The set up of the team and lack of bravery

[Stan33]

Totally agree with this to be fair. I don’t see the formation being the problem. Plenty of free flowing attacking teams play 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. They’ve never been regarded as defensive systems. On another day, Acquah’s headers would‘ve gone in and RHF’s shot would’ve been crossbar and in. We’d then have won 3-0 and this thread wouldn’t exist. The difference between yesterday’s performance and a completely different outlook is literally a couple of inches.

I like what Molesley is doing and the difference in performances from the start of the season is like night and day. We’re hard to beat and solid defensively. Hopefully Acquah can now pick up some confidence after the last game and I think Olayinka’s return will be a huge boost. Play him in the hole as a number 10 in a 4-2-3-1 and I think we’ll be fine. MM tried his bollocks off to get another proven goal scorer in and was consistently knocked back. I really don’t think the blame for that can be laid at his door. All he can do now is try and get the best out of what he’s got. If you can’t score regularly, but can keep a clean sheet, why wouldn’t your first priority be on keeping things tight and ensuring at least a point? We could commit so many bodies forward and go for the goals, but why try and outscore teams when the likelihood is that we won’t, and it’ll cost us our clean sheet and point in the process.

Excellent post

 

[LBBlue]

Play Reeco down the middle next to Emile.

Scored a few for Bromley there last season.

Ferguson and ANG both scored 5 for Crawley last season.

I think ANG needs the rest of the team to play with a bit more pace and a bit of movement. I think our wingers have too much defending to do.

Holmes, Dieng, Ferguson, Akinola across the middle and Acquah and Reeco up front.

Make the defenders work for a living as well.

 

[Exiled Shrimper]

I have to agree with those that have said the formation yesterday (and ever since the five at the back experiment) is not the problem. Whether you consider it 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, or if it morphs into 4-2-3-1 with one of the central midfielders pushed on, it's the formation that best suits the players we have at our disposal.

It's not that we weren't brave yesterday; we just don't possess any players who have a history of being prolific goalscorers at league level. If you play one, two or three of our forwards, it won't make them any more prolific. Acquah is learning how to play at league level (and is improving; he was inches away from scoring on three occasions yesterday); Akinola is better suited to playing off a target man, but his 48 appearances at league level for Barnet saw him net 6 times; Goodship bagged goals for fun (75 in 83 games) for Weymouth, but that was at the third tier of non-league football. Even when he was fit, Ranger hadn't played league football for three years; Jay Simpson hasn't played League Two football for five years and has only two seasons where he's reached double figures, so bringing him in won't solve the issue.

We had 15 shots yesterday, 4 on target. Akinola had a free header early on, then Acquah had a close-range header saved, Hackett-Fairchild hit the crossbar. In the second half, Acquah hit the crossbar (and looked to be fouled as he waited to nod in the follow-up), and when Akinola went up front he had a good chance to lob the goalkeeper that he hit straight at him. We created clear-cut chances, we just didn't take them.

After the Forest Green Rovers match (9 shots, 4 on target), it was mentioned that we couldn't keep relying upon outstanding strikes like Hobson's and particularly Ferguson's to keep us up. Well yesterday, we weren't relying on long-range strikes. We created those clear-cut opportunities; we just weren't quite good enough up front to put them away.

It seems that the goalposts keep moving. Firstly, people would give MM time and see what happened when the registration embargo was lifted. At that time we had 6 points from 15 matches (0.4 points per game) and were 7 points from safety; since then we've collected 23 points from 18 games (1.28 points per game) and are only outside the relegation zone on goal difference.

Now, despite arresting the slide (our goal difference, for the record, was -23 during the embargo, and is now -26, so it's only -3 in the last 18 matches, which can be completely accounted for by the Port Vale defeat), and getting points at a rate that would probably keep us up (1.28 points per game for the final 13 matches gets us to 45/46 points) from a position where we really were dead and buried, especially given the chronic lack of confidence from losing a vast number of matches for almost two straight seasons, MM is being encouraged to abandon that and throw caution to the wind.

I'm not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated during, or immediately after, yesterday's match. At the time, MM's substitutions appeared to be negative. I can understand the argument for Halford going up top instead of Goodship, but it did seem like we weren't taking the game to Oldham and were, perhaps, settling for a draw (a goalless draw against a team that were the second top scorers in the division going into the match, mind). But, when you consider how the game had gone - and actually Demetriou's contribution after coming on, when we continued to create chances, albeit not at the same rate as earlier in the fixture, it does make more sense.

