Changing point was gape going off for me..Being replaced by Saunders.All energy tacking player replaced by a player in his twilight who is more about playing with the ball then working his nuts off when we have not got the ball.
Next move was Tyson coming on..another old player returning from injury.
Why was we not bring the Loanees on.
not sure what game u watched but Saunders was miles off the pace and still so come injury time, Eze must wonder what he is doing here but I can't see him playing.
@A_Worboys I think Bayo's race was run when he went off. He was sitting on the turf waiting for his number to be held up
I do agree that I wouldn't have taken CMS off though. Thought he had had a brilliant game and was still full of running.
Long season though, so need to look after our better players. Really enjoyed the way we played yesterday. Some stand out performances - Harriman, JJ, Bean, Gape, Bayo to name a few - and it bodes well for the rest of the season.
Harriman looks like the player we first signed, Gape also was superb before he got whacked and had to go off. I would have been bold and put Eze on at this stage and not Sam sadly who just walked back into the team which is wrong, we were in the ascendancy at this point and he would have caused them endless problems with his skill.
Saunders played well I thought. Even in the time he was on he and CMS formed a great understanding.
Eze for Bloomfield was the obvious move to make after about an hour. Bloomfield was running in treacle thereafter and it ultimately contributed to our downfall
The two injuries did for us really. Gape going off meant we could not maintain the vice like grip on midfield that a combination of Bean, Gape and O'Nien gave us. Bayo going off was also a massive loss and we struggle to look a threat up front without him. Shame we couldn't hold on but we did lay off them in the second half.
The best form of defence is attack but we do not seem to believe in that philosophy.
I didnt see the game so this is inquiry not opinion.
El Abd over scarr- Experienced defender over promising novice against a team with clever not huge forwards - logical call?
Saunders over Eze - arguably teams best player coming on on h9s return from injury against promising kid. Probably always intended to give Saunders 30 mins. Logical call?
Tyson over Umerah on 66 mins when Bayo was injured - 1-0 up put on experienced pro to use up the clock rather than the naive kid- logical call?
No third substitute at 70 mins - 1-0 up dont use last sub option in case of subsequent injury - logical call?
PCH over Scarr in injury time - go for win rather than hang on to draw - logical call?
El Abd - had a good game. Haven't seen enough of Scarr to know if he would have offered any more.
Saunders over Eze - again, haven't seen Eze enough to know whether his work-rate would have made him a better choice. Neither seems a like-for-like replacement for Gape and that was, to my mind, the key element. Gape shut down their (excellent) number 17 almost totally. Neither Saunders nor Eze are the sort of players to do that job. Either coming on meant the shape would change in midfield.
Tyson/ Umerah - again, defensible. Luton (and us) tiring and the game stretching out. His pace seemed likely to be an asset on the break. Indeed, we nearly got one on the break just after he came on, though he himself played little part in the move and did disappointingly little in his time on the pitch. CM-S was by far the more effective.
Subs - I'll give Gareth a pass on this because of having had to use two subs for injuries (Gape and Bayo). We were unquestionably tired in midfield, where Bean, O'Nien and Blooms all had great games. And their sub blasted past Blooms to create the opportunity for the first goal, so there was a real impact. Bear in mind that it, again, would not have been a like for like change and we would have been getting another creative player coming on, not a workhorse. Possibly, if not the 70th minute, then a change might have been made before the 90th.
PCH - straight swap for CM-S seemed reasonable. Putting on Scarr then meant only one team could win it.
The El-Abd start and Saunders sub make sense to me. Taking Blooms of for Eze after an hour looked a sensible choice that didn't happen. I get the idea of holding someone back in case of possible injury but as Blooms looked done (I'm not sure the knock he took to his shoulder helped) in effect he was as good as injured. I'm generally well disposed to Gaz, the change I'd like to see in him is to be a little less cautious. A tad more 'unproven' talent over ageing experience and don't take the pressure off so early to protect a lead. Momentum lost is hard to regaIn whereas a goal or even two conceded when we're still pushing on perhaps fosters a mindset of "goals will come".
@DevC mostly the right choices in my opinion. He definitely does value experience over youth in the 'big' games but mostly it worked. Maybe fresher legs in midfield for last 15 minutes but plenty of arguments for keeping it the same.
