Odd decisions again…

[Harry]

Sorry to be the bore again and be the one to criticise, but I have to say it how I see it, and following two very very good away performances, we were back to our sloppy selves again today. And again I don’t think Pearson’s tactical decisions helped us. 
 

We started well, but in the good spell we failed to take a number of opportunities, sloppy final passes (like the one from Sykes when he had an easy overlap in the box), and during this decent start, whilst playing well, we didn’t actually force their keeper into a save. 

After that decent start, QPR worked us out and our high wing backs were a liability, with our wide CB’s continually exposed one on one out wide or over the top into wide channels. The one where Atkinson turned like the QE2 and let their man run free on goal was laughable and we were fortunate not to lose a goal there too. 
 

Then Naismith started doing his thing. Listen, I like the idea of us trying to play out from the back, but this lad takes it to unnecessary levels. He needs to realise he is Kal Naismith and not Johan Cruyff. He seems to think he is a better player than he is, and he is a total liability playing in this central role. He’s never played there before, Luton turned him from an attacking midfielder/winger into a left back or left CB. He’s out of his depth in the middle CB role.  His role as the central CB means he’s the one who has to see everything in front of him and will always be the deepest man. The number of times he gets done by a ball over the top is ridiculous. A half-competent central CB does not get done like that multiple times per game. 
Sorry - he’s a good player, but he’s playing in a crucial position and is too cocky with it. 
 

Anyway, onto the subs. After our goal, I’d have liked us to at least try to build a bit of momentum, but rather oddly Pearson decided the time was right to make a huge tactical change. Switching to 4 at the back and having 4 strikers on. There was still half an hour left. There was no need. 4 strikers on is a last ditch tactic, not one that you make with a third of the game to go and you’ve just scored! 
By doing this, it immediately condensed the play. Semenyo managed to get on the ball centrally about 5 times in the first 5 minutes he was on, and was surrounded, crowded out. Because QPR found it so easy to defend. Everything was in the middle for about 15 minutes and we lost all width. Easy to defend. We created absolutely nothing in the 10-15 minutes after these subs when we should have been building momentum after our goal. 
 

Next, having signed a specialist wing back in the summer, he finally gives him a shot, but AFTER he’d switched to a back 4!! If he’d wanted to make the most of Wilson’s abilities, he’d need to operate as a wing back. That’s his whole game. Ok, he made a couple of poor decisions once he was on, but the bloke must be wondering if he’s Arthur or Martha! And as for the few opportunities he did get to bomb forwarded Massengo passes it 25 yards in front of him and allows the defender to make the challenge. Terrible passing today by numerous culprits! 
 

I know people will moan at me for being a moaner, but I’m not sorry, I’ll say it as I see it. Once again, and certainly not for the first time this season, I’ve been rather baffled by Pearson’s tactical substitutions. Today I felt that 4 strikers on with half an hour left, and a switch to a back 4, just after we’d scored and had a chance to build momentum, really killed us off. It was naive and made us very easy to defend against. 

[Shuffle]

Just tweeted exactly the same thing regarding subs as pushed our threats wide & lost any cohesion.  Also felt he took our best defender off but that was a low bar today. Like you say we’d not long scored so to change it up at that time wasn’t essential. On balance of play the best team won but subs didn’t help us for sure.

[2015]

Yes I definitely think that NP should have kept the shape and team when we got 1 goal back. We had them penned into their box at that time and the momentum was going our way. Maybe he had an eye on a lot of games coming up but I think we'd have got an equaliser if the team had stayed the same.

[headhunter]

24 minutes ago, Harry said:

Sorry to be the bore again and be the one to criticise, but I have to say it how I see it, and following two very very good away performances, we were back to our sloppy selves again today. And again I don’t think Pearson’s tactical decisions helped us. 
 

We started well, but in the good spell we failed to take a number of opportunities, sloppy final passes (like the one from Sykes when he had an easy overlap in the box), and during this decent start, whilst playing well, we didn’t actually force their keeper into a save. 

After that decent start, QPR worked us out and our high wing backs were a liability, with our wide CB’s continually exposed one on one out wide or over the top into wide channels. The one where Atkinson turned like the QE2 and let their man run free on goal was laughable and we were fortunate not to lose a goal there too. 
 

Then Naismith started doing his thing. Listen, I like the idea of us trying to play out from the back, but this lad takes it to unnecessary levels. He needs to realise he is Kal Naismith and not Johan Cruyff. He seems to think he is a better player than he is, and he is a total liability playing in this central role. He’s never played there before, Luton turned him from an attacking midfielder/winger into a left back or left CB. He’s out of his depth in the middle CB role.  His role as the central CB means he’s the one who has to see everything in front of him and will always be the deepest man. The number of times he gets done by a ball over the top is ridiculous. A half-competent central CB does not get done like that multiple times per game. 
Sorry - he’s a good player, but he’s playing in a crucial position and is too cocky with it. 
 

Anyway, onto the subs. After our goal, I’d have liked us to at least try to build a bit of momentum, but rather oddly Pearson decided the time was right to make a huge tactical change. Switching to 4 at the back and having 4 strikers on. There was still half an hour left. There was no need. 4 strikers on is a last ditch tactic, not one that you make with a third of the game to go and you’ve just scored! 
By doing this, it immediately condensed the play. Semenyo managed to get on the ball centrally about 5 times in the first 5 minutes he was on, and was surrounded, crowded out. Because QPR found it so easy to defend. Everything was in the middle for about 15 minutes and we lost all width. Easy to defend. We created absolutely nothing in the 10-15 minutes after these subs when we should have been building momentum after our goal. 
 

Next, having signed a specialist wing back in the summer, he finally gives him a shot, but AFTER he’d switched to a back 4!! If he’d wanted to make the most of Wilson’s abilities, he’d need to operate as a wing back. That’s his whole game. Ok, he made a couple of poor decisions once he was on, but the bloke must be wondering if he’s Arthur or Martha! And as for the few opportunities he did get to bomb forwarded Massengo passes it 25 yards in front of him and allows the defender to make the challenge. Terrible passing today by numerous culprits! 
 

I know people will moan at me for being a moaner, but I’m not sorry, I’ll say it as I see it. Once again, and certainly not for the first time this season, I’ve been rather baffled by Pearson’s tactical substitutions. Today I felt that 4 strikers on with half an hour left, and a switch to a back 4, just after we’d scored and had a chance to build momentum, really killed us off. It was naive and made us very easy to defend against. 

Reads like the tone I see tomorrow's FBC Podcast will be taking when we record live at 10 tomorrow - why not join us; listen here: https://www.podbean.com/lsw/voj3TKjf6G?lsid=JnKgdT2gI3G&invite_id=ic-JnKgdT2gI3G&invite_signature=d4e85b9c8bc4ebfd73bbd5b27c296ea7

[Rob k]

22 minutes ago, Harry said:

Sorry to be the bore again and be the one to criticise, but I have to say it how I see it, and following two very very good away performances, we were back to our sloppy selves again today. And again I don’t think Pearson’s tactical decisions helped us. 
 

We started well, but in the good spell we failed to take a number of opportunities, sloppy final passes (like the one from Sykes when he had an easy overlap in the box), and during this decent start, whilst playing well, we didn’t actually force their keeper into a save. 

After that decent start, QPR worked us out and our high wing backs were a liability, with our wide CB’s continually exposed one on one out wide or over the top into wide channels. The one where Atkinson turned like the QE2 and let their man run free on goal was laughable and we were fortunate not to lose a goal there too. 
 

Then Naismith started doing his thing. Listen, I like the idea of us trying to play out from the back, but this lad takes it to unnecessary levels. He needs to realise he is Kal Naismith and not Johan Cruyff. He seems to think he is a better player than he is, and he is a total liability playing in this central role. He’s never played there before, Luton turned him from an attacking midfielder/winger into a left back or left CB. He’s out of his depth in the middle CB role.  His role as the central CB means he’s the one who has to see everything in front of him and will always be the deepest man. The number of times he gets done by a ball over the top is ridiculous. A half-competent central CB does not get done like that multiple times per game. 
Sorry - he’s a good player, but he’s playing in a crucial position and is too cocky with it. 
 

Anyway, onto the subs. After our goal, I’d have liked us to at least try to build a bit of momentum, but rather oddly Pearson decided the time was right to make a huge tactical change. Switching to 4 at the back and having 4 strikers on. There was still half an hour left. There was no need. 4 strikers on is a last ditch tactic, not one that you make with a third of the game to go and you’ve just scored! 
By doing this, it immediately condensed the play. Semenyo managed to get on the ball centrally about 5 times in the first 5 minutes he was on, and was surrounded, crowded out. Because QPR found it so easy to defend. Everything was in the middle for about 15 minutes and we lost all width. Easy to defend. We created absolutely nothing in the 10-15 minutes after these subs when we should have been building momentum after our goal. 
 

Next, having signed a specialist wing back in the summer, he finally gives him a shot, but AFTER he’d switched to a back 4!! If he’d wanted to make the most of Wilson’s abilities, he’d need to operate as a wing back. That’s his whole game. Ok, he made a couple of poor decisions once he was on, but the bloke must be wondering if he’s Arthur or Martha! And as for the few opportunities he did get to bomb forwarded Massengo passes it 25 yards in front of him and allows the defender to make the challenge. Terrible passing today by numerous culprits! 
 

I know people will moan at me for being a moaner, but I’m not sorry, I’ll say it as I see it. Once again, and certainly not for the first time this season, I’ve been rather baffled by Pearson’s tactical substitutions. Today I felt that 4 strikers on with half an hour left, and a switch to a back 4, just after we’d scored and had a chance to build momentum, really killed us off. It was naive and made us very easy to defend against. 

Agree - thought the change to 4 upfront was odd with Semenyo seemingly on the right when he had already had a couple of good runs at there centre backs. 

Bringing Martin on completley changed the way we played too, if you are going to play him At least give him something to have a go at in the box which is harder to do when you have gone to a back 4 
 

Some odd decisions by NP today.

1 minute ago, headhunter said:

Reads like the tone I see tomorrow's FBC Podcast will be taking when we record live at 10 tomorrow - why not join us; listen here: https://www.podbean.com/lsw/voj3TKjf6G?lsid=JnKgdT2gI3G&invite_id=ic-JnKgdT2gI3G&invite_signature=d4e85b9c8bc4ebfd73bbd5b27c296ea7

Who’s on the Panel?

[Rudolf Hucker]

31 minutes ago, Harry said:

We started well, but in the good spell we failed to take a number of opportunities, sloppy final passes (like the one from Sykes when he had an easy overlap in the box), and during this decent start, whilst playing well, we didn’t actually force their keeper into a save. 

During that spell and shortly before their first goal, Vyner had a clear header from  Naismith’s left wing free kick from which he really should have scored. Instead he allowed their keeper to make a point blank save. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Rudolf Hucker

[milo1111]

Spot on from the OP. We are our own worst enemies at the moment and it’s starting to under what could be a half decent season.

[GrahamC]

Just now, Rudolf Hucker said:

During that spell and shortly before their first goal, Vyner had a clear header from  Naismith left wing free kick from which he really should have scored. Instead he allowed their keeper to make a point blank save. 

Conway failed to pick out Wells first half for a tap in, too.

[Victory Park Reds]

Very good summary Harry.

The first goal in any game is so important and if Zacks header goes in who knows?

Ive already ranted about the Lino but even when we got a goal back we never threatened enough.They did a proper job on us with fake injuries ,time wasting etc and fair play to them for that.

Normally the subs can make a difference but not today.Ah well we go again.

Great clapping for Beanie

[italian dave]

Completely agree @Harry. Exactly how I felt afterwards. 

[Northern Red]

11 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Conway failed to pick out Wells first half for a tap in, too.

That came at a crucial time as well. Just before half time and if we go in 1-2 despite not playing particularly well then who knows what that does for both teams.

[Daniro]

Agree with your assessment.

Weimann and Conway looked jaded and with our attack not firing we are always going to lose because our defense are not capable of keeping a clean sheet against any decent team.

 

I'm fed up off seeing Naismith dribbling out from the back and passing it straight to the opposition.  

[Redandproud]

20 minutes ago, Daniro said:

Agree with your assessment.

Weimann and Conway looked jaded and with our attack not firing we are always going to lose because our defense are not capable of keeping a clean sheet against any decent team.

 

I'm fed up off seeing Naismith dribbling out from the back and passing it straight to the opposition.  

