Subs cost us that game
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Subs cost us that game
Just walked home pondering what we could have done there different.
The subs absolutely killed the game. Especially sticking the angry side show Bob on the right wing. He’s never a right winger. I’m in two minds if he’s a footballer or just someone who likes to give stupid free kicks away.
Not too disappointed with the result as we were by far the stronger team in shocking conditions . But we lack a creative spark (benson esc) to trouble teams coming off the bench. Fleming isn’t a striker. Completely disjointed after a really good 60-70 mins on top.
Another 2 points dropped in my eyes but we keep moving forward .
The subs absolutely killed the game. Especially sticking the angry side show Bob on the right wing. He’s never a right winger. I’m in two minds if he’s a footballer or just someone who likes to give stupid free kicks away.
Not too disappointed with the result as we were by far the stronger team in shocking conditions . But we lack a creative spark (benson esc) to trouble teams coming off the bench. Fleming isn’t a striker. Completely disjointed after a really good 60-70 mins on top.
Another 2 points dropped in my eyes but we keep moving forward .
-
- Posts: 6810
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:51 am
- Been Liked: 2125 times
- Has Liked: 1061 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
They did - Hannibal was awful and Flemming put more effort in berating the pitch invader than he did trying to play football - but I was happy with a point given the worsening conditions in the second half. First half we created lots of decent chances.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 20579
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
- Been Liked: 4537 times
- Has Liked: 2046 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
The poor final balls from several players cost us the game, opting to shoot rather than pass to a teammate in a better position.
These 2 users liked this post: Quicknick gawthorpe_view
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
That also. But we were way on top most of the game there. More positives than negatives.ElectroClaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:28 pmThe poor final balls from several players cost us the game, opting to shoot rather than pass to a teammate in a better position.
Why don’t our strikers play on the shoulder either?? Winds me up. 2 or 3 times we would have been in if someone gambled
Re: Subs cost us that game
No surprise that we lost all initiative when we took our only striker off along with our only creative threat (although he was injured)
These 2 users liked this post: blatherwickstattoos Claret Till I Die
-
- Posts: 7582
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2301 times
- Has Liked: 4081 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Parker is usually pretty good with his substitutions, but today he was way off it. They definitely took away our momentum.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 7830
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:04 pm
- Been Liked: 3107 times
- Has Liked: 4866 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
I mentioned it on the Hannibal thread, but Parker's options to change things up creatively wouldnt half be improved if he had Foster, Redmond, Tresor, Benson and Ramsey available...
These 2 users liked this post: blatherwickstattoos mybloodisclaret
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Just imagine a nippy striker who plays on the shoulder in those conditions.
need to find one in the window to push for promotion.
These 2 users liked this post: randomclaret2 mybloodisclaret
-
- Posts: 34812
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12691 times
- Has Liked: 6314 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Subs cost us that game
Taking Sarmiento off was an awful decision and it looked like he told Parker exactly that. Brilliant first hall, crap second.
These 2 users liked this post: blatherwickstattoos MG70
-
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:50 pm
- Been Liked: 696 times
- Has Liked: 207 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Totally agree.Terrible substitutions. Lucky to get a point.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
Re: Subs cost us that game
Somewhat lucky to get a point in the end because they had some real chances second half as we seemed to lose our way and intensity.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Unless he was injured yes taking off our best player Sarmiento seemed a ludicrous decision.Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:44 pmTaking Sarmiento off was an awful decision and it looked like he told Parker exactly that. Brilliant first hall, crap second.
-
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:38 am
- Been Liked: 138 times
- Has Liked: 377 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
They were running through the centre of our midfield on the counter. Luca was being thick with the ball in our own half. We were playing ourselves into trouble. The subs were largely pragmatic. Laurent was called right. He was decent. Jay's legs had gone so no choice but Flemming. Blame our owners for that ****. Pires created when coming on and bizarrely Doak was less involved. The issue then lies with Hannibal who is always playing out of position. He's a centre midfielder. I would have been tempted to swap Browny wide and sit Hannibal in CM.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 34812
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12691 times
- Has Liked: 6314 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Subs cost us that game
I thought he might have been but the conversation between the two of them and Sarmiento throwing his arms about looked like he agreed with everyone in the crowd. Dreadful decision, they couldn't live with him.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 2976
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 8:04 pm
- Been Liked: 945 times
- Has Liked: 5856 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Sarmiento was definitely injured. Limped for the last 5 mins he was on. Redmond would have been an ideal replacement if / when fit.
