BFTG - Arsenal

[Jano]

I genuinely believe Clarke cost us at least the lottery of penalties.

What?!

Yes? That is what I posted. I believe Clarke cost us with his poor substitutions.

[Forbury Lion]

We also need shirts you can read the numbers on

although shirts the opposition players and manager can't read might be a better option, it might give us an advantage when the manager mark their number 10 and nobody knows who that is.

Great game - It just goes to show anything can happen in the cup and it nearly did.

No question about it, the players all gave 100% (that's on a scale of 0-100% by the way, none of this 110% crap) so it's a good way of seeing where our weaknesses are and for me, that's up front. The fact we don't play that well in the league is worrying, but perhaps those players who don't usually give 100% will from now on.

[bobby1413]

We also need shirts you can read the numbers on

although shirts the opposition players and manager can't read might be a better option, it might give us an advantage when the manager mark their number 10 and nobody knows who that is.

Great game - It just goes to show anything can happen in the cup and it nearly did.

No question about it, the players all gave 100% (that's on a scale of 0-100% by the way, none of this 110% crap) so it's a good way of seeing where our weaknesses are and for me, that's up front. The fact we don't play that well in the league is worrying, but perhaps those players who don't usually give 100% will from now on.

Agree but think the players gave 200%, couldn't have given anything more

[Extended-Phenotype]

I genuinely believe Clarke cost us at least the lottery of penalties.

What?!

Yes? That is what I posted. I believe Clarke cost us with his poor substitutions.

Have to agree with this.

Felt his sub's were too late and negative. Should have tried to win the game in 90, dragging it to extra time there was always going to be only one winner.

If Yak isn't fit enough to come on at 80 mins, don't have him on the bench. We were creating chances, fresh attacking legs could have nicked it for us at 1-1. We looked exhausted and just needed someone to stick it in the net. Clarke should have made changes earlier and gone for it.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

I disagree massively with the subs point. Those 11 men on that field had the measure of Arsenal in the 2nd half. They were absolutely on the money & were in the moment if you like. Early subs would have been disruptive I felt, and the tiredness wasn't an issue - the Arsenal players were just as tired.

All of us collectively said no subs Clarke as we were more than matching them. In a pressure situation like that, it's really hard for someone to come on and make a decent contribution - I didn't feel we had a game changer on the bench that could really offer that.

He obviously then thought about pens as he got Yak & Cox on the pitch which was fair enough.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Fair enough. I just felt like we needed an attacking change around 70 or so mins, and when Clarke finally did get round to doing something he took Half off for Jem. We needed a winner and the game was up for grabs. Wenger made changes earlier on and it was getting them back in the game.

[MmmMonsterMunch]

Fair enough. I just felt like we needed an attacking change around 70 or so mins, and when Clarke finally did get round to doing something he took Half off for Jem. We needed a winner and the game was up for grabs. Wenger made changes earlier on and it was getting them back in the game.

In theory I'd agree with you but his options were limited. Blackman & Akpan were not contenders to come on for me (were they even on the bench?) and Norwood would have struggled with the tempo of the game. Hopefully he can address that in the summer.

[Extended-Phenotype]

Fair enough. I just felt like we needed an attacking change around 70 or so mins, and when Clarke finally did get round to doing something he took Half off for Jem. We needed a winner and the game was up for grabs. Wenger made changes earlier on and it was getting them back in the game.

In theory I'd agree with you but his options were limited. Blackman & Akpan were not contenders to come on for me (were they even on the bench?) and Norwood would have struggled with the tempo of the game. Hopefully he can address that in the summer.

I'd have said the players on the pitch were limited before the game but they rose to the occasion - Cox, Blackman or even Yakubu could have bolstered our attack and been given the chance to be the hero before the game was surrendered to extra time and the almost inevitable loss.

[Hoop Blah]

I don't think you make relatively needless changes like that when the team is doing well and competing, which we were.

Fresh legs would've been great yes but I don't think we were tiring that much or struggling to contain the Arsenal runners so I certainly wouldn't say there was an error in not making changes earlier.

[Royal Lady]

I assumed the changes were with penalties in mind - Yak and Cox perhaps more likely to score one than Pog for a start. Karacan just had to be given time on the pitch - he deserved it.

[Royalcop]

[quote="Royal Lady"Karacan just had to be given time on the pitch - he deserved it.[/quote]

I don't think Jem would want to be patronised like that and I'm sure SC doesn't make subs based on sentimentality - he went on to do a job and because he could.

[Sanguine]

I'd agree to an extent that the subs did little or nothing to aid our cause.

Might have been me imagining it but it seemed that when Jem came on for Hal, Mackie started sitting deeper, and our attacking threat diminished - in fact our great spell after half-time seemed to last right the way up to that substitution, after which we looked tired very quickly, even with Jem's fresh legs.

