Will Rollason Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 beeb Interesting, bit hard to draw a conclusion as there are so many variables. Just to pick out from yesterday; Donnie, one down to us, lost a man and a goal and lost 2-1 Ipswich went one up then had their keeper sent off fairly early and struggled losing 3-1 Boro, who were one down, lost a man apparently struggled and lost 3-1 Wolves were drawing , lost a man and lost albeit to a wonder strike and as the article states its debatable as to whether the extra man helped. One of the variables would be how a team reacts and what their spirit and resilience is like.Donnie didnt seem to have much of either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I have found five sides that won yesterday playing with ten men, if you can get them by 12 you can have a ice cream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rollason Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 In the football leagues (and prem)..... i found donnie, ipswich, boro, blades, ( to be fair charlton were down to 10 as well but beattie made it 9 for blades) and macclesfield, who all lost. And the Shrews who won. Below that in the Conference ; Alfreton Town lost as well ( but they " gave us trouble" according to Kiddys manager) as did Tamworth but York held on to win. so thats two of your 5. God only knows where the others are!! So thats 7 to 2 or roughly 78% of league and conference teams that lost with 10 men against 11. Better teams, Man U as you point out, can make light of it but on the whole i still think its unusual. Its funny though just how many times you hear managers and players commenting on the difficulty in playing against 10 men ( see Kidderminster) but thats only if those ten men are inspired or the better team anyway or feel aggrieved by the sending off or respond well to adversity etc etc. My point is that i dont think that Donnie were any of those things yesterday and given their strange team make up, apparent lack of " guts" , our dominance of the game up to 66 mins and being two up at home i was galled, along with about 14,000 other people, that we let them back into it by tinkering with a winning system. Cheers Will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Cloud Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 1st time I can remember us actually taking advantage against 10 men, usually we get worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rollason Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 But we did get worse... didnt we?.... wasn't just me was it..... Were we not cruising at 2 up after 66 mins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 In the football leagues (and prem)..... i found donnie, ipswich, boro, blades, ( to be fair charlton were down to 10 as well but beattie made it 9 for blades) and macclesfield, who all lost. And the Shrews who won. Below that in the Conference ; Alfreton Town lost as well ( but they " gave us trouble" according to Kiddys manager) as did Tamworth but York held on to win. so thats two of your 5. God only knows where the others are!! So thats 7 to 2 or roughly 78% of league and conference teams that lost with 10 men against 11. Better teams, Man U as you point out, can make light of it but on the whole i still think its unusual. Its funny though just how many times you hear managers and players commenting on the difficulty in playing against 10 men ( see Kidderminster) but thats only if those ten men are inspired or the better team anyway or feel aggrieved by the sending off or respond well to adversity etc etc. My point is that i dont think that Donnie were any of those things yesterday and given their strange team make up, apparent lack of " guts" , our dominance of the game up to 66 mins and being two up at home i was galled, along with about 14,000 other people, that we let them back into it by tinkering with a winninoking that up i was just joking, respect you have got a Respect for the stats i was joking with my reply of five teams, i have not even looked at a paper yet, respect and COYR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City1984 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 But we did get worse... didnt we?.... wasn't just me was it..... Were we not cruising at 2 up after 66 mins? No its not just you mate. What time did Skuse get subbed/system change and what time did donny start making us look the the team with 10 men. Rather worrying this myth of playing 4-4-2 as we clearly do not have the personnel at the moment(see performances against Forest,Millwall,Crawley and Brighton for reference). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 But we did get worse... didnt we?.... wasn't just me was it..... Were we not cruising at 2 up after 66 mins? Nerves take over, and Donny were for the last twenty always going to have a big go, 2-0 at half down as ten men you hold onto not conceding again, then with twenty to go it becomes a cup tie lets go for it and see what happens, they got one back well done to the Donny players imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 No its not just you mate. What time did Skuse get subbed/system change and what time did donny start making us look the the team with 10 men. Rather worrying this myth of playing 4-4-2 as we clearly do not have the personnel at the moment(see performances against Forest,Millwall,Crawley and Brighton for reference). yes this is where we played worse and let Donnie back into the game.You could see what Del was trying to do , he wanted to keep 5 in the middle but as everyone wants to see 2 up front but as we saw this made us worse and in the end went to 4-4-2. Yes hindsight is a easy thing of course, hopefully next time Del will just swap wilson for skuse but you only learn by experimenting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangers Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Del made an incredibly POOR decision to go 3 at the back......that is what lead to the nerves..... It was a very strange and unnesecarry decision.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frenchay Red Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think the most disruptive aspect of the changes which occured when Skuse went off was taking Pearson out of CM. This meant there were big gaps we struggled to close down, and caused Kilkenny to drop deep, leaving Cisse a lot more work to do. Impossible to know of course, but if CS had to come off I would have liked to see a straight swap with Wilson coming on as RB. So we could continue with controlling the game which we were comfortably doing. If DMc wanted to pep up the attack, I would have just brought on Pitman for Wood. The formation we were playing was working a treat. It would probably been ok to change a player or two but not the shape. I guess it's all part of the manager finding out about what works and what doesn't, and thankfully we secured the 3 points, which was of paramount importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rollason Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 I have found five sides that won yesterday playing with ten men, if you can get them by 12 you can have a ice cream Yeah i dont thing you're getting the whole emoticon thing. Because i put an ice cream icon into a post doesn't mean i like ice cream as such, or that i'm calling anyone an "ice cream licker" ( whatever that is) Its a kind of visual shorthand. so this is not me calling you an angel or a saint or anything it means, in an ironic way, "i'm innocent"........ ok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redcliffe 78 Posted January 22, 2012 Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 Yeah i dont thing you're getting the whole emoticon thing. Because i put an ice cream icon into a post doesn't mean i like ice cream as such, or that i'm calling anyone an "ice cream licker" ( whatever that is) Its a kind of visual shorthand. so this is not me calling you an angel or a saint or anything it means, in an ironic way, "i'm innocent"........ ok? Will it's a bit of fun on here you can call me what you like, you think my views are rubbish, and i love a ice cream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.