-
- Posts: 34812
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 12691 times
- Has Liked: 6314 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Subs cost us that game
He deffo got a kick but his reaction didn't match that, weird one - agree totally about Redmond thoughmybloodisclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:58 pmSarmiento was definitely injured. Limped for the last 5 mins he was on. Redmond would have been an ideal replacement if / when fit.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 8715
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 2321 times
- Has Liked: 1287 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Disagree though I may have considered Koleosho coming off first and Sarmiento going in his place. Jay did nothing and should have been off at Half time. Egan got injured and Laurent added some stability. Koleosho was giving the ball away too much. Having said that Pires played well
-
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:44 am
- Been Liked: 199 times
- Has Liked: 48 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
And then what get relegated again shudder at the thought of this team in the premier leagueblatherwickstattoos wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:43 pmJust imagine a nippy striker who plays on the shoulder in those conditions.need to find one in the window to push for promotion.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
Re: Subs cost us that game
The conditions didn’t help but to be honest I thought we got lucky, second half they had three really good chances and should have scored at least two of them. In the short time he was on the pitch Latte Lath looks exactly what we’re short of.
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Facts hahaha.Sheedyclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:03 pmAnd then what get relegated again shudder at the thought of this team in the premier league
Re: Subs cost us that game
Should have been Laurent for Sarmiento if he was crocked. Hannibal was the wrong choice.
Similarly, it should have been Hountondji for Jay. Flemming isn't striker and doesn't look close to the level required.
Pires should have come on for Koleosho as well, IMO. There was no need to change the CB's over. Just try Pires on the LW for 10 minutes, see what happens. He produced more from full back in his cameo than Luca did from the wing all night!
Similarly, it should have been Hountondji for Jay. Flemming isn't striker and doesn't look close to the level required.
Pires should have come on for Koleosho as well, IMO. There was no need to change the CB's over. Just try Pires on the LW for 10 minutes, see what happens. He produced more from full back in his cameo than Luca did from the wing all night!
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:26 am
- Been Liked: 5 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Absolutely agree with previous posters. Surely Sarmiento had to stay on the pitch. Koleosho was the one to make way. Sarmiento out wide, Flemming, Jay, and Anthony. One of Cullen/Brownhill for Laurent. Just can’t believe Scott didn’t see it like we do.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3563 times
- Has Liked: 7816 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
How did the subs manage to cost s a game? We didn't lose it.
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Cost us the win * editboatshed bill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:18 pmHow did the subs manage to cost s a game? We didn't lose it.
-
- Posts: 17337
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3563 times
- Has Liked: 7816 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Draw was a fair result. Simple as that.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 2998
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
- Been Liked: 891 times
- Has Liked: 1680 times
- Location: Mostly Europe
Re: Subs cost us that game
That was the best did we have played at home this season and we were the better team.
The best I have seen us play this season.
Take and move on.
The best I have seen us play this season.
Take and move on.
This user liked this post: blatherwickstattoos
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
I agree but think with a little bit more creativity off the bench they were there for the taking.
-
- Posts: 346
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:42 pm
- Been Liked: 195 times
- Has Liked: 54 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
That's why we are all managers and he isn't.Georgiaclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:14 pmAbsolutely agree with previous posters. Surely Sarmiento had to stay on the pitch. Koleosho was the one to make way. Sarmiento out wide, Flemming, Jay, and Anthony. One of Cullen/Brownhill for Laurent. Just can’t believe Scott didn’t see it like we do.
Oh wait a minute
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Can’t fault him so far this season really with the hand he’s been dealt and the injuries… but to put hanibal on the right wing was a mistake. No getting away from thatHbclaret007 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:27 pmThat's why we are all managers and he isn't.
Oh wait a minute![]()
Re: Subs cost us that game
The use of Hannibal, before tonight, baffles me. Tonight was just bizarre, moving him out to the wing. For me, he must be played further back. He’s reasonably technical, but doesn't seem to me to have the nouse for a more advanced midfield role.
If Sarmiento was injured, it left Parker with a bit of a quandary. If he wasn’t and it was a tactical change, it was a mistake.
