GM's tactics

[Jeff]

When we appointed GM I was critical of what I perceived to be his negative tactics.

I think this quote from him following Saturday's match says it all...

"We changed the formation for the second half at Charlton and I thought we looked better with Bruno N'Gotty in there at the back. But what it meant was that one of the forwards, Iain Hume, had to come off, and I felt sorry for him because he is such a good player"


I assumed Hume must have been injured, for him to be replaced by a defender when we were 2-0 down. But Megson obviously thinks holding out for a 2-0 defeat is better than trying to get back into the game.

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

When we appointed GM I was critical of what I perceived to be his negative tactics.

I think this quote from him following Saturday's match says it all...

"We changed the formation for the second half at Charlton and I thought we looked better with Bruno N'Gotty in there at the back. But what it meant was that one of the forwards, Iain Hume, had to come off, and I felt sorry for him because he is such a good player"


I assumed Hume must have been injured, for him to be replaced by a defender when we were 2-0 down. But Megson obviously thinks holding out for a 2-0 defeat is better than trying to get back into the game.

Also if Hume is such a good player then why the fcuk would you substitute him. Surely you keep your best attacking options on the pitch.

I have tried to defend Megson and give him time but those sort of actions and explainations are inexcuseable.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Also if Hume is such a good player then why the fcuk would you substitute him. Surely you keep your best attacking options on the pitch.

I have tried to defend Megson and give him time but those sort of actions and explainations are inexcuseable.

cos he was playing out of position anyway

 

[alex]

I hate it.

 

[fcukcov]

Maybe it was damage limitation though. From what Ive heard and read if it wasn’t for the defensive changes it could easily have been a lot more than 2-0. easier to argue losing 2-0 then 6-0.

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

Maybe it was damage limitation though. From what Ive heard and read if it wasn’t for the defensive changes it could easily have been a lot more than 2-0. easier to argue losing 2-0 then 6-0.

my mum went and said it couldve been 4-0 at half time

 

[Jeff]

Maybe it was damage limitation though. From what Ive heard and read if it wasn’t for the defensive changes it could easily have been a lot more than 2-0. easier to argue losing 2-0 then 6-0.

But if we keep the ball in their half they can't score.

 

[lcfc40]

I really don't like the tactics of hitting the ball upfield, especially to cort who couldn't challenge a toddler for a header, we look a lot more comfortable/confident playing the ball along the ground, but you need DJ and Hume on the pitch for that.

 

[Boy Genius]

But if we keep the ball in their half they can't score.

Joey did...................:icon_bigg

 

[G F P]

Maybe it was damage limitation though. From what Ive heard and read if it wasn’t for the defensive changes it could easily have been a lot more than 2-0. easier to argue losing 2-0 then 6-0.

Negative tactics will always lose you games.

I'd rather we went down 6-0 fighting then playing out for 2-0.

 

[NN Fox]

When we appointed GM I was critical of what I perceived to be his negative tactics.

I think this quote from him following Saturday's match says it all...

"We changed the formation for the second half at Charlton and I thought we looked better with Bruno N'Gotty in there at the back. But what it meant was that one of the forwards, Iain Hume, had to come off, and I felt sorry for him because he is such a good player"


I assumed Hume must have been injured, for him to be replaced by a defender when we were 2-0 down. But Megson obviously thinks holding out for a 2-0 defeat is better than trying to get back into the game.

You would have thought that in the circumstances; away from home, playing a top 6 team, a need to consolidate, a better tactic would have been to start with the more defensive line up.

 

[fcukcov]

But if we keep the ball in their half they can't score.

i quite agree, but if we arent good enouch to keep it their half then not only are we truely fecked but we may as well limit the damage, the gola difference at the end of the season may be very important.

Negative tactics will always lose you games.

I'd rather we went down 6-0 fighting then playing out for 2-0.

Never said they would win us games.

 

[Jeff]

i quite agree, but if we arent good enouch to keep it their half then not only are we truely fecked but we may as well limit the damage, the gola difference at the end of the season may be very important.

If our manager is worried about whether we'll go down on goal difference we really are fecked, we should have higher ambitions than that.

 

[Boy Genius]

Negative tactics will always lose you games.

I'd rather we went down 6-0 fighting then playing out for 2-0.

losing by massive scores does a lot of damage to moral. GM can say to his players that they at least kept a clean sheet in the second half

 

[fcukcov]

If our manager is worried about whether we'll go down on goal difference we really are fecked, we should have higher ambitions than that.

I meant when we sneak the play-offs on gd? I dont know why you thought I was being negative.......:icon_lol:

 

[alex]

I don't like GM Food either.

 

[Boy Genius]

I meant when we sneak the play-offs on gd? I dont know why you thought I was being negative.......:icon_lol:

I knew what you meant Fcukcov

 

[Dunc]

Bring back Rob Kelly I say

 

[G F P]

I appreciate your point but in the circumstances it was a hollow victory Charlton knew we were playing damage limitation and were happy to coast the second half.

 

[Jeff]

I meant when we sneak the play-offs on gd?

We're not going to get anywhere near the play-offs playing like that.