What clouds our judgement on how a team is set up is first the final result, and then the results of those around us. A point against Salford at home was judged to be a good point because Grimsby and Barrow both lost that day; a point away to Oldham was judged to be two points dropped partly because Barrow won and we ended the day in the relegation zone. We actually played much better against Oldham, although against Salford we got a hard-earned point against a side going for promotion. Ultimately, we will be judged on results, of course, but that's over a course of time, rather than as a one-off. The comparison of points per game playing in this way as against either the pre-Walsall way (2 points from 11 games), or with 5 at the back (which I think was 4 points from six matches) isn't even close.

I guess I feel, if we play the way we have since the start of February until the end of the season, we'll probably do enough to stay up. It will be close, but when you get 2 points from your first 11 matches, or 6 points from your first 15 matches, you're unlikely to get any comfort. It's frustrating that we're probably just a goalscorer away from doing what Stevenage have managed to do. But wishing we had one isn't going to make one appear.

And a note on 4-4-2 (which, given our lack of proven goalscorers, would not be a sensible formation to play). Very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Very few Academies play 4-4-2 now, so players aren't particularly comfortable playing it, either. Crucially, it cedes the midfield advantage and would invite more pressure on a back four and goalkeeper that are performing very well at the moment. We don't attempt to play a high possession-based game at the moment (remember those days at the start of last season, and again at the start of this?), but we'll see even less of the ball playing 4-4-2, and I'd be surprised if the two forwards combined saw as much of the ball as Acquah does in the current formation (and that's not loads given the service he gets at times). I'd suggest it's not the answer.

 

[OllieSteph44]

Super post ?? Really well put

 

[fleabag1]

Some of the subs choices are surprising but the team is playing a lot better than it was And yes our striker should score but I didn't realise he is only 20 years old and at the start of he's career so I'm not going to knock him

 

[NZamba Legend]

Thanks for the post Exiled.

 

[getintoem]

I have to agree with those that have said the formation yesterday (and ever since the five at the back experiment) is not the problem. Whether you consider it 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, or if it morphs into 4-2-3-1 with one of the central midfielders pushed on, it's the formation that best suits the players we have at our disposal.

It's not that we weren't brave yesterday; we just don't possess any players who have a history of being prolific goalscorers at league level. If you play one, two or three of our forwards, it won't make them any more prolific. Acquah is learning how to play at league level (and is improving; he was inches away from scoring on three occasions yesterday); Akinola is better suited to playing off a target man, but his 48 appearances at league level for Barnet saw him net 6 times; Goodship bagged goals for fun (75 in 83 games) for Weymouth, but that was at the third tier of non-league football. Even when he was fit, Ranger hadn't played league football for three years; Jay Simpson hasn't played League Two football for five years and has only two seasons where he's reached double figures, so bringing him in won't solve the issue.

We had 15 shots yesterday, 4 on target. Akinola had a free header early on, then Acquah had a close-range header saved, Hackett-Fairchild hit the crossbar. In the second half, Acquah hit the crossbar (and looked to be fouled as he waited to nod in the follow-up), and when Akinola went up front he had a good chance to lob the goalkeeper that he hit straight at him. We created clear-cut chances, we just didn't take them.

After the Forest Green Rovers match (9 shots, 4 on target), it was mentioned that we couldn't keep relying upon outstanding strikes like Hobson's and particularly Ferguson's to keep us up. Well yesterday, we weren't relying on long-range strikes. We created those clear-cut opportunities; we just weren't quite good enough up front to put them away.

It seems that the goalposts keep moving. Firstly, people would give MM time and see what happened when the registration embargo was lifted. At that time we had 6 points from 15 matches (0.4 points per game) and were 7 points from safety; since then we've collected 23 points from 18 games (1.28 points per game) and are only outside the relegation zone on goal difference.

Now, despite arresting the slide (our goal difference, for the record, was -23 during the embargo, and is now -26, so it's only -3 in the last 18 matches, which can be completely accounted for by the Port Vale defeat), and getting points at a rate that would probably keep us up (1.28 points per game for the final 13 matches gets us to 45/46 points) from a position where we really were dead and buried, especially given the chronic lack of confidence from losing a vast number of matches for almost two straight seasons, MM is being encouraged to abandon that and throw caution to the wind.