Koleosho was on one of his properly frustrating to watch evenings. Only once did he go on the outside of their winger (second half, won a corner). In the first half, he was constantly coming inside and running into trouble - so frustrating when there’s acres of grass for him to run into, if he goes on the outside.
He had to be hooked after that period in the second half when he was defending and gave them the ball back four times in quick succession, instead of taking a safer option.
All in all, we will hopefully look back on this as a good point earned.
Must admit, I was surprised to see Worrall and Ekdal on the bench and no Redmond (unless he’s had a bit of a setback)?
If Sarmiento was injured, it left Parker with a bit of a quandary. If he wasn’t and it was a tactical change, it was a mistake.
Koleosho was on one of his properly frustrating to watch evenings. Only once did he go on the outside of their winger (second half, won a corner). In the first half, he was constantly coming inside and running into trouble - so frustrating when there’s acres of grass for him to run into, if he goes on the outside.
He had to be hooked after that period in the second half when he was defending and gave them the ball back four times in quick succession, instead of taking a safer option.
All in all, we will hopefully look back on this as a good point earned.
Must admit, I was surprised to see Worrall and Ekdal on the bench and no Redmond (unless he’s had a bit of a setback)?
This user liked this post: xxmunkyennuixx
-
- Posts: 6435
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 3179 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Unless Sarmiento was injured taking him off was an odd call. He was more effective than either winger (although I thought Koleosho was more effective than Anthony tonight) and those first two changes didn't work.
Jay was ineffective but was also increasingly isolated as the weather pinned us back. The reluctance to use Flemming in his preferred number 10 role is curious - given conditions, his physicality would have seemed we suited in that role to conditions and I thought bringing him on to play that role with Jay, with Sarmiento replacing either winger, would've been worth 15 minutes.
In fairness, the second set of changes did improve us although Hannibal is clearly not a right winger.
Jay was ineffective but was also increasingly isolated as the weather pinned us back. The reluctance to use Flemming in his preferred number 10 role is curious - given conditions, his physicality would have seemed we suited in that role to conditions and I thought bringing him on to play that role with Jay, with Sarmiento replacing either winger, would've been worth 15 minutes.
In fairness, the second set of changes did improve us although Hannibal is clearly not a right winger.
-
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2022 11:39 am
- Been Liked: 548 times
- Has Liked: 189 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
After half time, the game began to runaway from us Boro had several good chances and and he had to make substitutions.
We ended the game more strongly than they did but if you miss so many chances you aren't going to win games. So, many players are snatching at shots in the final third and choosing the wrong options when others are free in the box it's hard to blame anyone but the players.
We ended the game more strongly than they did but if you miss so many chances you aren't going to win games. So, many players are snatching at shots in the final third and choosing the wrong options when others are free in the box it's hard to blame anyone but the players.
This user liked this post: xxmunkyennuixx
-
- Posts: 6435
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 3179 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Not sure that's fair of Koleosho. They doubled up and denied him space outside and I didn't think Humphrys took defenders away from him. Anthony did have space but didn't greatly use it.DCWat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:29 pmThe use of Hannibal, before tonight, baffles me. Tonight was just bizarre, moving him out to the wing. For me, he must be played further back. He’s reasonably technical, but doesn't seem to me to have the nouse for a more advanced midfield role.
If Sarmiento was injured, it left Parker with a bit of a quandary. If he wasn’t and it was a tactical change, it was a mistake.
Koleosho was on one of his properly frustrating to watch evenings. Only once did he go on the outside of their winger (second half, won a corner). In the first half, he was constantly coming inside and running into trouble - so frustrating when there’s acres of grass for him to run into, if he goes on the outside.
He had to be hooked after that period in the second half when he was defending and gave them the ball back four times in quick succession, instead of taking a safer option.
All in all, we will hopefully look back on this as a good point earned.
Must admit, I was surprised to see Worrall and Ekdal on the bench and no Redmond (unless he’s had a bit of a setback)?
Re: Subs cost us that game
In the first half there were numerous times that he had huge swathes of grass to run into on the outside, he didn’t once take that option, instead coming inside and running into trouble.
If he’s doubled up on and that option isn’t available, fair enough, but when the option is available, he needs to start taking it occasionally.
