you set the team up to avoid defeat and that was achieved. The fact that more belief in your team to win a game and a little more adventure could have secured three vital points is I suppose irrelevant.
or gone out in an 'all attacking' style and lost ? If Mifsud had put away the other two chances he had we would have won playing the same tactics. My main criticism is the way the ball was delivered forward to Mifsud in the first half, in the air, rather than on the floor down the sides of the central defenders which would have allowed him to 'spin' off them and use his pace.</p>
Not suggesting an "all attacking" style, just a little more belief that we could actually beat this side in front of us. For me, early in the second half when it was clear that Brum had not come out any different in the second half we could have swapped Macken for Hammill and put Boggy up front and got JCR and Hammill wide to attack them and get crosses in. Whenever we did this, they looked vulnerable. Of course it could be argued that the tactics made Brum look poor but I just think they were that - poor and we could have had more of a go at them.
lookimg to the dugout last night we were watching sd telling the players to play the ball on the floor did they listen did the ****, but the second half was a little better i will bet they got a fecling at half time as i have said before you can tell them , show them go through whatever tactics you want but when they cross that white line there on there own and some will just do as they please
