Is our failure to recruit quality fullback alternatives going to affect our youth the most?

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, Just8 said:

Did you miss the point where I said about taking games beyond our oppositions reach before making such substitutions? Im not advocating that we take unnecessary risks. I just cant see these players getting much game time due to our inability to maintain significant leads. Get off your overly argumentative high horse and chill out.

You can’t of been supporting city long,

in recent seasons we’ve been 3-0 2-0 4-2 up with 20 minutes to play and ended up drawing 3-3 2-2 and 5-5

 

[Crimson Crayola]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

You can’t of been supporting city long,

in recent seasons we’ve been 3-0 2-0 4-2 up with 20 minutes to play and ended up drawing 3-3 2-2 and 5-5

 

I was there at the Sunderland game. I remember it well

[Prinny]

 

12 minutes ago, Just8 said:

Did you miss the point where I said about taking games beyond our oppositions reach before making such substitutions? Im not advocating that we take unnecessary risks. I just cant see these players getting much game time due to our inability to maintain significant leads. Get off your overly argumentative high horse and chill out.

Yes I understand the point. Your post is saying "Why don't we just sign the best players and coast the league?" then we can give these players I'm a fan of minutes despite any logic as to why they should get minutes. It's amazing.

You want us to sign better players so that we win easily, so that we can put on worse players and develop them. I'm sure we'd all like to have the best players, a squad of 26 of these players to cover for injuries, and to be 3-0 up after 10 minutes every week. Good points. We'd then of course be leaving out those better players to put the players you're a fan of on the bench.

You are advocating, that we take off the better players when we're ahead, to put on the worse players on to see what they can do in a competitive fixture. Can you explain why that is a necessary risk? Or rather more necessary than giving the better players time to play? Why do you favour Szmodics minutes over Palmer minutes?

You're admitting it's not about their quality because you want them on the bench not starting, it's not about age or experience as you proved with Kasey/Sammy, it's just you want to see what these players can do with no understanding of the cost of just picking who you like...

[cidered abroad]

31 minutes ago, Just8 said:

Did you miss the point where I said about taking games beyond our oppositions reach before making such substitutions? Im not advocating that we take unnecessary risks. I just cant see these players getting much game time due to our inability to maintain significant leads. Get off your overly argumentative high horse and chill out.

So do you believe that LJ at half time, should have ordered the squad to push forward for a third goal?

On one hand, that is clearly what should have been done.

Yet on the other hand, perhaps the tactics used were the correct ones. A 2-0 lead in football is seen as the worst of all. Do you go hard for 3-0 or sit on 2-0?

My guess is that 90% of managers would try to protect the lead as long as possible. Simply because if you concede early in the second half, the impetus passes to the home team. By being cautious, we kept the initiative until the last ten minutes. Thus the home side were rushing every play trying to score their second. Rushed play, shooting in desperation means they are less likely to be successful.

Correct tactics? I believe so!

The more successful we are now, the more chances those young members of the squad will get minutes under their belt.