It becomes too predictable and makes the full back’s job easier.
If he’s doubled up on and that option isn’t available, fair enough, but when the option is available, he needs to start taking it occasionally.
It becomes too predictable and makes the full back’s job easier.
This user liked this post: bobinho
-
- Posts: 6435
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 3179 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
It's a blind alley when there's two men inviting him to go that way though, which there were, and the left back wasn't underlapping or positioning himself to draw one away. He's quick but he'd have to be an Olympic sprinter to get round the outside in that situation.DCWat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 pmIn the first half there were numerous times that he had huge swathes of grass to run into on the outside, he didn’t once take that option, instead coming inside and running into trouble.
If he’s doubled up on and that option isn’t available, fair enough, but when the option is available, he needs to start taking it occasionally.
It becomes too predictable and makes the full back’s job easier.
-
- Posts: 3085
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:36 pm
- Been Liked: 650 times
- Has Liked: 155 times
- Location: the ghost in the atom
Re: Subs cost us that game
Utter ********blatherwickstattoos wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:24 pmJust walked home pondering what we could have done there different.
The subs absolutely killed the game. Especially sticking the angry side show Bob on the right wing. He’s never a right winger. I’m in two minds if he’s a footballer or just someone who likes to give stupid free kicks away.
Not too disappointed with the result as we were by far the stronger team in shocking conditions . But we lack a creative spark (benson esc) to trouble teams coming off the bench. Fleming isn’t a striker. Completely disjointed after a really good 60-70 mins on top.
Another 2 points dropped in my eyes but we keep moving forward .
-
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:37 am
- Been Liked: 628 times
- Has Liked: 443 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
All this talk about Flemming being a number 10. What type of number 10? He doesn’t drop into the hole and link the play. He doesn’t drop in a switch the play. He doesn’t drop in and turn.claretspice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:36 pmUnless Sarmiento was injured taking him off was an odd call. He was more effective than either winger (although I thought Koleosho was more effective than Anthony tonight) and those first two changes didn't work.
Jay was ineffective but was also increasingly isolated as the weather pinned us back. The reluctance to use Flemming in his preferred number 10 role is curious - given conditions, his physicality would have seemed we suited in that role to conditions and I thought bringing him on to play that role with Jay, with Sarmiento replacing either winger, would've been worth 15 minutes.
In fairness, the second set of changes did improve us although Hannibal is clearly not a right winger.
No idea what he’s going to offer to this set up.
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
-
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2023 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 454 times
- Has Liked: 641 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Luckily he’s only on loan ( I hope)helmclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:51 pmAll this talk about Flemming being a number 10. What type of number 10? He doesn’t drop into the hole and link the play. He doesn’t drop in a switch the play. He doesn’t drop in and turn.
No idea what he’s going to offer to this set up.
Re: Subs cost us that game
I have to disagree, Spice.claretspice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:48 pmIt's a blind alley when there's two men inviting him to go that way though, which there were, and the left back wasn't underlapping or positioning himself to draw one away. He's quick but he'd have to be an Olympic sprinter to get round the outside in that situation.
There were, in the first half, occasions where he had opportunity to take the full back on the outside - unless their full back himself was on Olympic sprinter, there was no reason that he couldn’t have taken that option, when presented, rather than bringing the ball back inside to where it was congested.
It’s not a blind alley if you’ve a clear run to the byline by taking on the full back. It’s a blinder alley coming inside to an area that’s more congested.
He has both the pace and the trickery to take that option more regularly than he does, and by doing so, it sows that seed of doubt into the fullbacks mind.
This user liked this post: xxmunkyennuixx
-
- Posts: 6776
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1282 times
- Has Liked: 330 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Can’t believe the stick Flemming is getting, he was much more affective tonight in his 30 minutes than Jay Rod, for me this game always suited Flemming up top rather than Jay
-
- Posts: 4901
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:20 pm
- Been Liked: 1251 times
- Has Liked: 1485 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
I can only think that Sarmiento was injured because he was causing Middlesbrough alsorts of problems in the first half.
Not really surprised Koleosho was eventually hooked, as I said on his thread, the lad has oodles of talent but is like an uncontrolled bottle of pop, really needs a decent one-to-one coach to get his talents optimised for this level.
