| A Bridge Too Far? 22:13 - Aug 26 with 1720 views | BlueBadger |
I reckon today was when our ridiculous injury list caught up with us. We've been lucky in that the fixture list has given us a rubbish Birmingham, utterly porous Millwall and out-of-sorts Brentford and now we've come up against an excellent Fulham side who've not lived up to their pre-season billing thus far. The spirit in the side that it's bolstered will stand us in stead for the rest of the season. The international break's come at a good time for us, it'll give Mick and his team time to get some much-needed backline experience in on loan(at very least), time for some of those such as Adeyemi to get fit and a much needed breather for the rest of the lads.
I'm not yet convinced that were capable of challenging for the top six like some on here but I think we're more than capable of upsetting a fair few sides along the way and we'll certainly give a better account of ourselves than last season. [Post edited 26 Aug 2017 22:14]
|  |
| |  |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:22 - Aug 26 with 1697 views | SomethingBlue |
I genuinely think we should get another midfielder in if Huws is out for months. Think Adeyemi will do well here eventually but can't help thinking we are still light in there. Would be good if we can use the next few days to strengthen properly and let us build on what has been done this month. |  |
| |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:33 - Aug 26 with 1670 views | gt81 |
Largely agreed, but having watched the game pan out we needed to change the system.
My thinking is that a 5 man midfield might have nullified Fulham a bit more effectively today and we did have the players to do it. Either we could have sacrified a striker and gine 4-5-1, or played 3 at the back if we wanted to keep 2 up front. | | | |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:39 - Aug 26 with 1654 views | pointofblue |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:33 - Aug 26 by gt81 |
Largely agreed, but having watched the game pan out we needed to change the system.
My thinking is that a 5 man midfield might have nullified Fulham a bit more effectively today and we did have the players to do it. Either we could have sacrified a striker and gine 4-5-1, or played 3 at the back if we wanted to keep 2 up front. |
I can just imagine the fans reaction if we dropped three from McGoldrick, Sears, Waghorn and Garner at home after winning the four previous league matches. I do think we should have started with Celina and Downes in the place of two of them - I would have swayed towards benching McGoldrick and Sears with Waghorn moving up top. At least that would have given us a bit more flexibility; we could have then dropped Waghorn to wide right and played with five in the middle if needed.
As it is the line up gave us nowhere to go; we had few options on the bench and we couldn't switch formations to try and nullify Fulham. The problem is, unlike Brentford, they scored in the first half meaning we almost had to keep four strikers on to chase the game. Had it been 0-0 it would have been easier to solidfy the middle and make us tougher to break through. To be fair we did look better in the second half until they scored; then it was definitely game over. | |
| |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:47 - Aug 26 with 1631 views | factual_blue |
It's a decent film, but fails convey the utter stupidity of Operation Market Garden. |  |
| |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:50 - Aug 26 with 1622 views | gt81 |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:39 - Aug 26 by pointofblue |
I can just imagine the fans reaction if we dropped three from McGoldrick, Sears, Waghorn and Garner at home after winning the four previous league matches. I do think we should have started with Celina and Downes in the place of two of them - I would have swayed towards benching McGoldrick and Sears with Waghorn moving up top. At least that would have given us a bit more flexibility; we could have then dropped Waghorn to wide right and played with five in the middle if needed.
As it is the line up gave us nowhere to go; we had few options on the bench and we couldn't switch formations to try and nullify Fulham. The problem is, unlike Brentford, they scored in the first half meaning we almost had to keep four strikers on to chase the game. Had it been 0-0 it would have been easier to solidfy the middle and make us tougher to break through. To be fair we did look better in the second half until they scored; then it was definitely game over. |
I'd agree with your analysis, but not the first part of the comment - I was thinking yesterday, but didn't post it, that we wouldn't get away with playing all four of our forwards against a side like Fulham.
I for one would have understood if had changed the team, though I recognise that he felt this 11 had the momentum, as we really could not afford to allow Fulham to play today. Allowing lesser footballing sides to come at us hoping to hit them on the counter is one thing, but allowing Fulham to dictate the game was always going to end only one way. | | | |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:00 - Aug 26 with 1606 views | pointofblue |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:50 - Aug 26 by gt81 |
I'd agree with your analysis, but not the first part of the comment - I was thinking yesterday, but didn't post it, that we wouldn't get away with playing all four of our forwards against a side like Fulham.
