On way home | QPR 1 Aston Villa 2

[Stanley]

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

Oh I probably also forgot how he put Villa's forwards off by shouting "Flaming Galah" as they pulled the trigger...

How dare you all mock his love-child and saviour who can ne'er do wrong! :-)

[Hitman34]

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.

[Hitman34]

smithies and lynch wouldn't have saved those shots if mass hadn't yelled at them where to dive to

[Shepherds Mush]

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...

[Kevin Mcleod]

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.

[corbray]

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

[Shepherds Mush]

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?

[nasser95]

[/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.

[gator]

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!

[dogsrrs]

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

[nasser95]

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.

[gator]

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!

[dogsrrs]

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

[West Acton]

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

[nasser95]

WHAT A LOAD OF ######CS I for one never saw never saw Holloway kick a ball or not get stuck in or make a telling pass or give the ball away !
But what I did see was half of the side that that arnt anywhere near this level of football ,
Holloway is just a man like any other manager he can't fortell the future he doesn't possess magical talents therefore how in farks name did know when replacing below par Luongo with Manning that he as going to be even less effective , he know's what shyte forwards he's got and that's what he's stuck with smith that covers every blade of grass really , Washington that actually does cover every blade of grass and has impeccable finishing skills like fark , the same applies to Mackie , the influential Cousins , come on would anybody shed a tear if these four and a couple of others were let go in January , and I can't have any of that rubbish about players being played out of position your best defender is being played out of position , when you've the amount of crapp we've got you have move players about , me I can only see Washington having future in football as a midfield player as he he has the energy to maybe able to do reasonably well further back , half our squad are bellow the standard and that in some eyes makes Holloway a mug the only thing that makes him a mug is taking on such a talented squad of players

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.