| Who decided on the added time tactics? 20:35 - Mar 10 with 2159 views | cbower |
There is near universal agreement that in added time (perhaps even a bit before) we surrendered the ball too easily, retreated bàckwards and let them have the ball as we sought to hold what we had. Who made that call? Was it:
A) McKenna? This would be out of character for me but not impossible. He conceded that he did not have the personel on the field for that, having made 80% of the subs to win the game
B) The players themselves. If so, there might be some behind closed-door inquests going on
C) It's a natural inclination when you’re one up entering stoppage time. If this is the case, how come at 3-2 up on Tuesday we went looking for mor goals in stoppage time
It's been irking me and whilst we'll never know for sure, I'm interested what others on here think. |  |
| |  |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:52 - Mar 10 with 2065 views | LeoMuff |
Bristol and Plymouth we closed the games out excellently, I think we ran out of gas a bit. |  |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:56 - Mar 10 with 2045 views | SheffordBlue |
There's a D that it wasn't a 'tactic' but a mixture of individual stuff not coming off, coupled with Cardiff putting lots of pressure on and some bad luck (second balls not falling our way) that just meant that we were forced back.
There are often spells in games for 5 mins or so where what happened happens. This just happened to coincide with the final minutes of the game where we didn't get the chance to get control of the game back again. |  |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 21:02 - Mar 10 with 2022 views | cbower |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:52 - Mar 10 by LeoMuff |
Bristol and Plymouth we closed the games out excellently, I think we ran out of gas a bit. |
We had Taylor, Harness, Broadhead, Hutchinson, Al Hamadi all relatively fresh on the park - none of whom have been flogged with minutes of late so surely they had plenty in the tank. Clarke has been on the bench for 3 games prior to this too. I can understand Morsy and Davis being goosed and maybe Woolf too. Burgess effectively had a month winter break at Asia Cup. Loking at it likecthat, the 10 outfield players on the pitch after 90 minutes, many were lightly raced to say the least. | |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 21:03 - Mar 10 with 2013 views | cbower |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:56 - Mar 10 by SheffordBlue |
There's a D that it wasn't a 'tactic' but a mixture of individual stuff not coming off, coupled with Cardiff putting lots of pressure on and some bad luck (second balls not falling our way) that just meant that we were forced back.
There are often spells in games for 5 mins or so where what happened happens. This just happened to coincide with the final minutes of the game where we didn't get the chance to get control of the game back again. |
Maybe so, maybe so. | |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 21:14 - Mar 10 with 1974 views | bournemouthblue |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:52 - Mar 10 by LeoMuff |
Bristol and Plymouth we closed the games out excellently, I think we ran out of gas a bit. |
The same at Swansea, we killed that off very smartly but this one was as a total car crash! |  |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 23:00 - Mar 10 with 1810 views | TheBoyBlue |
Since Charlton last season we've generally been good at seeing out games and mainly it has been because we've pressed and not allowed the chasing team to get the momentum and put pressure on us.
We didn't do that yesterday. That might have been because we had the adrenalin of a late late winner just before injury time on Tuesday, the home crowd, etc and obviously we didn't yesterday or we were just worn out I don't know. But I'm confident we'll learn from it. | |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 23:33 - Mar 10 with 1728 views | tractorshark |
Genuinely think we ran out of steam and McKenna had run out of substitutions trying to chase a win.
Morsy and Davis both looked knackered which is unusual for them.
And I’m afraid the subs did not do enough in those last 10 minutes to close down the opposition, stop crosses coming in and keep possession.
Yes the defence should have dealt with the ball better for both goals but it would be harsh to solely blame them. | | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 23:43 - Mar 10 with 1704 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 23:33 - Mar 10 by tractorshark |
Genuinely think we ran out of steam and McKenna had run out of substitutions trying to chase a win.
Morsy and Davis both looked knackered which is unusual for them.
And I’m afraid the subs did not do enough in those last 10 minutes to close down the opposition, stop crosses coming in and keep possession.