I'm not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated during, or immediately after, yesterday's match. At the time, MM's substitutions appeared to be negative. I can understand the argument for Halford going up top instead of Goodship, but it did seem like we weren't taking the game to Oldham and were, perhaps, settling for a draw (a goalless draw against a team that were the second top scorers in the division going into the match, mind). But, when you consider how the game had gone - and actually Demetriou's contribution after coming on, when we continued to create chances, albeit not at the same rate as earlier in the fixture, it does make more sense.

What clouds our judgement on how a team is set up is first the final result, and then the results of those around us. A point against Salford at home was judged to be a good point because Grimsby and Barrow both lost that day; a point away to Oldham was judged to be two points dropped partly because Barrow won and we ended the day in the relegation zone. We actually played much better against Oldham, although against Salford we got a hard-earned point against a side going for promotion. Ultimately, we will be judged on results, of course, but that's over a course of time, rather than as a one-off. The comparison of points per game playing in this way as against either the pre-Walsall way (2 points from 11 games), or with 5 at the back (which I think was 4 points from six matches) isn't even close.

I guess I feel, if we play the way we have since the start of February until the end of the season, we'll probably do enough to stay up. It will be close, but when you get 2 points from your first 11 matches, or 6 points from your first 15 matches, you're unlikely to get any comfort. It's frustrating that we're probably just a goalscorer away from doing what Stevenage have managed to do. But wishing we had one isn't going to make one appear.

And a note on 4-4-2 (which, given our lack of proven goalscorers, would not be a sensible formation to play). Very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Very few Academies play 4-4-2 now, so players aren't particularly comfortable playing it, either. Crucially, it cedes the midfield advantage and would invite more pressure on a back four and goalkeeper that are performing very well at the moment. We don't attempt to play a high possession-based game at the moment (remember those days at the start of last season, and again at the start of this?), but we'll see even less of the ball playing 4-4-2, and I'd be surprised if the two forwards combined saw as much of the ball as Acquah does in the current formation (and that's not loads given the service he gets at times). I'd suggest it's not the answer.

A very good analysis. Let's hope we can maintain or better the 1.28pts per game for the final 13.

 

[Napster]

I have to agree with those that have said the formation yesterday (and ever since the five at the back experiment) is not the problem. Whether you consider it 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, or if it morphs into 4-2-3-1 with one of the central midfielders pushed on, it's the formation that best suits the players we have at our disposal.

It's not that we weren't brave yesterday; we just don't possess any players who have a history of being prolific goalscorers at league level. If you play one, two or three of our forwards, it won't make them any more prolific. Acquah is learning how to play at league level (and is improving; he was inches away from scoring on three occasions yesterday); Akinola is better suited to playing off a target man, but his 48 appearances at league level for Barnet saw him net 6 times; Goodship bagged goals for fun (75 in 83 games) for Weymouth, but that was at the third tier of non-league football. Even when he was fit, Ranger hadn't played league football for three years; Jay Simpson hasn't played League Two football for five years and has only two seasons where he's reached double figures, so bringing him in won't solve the issue.

We had 15 shots yesterday, 4 on target. Akinola had a free header early on, then Acquah had a close-range header saved, Hackett-Fairchild hit the crossbar. In the second half, Acquah hit the crossbar (and looked to be fouled as he waited to nod in the follow-up), and when Akinola went up front he had a good chance to lob the goalkeeper that he hit straight at him. We created clear-cut chances, we just didn't take them.

After the Forest Green Rovers match (9 shots, 4 on target), it was mentioned that we couldn't keep relying upon outstanding strikes like Hobson's and particularly Ferguson's to keep us up. Well yesterday, we weren't relying on long-range strikes. We created those clear-cut opportunities; we just weren't quite good enough up front to put them away.

It seems that the goalposts keep moving. Firstly, people would give MM time and see what happened when the registration embargo was lifted. At that time we had 6 points from 15 matches (0.4 points per game) and were 7 points from safety; since then we've collected 23 points from 18 games (1.28 points per game) and are only outside the relegation zone on goal difference.

