Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

On way home | QPR 1 Aston Villa 2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Romford Hoop
    started a topic On way home | QPR 1 Aston Villa 2

    On way home | QPR 1 Aston Villa 2

    Fairly poor performance today, ok first half but second I thought we were outplayed by a strong Villa team, we give the ball away too much, hoof the ball all the time and continue to play 5 at the back, although Cousins and Bidwell are hopeless wing backs, squad is beginning to look thin, Lynch today was shocking, turned inside out countless times, no MOTM for me as I thought the whole team were off their game, lots of effort very little skill, if our midfield 3 are playing poorly this team does not function.
    No shame losing to big spenders who although the better team, I thought their defence was iffy
    Samba 🙈 what a crappy player.

  • Stanley
    replied
    Originally posted by Shepherds Mush View Post


    Not Smithies saves, Lynch's double block from point blank range and Villa's wasteful finishing then?
    Originally posted by corbray View Post
    smithies and lynch wouldn't have saved those shots if mass hadn't yelled at them where to dive to
    Originally posted by Shepherds Mush View Post
    Oh I probably also forgot how he put Villa's forwards off by shouting "Flaming Galah" as they pulled the trigger...
    Originally posted by Hitman34 View Post
    How dare you all mock his love-child and saviour who can ne'er do wrong! :-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Hitman34
    replied
    Originally posted by Kevin Mcleod View Post
    A proper manager would of kept a player who had travelled back from Australia on friday on the subs bench and brought him on late in the second half..
    Oh thats exactly what a proper manager did do.
    bang on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hitman34
    replied
    Originally posted by corbray View Post
    smithies and lynch wouldn't have saved those shots if mass hadn't yelled at them where to dive to

    Leave a comment:


  • Shepherds Mush
    replied
    Originally posted by corbray View Post
    smithies and lynch wouldn't have saved those shots if mass hadn't yelled at them where to dive to
    Oh I probably also forgot how he put Villa's forwards off by shouting "Flaming Galah" as they pulled the trigger...

    Leave a comment:


  • Kevin Mcleod
    replied
    Originally posted by nasser95 View Post
    I don't see how it's contradictory? One of the things that's been discussed here in the past is never to play an unfit player for any period of time, hence it being a mistake to start Luongo at all.

    It happened however, and at that point, you have to look at the manager and see that half way through that match, we had a solid first half where we were in the game for the entirety of the half and we'd just had a deflating end to the half with that penalty. Clearly Villa were hoping to come out in the second half and take control of the game with their momentum and we'd need someone to stop that. So what does our manager do? Take off that player before we get a chance to get the momentum back.

    Nothing contradictory in that, it's just looking at the decision tree of what happened: Does Luongo play? Yes or no. We went with yes for whatever reason, knowing he wasn't fully fit so you look at the yes tree: Are we in control enough to sub him off? For some reason Ollie thought yes and that was our undoing.
    A proper manager would of kept a player who had travelled back from Australia on friday on the subs bench and brought him on late in the second half..
    Oh thats exactly what a proper manager did do.

    Leave a comment:


  • corbray
    replied
    Originally posted by Shepherds Mush View Post


    Not Smithies saves, Lynch's double block from point blank range and Villa's wasteful finishing then?
    smithies and lynch wouldn't have saved those shots if mass hadn't yelled at them where to dive to

    Leave a comment:


  • Shepherds Mush
    replied
    Originally posted by nasser95 View Post
    Luongo was literally the only reason we weren't behind in that first half.


    Not Smithies saves, Lynch's double block from point blank range and Villa's wasteful finishing then?

    Leave a comment:


  • nasser95
    replied
    Originally posted by gator View Post
    [/B]

    That is somewhat contradictory, we really don't know where Luongo actually was fitness wise, he could have asked to come off for all we know, it does illustrate his importance to that midfield although I did mention in another thread Scowens and Freeman weren't great either even when Luongo was on the pitch, hopefully things are better Tuesday!
    I don't see how it's contradictory? One of the things that's been discussed here in the past is never to play an unfit player for any period of time, hence it being a mistake to start Luongo at all.

    It happened however, and at that point, you have to look at the manager and see that half way through that match, we had a solid first half where we were in the game for the entirety of the half and we'd just had a deflating end to the half with that penalty. Clearly Villa were hoping to come out in the second half and take control of the game with their momentum and we'd need someone to stop that. So what does our manager do? Take off that player before we get a chance to get the momentum back.

    Nothing contradictory in that, it's just looking at the decision tree of what happened: Does Luongo play? Yes or no. We went with yes for whatever reason, knowing he wasn't fully fit so you look at the yes tree: Are we in control enough to sub him off? For some reason Ollie thought yes and that was our undoing.

    Leave a comment:


  • gator
    replied
    Originally posted by nasser95 View Post
    And it says alot about how good he was that he was supposedly very tired and was still a level or two above anyone else on the pitch.

    I know he shouldn't have played 90 minutes, but giving him 10-15 more mins in the second half would have given us back some control. We had just ended the half in the worst possible way and we shot ourselves in the foot by taking off the one player controlling the game for us. The tactical ineptitude comes from a combination of playing him in the first place - making us reliant on him to dominate the midfield - as well as then taking him off when the momentum was totally against us.


    That is somewhat contradictory, we really don't know where Luongo actually was fitness wise, he could have asked to come off for all we know, it does illustrate his importance to that midfield although I did mention in another thread Scowens and Freeman weren't great either even when Luongo was on the pitch, hopefully things are better Tuesday!

    Leave a comment:


  • dogsrrs
    replied
    Originally posted by gator View Post
    I do agree with Nasser that the substitution clearly changed our midfield as Manning besides one peachy cross that Smith should have scored from, was not up to it! Luongo was tiring and I am not surprised at all that Ollie took him off at the half, I was more surprised he played any part in this match after 90 minutes in the heat of Honduras then a trip back to Australia!
    exactly Gates who knows what was said in the dressing room was it agreed that Luongo would be given The first half as I said there's a more winable game Tuesday ok away , anybody could see he was below his standards but then the prlck tells me I never saw the game so what do I know

    Leave a comment:


  • nasser95
    replied
    Originally posted by gator View Post
    I do agree with Nasser that the substitution clearly changed our midfield as Manning besides one peachy cross that Smith should have scored from, was not up to it! Luongo was tiring and I am not surprised at all that Ollie took him off at the half, I was more surprised he played any part in this match after 90 minutes in the heat of Honduras then a trip back to Australia!
    And it says alot about how good he was that he was supposedly very tired and was still a level or two above anyone else on the pitch.

    I know he shouldn't have played 90 minutes, but giving him 10-15 more mins in the second half would have given us back some control. We had just ended the half in the worst possible way and we shot ourselves in the foot by taking off the one player controlling the game for us. The tactical ineptitude comes from a combination of playing him in the first place - making us reliant on him to dominate the midfield - as well as then taking him off when the momentum was totally against us.

    Leave a comment:


  • gator
    replied
    Originally posted by dogsrrs View Post
    Haven't you ever heard of flogging a dead horse he was wasn't up to HIS standards of this season so his his manager thought he should try to preserve his energy bearing in mind theres a game on Tuesday and Saturday , or in your world should Ollie just run him into the ground
    Sorry Westy meant for the mug above you
    I do agree with Nasser that the substitution clearly changed our midfield as Manning besides one peachy cross that Smith should have scored from, was not up to it! Luongo was tiring and I am not surprised at all that Ollie took him off at the half, I was more surprised he played any part in this match after 90 minutes in the heat of Honduras then a trip back to Australia!

    Leave a comment:


  • dogsrrs
    replied
    Haven't you ever heard of flogging a dead horse he was wasn't up to HIS standards of this season so his his manager thought he should try to preserve his energy bearing in mind theres a game on Tuesday and Saturday , or in your world should Ollie just run him into the ground
    Sorry Westy meant for the mug above you
    Last edited by dogsrrs; 19-11-2017, 02:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • West Acton
    replied
    Originally posted by nasser95 View Post
    So you didn't watch the match then?

    Luongo was literally the only reason we weren't behind in that first half. We had some level of control over the pitch when he was on. It speaks volumes of the performance of the other midfielders that we capitulated as soon as he came off.

    I get that causation and coincidence are two different things, but this is without a doubt not a coincidence. This is causation. Take off your best midfielder, lose control of the midfield. That is 100% on Holloway, in every single way.
    It’s what he done in his first game against Norwich. In his words took best player off to see how we coped without him

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X