Yes the defence should have dealt with the ball better for both goals but it would be harsh to solely blame them. |
It is a flaw in Broadhead's game that he does not close and protect Davis enough at times. He moves toward the opponent but rarely actually puts pressure on in our half. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 01:25 - Mar 11 with 1602 views | Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
There was a 50/50 call for a fee kick on Hutchinson in the 94th right down our end of the pitch, the ref didn’t give it and then Clarke clipped it to the half way line whilst not under pressure. It then feel apart, I hated that, had a chance to hit it in the back of the stand or try and bring it out. |  | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 03:30 - Mar 11 with 1533 views | ITFCSG |
For all our passing nous sometimes our game management is questionable. Look at how teams like Leeds, Southampton and even WBA counter pressure in the last few minutes of the game by playing short passes to one another denying the opposition the ball in their half or hoof into the stand for throw ins as the clock winds down. A lot of times we play kamikaze football, sometimes we get the rub of the green, sometimes we don't. Players have to be more streetwise. | | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 07:52 - Mar 11 with 1312 views | Steve_M |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 01:25 - Mar 11 by Joey_Joe_Joe_Junior |
There was a 50/50 call for a fee kick on Hutchinson in the 94th right down our end of the pitch, the ref didn’t give it and then Clarke clipped it to the half way line whilst not under pressure. It then feel apart, I hated that, had a chance to hit it in the back of the stand or try and bring it out. |
Yes, that was the bit for me where we lost it. I thought someone should have been where Clarke hit that ball too, don't know where AAH was at that point but it was unchallenged and we didn't get the ball back again until they scored. |  |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 08:31 - Mar 11 with 1224 views | franz_tyson |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 03:30 - Mar 11 by ITFCSG |
For all our passing nous sometimes our game management is questionable. Look at how teams like Leeds, Southampton and even WBA counter pressure in the last few minutes of the game by playing short passes to one another denying the opposition the ball in their half or hoof into the stand for throw ins as the clock winds down. A lot of times we play kamikaze football, sometimes we get the rub of the green, sometimes we don't. Players have to be more streetwise. |
I agree that our game management is questionable. Not into throwing any individual under the bus or undermining how we've over-achieved this season - but that's one of our weaknesses. We have improved in seeing out games, but there's been quite a few other occasions where we've been hanging on.
I felt completely comfortable at 90 minutes and seeing 8 minutes as extra time didn't worry me. Fast forward a couple of minutes and we'd turned into a jelly-like wreck. I still don't get it. It was like Cardiff had suddenly turned into a top PL team with an extra man and that we were only allowed to play in our third of the pitch.
If Cardiff are chasing a game and taking risks and pushing men forward , then they surely are leaving spaces which we could exploit. But all we did was edge backwards into our box and offer them chance after chance to keep on throwing crosses into our box. Without throwing anyone and especially the defence under the bus - but we are crap at this type of defending. There are other teams who can soak up this pressure all game and hope for a breakaway or set-piece goal, but we're not that team. We have to play to our strengths. Surely we should have enough nouse to deal better with these types of situations. It's not like it was one or two errors by an individual or two - but the whole team didn't seem to know what to do other than retreat further into our box. For 90 minute's I thought Cardiff were pretty average, yet we made them look like world-beaters for the last 10 minutes.
Don't mind losing through all sorts of situations and we're due bad day at office, but I still don't get our tactics on this one. [Post edited 11 Mar 8:32]
| | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 08:51 - Mar 11 with 1158 views | DJR |
It was just one of those things. We took the game to them after we scored, but the turning point seemed to be the cross in extra time which flashed across the box and nearly went in at the far post.
That seemed to give Cardiff impetus, with the goal following shortly after, and giving them even more impetus.
The fact though is that Cardiff are a decent footballing side, as they showed in the first game against us, and they troubled us out wide on Saturday in earlier parts of the game, just as they did at the end. [Post edited 11 Mar 8:55]
|  | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 09:01 - Mar 11 with 1074 views | NthQldITFC |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:56 - Mar 10 by SheffordBlue |
There's a D that it wasn't a 'tactic' but a mixture of individual stuff not coming off, coupled with Cardiff putting lots of pressure on and some bad luck (second balls not falling our way) that just meant that we were forced back.
There are often spells in games for 5 mins or so where what happened happens. This just happened to coincide with the final minutes of the game where we didn't get the chance to get control of the game back again. |
Yes, I can't imagine that it was a decision or a tactic either. It's an organic thing isn't it, which involves pressure and mistakes and crowd noise and little glances between players and just the 'feelings' that you get as player or as a fan about how the game is moving. A little Chappers sit down might have helped, but you can't really advocate that sort of thing too much. |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 09:14 - Mar 11 with 1043 views | franz_tyson |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 08:51 - Mar 11 by DJR |
It was just one of those things. We took the game to them after we scored, but the turning point seemed to be the cross in extra time which flashed across the box and nearly went in at the far post.
That seemed to give Cardiff impetus, with the goal following shortly after, and giving them even more impetus.
The fact though is that Cardiff are a decent footballing side, as they showed in the first game against us, and they troubled us out wide on Saturday in earlier parts of the game, just as they did at the end. [Post edited 11 Mar 8:55]
|
But that near miss should have been a warning shot for us. We should have reacted as well. Its not just Cardiff that could be affected by that near miss - it should also have been us. There's two teams here and we're in the box seat at 1-0up. We didn't have a gentleman's agreement that they should bully us for the last 10 minutes. If they want to push up and push us back into our box then - no problem, because that means they're allowing themselves to be weak at the back and vulnerable to a counterattack. We offered nothing there - just an invitation to keep on coming at us.
