Reserves v Huddersfield

[foxin_oz]

Can't they both play with Sheehan Left Back ?

They're both Irish, so they shouldn't have any trouble communicating.

 

[bocadillo]

Sheehan's free kicks are good, no doubt. But Hayes is getting in some good crosses lately.

What do we need crosses for when we have nobody to take advantage of them. At least when Sheehan takes them from dead-ball situations, the big boys have had time to make their way forward.

 

[Matt_B]

Can't they both play with Sheehan Left Back ?

I was going to suggest that, but just thought what's the point

 

[foxin_oz]

I get the distinct feeling nobody else thinks Hayes should be on the left wing. Isn't Sheehan a back though? :icon_conf

 

[Matt_B]

I get the distinct feeling nobody else thinks Hayes should be on the left wing. Isn't Sheehan a back though? :icon_conf

I would play Sheehan left back and Hayes in front of him. Dammit I said it

 

[highland fox]

I was going to suggest that, but just thought what's the point

Would seem logical to me,the same as playing James Chambers Right Back..seeing has he is a Right Back

 

[foxin_oz]

I would play Sheehan left back and Hayes in front of him. Dammit I said it

That's exactly what I was thinking. Of course that leaves a certain Mr Mattock on the bench. And he is an England rep. :icon_wink

 

[foxin_oz]

Would seem logical to me,the same as playing James Chambers Right Back..seeing has he is a Right Back

Agreed. With Kaebi on the right wing.

 

[highland fox]

Agreed. With Kaebi on the right wing.

Anybody on the Right Wing but Impey MkII.

 

[Dunc]

I must have seen a different game cause I thought Hayes was (apart from a good first 10mins) absolutely gash.

Everytime he got it he gave it away either due to poor control or crap passing.

If it had been Stearman he'd have been slaughtered.

 

[foxin_oz]

I must have seen a different game cause I thought Hayes was (apart from a good first 10mins) absolutely gash.

Everytime he got it he gave it away either due to poor control or crap passing.

If it had been Stearman he'd have been slaughtered.

I can only go on what you guys at the game are saying as I never get to go. I just had the feeling from reports I'd read that Hayes had been playing well.

 

[Dunc]

I can only go on what you guys at the game are saying as I never get to go. I just had the felling from reports I'd read that Hayes had been playing well.

Like I say he did well for 10 mins then completed faded.

But as I say what do I know (cue posts galore) as I also thought Chambers barely got into the game when he came on, yet people on here seemed to think he turned the game.

King seemed to be the most effective of the subs to me, and whilst I agree we had plenty of pressure in the last 20mins it appeared to be because we were first to the 2nd balls so when we did lump it forward we at least won it back quickly and forced some corners the majority of which came from Hume & Stearman's side.

I think it had more to do with Newton going off than anything if I'm honest.

 

[foxin_oz]

Like I say he did well for 10 mins then completed faded.

But as I say what do I know (cue posts galore) as I also thought Chambers barely got into the game when he came on, yet people on here seemed to think he turned the game.

King seemed to be the most effective of the subs to me, and whilst I agree we had plenty of pressure in the last 20mins it appeared to be because we were first to the 2nd balls so when we did lump it forward we at least won it back quickly and forced some corners.

I actually got to see the last twenty minutes (thanks to Step for posting that link) and King and Chambers made a real difference I thought. Also Sheehan's corners were pretty good.

 

[highland fox]

Like I say he did well for 10 mins then completed faded.

But as I say what do I know (cue posts galore) as I also thought Chambers barely got into the game when he came on, yet people on here seemed to think he turned the game.

King seemed to be the most effective of the subs to me, and whilst I agree we had plenty of pressure in the last 20mins it appeared to be because we were first to the 2nd balls so when we did lump it forward we at least won it back quickly and forced some corners.

I think some people might mistake running around a lot for ability.I don't think Chambers was either brilliant or rubbish,the same goes for all of them with the exception of Newton who i just think is rubbish

 

[foxin_oz]

I think some people might mistake running around a lot for ability.I don't think Chambers was either brilliant or rubbish,the same goes for all of them with the exception of Newton who i just think is rubbish

There seems to at least be a consensus on Newton. Chambers seemed to have a nice pass and generally seemed energetic but I guess he would've been fresher than most at that stage.

 

[1966]

Like I say he did well for 10 mins then completed faded.

But as I say what do I know (cue posts galore) as I also thought Chambers barely got into the game when he came on, yet people on here seemed to think he turned the game.

King seemed to be the most effective of the subs to me, and whilst I agree we had plenty of pressure in the last 20mins it appeared to be because we were first to the 2nd balls so when we did lump it forward we at least won it back quickly and forced some corners the majority of which came from Hume & Stearman's side.

I think it had more to do with Newton going off than anything if I'm honest.

Totally agree with you about Hayes. Good first few minutes, whilst they got used to him, then rubbish.

I thought Chambers however seemed to be able to do what the others up front couldn't, namely control the ball and hold up play until others got forward. IMO this did change the balance of the game because we maintained possession instead of giving it straight back to them.

 

[alex]

A bit harsh to label Hayes as poor, he was largely bypassed for long periods after coming on. I still think Porter is the best left-hand-sided player we have.