But Keith Hill gets it right more often than he gets it wrong, so I'm not going to analyse it any further. In his Radio Sheffield interview Keith spoke of a squad down to the bare bones. It is, but it would look a lot healthier if Nathan Doyle wasn't out on loan at Preston. It looked a poor decision at the time to me, even more so when Drinkwater got injured and we were unable or unwilling to recall Doyle. I can't see us winning another game with a midfield pairing of Butterfield and Perkins. Good players both, but they're too small for a start and just end up getting swept away. Butterfield produced some excellent creative play today, but he needs more cover than what was provided. Doyle had an excellent season last year providing exactly the type of cover that was required today. We need some steel in the side. Having said all that, bringing Gray on for O'Brien and going with two big lads up front with very little movement pretty much condemned us to defeat. O'Brien may have been injured, but Haynes was the far more logical choice to replace him. Doyle would have been even better. Bugger, I've discussed tactics after all.
so in other words, the manager got it wrong AGAIN after ranger and negative tactics at west ham, a woeful display of management today. he is not without criticsm, he was awful and keep playing Mceverley and we will drop like a stone
Sorry to bring this up, and I hope that I am not giving the impression that I am stalking you but, did we not have a slight spat a couple of months ago because you were advocating 4-4-2 at home under all circumstances. Only joshing, I respect your views and am glad that you are coming around. Once again, I felt from the begining that we should have played 4-4-1-1 today using Sir Bobby to protect the back 4. I do not like to see the absence or orgainisation in the middle of the park that 4-4-2 seems to impose upon this set of players. For me, the man to go would have been Done, whom I thought ran about to no great effect and offered nothing when we did not have the ball. The swapping of the full backs mystified me, but the thing that I recognised as early as the first 10 minutes was the work that the mid-field was expending in order to try to win the ball back in our opponent's half of the field. Blackpool were simply making us run knowing that we were using up energy that would not be there to call on later in the match. I note that we have now conceded the lead in 3 of the last 4 games by running short of energy in the second half. I am the first to admit that player for player, Blackpool were much our superiors and an uncontested retreat to deeper positions may have had no effect on outcome of the game, but I do wonder if KH is encouraging the players to expend their energies too quickly and should look at a change in tactics as a way of husbanding players' resourses.
No mate The disagreement came about because I thought moving to 4-4-2 improved us in that particular match. I made a point to stress the fact that I wasn't advocating we always play 4-4-2 or that 4-4-2 is always the right way to go.
