Does anyone know? It seemed really strange to me to play Onouha at RB instead of him, and lose that vital link between Isla and Vargas. I saw Isla was on the bench, so surely he was fit enough to play?
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why didn't Isla play?
Collapse
X
-
Tactically I think it an ok idea. HR had set out to defend and Ned is more defensive then Isla. Would have left too many gaps had Isla been playing. Their winger Montero destroyed Callum Chambers last week so it was a good move imo, despite the result and performance. But the way HR wanted us to play, Ned was the better option.
Comment
-
Good move to sit back and defend for 90 mins trying to nick a draw?Originally posted by Jeems View PostTactically I think it an ok idea. HR had set out to defend and Ned is more defensive then Isla. Would have left too many gaps had Isla been playing. Their winger Montero destroyed Callum Chambers last week so it was a good move imo, despite the result and performance. But the way HR wanted us to play, Ned was the better option.
Sorry, but that failed to work in the previous 6 away games, so why would it work at Swansea?
It reminds me of that Blackadder Goes Forth battle plan scene. the one where the plan was to go over the top....again. "it failed 17 time times before" to which the response was "exactly. They wont be expecting us to try that again" or something along those lines.Last edited by stanistheman; 03-12-2014, 02:04 PM.
Comment
-
-
hopefully you don't think I wasn't advocating playing for a draw. I was questioning why Jeems thought that was a good move to play the more defensive Onuoha out of position ahead of Isla.Originally posted by MYU View PostIf we're going to lose anyway, why not try to play to win instead of play to draw?
Comment
-
A brilliant comedy Black Adder (apart from the first series)Originally posted by stanistheman View PostGood move to sit back and defend for 90 mins trying to nick a draw?
Sorry, but that failed to work in the previous 6 away games, so why would it work at Swansea?
It reminds me of that Blackadder Goes Forth battle plan scene. the one where the plan was to go over the top....again. "it failed 17 time times before" to which the response was "exactly. They wont be expecting us to try that again" or something along those lines.
Comment
-
Agree completely, but HR obviously wanted a defensive set up so for this reason alone, Ned was the better option. I didnt like the way we set up at all btw.Originally posted by stanistheman View PostGood move to sit back and defend for 90 mins trying to nick a draw?
Sorry, but that failed to work in the previous 6 away games, so why would it work at Swansea?
It reminds me of that Blackadder Goes Forth battle plan scene. the one where the plan was to go over the top....again. "it failed 17 time times before" to which the response was "exactly. They wont be expecting us to try that again" or something along those lines.
Comment
-
Danny Simpson?....... Oh no, we sold him to be in Leicester's reserves with only Ned as backupOriginally posted by MYU View PostIn that case we need another RB to come in for games like this, it would be nice if we can find someone who can play at both RB/CB positions in case of injuries.
Comment
Comment