lucky to get three points. John Still has come out and said that we probably edged it, but I don't buy that. Yes we missed some guilt edged chances in the first half, but even those seemed to have stemmed from Dagenham errors and we actually created little.
We had twenty attempts on goal, they had six... why don't you buy that? I thought we should have had it sewn up by half time and we were the only side who looked likely to win it.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Keith and 94 guests