by Zaretsky » 31 Oct 2012 11:00
by Zaretsky » 31 Oct 2012 11:01
by melonhead » 31 Oct 2012 11:05
by Extended-Phenotype » 31 Oct 2012 11:07
by Snowball » 31 Oct 2012 11:08
by melonhead » 31 Oct 2012 11:11
by Man Friday » 31 Oct 2012 18:31
PistolPeteAlexander LitvinenkoCypry You miss my point, I'm not blaming Church in any way - rather, I think Brian made a poor substitution in bringing Church on - at the time we made the substitution we were on the back foot, there were two likely outcomes - we either held on for the win in the three or so remaining minutes, or Arsenal equalised and we were into extra time. Why did he decide Church was the best option at that point? It's not like he's great at holding the ball to help us hold on for the win, at least no better than ALF, yet the other possibility was facing extra time with no substitutions and our least prolific striker on the pitch...
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think Brian showed his inexperience in making that change (I'd have preferred it if he hadn't made it at all), and it ultimately limited our chances of being a significant threat in extra time.
It wasn't that he was bringing Church on specifically - he was making a substitution to slow down the play and hopefully waste time. So in his mind it didn't matter why it was being brought on - because if the strategy had worked there'd have been no time left.
But in the time added on because of that substitution, Arsenal equalised - so we were then left with the worst of all worlds - 30 minutes extra plus Simon Church and no Roberts.
But I have no doubts at all that Church wasn't brought on for extra time - a player (who happened to be Church) - was brought on just to make a substitution.
How many times does this ned to be explained?! The time that was LOST during the substitution process was ADDED on. Net gain = 0 MINUTES = Arsenal would have scored anyway!
by Snowball » 31 Oct 2012 18:46
by Ian Royal » 31 Oct 2012 18:59
Terminal Boardom Don't forget that when we lost 6-0 to Bristol Rovers, it was 0-0 at half time.
by AthleticoSpizz » 31 Oct 2012 19:02
by melonhead » 31 Oct 2012 19:05
Ian RoyalTerminal Boardom Don't forget that when we lost 6-0 to Bristol Rovers, it was 0-0 at half time.
Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.
.
by winchester_royal » 31 Oct 2012 19:09
Snowball I think what people have to remember is there are two sides playing
by Ian Royal » 31 Oct 2012 19:28
melonheadIan RoyalTerminal Boardom Don't forget that when we lost 6-0 to Bristol Rovers, it was 0-0 at half time.
Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.
.
lolat not seeing the similarity in psychology as the goals came and we saw our lead slowly slip away
youre also ignoring that arsenals 55 million pound reserves are twenty times the team that bristol were
by Norfolk Royal » 31 Oct 2012 19:42
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 31 Oct 2012 20:05
Ian RoyalmelonheadIan Royal Difference with getting slaughtered by large numbers of goals, say 4-0, 5-0, 5-1, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 etc etc, is that once you've let in a few and are clearly being beaten, heads go down and players give up, making it easier for the opposition to wrack up big scores easily.
.
lolat not seeing the similarity in psychology as the goals came and we saw our lead slowly slip away
youre also ignoring that arsenals 55 million pound reserves are twenty times the team that bristol were
And our team should be 20 times what it was back then. We were still in the game, if their heads went down and they gave up because Arsenal had got three goals back to 4-3, they should be lined up and shot.
by Ian Royal » 31 Oct 2012 20:06
Norfolk Royal Isn't the 'lined up and shot' analogy a bit overused now.
You'd think there were gun turrets in the floodlights.
by Winnershroyal » 31 Oct 2012 20:07
by Rev Algenon Stickleback H » 31 Oct 2012 20:07
melonheadyeah - that's the worst part. Losing to a rag-tag bunch of nobodies who only cost £55 million.
by Winnershroyal » 31 Oct 2012 20:08
by 'lista » 31 Oct 2012 20:18
Users browsing this forum: Clyde1998, Four Of Clubs, From Despair To Where?, Google [Bot], Plymouth exile, stealthpapes and 193 guests