Naismith's is a liability, gives the ball away too easily, 

[stephenkibby.]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Conway failed to pick out Wells first half for a tap in, too.

Yeah he's done that a couple of times maybe that was why he was hooked.?

Wells was looking some pissed off with that especially after Wells had put the ball in against Cardiff for him to score.

Tommy has had a great start to his first team career  but a learning curve that it's a team game.

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said:

Yeah he's done that a couple of times maybe that was why he was hooked.?

Wells was looking some pissed off with that especially after Wells had put the ball in against Cardiff for him to score.

Tommy has had a great start to his first team career  but a learning curve that it's a team game.

TC is a young guy who’s been involved in internationals which has involved plenty of travel and that type of intensity is not something that he’s accustomed to - no surprise that his form dropped today, worsened by the hefty challenge he was on the end of just before the break.

No surprise to see him replaced by AS at half time and I won’t be surprised if he’s on the bench Tuesday against Coventry.

[MC RISK77]

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Sorry to be the bore again and be the one to criticise, but I have to say it how I see it, and following two very very good away performances, we were back to our sloppy selves again today. And again I don’t think Pearson’s tactical decisions helped us. 
 

We started well, but in the good spell we failed to take a number of opportunities, sloppy final passes (like the one from Sykes when he had an easy overlap in the box), and during this decent start, whilst playing well, we didn’t actually force their keeper into a save. 

After that decent start, QPR worked us out and our high wing backs were a liability, with our wide CB’s continually exposed one on one out wide or over the top into wide channels. The one where Atkinson turned like the QE2 and let their man run free on goal was laughable and we were fortunate not to lose a goal there too. 
 

Then Naismith started doing his thing. Listen, I like the idea of us trying to play out from the back, but this lad takes it to unnecessary levels. He needs to realise he is Kal Naismith and not Johan Cruyff. He seems to think he is a better player than he is, and he is a total liability playing in this central role. He’s never played there before, Luton turned him from an attacking midfielder/winger into a left back or left CB. He’s out of his depth in the middle CB role.  His role as the central CB means he’s the one who has to see everything in front of him and will always be the deepest man. The number of times he gets done by a ball over the top is ridiculous. A half-competent central CB does not get done like that multiple times per game. 
Sorry - he’s a good player, but he’s playing in a crucial position and is too cocky with it. 
 

Anyway, onto the subs. After our goal, I’d have liked us to at least try to build a bit of momentum, but rather oddly Pearson decided the time was right to make a huge tactical change. Switching to 4 at the back and having 4 strikers on. There was still half an hour left. There was no need. 4 strikers on is a last ditch tactic, not one that you make with a third of the game to go and you’ve just scored! 
By doing this, it immediately condensed the play. Semenyo managed to get on the ball centrally about 5 times in the first 5 minutes he was on, and was surrounded, crowded out. Because QPR found it so easy to defend. Everything was in the middle for about 15 minutes and we lost all width. Easy to defend. We created absolutely nothing in the 10-15 minutes after these subs when we should have been building momentum after our goal. 
 

Next, having signed a specialist wing back in the summer, he finally gives him a shot, but AFTER he’d switched to a back 4!! If he’d wanted to make the most of Wilson’s abilities, he’d need to operate as a wing back. That’s his whole game. Ok, he made a couple of poor decisions once he was on, but the bloke must be wondering if he’s Arthur or Martha! And as for the few opportunities he did get to bomb forwarded Massengo passes it 25 yards in front of him and allows the defender to make the challenge. Terrible passing today by numerous culprits! 
 

I know people will moan at me for being a moaner, but I’m not sorry, I’ll say it as I see it. Once again, and certainly not for the first time this season, I’ve been rather baffled by Pearson’s tactical substitutions. Today I felt that 4 strikers on with half an hour left, and a switch to a back 4, just after we’d scored and had a chance to build momentum, really killed us off. It was naive and made us very easy to defend against. 

Can’t argue with any of that- exactly my thoughts- we didn’t trouble them at all after We scored and much of that was to do with the change of shape and personnel.

Naismith btw was dreadful especially in the first half- looked like second half he was nervously trying to play safe. Vyner for the second goal was out of position.

 

[tin]

I wasn’t there today so can’t comment on the subs, but a fully fit Klose and Kalas would walk into this back three alongside Atkinson for me and I’d like to see more of Wilson ahead of Sykes at RWB.