Now, despite arresting the slide (our goal difference, for the record, was -23 during the embargo, and is now -26, so it's only -3 in the last 18 matches, which can be completely accounted for by the Port Vale defeat), and getting points at a rate that would probably keep us up (1.28 points per game for the final 13 matches gets us to 45/46 points) from a position where we really were dead and buried, especially given the chronic lack of confidence from losing a vast number of matches for almost two straight seasons, MM is being encouraged to abandon that and throw caution to the wind.

I'm not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated during, or immediately after, yesterday's match. At the time, MM's substitutions appeared to be negative. I can understand the argument for Halford going up top instead of Goodship, but it did seem like we weren't taking the game to Oldham and were, perhaps, settling for a draw (a goalless draw against a team that were the second top scorers in the division going into the match, mind). But, when you consider how the game had gone - and actually Demetriou's contribution after coming on, when we continued to create chances, albeit not at the same rate as earlier in the fixture, it does make more sense.

What clouds our judgement on how a team is set up is first the final result, and then the results of those around us. A point against Salford at home was judged to be a good point because Grimsby and Barrow both lost that day; a point away to Oldham was judged to be two points dropped partly because Barrow won and we ended the day in the relegation zone. We actually played much better against Oldham, although against Salford we got a hard-earned point against a side going for promotion. Ultimately, we will be judged on results, of course, but that's over a course of time, rather than as a one-off. The comparison of points per game playing in this way as against either the pre-Walsall way (2 points from 11 games), or with 5 at the back (which I think was 4 points from six matches) isn't even close.

I guess I feel, if we play the way we have since the start of February until the end of the season, we'll probably do enough to stay up. It will be close, but when you get 2 points from your first 11 matches, or 6 points from your first 15 matches, you're unlikely to get any comfort. It's frustrating that we're probably just a goalscorer away from doing what Stevenage have managed to do. But wishing we had one isn't going to make one appear.

And a note on 4-4-2 (which, given our lack of proven goalscorers, would not be a sensible formation to play). Very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Very few Academies play 4-4-2 now, so players aren't particularly comfortable playing it, either. Crucially, it cedes the midfield advantage and would invite more pressure on a back four and goalkeeper that are performing very well at the moment. We don't attempt to play a high possession-based game at the moment (remember those days at the start of last season, and again at the start of this?), but we'll see even less of the ball playing 4-4-2, and I'd be surprised if the two forwards combined saw as much of the ball as Acquah does in the current formation (and that's not loads given the service he gets at times). I'd suggest it's not the answer.

I like this new angry Rob

 

[bluesfansince1952]

Lack of bravery?
There is only one person in all this whose livelihood is on the line.
Question his tactics from the safety of your keyboard but not his bravery please.

 

[Shrimpergonzo]

Lack of bravery?
There is only one person in all this whose livelihood is on the line.
Question his tactics from the safety of your keyboard but not his bravery please.

That’s a good point, I think there are some on here who genuinely believe that MM makes certain decisions because he doesn’t want us to win, or doesn’t understand football, formations or the strengths and weaknesses of our squad.

The facts are that he’s more qualified, experienced and knowledgeable about football management and coaching than everyone on here. He knows more about the strengths, weaknesses, fitness and mental state of our squad than anyone on here because he interacts with them face to face every day. And finally, as stated by @bluesfansince1952, his livelihood depends on him getting this right.

He’s not bringing on Demi and Halford instead of Goodship and Holmes for a laugh, he’s not starting Acquah to wind us up. He’s doing these things because he thinks and hopes that these will give us the best chance of success and that is something he wants just as much as we do.

He’s not been dealt a great hand by Ron, but I am happy that he has the right work ethic to do his best with what he’s got.

That’s not to say I don’t also think that Goodship and Holmes should have come on instead of Halford and Demi, however I have to accept that MM perhaps knows a lot more about it than I do and must have made those decisions for a good reason.

I’m pleased that we’ve not sacked our manager like most of the teams around us. I think our best chance of success at this stage of the season is by sticking with him.

 

[Flinty]

I think a lot on here have very short memories. For nearly 2 seasons we were literally whipping boys conceding over 2 goals a game. To turn that juggernaut around is / was a massive task in itself, let along transfer embargo's and the like adding to the situation.
At the moment we are proving hard to beat which is a good thing right ? we arent scoring 100's of goals and dont have a natural goal scorer, but we are staying in games and gaining at least a draw, and if we have our shooting boots on, we win.
For me long term this is the correct approach rather that trying to win games 5 : 3..the set up is right, we are creating chances which we werent 4 games ago....it is improving but its going to be a massive effort to avoid the drop...but again remember 2 seasons, 80+ games of just being smashed week in week out by other teams with the odd game that we did ok in ! lets not go back to that

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think what Saturday showed is that he got it right in starting Acquah. We looked much more likely to score (eg smacking the bar twice, Akinola missing a golden chance) when he was up front. Once he was removed we didn't look like scoring.