But I don't really blame Clarke. He didn't have many cards to play on the bench. I'd have had Cox on sooner, but Pog worked admirably and Clarke probably thought we needed his presence up there.

Feds mistake was just one of those things. We weren't perfect but we were pretty damn good. Most important part of the summer is hanging on to Michael 'Bobby Moore' Hector.

[Sutekh]

Fair enough. I just felt like we needed an attacking change around 70 or so mins, and when Clarke finally did get round to doing something he took Half off for Jem. We needed a winner and the game was up for grabs. Wenger made changes earlier on and it was getting them back in the game.

Would agree if we had had a bit of direct pace up front but we didn't have that option on the bench so there was little point in changing anything. And as for Wenger's changes, well they were struggling and, let's be honest, the options on their bench were a little bit better than what we had available.

Feds mistake was just one of those things. We weren't perfect but we were pretty damn good.

Agreed, and you could argue that Mackie's decision to run where he did when Pog was charging down for that one on one was an outfield equivalent of Feds cock up.

Oh well, here's to going one better next season.....

[winchester_royal]

Yeah for me going 5 in the midfield was a mistake. It meant we had no outlet up front and the ball kept coming back at us with no pressure being put on their defence so could play it forward at will.

But credit to Clarke for going 2 up front in the first place, and as we were starting to get overrun in midfield as Williams and Chalobah tired there was logic behind bringing Jem on.

[Snowball]

I agree that the starting eleven were still doing well, so why change?

An 89th minute sub, to waste a bit of time, get us to ET, Karacan more defensive than HRK,
seemed like a reasonable bet, going for a 0-0 ET and heading for penalties.

That didn't happen because of the error, but if it had we'd be hailing genius

[Snowball]

Yeah for me going 5 in the midfield was a mistake. It meant we had no outlet up front and the ball kept coming back at us with no pressure being put on their defence so could play it forward at will.

I was amazed we played 4-4-2 and it "had to be a mistake" but SC was vindicated.

Going 4-5-1 for the last 30 minutes, however, DID make sense. I thought we would
cede even more possession and just try to hang on for penalties.

Let's remember, too, that holding Arsenal takes a lot of hard work
and they are very good at tiring teams out and winning with late goals

[Extended-Phenotype]

I agree that the starting eleven were still doing well, so why change?

Because our strikers weren't putting their chances away and fresh legs/brains might have turned those missed opportunities into goals.

You agree that Arsenal are specialists at tiring opponents and nicking late goals, so why play for extra time? Make that attacking sub with a bit of time to spare and sink them while were still tied. Don't save the attacking subs for when we are behind again. The mentality Clarke showed was regressive imo. I doubt the same negativity would be deployed or defended in the league, so why give Arsenal so much credit by almost admitting to them that we are holding on rather than going for it?

Disappointed in Clarke for that.

[melonhead]

I agree that the starting eleven were still doing well, so why change?

Because our strikers weren't putting their chances away and fresh legs/brains might have turned those missed opportunities into goals.

You agree that Arsenal are specialists at tiring opponents and nicking late goals, so why play for extra time? Make that attacking sub with a bit of time to spare and sink them while were still tied. Don't save the attacking subs for when we are behind again. The mentality Clarke showed was regressive imo. I doubt the same negativity would be deployed or defended in the league, so why give Arsenal so much credit by almost admitting to them that we are holding on rather than going for it?

Disappointed in Clarke for that.

id have been more disappointed if hed gone all out for the last 10 minutes to win, and conceded a goal before th e90 were up tbf tbh

[Franchise FC]

I agree that the starting eleven were still doing well, so why change?

Because our strikers weren't putting their chances away and fresh legs/brains might have turned those missed opportunities into goals.

You agree that Arsenal are specialists at tiring opponents and nicking late goals, so why play for extra time? Make that attacking sub with a bit of time to spare and sink them while were still tied. Don't save the attacking subs for when we are behind again. The mentality Clarke showed was regressive imo. I doubt the same negativity would be deployed or defended in the league, so why give Arsenal so much credit by almost admitting to them that we are holding on rather than going for it?

Disappointed in Clarke for that.

Did I miss something or is this the same Arsenal the form team in Europe, let alone England ?
Of course it would've been different in the league

[Snowball]

My God, this isn't complicated.

SC felt that, over 90 minutes we couldn't just go defensive.

We got to 89 minutes and were about to enter Extra-time.

the choice NOW is,

Can our shot-shy team score the winning goal
in 30 minutes (and not concede)

OR

Can we play extra-defensively for just 30 minutes and go to penalties.

ARSENAL at an average of about 20 Million per player, would want to go for it.

READING at about 10 Million for the squad, would probably fancy defending

Not for 90 minutes, but yes for thirty