(don't answer that) I've seen a lot of threads and comments slagging morais off for taking Moore off. Either I'm blind or everyone else is because from where I was sitting Moore was dead in his feet. He could hardly walk nevermind run. Leaving him on we might as well have had 10 men on.
Should have put Bradshaw on to win nowt as per Then should have put a defender on to shore it up if they’d still scored The long and short of it is that if players were up to scratch when tested we’d have won
He had already made 2 subs, couldn't make another 2. I thought that if Moore went off it made a lot of sense to move the other target man central and bring someone on to play wide which is exactly what he did. Was mccarthy the right man for that? I'm not sure but from what I've seen of Mahoney so far I'd say he was probably be best option we had on the bench.
Can’t complain about Moore going off so you aren’t going mad this time. There is mileage in whether the right replacement was made but not whether Moore had to go off
The thing is the phase of play they score in if we’re talking round pegs in round holes there’s only 2 players on the pitch you’d want to be defending in the right back position. Ones Yiadom and the next is McCarthy. No one can blame Morais for using McCarthy in that position. He had the attributes to play there and was a viable. You’d think after months out after being dropped because he can’t defend he’d have improved on his biggest issue (stopping crosses). Unfortunately he hasn’t and for me Morais is now well within his rights to not use him again for the remainder of the season unless all other fullbacks are injured. Also had Jose brought an attacking winger on for Moore and we’d still have drawn I can guarantee people would have said something along the lines of ‘why the f*ck have we not put Pinnock/Mccarthy on and gone 5 at the back, do that and we win the game’. Jose trusted players and they let him down. Nothing to do with the tactics.
