J. BACK

Greenskin wrote:

zyph wrote:

A match lasting 90mins plus....and is played with eleven players plus three subs.

So why did we decide to play two thirds of a match with only ten players and no subs.

A serious question for Sheridan to answer.......but unfortunately James Brent has no footballing experience to ask that question.......and his board of Directors have no influence to ask anything of anyone.

It was pointed out by someone on PASOTI the other day that Oxford's winning goal came as a result of Norburn losing the ball in midfield and Cox not making a tackle on the bloke who scored the winner. The implication of that was presumably that those two players were knackered and should not have still been on the pitch-logically there is no other conclusion to draw from the chap drawing attention to the incidents in the first place. But as an observer, those two would have been the last players that i'd have taken off and in fact throughout the second half,i was questioning as a mere layman whether anyone should have been taken off-Argyle were fairly comfortable and actually created two or three decent chances and attacks of their own, so IMHO it was by no means as simple a decision as you seem to imply. You can bet your last penny that if Sheridan had made three substitutions after 60 minutes and the same result ensued, then the same people who are doing the slagging now would have been the first to come out with the "what the feck was he playing at. Argyle were doing fine " line, in the same way as the manager got a slating for taking off Lewis and Reuben at Northampton, which was an extraordinary piece of criticism to my way of thinking. Argyle conceded two goals on that day to a mistake by McCormick and a wonder strike, pretty much the same as against Oxford. Argyle were attacking just prior to that second goal-in fact it came from one of those bleddy corners from Bobby-if Sheridan merits criticism, it would be for allowing him to keep taking them when a much better deliverer in Norburn was on the pitch.

Pre fcuking cisely !!!!!

zyph wrote:

A match lasting 90mins plus....and is played with eleven players plus three subs.

So why did we decide to play two thirds of a match with only ten players and no subs.

A serious question for Sheridan to answer.......but unfortunately James Brent has no footballing experience to ask that question.......and his board of Directors have no influence to ask anything of anyone.

Shame fans cant stand behind the dugouts like before im sure a few hundred bellowing sheridan about why there are no changes might have helped.

Angry wrote:

zyph wrote:

A match lasting 90mins plus....and is played with eleven players plus three subs.

So why did we decide to play two thirds of a match with only ten players and no subs.

A serious question for Sheridan to answer.......but unfortunately James Brent has no footballing experience to ask that question.......and his board of Directors have no influence to ask anything of anyone.

Shame fans cant stand behind the dugouts like before im sure a few hundred bellowing sheridan about why there are no changes might have helped.

So some pissed up, loudmouthed turd knows better than the manager? You could be onto something there, team selection.....Angry style!

Les Miserable wrote:

Angry wrote:

zyph wrote:

A match lasting 90mins plus....and is played with eleven players plus three subs.

So why did we decide to play two thirds of a match with only ten players and no subs.

A serious question for Sheridan to answer.......but unfortunately James Brent has no footballing experience to ask that question.......and his board of Directors have no influence to ask anything of anyone.

Shame fans cant stand behind the dugouts like before im sure a few hundred bellowing sheridan about why there are no changes might have helped.

So some pissed up, loudmouthed turd knows better than the manager? You could be onto something there, team selection.....Angry style!

we have a pissed up loudmmouthed manager so the combining forces would be interesting to watch

Angry wrote:

Les Miserable wrote:

Angry wrote:

zyph wrote:

A match lasting 90mins plus....and is played with eleven players plus three subs.

So why did we decide to play two thirds of a match with only ten players and no subs.

A serious question for Sheridan to answer.......but unfortunately James Brent has no footballing experience to ask that question.......and his board of Directors have no influence to ask anything of anyone.

Shame fans cant stand behind the dugouts like before im sure a few hundred bellowing sheridan about why there are no changes might have helped.

So some pissed up, loudmouthed turd knows better than the manager? You could be onto something there, team selection.....Angry style!

we have a pissed up loudmmouthed manager so the combining forces would be interesting to watch

It could get messy!

Greenskin wrote:

zyph wrote:

A match lasting 90mins plus....and is played with eleven players plus three subs.

So why did we decide to play two thirds of a match with only ten players and no subs.

A serious question for Sheridan to answer.......but unfortunately James Brent has no footballing experience to ask that question.......and his board of Directors have no influence to ask anything of anyone.

It was pointed out by someone on PASOTI the other day that Oxford's winning goal came as a result of Norburn losing the ball in midfield and Cox not making a tackle on the bloke who scored the winner. The implication of that was presumably that those two players were knackered and should not have still been on the pitch-logically there is no other conclusion to draw from the chap drawing attention to the incidents in the first place. But as an observer, those two would have been the last players that i'd have taken off and in fact throughout the second half,i was questioning as a mere layman whether anyone should have been taken off-Argyle were fairly comfortable and actually created two or three decent chances and attacks of their own, so IMHO it was by no means as simple a decision as you seem to imply. You can bet your last penny that if Sheridan had made three substitutions after 60 minutes and the same result ensued, then the same people who are doing the slagging now would have been the first to come out with the "what the feck was he playing at. Argyle were doing fine " line, in the same way as the manager got a slating for taking off Lewis and Reuben at Northampton, which was an extraordinary piece of criticism to my way of thinking. Argyle conceded two goals on that day to a mistake by McCormick and a wonder strike, pretty much the same as against Oxford. Argyle were attacking just prior to that second goal-in fact it came from one of those bleddy corners from Bobby-if Sheridan merits criticism, it would be for allowing him to keep taking them when a much better deliverer in Norburn was on the pitch.

Which is my point persactly, would any of us taken off Cox or Norburn, if so who for, definitely not Harvey whose probably slower than a nackered Cox or Norburn and we don't know if Blizzard is fully fit or not, no our bench was very weak and for me maybe Morgan for Reid or Allesandra but that's about it.