I for one would have understood if had changed the team, though I recognise that he felt this 11 had the momentum, as we really could not afford to allow Fulham to play today. Allowing lesser footballing sides to come at us hoping to hit them on the counter is one thing, but allowing Fulham to dictate the game was always going to end only one way. |
I agree with you about thinking yesterday we wouldn't get away with it again - my heart sunk when I heard the line up. We were lucky Brentford didn't take advantage of our lack of midfield and Fulham didn't even have to leave first gear to have a whale of a time.
I would have understood and agreed with a change in line up (maybe not 4-5-1 from the start but certainly playing four recognised midfielders instead of two) but others wouldn't have. And if it had resulted in a defeat the question would have been 'why change a winning team?' | |
| |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:13 - Aug 26 with 1585 views | gt81 |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:00 - Aug 26 by pointofblue |
I agree with you about thinking yesterday we wouldn't get away with it again - my heart sunk when I heard the line up. We were lucky Brentford didn't take advantage of our lack of midfield and Fulham didn't even have to leave first gear to have a whale of a time.
I would have understood and agreed with a change in line up (maybe not 4-5-1 from the start but certainly playing four recognised midfielders instead of two) but others wouldn't have. And if it had resulted in a defeat the question would have been 'why change a winning team?' |
Well he doesn't care about what the fans think for the most part, and if he ever had the understanding and good will to make a choice that went against popular opinion it was today.
To be fair to him, I have criticised Mick for setting us up to play based on neutralising the opponent, rather than playing our own game to our own strengths.
Today, he picked a team he thought could play to our strengths, when really, we needed to set up to play to neutralise the opposition! | | | |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:25 - Aug 26 with 1571 views | Guthrum |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 22:47 - Aug 26 by factual_blue |
It's a decent film, but fails convey the utter stupidity of Operation Market Garden. |
I don't think the concept of Market Garden was stupid, but to persist with it in the face of equipment (particularly aircraft) shortages and intelligence of strong enemy forces in the area was foolhardy. Even with those handicaps, plus poor weather and faulty communications, the plan came close to succeeding, which may at least have led to the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944.
Albeit without the airborne element, the German blitzkrieg of 1940 was equally risky, constantly hovering on the brink of disaster. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:39 - Aug 26 with 1548 views | factual_blue |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:25 - Aug 26 by Guthrum |
I don't think the concept of Market Garden was stupid, but to persist with it in the face of equipment (particularly aircraft) shortages and intelligence of strong enemy forces in the area was foolhardy. Even with those handicaps, plus poor weather and faulty communications, the plan came close to succeeding, which may at least have led to the liberation of the Netherlands in 1944.
Albeit without the airborne element, the German blitzkrieg of 1940 was equally risky, constantly hovering on the brink of disaster. |
It was testament to Montgomery's ego, an attempt to carve the glory out for himself. 'Boy' Browning was a terrible commander.
All airborne commanders knew that paratroopers need to land right on top of their objectives: they don't have the heavier weaponry to defend an advance over several miles behind enemy lines.
Given the Allies more or less complete mastery of German codes etc, the failure to properly analyse the that intelligence - and link it to reports from the Dutch resistance - was dreadful. | |
| |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 00:19 - Aug 27 with 1512 views | Garv |
Probably would have lost with a full strength side. Fulham are quality and we are not. |  |
| |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 00:38 - Aug 27 with 1497 views | Guthrum |
| A Bridge Too Far? on 23:39 - Aug 26 by factual_blue |
It was testament to Montgomery's ego, an attempt to carve the glory out for himself. 'Boy' Browning was a terrible commander.
All airborne commanders knew that paratroopers need to land right on top of their objectives: they don't have the heavier weaponry to defend an advance over several miles behind enemy lines.
Given the Allies more or less complete mastery of German codes etc, the failure to properly analyse the that intelligence - and link it to reports from the Dutch resistance - was dreadful. |
I tend to place at least as much of the blame at Browning's door as Montgomery's. He was, by all accounts, the one wilfully disregarding the intelligence and indulging in overly optimistic planning (altho the Allies had been able to get away with quite a lot during the headlong German retreat across northern France and Belgium).
1st Airborne Division being split into three lifts - thus unable to concentrate maximum force at the moment of surprise - was a bigger handicap than the distance to the bridge. Thus the heroic defence by the SS cadets was enough to interrupt the advance into the town, allowing only Frost's battalion to get through and giving time for 9th SS Pz Div reinforcements to arrive.
Plus the Allied planners didn't know that the riverside polderland was sufficiently firm to allow landings on it. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