The big thing that is missing for me is a threat from set pieces. Clifford is a real threat from direct free-kicks but the threat from corners and wide free-kicks is negligible and maybe the most disappointing part of the Molesley era.

 

[OrangeyBrown]

People don't like to admit that sometimes luck is a factor in football. We created enough chances to comfortably win the game and somehow we didn't put one of them away. Sometimes it happens. In teams of chance creation it was probably the best we've looked all season.

Changing formation when it's been working well for us recently would be mad. We finally look like a team that's hard to beat. We've taken points from games nobody gave us a chance beforehand, and you want to throw it all away because of one match where, had our luck been any different, we'd have walked away from with a comfortable win? Not for me.

Our only mistake was taking Acquah off at all.

 

[Member]

I have to agree with those that have said the formation yesterday (and ever since the five at the back experiment) is not the problem. Whether you consider it 4-3-3 or 4-5-1, or if it morphs into 4-2-3-1 with one of the central midfielders pushed on, it's the formation that best suits the players we have at our disposal.

It's not that we weren't brave yesterday; we just don't possess any players who have a history of being prolific goalscorers at league level. If you play one, two or three of our forwards, it won't make them any more prolific. Acquah is learning how to play at league level (and is improving; he was inches away from scoring on three occasions yesterday); Akinola is better suited to playing off a target man, but his 48 appearances at league level for Barnet saw him net 6 times; Goodship bagged goals for fun (75 in 83 games) for Weymouth, but that was at the third tier of non-league football. Even when he was fit, Ranger hadn't played league football for three years; Jay Simpson hasn't played League Two football for five years and has only two seasons where he's reached double figures, so bringing him in won't solve the issue.

We had 15 shots yesterday, 4 on target. Akinola had a free header early on, then Acquah had a close-range header saved, Hackett-Fairchild hit the crossbar. In the second half, Acquah hit the crossbar (and looked to be fouled as he waited to nod in the follow-up), and when Akinola went up front he had a good chance to lob the goalkeeper that he hit straight at him. We created clear-cut chances, we just didn't take them.

After the Forest Green Rovers match (9 shots, 4 on target), it was mentioned that we couldn't keep relying upon outstanding strikes like Hobson's and particularly Ferguson's to keep us up. Well yesterday, we weren't relying on long-range strikes. We created those clear-cut opportunities; we just weren't quite good enough up front to put them away.

It seems that the goalposts keep moving. Firstly, people would give MM time and see what happened when the registration embargo was lifted. At that time we had 6 points from 15 matches (0.4 points per game) and were 7 points from safety; since then we've collected 23 points from 18 games (1.28 points per game) and are only outside the relegation zone on goal difference.

Now, despite arresting the slide (our goal difference, for the record, was -23 during the embargo, and is now -26, so it's only -3 in the last 18 matches, which can be completely accounted for by the Port Vale defeat), and getting points at a rate that would probably keep us up (1.28 points per game for the final 13 matches gets us to 45/46 points) from a position where we really were dead and buried, especially given the chronic lack of confidence from losing a vast number of matches for almost two straight seasons, MM is being encouraged to abandon that and throw caution to the wind.

I'm not going to pretend I wasn't frustrated during, or immediately after, yesterday's match. At the time, MM's substitutions appeared to be negative. I can understand the argument for Halford going up top instead of Goodship, but it did seem like we weren't taking the game to Oldham and were, perhaps, settling for a draw (a goalless draw against a team that were the second top scorers in the division going into the match, mind). But, when you consider how the game had gone - and actually Demetriou's contribution after coming on, when we continued to create chances, albeit not at the same rate as earlier in the fixture, it does make more sense.

