Frankie 8,150 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Bringing on a defender to hold a lead is nothing new--Mourinho does it week-in week-out, bringing on Zouma or Mikel to sit in midfield alongside Matic. Negative, or Pragmatic? But we didn't supplement the midfield - instead we opted for 6 at the back which just invited pressure and cross balls which we struggle with no matter how many people we have there. I could have understood if we'd moved to a 5 man defence and brought on Mohnsi or Smith but not both. Black may have been a better addition to help the tired legs in midfield. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,370 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 But we didn't supplement the midfield - instead we opted for 6 at the back which just invited pressure and cross balls which we struggle with no matter how many people we have there. I could have understood if we'd moved to a 5 man defence and brought on Mohnsi or Smith but not both. Black may have been a better addition to help the tired legs in midfield. Looked like we moved to a 5-3-2 to me: Miller up front, Vuckic in behind (5-3-1-1?), and Smith playing in midfield. I think we were back-to-wall because of how Queens were playing, not so much because we were playing with an extra defender. It may have played a part, but we've played with 5 at the back and dominated possession before. I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they barely got a sniff. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Bringing on a defender to hold a lead is nothing new--Mourinho does it week-in week-out, bringing on Zouma or Mikel to sit in midfield alongside Matic. Negative, or Pragmatic? Zouma, Mikel.....Moshni? Negative for sure. Edited May 18, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Looked like we moved to a 5-3-2 to me: Miller up front, Vuckic in behind (5-3-1-1?), and Smith playing in midfield. I think we were back-to-wall because of how Queens were playing, not so much because we were playing with an extra defender. It may have played a part, but we've played with 5 at the back and dominated possession before. I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they barely got a sniff. They had 9 shots. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Looked like we moved to a 5-3-2 to me: Miller up front, Vuckic in behind (5-3-1-1?), and Smith playing in midfield. I think we were back-to-wall because of how Queens were playing, not so much because we were playing with an extra defender. It may have played a part, but we've played with 5 at the back and dominated possession before. I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they barely got a sniff. Wallace definitely moved inside with Smith playing left back and Mohnsi also at centre-half. Was a clear 6 at the back for the last 7 mins or so. Like you say that may not have been through choice given Queens had thrown so many forward but I'm not convinced we were untroubled despite the extra numbers. Yes, we won but to me it was unnecessary defensive overkill and another poor (double) substitution. As an aside, I genuinely think we need some sort of psychological expert at the club. The lack of self-belief and confidence alongside panic which seems to come from nowhere in games we've otherwise dominated concerns me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 9,370 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) They had 9 shots. Alright: "I don't think it was overly negative, just pragmatic--we won; they [...] got a sniff." They went gung-ho, but we could also have scored at the end on the break--if it wasn't for some abysmal ball-control. Edited May 18, 2015 by Rousseau 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Interesting that when we (or 'they' as you put it) dominated for long spells we "failed to make the grade". Yet when QoS dominated for a fairly short spell at the end of the game without scoring, the synopsis is that they "had Rangers by the scruff off the neck, not knowing their arses from their elbows ".I thought we actually played OK today for good spells. A bit more clinical in front of goal and it could make a world of difference. Couldn't agree more. Funny how we dominated for 75 minutes yet QoS are the ones getting the plaudits for doing nothing more than throwing caution to the wind as they had no option. Could it be that we simply played better than them for 75 minutes ?? Nah, has to be because QoS simply didn't start trying until the last 15 minutes.... what nonsense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Taking everything into account I'd give McCall the job if we go up. If we don't go up then who cares? It's really quite simple...if we go up then Stu is the man for next season. No thanks. Much as though he inherited a terrible squad the reality is that there hasn't been sufficient change to suggest he is making a marked improvement on how they perform. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Couldn't agree more. Funny how we dominated for 75 minutes yet QoS are the ones getting the plaudits for doing nothing more than throwing caution to the wind as they had no option. Could it be that we simply played better than them for 75 minutes ?? Nah, has to be because QoS simply didn't start trying until the last 15 minutes.... what nonsense. When one team has players earning 10 x what the opponents do, obviously the underdog is going to get more praise when they make a contest out of it. In the same way if some tiny team gave Real Madrid a run for their money, Real Madrid wouldn't be deserving of getting praise for scraping through by the skin of their teeth. Going 6 at the back to scrape through against QotS is pathetic tbh. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Taking everything into account I'd give McCall the job if we go up. If we don't go up then who cares? It's really quite simple...if we go up then Stu is the man for next season. No way in hell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.