BS3_RED Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 At the time of the Substitution Noble was not tired (well he didnt look it) and was really looking like our only midfielder that was going to open Forest up with a pass. Now if you are going to go 3 up front then I can understand it but Maynard looked like he was more of a direct replacement (playing on the wing), so i really cant work out what we were going to gain from the change. Why put a forward on the wing and out of position when we could have left Noble there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerly known as ivan Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 because we were losing! i know a lot of people think noble can do no wrong. i like noble as a footballer but he didnt have a great game today, hardly looked threatening and often tried the impossible pass intsead of the simple one. think the final score justified the decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bh_red Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 a) didn't understand taking Noble off who was very creative and had a decent game. b) I would have rather had Trundle on the bench to come on, as he is also a VERY creative player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS3_RED Posted November 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 because we were losing! i know a lot of people think noble can do no wrong. i like noble as a footballer but he didnt have a great game today, hardly looked threatening and often tried the impossible pass intsead of the simple one. think the final score justified the decision. I know we were losing but i am asking about Maynard playing as a right winger/ right midfielder and not as a forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 At the time of the Substitution Noble was not tired (well he didnt look it) and was really looking like our only midfielder that was going to open Forest up with a pass. Now if you are going to go 3 up front then I can understand it but Maynard looked like he was more of a direct replacement (playing on the wing), so i really cant work out what we were going to gain from the change. Why put a forward on the wing and out of position when we could have left Noble there? very true - but more to the point, why leave dele on?????!!!!!! maynard up front with john and noble on the right would have been better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 because he never played for yeovil... mcindoe, the worst player in red yet again, gets his full 90... noble arguably the best player in red doesnt. hmmm even with 3 up front, why does that then require an out of sorts winger???? surely the 2 creative passer's of johnson and noble would be far more likely to create a chance? GJ has been very lucky today imo, as he again showed how poor he can be at subs, luckily fontaine scored a fluke that should have been blocked by at least 3 defenders, the goal was not because of the substitution. today was clearly 2 points dropped, and rather than our manager calling all the people who pay his wages names and be such an arrogant plonker, i think he should perhaps look a little closer to home and spend more time getting decisions right... Forest were amongst the poorest teams ive seen down the gate, yet we made them look okay... how? people who look foward go foward, people who look backward stay still or fall backwards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 Noble was treading water from about the hour mark and starting to cover less and less ground, when he ran off it was the fastest he'd moved in about ten minutes. To me the question is what was the point in having a right winger on the bench (Sproule) and then ask a forward to come on and play there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPER REDS Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I thought Trundle would of been the best player to bring on,but not even on the bench why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pocketscrots Posted November 15, 2008 Report Share Posted November 15, 2008 I thought Trundle would of been the best player to bring on,but not even on the bench why agreed trundle is the only player we have that can come on and make things happen, he is the biggest impact player we have at the mo. I don't think he should start, however has done more this season to justify been on the bench than maynard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert2 Posted November 16, 2008 Report Share Posted November 16, 2008 I personally felt that Noble when he got the ball did well but didnt get himself on the ball often enough , he doesnt have the movement or pace to play in the hole behind the centre forward, also if you are playing that system then the player in the hole needs 1. Pace going past and wide of him to create chances 2. to be able to give you 10/15 goals a season. 3. Pace himself 1 is not down to Noble 2 and 3 are , whilst he has all of the skill and control in the world, it is an unfortunate demand of todays football that Pace/power is king and without it you will struggle to make an impact as a player and as a team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.