What clouds our judgement on how a team is set up is first the final result, and then the results of those around us. A point against Salford at home was judged to be a good point because Grimsby and Barrow both lost that day; a point away to Oldham was judged to be two points dropped partly because Barrow won and we ended the day in the relegation zone. We actually played much better against Oldham, although against Salford we got a hard-earned point against a side going for promotion. Ultimately, we will be judged on results, of course, but that's over a course of time, rather than as a one-off. The comparison of points per game playing in this way as against either the pre-Walsall way (2 points from 11 games), or with 5 at the back (which I think was 4 points from six matches) isn't even close.

I guess I feel, if we play the way we have since the start of February until the end of the season, we'll probably do enough to stay up. It will be close, but when you get 2 points from your first 11 matches, or 6 points from your first 15 matches, you're unlikely to get any comfort. It's frustrating that we're probably just a goalscorer away from doing what Stevenage have managed to do. But wishing we had one isn't going to make one appear.

And a note on 4-4-2 (which, given our lack of proven goalscorers, would not be a sensible formation to play). Very few teams play 4-4-2 now. Very few Academies play 4-4-2 now, so players aren't particularly comfortable playing it, either. Crucially, it cedes the midfield advantage and would invite more pressure on a back four and goalkeeper that are performing very well at the moment. We don't attempt to play a high possession-based game at the moment (remember those days at the start of last season, and again at the start of this?), but we'll see even less of the ball playing 4-4-2, and I'd be surprised if the two forwards combined saw as much of the ball as Acquah does in the current formation (and that's not loads given the service he gets at times). I'd suggest it's not the answer.

Fantastic post.

I was going to say (before I read your post) that I do think the formation has a good foundation for us and I do think we can probably defend our way to safety, and we're doing a great job at limiting teams against us. Cheltenham barely had a sniff against us and we were unlucky to come away empty handed. Oldham showed nothing against us and we had about 3 or 4 excellent chances for 3 points, and we'd be having a very different conversation if one of those had gone in.

Obviously we do need Acquah and Akinola to start hitting the target as I think it's a little bit of a lack in confidence that means we're coming up short. Acquah could have had a hattrick and we've seen strikers in form who bury those types of chances without a second thought. The fact he's not scored since November will be weighing on his mind undoubtedly, and the comments on here and social media won't have helped either. I think we should stick with the plan and the goals will start to come along with some confidence, and teams will have to open up against us as they know we're difficult to break down.

 

[Grayson]

I think we should stick with the plan and the goals will start to come along with some confidence, and teams will have to open up against us as they know we're difficult to break down.

This is a good point too. Saturday was a rare 0-0 in that it came with us dominant with the chances as well as 0-0 being a good result for our opponents, considering it maintained 10 point gap above us and we should have been 2 goals clear in the game.

Our best success this season has been from keeping games 0-0 for as long as possible and letting the opposition panic about not beating lowly Southend. On the flipside, we are absolutely rubbish at chasing games - we've only equalised three times all season, I believe.

Now isn't the time to abandon what has worked since the start of December. The time to do that is if we go to Colchester (match 43) or Barrow (match 45) needing a win. No need to hit the panic button yet.

 

[Strykr]

This is a good point too. Saturday was a rare 0-0 in that it came with us dominant with the chances as well as 0-0 being a good result for our opponents, considering it maintained 10 point gap above us and we should have been 2 goals clear in the game.

Our best success this season has been from keeping games 0-0 for as long as possible and letting the opposition panic about not beating lowly Southend. On the flipside, we are absolutely rubbish at chasing games - we've only equalised three times all season, I believe.

Now isn't the time to abandon what has worked since the start of December. The time to do that is if we go to Colchester (match 43) or Barrow (match 45) needing a win. No need to hit the panic button yet.

I dont think anyones saying abandon what is working. But there must be some manouverability within the formation that allows us to properly attack teams.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I dont think anyones saying abandon what is working. But there must be some manouverability within the formation that allows us to properly attack teams.

We were attacking them properly before Acquah was taken off. We hit the crossbar twice, Akinola missed a sitter etc

If Acquah's header was a centimetre lower we win 1-0 and this thread isn't started.

 

[Member]

 

[Strykr]

We were attacking them properly before Acquah was taken off. We hit the crossbar twice, Akinola missed a sitter etc

If Acquah's header was a centimetre lower we win 1-0 and this thread isn't started.

True, i think the negative subs were the real slap in the face.

That and having the shot power of a chap with one leg.

 

[OllieSteph44]

Funny how actual stats differ from popular perception.....