Re: Bayo's injury. It looked like he pulled something. He certainly signalled to the bench he needed to come off a couple of minutes before his substitution
It was sad that @rmjluton got the result he wanted but for 87 minutes that was a great performance that had Nathan Jones spitting blood. Sad he only sees the dirty playmanship of one side but I suppose that is selective vision. Whipping boys El-Abd and Brown had good games. El-Abd had DDH in his pocket for most of the game and Beano and Bloomfield looked great for sixty minutes. Had we been more clinical in front of goal and we did create quite a few chances it would have been a different story. CMS looked excellent regularly skinning their full backs. @Blue_since_1990 I thought we were regularly winning the ball in midfield and attacking throughout - even at one up. Where I agree is Bloomfield should have gone at 60 minutes and Eze brought on to scare a growing in confidence Luton a bit. Bloomy had a great game which should have been a victory for us and him...but yet again Gareth leaves it too late for fresh legs. Same goes for getting Scarr on. 4-4-2 seemed to work...who knew? This would have been a great victory, as Luton looked (DDH aside) like a quality outfit. I just don't like them.
Shrewd analysis @trevor.
Not sure anyone above was making excuses - simply making constructive comments on a game which demonstrated how impressive the present squad can be.
The last 10 minutes aside, we outplayed Luton for most of the first half and defended well in the second. The bench was arguably the strongest since Gareth Ainsworth became manager.
You're clearly a man of vision and it would be interesting to know (roughly) where you think we will finish this season.
Saunders for an injured Gape didn't seem an obviously wrong decision. It did mean we lost a bit of our grip in midfield, but I didn't think we should have bought on Eze at that time.
Tyson for Bayo again didn't seem obviously wrong but neither would have bringing on Umerah. Scot Brown, in the Vere Suite after the game, implied that Umerah wasn't fit so he didn't come on as it was too early. However, Tyson was largely ineffective and I was disappointed with his overall contribution.
Should Bloomfield have been substituted after 60-70mins? Maybe but I suspect that GA was cautious about using up all the subs. In hindsight I'd have been on Eze for Bloomfield to keep the pressure on Luton. On the other hand if GA had made the Eze for Bloomfield and Luton had still gone on to score because we were less defensive I'd be saying that was wrong too.
Scarr into Midfield instead of Gape would have been a good move. Played that role before and would have added some muscle instead of a withered old Sam Saunders.
Comments
referee was quick to whistle and had a very good game so I didn't even think it was dodgy not seen the replay yet.
I must admit thought it was stonewall live. Not so sure having seen the highlights. Good turn by DDH though
Changing point was gape going off for me..Being replaced by Saunders.All energy tacking player replaced by a player in his twilight who is more about playing with the ball then working his nuts off when we have not got the ball.
Next move was Tyson coming on..another old player returning from injury.
Why was we not bring the Loanees on.
not sure what game u watched but Saunders was miles off the pace and still so come injury time, Eze must wonder what he is doing here but I can't see him playing.
Thought we was hanging on in the 2nd half..luton was playing long and needed a taller header if the ball like scarr Left it to late to bring him on.
@A_Worboys I think Bayo's race was run when he went off. He was sitting on the turf waiting for his number to be held up
I do agree that I wouldn't have taken CMS off though. Thought he had had a brilliant game and was still full of running.
Long season though, so need to look after our better players. Really enjoyed the way we played yesterday. Some stand out performances - Harriman, JJ, Bean, Gape, Bayo to name a few - and it bodes well for the rest of the season.
Harriman looks like the player we first signed, Gape also was superb before he got whacked and had to go off. I would have been bold and put Eze on at this stage and not Sam sadly who just walked back into the team which is wrong, we were in the ascendancy at this point and he would have caused them endless problems with his skill.
Saunders played well I thought. Even in the time he was on he and CMS formed a great understanding.
Eze for Bloomfield was the obvious move to make after about an hour. Bloomfield was running in treacle thereafter and it ultimately contributed to our downfall
If we can keep out injuries level low we should have a very good season it will all come together at some point.
The two injuries did for us really. Gape going off meant we could not maintain the vice like grip on midfield that a combination of Bean, Gape and O'Nien gave us. Bayo going off was also a massive loss and we struggle to look a threat up front without him. Shame we couldn't hold on but we did lay off them in the second half.
The best form of defence is attack but we do not seem to believe in that philosophy.
I didnt see the game so this is inquiry not opinion.
El Abd over scarr- Experienced defender over promising novice against a team with clever not huge forwards - logical call?
Saunders over Eze - arguably teams best player coming on on h9s return from injury against promising kid. Probably always intended to give Saunders 30 mins. Logical call?
Tyson over Umerah on 66 mins when Bayo was injured - 1-0 up put on experienced pro to use up the clock rather than the naive kid- logical call?
No third substitute at 70 mins - 1-0 up dont use last sub option in case of subsequent injury - logical call?
PCH over Scarr in injury time - go for win rather than hang on to draw - logical call?
El Abd - had a good game. Haven't seen enough of Scarr to know if he would have offered any more.
Saunders over Eze - again, haven't seen Eze enough to know whether his work-rate would have made him a better choice. Neither seems a like-for-like replacement for Gape and that was, to my mind, the key element. Gape shut down their (excellent) number 17 almost totally. Neither Saunders nor Eze are the sort of players to do that job. Either coming on meant the shape would change in midfield.
