|
Post by Northern Shrew on Apr 29, 2004 23:27:07 GMT 1
I know we're not out of it yet but do you think Quinn should have come on tonight? I can see what he was trying to do but flick-on's don't hold the ball up. Cramb was banned tonight, but what about Banim? He said in the Star he wouldn't let him go to Sweden because he needs him just in case to score the winner in the final. Hasn't he got to be on the bench at least to do that? ? We have to go for some attacking football if the score is the same at half time in the home leg. Which forward do you think should be on the bench? Quinn? Cramb? Banim? 2-0 at home will do nicely!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by MRJPSHREW on Apr 29, 2004 23:32:57 GMT 1
His height would have been needed at the back had he had to come on earlier. With the problems with Tinno might we see him at the back?
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 29, 2004 23:38:31 GMT 1
Should quinn have played? Yes. And you "should" hold your John Thomas in a gillotine whilst holding the blade rope with greasy hands.
|
|
|
Post by goindownthewylecop on Apr 29, 2004 23:40:36 GMT 1
would it have made any difference whether he played or not? nope.
|
|
|
Post by pawlo on Apr 29, 2004 23:44:46 GMT 1
No GDTWC it wouldnt, sorry for my earlier flippancy. Needed to keep the ball up front and this time quinn was the logical sub
|
|
|
Post by Northern Shrew on Apr 30, 2004 0:04:27 GMT 1
Ok forget tonight its over. But what about Monday, which forward/forwards should be on the bench as back up?
At the Exeter game at home Darby/Banim seemed to hold the ball up front alot. Maybe start with Darby/Luke but bring Banim on to hold the ball. Quinn can head the ball no doubt, but getting hold of it is a different matter.
Also, what if Luke or Darbs got an injury early on tonight, would Quinn be able to last 70 or 80 minutes??
|
|
|
Post by goindownthewylecop on Apr 30, 2004 0:09:59 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by R6ix on Apr 30, 2004 1:37:35 GMT 1
yes he was right to come on? y start a thread asking otherwise? putting the big man up front with 5 mins to go made perfect sense? i wish he started every game this season as he dont waste chance after chance that the rest do? we wud be well clear by now if he was a starter?
|
|
Hampshire Supporter
Guest
|
Post by Hampshire Supporter on Apr 30, 2004 10:52:56 GMT 1
NO
Luke was murdering them and he 3 of theirs booked in a fairly short space of time. When they did not have Luke' pace to worry about they pushed up and we went backwards.
Then we concede yet another late goal.
Apart from that I thought the first half was as good as I have seen. We went to sleep for their penalty. But for the net Luke's penalty might have killed someone behind the goal (I think he meant that one!).
Bit worried about the defence for Monday. Posts earlier this season worried about the lack of cover for Tinno and Rids. Hope that will not come to haunt us now!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2004 11:13:54 GMT 1
Quinn should have come on for Darby.
But didn't make any difference to the outcome.
|
|
Baafly
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 179
|
Post by Baafly on Apr 30, 2004 11:42:25 GMT 1
Part of Quinn's reasoning might've been to add some extra height when defending corners and free kicks.
We're not a big side, so their most menacing moments were coming from these. The absence of our best header (Tinson), plus the replacing of Challis with the 4 foot 6 inch Lawrence certainly didn't help.
One thing I'd be looking for during the closed season is the signing of a BIG defender (at least 6 foot 2) who would mitigate our aerial vulnerability.
Just as long as he's more (shall we say) "athletic" that the Supertanker...
|
|