Dorrans

[Marky. 6,927]

12 minutes ago, WWTC said:

Thats up there in terms of nonsense I’ve read on here. 

It’s considered good management to leave  a player on the park for 20mins offering nothing other than blowing out of his arse because making the 1minute substitution to replace him would break up play or slow play down? 

My point is we were miles on top. Making changes when in that position is riskier than seeing where the spell would take us. If that’s considered up there with the nonsense you’ve read on this site, then I have no idea how you’re still here. ?

[WWTC 2,247]

16 minutes ago, Marky. said:

My point is we were miles on top. Making changes when in that position is riskier than seeing where the spell would take us. If that’s considered up there with the nonsense you’ve read on this site, then I have no idea how you’re still here. ?

Did we win the game? When we were miles on top did we capitalise on that pressure? Was it Kranjcar that had his overhead kick saved after bursting into the box or was it our right back? Maybe if we had added the extra man and legs when we were clearly on top with a passenger on the park, we wouldve created more? Scored? Even won? 

If your talking about a couple of minutes, a short spell, then fair enough. Kranjcar wasnt in the game, at all. 50, 55, 60, 65mins...they all passed with him doing absolutely fuck all. Ive previously stuck up for the guy but he was literally a man down and your suggesting its somehow good management to keep him on the park because we were still on top. Its like saying Alves couldve limped on n seen how it panned out ?

edit: “too risky” to take him off? Taking off a centre back and replacing him with a striker is risky. Taking off and empty jersey and replacing him with someone who can move, is not. 

[Marky. 6,927]

Didn’t say too risky to take him off, I said possibly riskier than not considering our position. I’m simply playing devils advocate to look at the different things Murty would have been thinking that that time. I’m as frustrated as you are, and I’m not really getting the whole was it Niko with the overhead kick point. Would it have been Barjonas or Peña if they’d have been brought on? That’s more like saying it might as well have been a crocked Alves... @WWTC

[WWTC 2,247]

4 minutes ago, Marky. said:

Didn’t say too risky to take him off, I said possibly riskier than not considering our position. I’m simply playing devils advocate to look at the different things Murty would have been thinking that that time. I’m as frustrated as you are, and I’m not really getting the whole was it Niko with the overhead kick point. Would it have been Barjonas or Peña if they’d have been brought on? That’s more like saying it might as well have been a crocked Alves... @WWTC

Im convinced Barjonas, for example, would have offered us even more protection from them breaking, and another body to keep possession at very worst. I dont think I need to remind you that one thing Pena CAN do, is get into the box. We had 3 clear cut chances in the second half and even more good deliveries from Tav and Candeias in particular. I’d love to have seen Pena bursting into the box for the last 30 mins. I also think Pena would have given the lego muncher more to think about in terms of running in behind. 

[Marky. 6,927]

1 minute ago, WWTC said:

Im convinced Barjonas, for example, would have offered us even more protection from them breaking, and another body to keep possession at very worst. I dont think I need to remind you that one thing Pena CAN do, is get into the box. We had 3 clear cut chances in the second half and even more good deliveries from Tav and Candeias in particular. I’d love to have seen Pena bursting into the box for the last 30 mins. I also think Pena would have given the lego muncher more to think about in terms of running in behind. 

But ultimately you could look at it as Peña is completely useless with the ball anywhere that’s not inside 18 yards and is known for hiding elsewhere and Barjonas is unproven as of yet be it he played well against Motherwell. That being said, Murty could easily have felt whilst things were going well and we did have the ball, Kranjcar would make more happen than both of them. Whilst obviously poor for the game, he’s the sort of person to play one pass to change the game. I don’t blame Murty, it’s just part and parcel of management; you’ll be criticised either way at a club like ours, on occasions like that.

[WWTC 2,247]

30 minutes ago, Marky. said:

But ultimately you could look at it as Peña is completely useless with the ball anywhere that’s not inside 18 yards and is known for hiding elsewhere and Barjonas is unproven as of yet be it he played well against Motherwell. That being said, Murty could easily have felt whilst things were going well and we did have the ball, Kranjcar would make more happen than both of them. Whilst obviously poor for the game, he’s the sort of person to play one pass to change the game. I don’t blame Murty, it’s just part and parcel of management; you’ll be criticised either way at a club like ours, on occasions like that.

But either way, if you take into account how little Kranjcar offered overall then neither Barjonas or Pena is a gamble. How can anything be a gamble if your playing with 10men effectively? Going back to Pena, if he comes on and he and Morelos switch about the way they have before then again it puts more pressure on that cunt in the middle of the park for them. 

[bluenose244 2,618]

Hope he's back soon and really kicks on, been very much stop start.