Tyson/ Umerah - again, defensible. Luton (and us) tiring and the game stretching out. His pace seemed likely to be an asset on the break. Indeed, we nearly got one on the break just after he came on, though he himself played little part in the move and did disappointingly little in his time on the pitch. CM-S was by far the more effective.
Subs - I'll give Gareth a pass on this because of having had to use two subs for injuries (Gape and Bayo). We were unquestionably tired in midfield, where Bean, O'Nien and Blooms all had great games. And their sub blasted past Blooms to create the opportunity for the first goal, so there was a real impact. Bear in mind that it, again, would not have been a like for like change and we would have been getting another creative player coming on, not a workhorse. Possibly, if not the 70th minute, then a change might have been made before the 90th.
PCH - straight swap for CM-S seemed reasonable. Putting on Scarr then meant only one team could win it.
The El-Abd start and Saunders sub make sense to me. Taking Blooms of for Eze after an hour looked a sensible choice that didn't happen. I get the idea of holding someone back in case of possible injury but as Blooms looked done (I'm not sure the knock he took to his shoulder helped) in effect he was as good as injured. I'm generally well disposed to Gaz, the change I'd like to see in him is to be a little less cautious. A tad more 'unproven' talent over ageing experience and don't take the pressure off so early to protect a lead. Momentum lost is hard to regaIn whereas a goal or even two conceded when we're still pushing on perhaps fosters a mindset of "goals will come".
@DevC mostly the right choices in my opinion. He definitely does value experience over youth in the 'big' games but mostly it worked. Maybe fresher legs in midfield for last 15 minutes but plenty of arguments for keeping it the same.
Re: Bayo's injury. It looked like he pulled something. He certainly signalled to the bench he needed to come off a couple of minutes before his substitution
It was sad that @rmjluton got the result he wanted but for 87 minutes that was a great performance that had Nathan Jones spitting blood. Sad he only sees the dirty playmanship of one side but I suppose that is selective vision. Whipping boys El-Abd and Brown had good games. El-Abd had DDH in his pocket for most of the game and Beano and Bloomfield looked great for sixty minutes. Had we been more clinical in front of goal and we did create quite a few chances it would have been a different story. CMS looked excellent regularly skinning their full backs. @Blue_since_1990 I thought we were regularly winning the ball in midfield and attacking throughout - even at one up. Where I agree is Bloomfield should have gone at 60 minutes and Eze brought on to scare a growing in confidence Luton a bit. Bloomy had a great game which should have been a victory for us and him...but yet again Gareth leaves it too late for fresh legs. Same goes for getting Scarr on. 4-4-2 seemed to work...who knew? This would have been a great victory, as Luton looked (DDH aside) like a quality outfit. I just don't like them.
As for penalties...I think the call they had in the first half was a lucky escape for us!
4-4-2 it wasnt 4 -1 - 2 - 1 - 2 it was
typical excuses from some on here our squad isn't good enough simple i said it before but was picked on as usual .
Beyond parody.
Bring back the Eeyore picture!
He's done it again! He's done it again! Trolling Trevor! He's done it again!
Shrewd analysis @trevor.
Not sure anyone above was making excuses - simply making constructive comments on a game which demonstrated how impressive the present squad can be.
The last 10 minutes aside, we outplayed Luton for most of the first half and defended well in the second. The bench was arguably the strongest since Gareth Ainsworth became manager.
You're clearly a man of vision and it would be interesting to know (roughly) where you think we will finish this season.
12th probably
Saunders for an injured Gape didn't seem an obviously wrong decision. It did mean we lost a bit of our grip in midfield, but I didn't think we should have bought on Eze at that time.
Tyson for Bayo again didn't seem obviously wrong but neither would have bringing on Umerah. Scot Brown, in the Vere Suite after the game, implied that Umerah wasn't fit so he didn't come on as it was too early. However, Tyson was largely ineffective and I was disappointed with his overall contribution.
Should Bloomfield have been substituted after 60-70mins? Maybe but I suspect that GA was cautious about using up all the subs. In hindsight I'd have been on Eze for Bloomfield to keep the pressure on Luton. On the other hand if GA had made the Eze for Bloomfield and Luton had still gone on to score because we were less defensive I'd be saying that was wrong too.
Scarr into Midfield instead of Gape would have been a good move. Played that role before and would have added some muscle instead of a withered old Sam Saunders.
Don't talk shit mate. Saunders played really well
No he didn't ! MILES OFF THE PACE.
Don't shout, it doesn't make you any less wrong.
CMS isn't even match fit yet, so lets give him some time yeh !
Crikey! If CMS isn't match fit he must be on a huge dose of Herbalife or something.>
@rmjlondon said: