Ar we lost. I'm not arsed really. I actually enjoyed the match. Better entertainment than every game this season (except Everton) that I've seen. Should have cruised to victory and got mugged at the end. I'm no happy clapper as I'm sure folk are well aware but result apart I enjoyed.
First half, aye. Second half, naow. But it's not the end of the World folk are making out - still convinced we're only going to get better. Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk
No. We had a good 15-20 minute spell around when we scored but certainly didn't hammer them. Our threats were as usual from long rangers from Hourihane & his set pieces. Otherwise we only created 2 good chances, one which Winnall took & the other Watkins tried to square
First half was alright. Could and probably should have scored more. I, like many others, thought we would have done had we played with two up top. Second half was dull, a bit of a Winnall offsideathon, and I couldn't begrudge them their winner on their second half performance, even if if we should have been ahead before the break. We actually looked a lot worse with more forwards on the field, but I didn't envisage us taking off our more creative players when changing formation. We seemed to go from 1 up front to 3, skipping the optimum number of 2.
We we poor yesterday against a team who were really really poor. They looked so unorganised it was ridiculous. Johnson needs to sort out this inconsistency because i feel the haters will be out soon enough. I think we have a very good squad and will achieve good things Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Be interested to get your take on this. I think it was a terrible decision to take both Crowley and Hourihane off. But we were overrun in midfield the minute the substitution happened, so I dread to think what we'd have been like if we'd have gone 4-4-2 with those two part of that? Part of me thinks at some point you back your talented players to simply beat their players, resulting in winning the game. As much as they were the better team second half, most of their chances came the minute Smith came on. Going 4-2-4 in the last ten minutes didn't help mind. Harris and Watkins didn't even try and track back.
We seemed to go to 4-3-3 rather than 4-4-2, with Watkins up alongside Winnall and Smith rather than on the wing where he'd been playing up until then. Although, we were so disjointed after the subs it's difficult to tell exactly where the players were supposed to be playing. With 4 in midfield I thought we would have been able to compete, with 3 we couldn't and with 2 later on when Harris pushed further forward we really couldn't. Other than the Everton game, I believe our best performance under Johnson was home to Preston. We played 4-4-2 and our central midfield pairing was Bailey and Hourihane. They looked great together. I don't believe you have to be a great tackler to play central midfield in that system. You have to be disciplined and on that day they were, they could do it, but we never tried it again. Being disciplined doesn't mean being defensive. When Hourihane pushed forward, Bailey held back. As did one of the wingers to a certain extent. We weren't over run by one of the better sides in the division. I don't believe, had we gone 4-4-2 yesterday, with Hourihane as one of the central players, we would have been overrun by Shrewsbury, if the players had been given similar instructions to those they were given for the Preston game. Having said all that, Crowley and Hourihane could well have been knackered.
This is true about it being difficult to tell. Especially when it was clear to all in the ground that Winnall told Smith to be the front and and said something along the lines of 'I'll play just off/behind you'. That then makes Watkins playing further forward a strange one as it wasn't a strict 4-3-3. Regardless, the lack of shape is what cost us. Discipline appeared to go out of the window after the substitutions. Until that point we hadn't looked great, but we were comfortable in terms of not looking like losing.
LJ said in his post-match interview that because the lads starting playing direct/long (against his wishes), he stuck Smith on and tried to make it work.
And yet he only took off the attacking players. Hourihane and Crowley were high up the pitch so they can't have been playing long balls or they'd have been landing in the carpark. Begs the question if he was so pissed off with the deeper players completely ignoring his instructions why did he leave them all on the pitch while sub's sat playing with their todgers on the bench?
First half I thought we were OK against a very very poor opposition. We created numerous chances, one in addition to the ones mentioned above was the effort Watkins had from inside the box on his left foot but it was well saved by the keeper. Second half, we never really got going. In the end I thought we got complacent and simply expected to win. The sucker punch we got dealt at the end may serve to educate us not to take anything for granted.