Paul Clement

[Rangers77]

By your logic no, we havnt been dominated in a match as much as that, but from what ive seen we looked comfortable even though under pressure & good saves by smithies, they didnt score by open play and only got a goal which they shouldnt of had! but they was a team brimming with confidence, im not going to go on anymore as you lot will find fault whereever tbh, so pointless.

And halls a good defensive midfielder whos played well there under ollie, which again is so typical to not acknowlege that and call him a defender lol (yes he is a defender but also good in midfield!)

He isn't good in midfield. Only you and Ollie think that. He didn't close down the game yesterday. He opened it up further for City. There was only one team in from the time of the first subs. Most people recognise that. I guess being there or watching a stream might have helped form that opinion.

[Pinkie]

Pinkie, not sure if you deliberately try to see anything posted as a criticism of Holloway, but it certainly looks like it.

Can't think of many on here who would massively object to playing exciting attacking football as opposed to what we normally get.

Surely though, bringing on defenders to replace attacking players is only worth doing if we defend properly and not offer up the amount of chances that we did yesterday. If, as it seems, we are simply always going to concede one or two goals, then logic suggests we need to play in a manner that gives us a good chance of scoring two or three ourselves.

I could well be wildly wrong in my assumptions, in which case I guess there are plenty on here that would be prepared to put me straight.

By your logic no, we havnt been dominated in a match as much as that, but from what ive seen we looked comfortable even though under pressure & good saves by smithies, they didnt score by open play and only got a goal which they shouldnt of had! but they was a team brimming with confidence, im not going to go on anymore as you lot will find fault whereever tbh, so pointless.

And halls a good defensive midfielder whos played well there under ollie, which again is so typical to not acknowlege that and call him a defender lol (yes he is a defender but also good in midfield!)

[brightonr]

And ive just put above if ollie had put a more attacking minded player on and we conceded he`d of got hammered as always, & even if he had put one on theres no guarantees we wouldnt of been under the same pressure or more even or less even! theres just too much trying to give ollie a beating for whatever happens at the end of the day, alot of you on here have made youre minds up you dont rate him and nothings going to change that, even if we get on a good run can see the same negative posts popping up

Pinkie, not sure if you deliberately try to see anything posted as a criticism of Holloway, but it certainly looks like it.

Can't think of many on here who would massively object to playing exciting attacking football as opposed to what we normally get.

Surely though, bringing on defenders to replace attacking players is only worth doing if we defend properly and not offer up the amount of chances that we did yesterday. If, as it seems, we are simply always going to concede one or two goals, then logic suggests we need to play in a manner that gives us a good chance of scoring two or three ourselves.

I could well be wildly wrong in my assumptions, in which case I guess there are plenty on here that would be prepared to put me straight.

[bakes8]

[Pinkie]

I think you've only got one eye mate.

If Ollie put on subs at 1-0 and we would've got an improved performance/win he would've been lorded and rightly so.

He didn't. All the subs failed and we failed to get the win.

But as usula with deflective apologists like you, it's all everyone elses fault.

Merry xmas.

[bakes8]

And ive just put above if ollie had put a more attacking minded player on and we conceded he`d of got hammered as always, & even if he had put one on theres no guarantees we wouldnt of been under the same pressure or more even or less even! theres just too much trying to give ollie a beating for whatever happens at the end of the day, alot of you on here have made youre minds up you dont rate him and nothings going to change that, even if we get on a good run can see the same negative posts popping up

I think you've only got one eye mate.

If Ollie put on subs at 1-0 and we would've got an improved performance/win he would've been lorded and rightly so.

He didn't. All the subs failed and we failed to get the win.

But as usula with deflective apologists like you, it's all everyone elses fault.

Merry xmas.

[Rangers77]

Actually i would prefer hall than cousins & very surprised youre using cousins as sure ive seen you slating him somewhere on here! halls done very well in midfield be it defensive so again trying to make us more solid makes sense, but agree attacking is the better way of defence, but he would of got cained if he tried to attack more and we conceded! lets face it you moaners wont stop moaning at anything lol

Can't think why. I've never criticised Cousins when he's been played in his proper position if central midfield. Trouble is he's never been played there......I've criticised, rightly, Ollie and Jimmy for playing him right wing/ right wing back/ right back. And, FWIW, I wasn't moaning at Ollie first half, when I thought we did well. I was moaning when his subs clearly set us back. As most people recognise. And I will be moaning when Mackie starts against Ipswich.......

[Pinkie]

No, I hadn't.

But it's somewhat irrelevant. If you read what I said again, I referred to the effect the change had, not slating him for doing it. An attack minded midfielder on the bench may have helped. Even playing Washington there would have had a less negative effect.

And ive just put above if ollie had put a more attacking minded player on and we conceded he`d of got hammered as always, & even if he had put one on theres no guarantees we wouldnt of been under the same pressure or more even or less even! theres just too much trying to give ollie a beating for whatever happens at the end of the day, alot of you on here have made youre minds up you dont rate him and nothings going to change that, even if we get on a good run can see the same negative posts popping up

[brightonr]

I take it youve seen kevs post about hes heard freeman picked up a strain or injury yesterday?!

No, I hadn't.

But it's somewhat irrelevant. If you read what I said again, I referred to the effect the change had, not slating him for doing it. An attack minded midfielder on the bench may have helped. Even playing Washington there would have had a less negative effect.

[Pinkie]

Actually i would prefer hall than cousins & very surprised youre using cousins as sure ive seen you slating him somewhere on here! halls done very well in midfield be it defensive so again trying to make us more solid makes sense, but agree attacking is the better way of defence, but he would of got cained if he tried to attack more and we conceded! lets face it you moaners wont stop moaning at anything lol

[Rangers77]

Sack ollie the cretin for taking freeman off lol

Obviously you'd prefer Hall in midfield to Cousins, right?

[Rangers77]

I take it youve seen kevs post about hes heard freeman picked up a strain or injury yesterday?!

LOL. Wheeler or, heaven forfend, the central midfielder Cousins were on the bench. There was no f acking need to put a centre half in midfield, was there?

[Pinkie]

Even God is worried he's to be replaced.

Sack ollie the cretin for taking freeman off lol

[Rangers77]

Holloway could be in the running for the Swansea job if Pinkie does his C.V.

If Pinkie doing CV may as well wait for Barcelona!

Even God is worried he's to be replaced.

[Pinkie]

In fairness to Holloway, we were easily the better side in the first half yesterday.

Unfortunately though, as usual, his inability to positively affect the game with either tactical changes or substitutions meant that they completely over ran us for the majority of the second half.

I can understand the logic in attempting to preserve the lead by replacing an attacking midfielder with a defender who he seems to want to convert to a holding midfielder, but it had exactly the opposite effect. We were absolutely woeful from that point onwards and even worse when Smith and Washington were introduced. Our complete inability to attack with any threat whatsoever was down to the midfield change in my opinion. A particularly disgraceful moment was when Washington ran on to a long pass and six or seven seconds later his only support was still lumbering along in the centre circle.

I take it youve seen kevs post about hes heard freeman picked up a strain or injury yesterday?!