Joe in the U21's

[foxybru]

Great use of his time....:icon_roll

"Joe Mattock was an 88th minute substitute in England U21's 0-0 friendly draw with Poland at Molineux on Wednesday evening.

The young left back was introduced on the right hand side of midfield by boss Stuart Pearce in the closing stages of the match"

Also, great reporting (from the OS). Apparently the match was Wednesday evening, so we must be in predictive mode..

Perhaps a bit cynical, I'm chuffed he's getting the call from his country, but this just seems a complete waste..

Just a good job it wasn't in Krakow and was only 40 miles down the road at the Wolfs.

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

idve rather he wasnt used, our need is greater than theirs him returning injury-free should/would be the priority

 

[Hazzman]

Just a good job it wasn't in Krakow and was only 40 miles down the road at the Wolfs.

For the record, the Poles never play their games in Krakow including the u21s.

 

[drummindefender]

For the record, the Poles never play their games in Krakow including the u21s.

geek

 

[Joe_Fox]

I thought this was about me but it wasn't so I'm ok now.

 

[Graz]

I thought this was about me but it wasn't so I'm ok now.

It's only if it says "Joe in the under 16s" you need to worry about

 

[Lako42]

Right midfield.


Confirms my thoughts that Pearce is infact a clueless donkey.

 

[Hazzman]

Correct me on the Polski thing. They are currently playing USA in Krakow. However, it's very rare for them to play in Krakow.

 

[alex]

I think it's good for him to just be around that atmosphere at this stage in his career.

 

[Jeff]

Right midfield.


Confirms my thoughts that Pearce is infact a clueless donkey.

So do you think it would have been a good idea to change a back four that had kept a clean sheet for 88 minutes?

 

[Lako42]

So do you think it would have been a good idea to change a back four that had kept a clean sheet for 88 minutes?

Not at all, i think it was a crap decision to bring him on at all, if there is no need to change his possition then don't.

He can play left midfield and does on a regular basis for us, maybe that would have suited him better than playing him somewhere he never plays.

 

[Jeff]

Not at all, i think it was a crap decision to bring him on at all, if there is no need to change his possition then don't.

He was the only unused substitute, with two minutes to go. If he hadn't been brought on after all the other subs were it may have knocked his confidence, so I think it was a good idea to put him on, and putting him in midfield would have had less of an impact on the team than changing the defence.
Look what happened on Saturday shortly after he came on for us, and that was in his proper position!

 

[Lako42]

He was the only unused substitute, with two minutes to go. If he hadn't been brought on after all the other subs were it may have knocked his confidence, so I think it was a good idea to put him on, and putting him in midfield would have had less of an impact on the team than changing the defence.
Look what happened on Saturday shortly after he came on for us, and that was in his proper position!

I think the lad can distinguish between being given a proper go and being slung on in any possition for two minutes. Im pretty sure that putting him on was no confidence booster and he probably felt the same way he would have if he was unused.

A wasted opportunity and pottentially a bad situation for us for the sake of two minutes football.