Evening Echo
The News
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,618
What worries me most is that Sturrock would of prefer to play against 11 rather than 10 :stunned:
What worries me most is that Sturrock would of prefer to play against 11 rather than 10 :stunned:
I would agree with that too!
you also see team with 10 men dig in and the work rate goes up, though you would think having one less player would make it easier for the other team
I would agree with that too!
you also see team with 10 men dig in and the work rate goes up, though you would think having one less player would make it easier for the other team
was walking the dog today where the first team were training and their were only 10 players training outside and that was including crawford and woodyard, surely we havnt got that many injuries or maybe the rest were doing training inside.
He doesn't quite say that, and he has a point. Often if you and the players feel you've suffered an injustice then you back your team more and they step up their performance too. They may switch their tactics so they are more happy to sit back and defend (although they didn't in this case), and therefore if they go a man down it can be difficult to gain any advantage from it. I think the fullbacks are really important when playing against 10 men, because you tend to find the mismatches when sending an extra player forward. I wasn't at the game but Clohessy is great at finding the space and supporting the attack, especially when Dicko holds the ball up. If Gilbert was able to offer this support on the left too then we may have had a bit more joy in attack.
another reason why Dickinson should have been subbedWhilst i agree with what you say and know its not easy to break down 10 men to be outplayed by them is another thing. Having done well previously this season when playing against 10 keeping the ball we failed to do that and continued to play direct to Dicko.
Its becoming a pattern that when Dickinson is marked by a decent center back who is commanding in the air we have a bad performance.
another reason why Dickinson should have been subbed
No was the beginning of last season when Grant was on fire, but didn't last long and has struggled ever since. I've seen him come on and look good but when he starts it just doesn't seem to happen for him. I think it could be time for him to move on... And probably become top scorer at a new club, scoring the winner against us for his new club on his return to roots hall.Lets hope they're not out for too long, Phillips for me has been such an important player for us, Kalala too is good at what he does breaking up play and holding that midfield just in front of the defence. Was it around this time last season Anthony Grant scored his first goal for us and banged them in for fun consistently? We all know Granty's quality, had a bit of a dip recently but he will get back.
We don't have a Plan B....I think that is what causes a lot of people's frustration when things don't go so well, rather than the actual performances themselves.
so if plan A is taking Dickinson off as he was in danger of being sent off and that was effecting his play then plan B is...... leaving him on?Or we could have tried a Plan B?