Weimann’s form has also been a concern for me, even before the international break. Speaking of which, when was the last time we actually got anything straight after an international break? 

Edited October 1, 2022 by tin

[Shuffle]

25 minutes ago, MC RISK77 said:

Can’t argue with any of that- exactly my thoughts- we didn’t trouble them at all after We scored and much of that was to do with the change of shape and personnel.

Naismith btw was dreadful especially in the first half- looked like second half he was nervously trying to play safe. Vyner for the second goal was out of position.

 

Or was it Sykes ? Either way one long ball went to someone between the two and that shouldn’t happen.

[DaveInSA]

I think @Harry just stole me brain and wrote this and then gave it back to me.

At the time of our goal we had momentum and QPR were all over the show.

The subs ruined it. Pearson got that wrong. In the car on the way home I was wishing the R Bristol interviewer to ask him the thinking behind it. Because he clearly got it wrong.

The defensive performance today was dreadful. By S82 in the first half they literally walked through us. Multiple times. We have a midfield and a defence problem. The midfield is positionally naive and the defence struggles to cover. I feel sorry for Zak, when Sykes is AWOL and the midfield aren’t tracking runners. What does he actually do against three men, which happened several times today. It’s basic stuff and the players didn’t do it today.

I try think we made QPR look good. Through us being so awful. Defensively all over the place.

I’ve not been for a while, and I like the look of Naismith. But someone has to give the lads head a wobble on the pitch. Too many high risk low reward passes. Way too many. And at the same time some absolute gems. 

Where are the leaders in the pitch?

so frustrating because I think we have some good players. As a collective though, they need to look long and hard at themselves in the mirror.

[Mendip City]

3 hours ago, headhunter said:

Reads like the tone I see tomorrow's FBC Podcast will be taking when we record live at 10 tomorrow - why not join us; listen here: https://www.podbean.com/lsw/voj3TKjf6G?lsid=JnKgdT2gI3G&invite_id=ic-JnKgdT2gI3G&invite_signature=d4e85b9c8bc4ebfd73bbd5b27c296ea7

Should be an interesting listen. 

For my money 3 takeaways:

Time-wasting and refs incapable of dealing with it

Naismith and NP’s refusal to deal with it 

Ridiculous substitutions and formation changes…. just as we’d got back into a game we should have been well out of. 

[Rocking Red Cyril]

5 hours ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

During that spell and shortly before their first goal, Vyner had a clear header from  Naismith’s left wing free kick from which he really should have scored. Instead he allowed their keeper to make a point blank save. 

1-0

[Rocking Red Cyril]

5 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Conway failed to pick out Wells first half for a tap in, too.

2-0

Totally different game

[Cityboy1954]

7 hours ago, Harry said:

Sorry to be the bore again and be the one to criticise, but I have to say it how I see it, and following two very very good away performances, we were back to our sloppy selves again today. And again I don’t think Pearson’s tactical decisions helped us. 
 

We started well, but in the good spell we failed to take a number of opportunities, sloppy final passes (like the one from Sykes when he had an easy overlap in the box), and during this decent start, whilst playing well, we didn’t actually force their keeper into a save. 

After that decent start, QPR worked us out and our high wing backs were a liability, with our wide CB’s continually exposed one on one out wide or over the top into wide channels. The one where Atkinson turned like the QE2 and let their man run free on goal was laughable and we were fortunate not to lose a goal there too. 
 

Then Naismith started doing his thing. Listen, I like the idea of us trying to play out from the back, but this lad takes it to unnecessary levels. He needs to realise he is Kal Naismith and not Johan Cruyff. He seems to think he is a better player than he is, and he is a total liability playing in this central role. He’s never played there before, Luton turned him from an attacking midfielder/winger into a left back or left CB. He’s out of his depth in the middle CB role.  His role as the central CB means he’s the one who has to see everything in front of him and will always be the deepest man. The number of times he gets done by a ball over the top is ridiculous. A half-competent central CB does not get done like that multiple times per game. 
Sorry - he’s a good player, but he’s playing in a crucial position and is too cocky with it. 
 

