docspiderman Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 The substition of Whittaker for Lafferty again showed why I think we will struggle to win the title. Lafferty apart from the early stages was poor and should not have reappeared after the break but to put Whittaker on in his place baffled me. If it was to shore up the game, which going to form would have been Waltes intention, why put on a full back who cannot defend to play in midfield? If it was to create more width and provide crosses, experience has shown he cannot cross the ball. If it was to try to keep possession we have seen he finds it hard to control and pass the ball at the best of times. The Hamilton defence had been altered several times during the game and any sort of controlled passing football was causing problems, players running at them was causing problems. Surely we had players on the bench who could have done this and made the last 20 minutes more comfortable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_ni Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 bringing whittaker on for lafferty was the worst substitution i have seen from walter. We have fleck beasley naismith and aaron sitting on the bench who can play left midfield and we bring a pish right back on to play there. I dont thin lafferty did too bad but hes not a left winger hes a striker which is why he tried to cut inside every time he got the ball. Anyway we won and got 3 points so it doesnt really matter but imagine we hadnt won that game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macleod1873 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I could understand it tbh. Walter was trying to shut up shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leiper Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Rather than look for another goal i.e Bring on Aaron or Fleck, he was wanting us to prevent them from scoring, which by the way the game went, seemed pretty reasonable to me. Whittaker brought more strength to the midfield than Fleck or Aaron would have and obviously defends better than the two young ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman Posted February 28, 2009 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 Rather than look for another goal i.e Bring on Aaron or Fleck, he was wanting us to prevent them from scoring, which by the way the game went, seemed pretty reasonable to me. Whittaker brought more strength to the midfield than Fleck or Aaron would have and obviously defends better than the two young ones. The point was he cannot defend, cannot tackle and cannot hold the ball so almost anyone would have been a better option. But we should not have needed to do this; if Hamilton were kept on the back foot, as they should have been, then we would not have been under the pressure we were for the last 20 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 An odd substitution but the main problem with today was that we never killed the game off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leiper Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Rather than look for another goal i.e Bring on Aaron or Fleck, he was wanting us to prevent them from scoring, which by the way the game went, seemed pretty reasonable to me. Whittaker brought more strength to the midfield than Fleck or Aaron would have and obviously defends better than the two young ones. The point was he cannot defend, cannot tackle and cannot hold the ball so almost anyone would have been a better option. But we should not have needed to do this; if Hamilton were kept on the back foot, as they should have been, then we would not have been under the pressure we were for the last 20 minutes. In your opinion...But if that were the case, he wouldn't be earning the wage he is and wouldn't be playing for Rangers at all. I'm pretty sure he is a better option, defensively than Aaron or Fleck. We should have had the game dead and buried. We should have been at least 3 up. But this wasn't the case and I can understand why Walter made this sub. "It's not our day today, lets just hold out for the 3 points." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StayWestFree Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 One sub means we'll struggle to win the league, don't be daft. What you are saying, I think, is ridiculous. Whittiker is a decent player who is stonger than any the other options we had. We won this away game which was important considering our recent away form (drew at Celtic, Aberdeen). The main thing that matters is the result. Today we got a win away from home. Be positive. We need to grind out wins like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasGers Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I don't think that 1-0 up on the road and under pressure would be a good time for Aaron to come on as a sub. I don't particularly like Whittaker, but he did what he had to do, and we ended up getting a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenoz Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 the substitition was correct. winning 1 - 0 away from home wins leagues. he was a better defensive option than aaron, fleck, naismith or beasley. and btw, i remember him whipping a great cross in for boyd who just failed to connect with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearer Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Whittaker came on and did well today, he put himself about and put a very good cross in for Boyd. I would have rather seen Aaron or Fleck come on but Smith got it right as we won the game and Whittaker played well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cornelius11 Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 I think Fleck would have brought more physical presence than whittaker to be honest. plus he would have brought good pace against a tiring hamilton team resulting in us wrapping the game up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 We still created chances and tightened up at the back...Walter got it spot on and the 3 points it helped earn us is a reason we will win the league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 We could have just brough aaron on for boyd and put naismith up on his own and that would have been more than enough energy, pace, directness to trouble hamilton for the last 10 minutes but to also win us the ball back in the middle of the park. Barry was looking knackered and you could tell it was hampering us in the midfield. But I think one substituion alone is not going to lose us the league, we got 3 points today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Doc has it spot on. Walter would rather try and keep it 1-0 than go for 2 or 3 nil in the last half hour of a game and that can be as dangerous as 'going for it'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamthatIam Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Might not struggle to win the league but the the 1 goal victory for the shots at goal we had makes disturbing reading! Poor show, a great 3 points though. We Welcome The Chase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts