I know nothing at all about football. I looked at our shape 4-3-3 and wondered why Flicker had dropped the wing back system, and I wondered how we could possibly cope with 3 v 4 in midfield. I watched as Wolves dominated the game for the first 15 minutes and score a deserved goal and convinced myself that I was right. I hated the fact that we went from back to front missing the three in the centre and wondered if Flicker was Robins in disguise. I just could not see how it was possible to win the game. The first change came as Harewood began to dominate their centre backs, holding up the ball for long enough that the others were able to help. Dagnall put pressure on every defender with the ball. Slowly the tide turned. Slowly our three in midfield began to dominate the Wolves four. Slowly we began to exert pressure on a shaky defense. By the end, Wolves looked a tired team, but Dagnall was still going... still doing his thing. If the Reds do stay up, then it will be because players like Dagnall, Perkins, Dawson and Harewood have willed it through the strength of their character and their willingness to push their bodies through the pain barrier. Tonight we won because we wanted it more than the opposition.
Daggers is a workaholic. The whole team puts a shift in. The lads on the bench come on and do the same. You're right that we wanted it more, we always do under flicker. Just took a while to get going tonight, but they couldn't match us for long.
Totally agreed. We won despite the formation and style of play not suiting us. I think we would have won more comfortably with our preferred 3 5 2, and I'm surprised he didn't try it, even with Goldbourne missing. the incredible work rate and team spirit won it, but not one of our better nights tactically. Certainly not a "master class" but who cares now, with 3 pts in the bag.