Sorry, but I don't think Cardiff were that good for the first 90 minutes. I think we can do better in situations like that and I hope we're having good conversations as a team about how we can see out games like that. We did the hard work for 90 minutes and we shouldn't see it as one of those things. A lot of hard work wasted. | | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 10:07 - Mar 11 with 884 views | Europablue |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 08:31 - Mar 11 by franz_tyson |
I agree that our game management is questionable. Not into throwing any individual under the bus or undermining how we've over-achieved this season - but that's one of our weaknesses. We have improved in seeing out games, but there's been quite a few other occasions where we've been hanging on.
I felt completely comfortable at 90 minutes and seeing 8 minutes as extra time didn't worry me. Fast forward a couple of minutes and we'd turned into a jelly-like wreck. I still don't get it. It was like Cardiff had suddenly turned into a top PL team with an extra man and that we were only allowed to play in our third of the pitch.
If Cardiff are chasing a game and taking risks and pushing men forward , then they surely are leaving spaces which we could exploit. But all we did was edge backwards into our box and offer them chance after chance to keep on throwing crosses into our box. Without throwing anyone and especially the defence under the bus - but we are crap at this type of defending. There are other teams who can soak up this pressure all game and hope for a breakaway or set-piece goal, but we're not that team. We have to play to our strengths. Surely we should have enough nouse to deal better with these types of situations. It's not like it was one or two errors by an individual or two - but the whole team didn't seem to know what to do other than retreat further into our box. For 90 minute's I thought Cardiff were pretty average, yet we made them look like world-beaters for the last 10 minutes.
Don't mind losing through all sorts of situations and we're due bad day at office, but I still don't get our tactics on this one. [Post edited 11 Mar 8:32]
|
There definitely seemed to be an atmosphere in the stadium and that really pushed Cardiff on. We looked exhausted and wilted under the pressure of the hostile crowd. We made bad decisions with the pass and Burgess either didn't communicate properly or Woolfenden panicked getting in the way of a simple clearance for the first goal. If the first goal doesn't happen, the second goal doesn't happen. We've been managing to land on the right side of a knife edge almost every time, but this time our luck ran out. Over the course of the season it is perfectly understandable, but it's hard to take in the context of where 3 points would have put us in the league, especially with regards to Leicester. | | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 10:29 - Mar 11 with 825 views | OldFart71 |
We have always been better when Hutchinson and Sarmiento come on with half an hour to go rather than both starting. I have felt for some time that defensive wise especially central that we aren't strong or good enough. Also reflecting on our subs it mainly consists of cover for a fullback and apart from the obvious goalie all the rest are midfield and forwards. I suppose though you then get those that will say "Why do we sit back and allow the other team to come on to us" But if you attack your open to counter attack, However all this is only brought to the fore because we lost, had be hung on for the win then it would have been a great win. All that's needed is we put one over on Sheffield Wednesday and it will be forgotten. Whatever happens it's been an excellent first season back in the Championship. | | | |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 10:30 - Mar 11 with 816 views | WeWereZombies |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 09:14 - Mar 11 by franz_tyson |
But that near miss should have been a warning shot for us. We should have reacted as well. Its not just Cardiff that could be affected by that near miss - it should also have been us. There's two teams here and we're in the box seat at 1-0up. We didn't have a gentleman's agreement that they should bully us for the last 10 minutes. If they want to push up and push us back into our box then - no problem, because that means they're allowing themselves to be weak at the back and vulnerable to a counterattack. We offered nothing there - just an invitation to keep on coming at us.
Sorry, but I don't think Cardiff were that good for the first 90 minutes. I think we can do better in situations like that and I hope we're having good conversations as a team about how we can see out games like that. We did the hard work for 90 minutes and we shouldn't see it as one of those things. A lot of hard work wasted. |
Your last paragraph, really ? Cardiff may not have been good to watch for ninety minutes but they were tough for ninety minutes and tougher for the last ten. We were working hard because they were working us hard. But it's a game so it isn't hard work wasted, it's all part of the game. |  |
| |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 11:26 - Mar 11 with 732 views | BseaBlue |
| Who decided on the added time tactics? on 20:52 - Mar 10 by LeoMuff |
Bristol and Plymouth we closed the games out excellently, I think we ran out of gas a bit. |
Exactly this. We just ran out of steam I thought. It has been a tough run of games with the mid week matches as well and we just couldnt find the energy to keep control of the end of the game. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
