Yorkshire Vixen
Active Member
our defenders having been scoring more than the forwards
do you think megson was right with this sub in particular??
our defenders having been scoring more than the forwards
There is nothing wrong with that.
But putting a defender on for a striker when you're 2-0 down is indefensible.
If he thought N'Gotty should come on, why didn't he take a defender off instead?
Can't disagree with you there, the point I'm trying to make is that he should have started with a more defensive set up. The half time substitutions only compounded the first mistake.
Six defenders in the starting line up - and you want a more defensive line up? I think you'll find that the laws of the game only allow one 'keeper!
The way we're going it'll be Goalkeeper and flat back ten.
the big picture is we are playing poorly for whatever reasons.the forwards have not instilled any confidence in me at all, when started or come on as subs.we were behind at florist and he brought stearman on and scored,dont see many posts appreciating that move.we scored 3 goals that night,none were from a forward.do you think megson was right with this sub in particular??
megson has said today he needs to get some loans in and has gone to mm for funds.
i think a forward and midfielder have been mentioned.I bet he brings in a couple of defenders and a defensive midfielder. :icon_cry:
I think GM did the right thing on Saturday by bringing on N'Gotty and Kishishev. If he had taken off a defender and brought on an attacker - as at the time I hoped he would - the likelyhood is we would have conceded again very early in to the second half and at 3-0 there would have been no chance of getting back into the game.
What I do not agree with was the substitution of Campbell for Fryatt. Having solidified things at the back and keeping it at 2-0 I believe after 65-70 minutes we then should have made an attacking substitution and brought Campbell on for one of the three centre halves. At that time we had to go for it. If we let in another goal then it would have made no difference as we were losing anyway.
Were these the same talentless buffoons who hammered the best team in the division 4-1 your talking about.
Spot of diarrhoea there, mate? Seriously though with GM surely if he would have kept things tight he would have wanted to keep together our strongest centre back partnership wouldn't he and not cock around with it like he did.
i agree with your first partI think GM did the right thing on Saturday by bringing on N'Gotty and Kishishev. If he had taken off a defender and brought on an attacker - as at the time I hoped he would - the likelyhood is we would have conceded again very early in to the second half and at 3-0 there would have been no chance of getting back into the game.
What I do not agree with was the substitution of Campbell for Fryatt. Having solidified things at the back and keeping it at 2-0 I believe after 65-70 minutes we then should have made an attacking substitution and brought Campbell on for one of the three centre halves. At that time we had to go for it. If we let in another goal then it would have made no difference as we were losing anyway.
theres other teams that have started well (not that we did)and are now getting stuffed.coventry lost 3-0 to bristol city and then lost 4-1 to ipswich.i dont see many calling for dowies head.although people would say he would be a better appointment than megson.charlton was allways going to be a tough ask, but if we had lost to florist 3-0 and charlton 4-1 the razor blades would be out in force.Gary megson has been out of football for a long time, whether due to a lack of skill or a conspiracy, I think that we have a frightened manager.
The reason that he took the Leicester job was that it is his last chance saloon. 2-0 down in twenty minutes, what does he do? Covers his back by putting on more defence and holds out. Let's be honest, 2-0 does not sound too bad: I suspect that we would not have been too concerned at the score, if we had made a match of it.
A scared manager might suit Milan, he'll do as he's told but, does not bode well for the club.
"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"
:
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.
Hume was carrying an injury.
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.
P | Pld | Pts | |
1 | Liverpool | 23 | 56 |
2 | Arsenal | 24 | 50 |
3 | Nottm F | 24 | 47 |
4 | Manchester C | 24 | 41 |
5 | Newcastle | 24 | 41 |
6 | Chelsea | 23 | 40 |
7 | Bournemouth | 24 | 40 |
8 | Aston Villa | 24 | 37 |
9 | Fulham | 24 | 36 |
10 | Brighton | 24 | 34 |
11 | Brentford | 24 | 31 |
12 | Palace | 24 | 30 |
13 | Manchester U | 24 | 29 |
14 | Tottenham | 24 | 27 |
15 | West Ham | 23 | 27 |
16 | Everton | 23 | 26 |
17 | Wolves | 24 | 19 |
18 | Leicester | 24 | 17 |
19 | Ipswich | 24 | 16 |
20 | Southampton | 24 | 9 |