| Why did we not change tactic when things weren't working 21:33 - Jan 16 with 665 views | hunty21 |
It was obvious brighten had the better quality in 2nd half why can't we accept that and play ugly to get a result or crowd the midfield instead of persisting with playing from the back |  | | |  |
| Why did we not change tactic when things weren't working on 21:43 - Jan 16 with 577 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
** Brighton |  |
| |
| Why did we not change tactic when things weren't working on 21:44 - Jan 16 with 554 views | bournemouthblue |
I thought the subs worked to some extent but too many of our forwards players had 4 or 5/10 games sadly
I do agree, perhaps we should have been more positive earlier on |  |
| |
| Why did we not change tactic when things weren't working on 21:48 - Jan 16 with 530 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Why did we not change tactic when things weren't working on 21:44 - Jan 16 by bournemouthblue |
I thought the subs worked to some extent but too many of our forwards players had 4 or 5/10 games sadly
I do agree, perhaps we should have been more positive earlier on |
Think you hit the nail on the head there.
Omari certainly had an off day, one of those where he kept doing these brilliant mazy runs, only to take two of three touches too many or try to beat one too many players and end up losing the ball.
I'm sure Philogene will make us more dangerous in forward positions, and am sure that Godfrey will make an impact on the defence too. | |
| |
| Why did we not change tactic when things weren't working on 22:06 - Jan 16 with 449 views | Wonky |
For once out managed, that's rare. We've kept of the tactic of fresh legs at 60 minutes, this doesn't work at this level. So damn hard this division. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