Not really surprised Koleosho was eventually hooked, as I said on his thread, the lad has oodles of talent but is like an uncontrolled bottle of pop, really needs a decent one-to-one coach to get his talents optimised for this level.
-
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:39 am
- Been Liked: 92 times
- Has Liked: 452 times
- Location: Australia
Re: Subs cost us that game
That’s the spiritSheedyclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:03 pmAnd then what get relegated again shudder at the thought of this team in the premier league

-
- Posts: 2042
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:15 am
- Been Liked: 299 times
- Has Liked: 563 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Think we were better in first half the way we reacted to going behind but second half they pushed on a little more and just shaded it and could have won with chances they created but fair result in awful conditions..Burnleyareback2 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:24 pmThat was the best did we have played at home this season and we were the better team.
The best I have seen us play this season.
Take and move on.
Re: Subs cost us that game
They had 3 absolute sitters in the 2nd half. The subs were made to try and shore things up a bit but we could have been 3-1 down before any of them were made.
Happy to come away with a point, just need to win on Tuesday.
Happy to come away with a point, just need to win on Tuesday.
This user liked this post: xxmunkyennuixx
-
- Posts: 8700
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1874 times
- Has Liked: 2236 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Another 2 points lost but conditions were absolutely shite. Lauren should have started after his mom performance at Stoke.But why do we insist on playing down the left? Antony was in acres of space unmarked wide right and yet consistently ignored.A box finisher in January is an absolute must though.Again too many passes outside the box when attacking and it took a full back to show the rest how it's done. Great goal but, sorry Connor the dodgy car salesman look does nothing for you.
-
- Posts: 6776
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1282 times
- Has Liked: 330 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
When he came on last night Flemming should plenty of linking the play, slightly over hit pass that nearly played Laurent in, him and brownhill had a nice link up that greeted a chance.helmclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:51 pmAll this talk about Flemming being a number 10. What type of number 10? He doesn’t drop into the hole and link the play. He doesn’t drop in a switch the play. He doesn’t drop in and turn.
No idea what he’s going to offer to this set up.
Against stoke Flemming dropped in switched the play to Anthony who played the ball into the box that resulted in us winning a pen
-
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2023 11:17 am
- Been Liked: 364 times
- Has Liked: 279 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Just wait till our Subs also have Redmond and Benson
Tonight we didn’t have the backup to make a creative difference but SP needed to take the players off that he did cause they were either dead on their feet of injured
Having to juggle the back line and put Hannibal on the left worried me but happy with a point
3 points on Tuesday
UTC
Tonight we didn’t have the backup to make a creative difference but SP needed to take the players off that he did cause they were either dead on their feet of injured
Having to juggle the back line and put Hannibal on the left worried me but happy with a point
3 points on Tuesday
UTC
-
- Posts: 6776
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2022 11:09 pm
- Been Liked: 1282 times
- Has Liked: 330 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
I can’t get behind the subs costing us the game, until the subs we were second best in the second half and Boro should have been 3-1 up. 3 then had 2 massive chances to play Anthony and brownhill in and didn’t both times, I think people are clutching for something to moan about Parker because we didn’t win
This user liked this post: xxmunkyennuixx
-
- Posts: 6435
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:13 am
- Been Liked: 3179 times
- Has Liked: 151 times
Re: Subs cost us that game
Each to their own opinion. But Dijksteel is very quick, and he was dropping off slightly with Barlaser engaging Koleosho. That gave Dijksteel a head start if Koleosho went outside. He did a couple of times in the first half and he won a corner and a throw. But we didn't help him enough by dragging Barlaser away from him. In the end Koleosho tended to try coming inside because if he beat Barlaser he was running into space and towards team mates.DCWat wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:03 amI have to disagree, Spice.
There were, in the first half, occasions where he had opportunity to take the full back on the outside - unless their full back himself was on Olympic sprinter, there was no reason that he couldn’t have taken that option, when presented, rather than bringing the ball back inside to where it was congested.
It’s not a blind alley if you’ve a clear run to the byline by taking on the full back. It’s a blinder alley coming inside to an area that’s more congested.
He has both the pace and the trickery to take that option more regularly than he does, and by doing so, it sows that seed of doubt into the fullbacks mind.
He didn't have a good game but he wasn't awful either.