Anyway, onto the subs. After our goal, I’d have liked us to at least try to build a bit of momentum, but rather oddly Pearson decided the time was right to make a huge tactical change. Switching to 4 at the back and having 4 strikers on. There was still half an hour left. There was no need. 4 strikers on is a last ditch tactic, not one that you make with a third of the game to go and you’ve just scored! 
By doing this, it immediately condensed the play. Semenyo managed to get on the ball centrally about 5 times in the first 5 minutes he was on, and was surrounded, crowded out. Because QPR found it so easy to defend. Everything was in the middle for about 15 minutes and we lost all width. Easy to defend. We created absolutely nothing in the 10-15 minutes after these subs when we should have been building momentum after our goal. 
 

Next, having signed a specialist wing back in the summer, he finally gives him a shot, but AFTER he’d switched to a back 4!! If he’d wanted to make the most of Wilson’s abilities, he’d need to operate as a wing back. That’s his whole game. Ok, he made a couple of poor decisions once he was on, but the bloke must be wondering if he’s Arthur or Martha! And as for the few opportunities he did get to bomb forwarded Massengo passes it 25 yards in front of him and allows the defender to make the challenge. Terrible passing today by numerous culprits! 
 

I know people will moan at me for being a moaner, but I’m not sorry, I’ll say it as I see it. Once again, and certainly not for the first time this season, I’ve been rather baffled by Pearson’s tactical substitutions. Today I felt that 4 strikers on with half an hour left, and a switch to a back 4, just after we’d scored and had a chance to build momentum, really killed us off. It was naive and made us very easy to defend against. 

I agree with everything your saying for ne the worst decision was to bring on a bloke upfront that has lead in his boots and cant jump .sorry but he was just in the way the sooner pearson realises this the better also dads army in midfield is not working james injured all the time and old king cole are not our future half way now but any talk of play offs is pie in the sky.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Cityboy1954

[Tim Monaghan]

7 hours ago, Rob k said:

Who’s on the Panel?

Pah, @headhunterisnt falling into this badly laid trap 

Headhunter “blah, blah, blah, Ian Gay”

Rob K “No thanks, I won’t be listening then” 

I love how Ian’s got everyone on strings

[Rob k]

3 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Pah, @headhunterisnt falling into this badly laid trap 

Headhunter “blah, blah, blah, Ian Gay”

Rob K “No thanks, I won’t be listening then” 

I love how Ian’s got everyone on strings

It’s no trap, if he’s on i wont listen if he’s not i will 

[GrahamC]

11 hours ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

2-0

Totally different game

Rubbish.

Still the first half, if we pull a goal back it is a different game.

Despite us creating little after Wells scored they were panicking & time wasting like there was no tomorrow.

If we’d scored before the break we could have picked up an undeserved point.

[Rob k]

10 hours ago, Cityboy1954 said:

I agree with everything your saying for ne the worst decision was to bring on a bloke upfront that has lead in his boots and cant jump .sorry but he was just in the way the sooner pearson realises this the better also dads army in midfield is not working james injured all the time and old king cole are not our future half way now but any talk of play offs is pie in the sky.

Got to add Williams to this list for me - I’ve been very disappointed so far this season. I’ve been waiting for him to get fit and so far very underwhelmed 

[Cityboy1954]

12 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Got to add Williams to this list for me - I’ve been very disappointed so far this season. I’ve been waiting for him to get fit and so far very underwhelmed 

Yes same here apart from scott whos been a bit off the boil weve got a very poor midfield .A few more to ditch hopefully end of season .

Edited October 2, 2022 by Cityboy1954

[Robbored]

9 hours ago, Ghost Rider said:

Pah, @headhunterisnt falling into this badly laid trap 

Headhunter “blah, blah, blah, Ian Gay”

Rob K “No thanks, I won’t be listening then” 

I love how Ian’s got everyone on strings 

Same here. Ian Gay loves the sound of his own opinions and in all the times that I’ve chatted with him, regardless of the topic, he’s never ever admitted that he’s in the wrong.

Plus………he’s so incredibly negative about all things City and that’s why I don’t listen to him either in a podcast or post match on RB

[Cityboy1954]

4 minutes ago, Cityboy1954 said:

Yes same here apart from scott whos been a bit off the boil weve got a very poor midfield .A few more to ditch hopefully end if season .