iAm20Legend
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2008
- Messages
- 7,602
And switching Young to the right, completely killed his game thereon, was hardly a threat bar the one good ball in towards the end
What had RVP done all game? Falcao was playing better and scored. Deserved to stay on.Another match totally changed by his shockingly baffling and poor substitutions. He's absolutely abject at making the right change at the right time. RVP off but the knackered Falcao stays on? Move Young to the right when he's tearing them apart on the left, so you can bring on an eighteen year-old who has done absolutely nothing worthwhile in his previous three appearances? Leave Mata on for the whole game when he was worse than invisible?
That was actually to accommodate Di Maria, and to put him on the left. Still baffling. I'd rather he changed Wilson for Young, rather than put him on the right, where Valencia would've been a better choice I believe.Move Young to the right when he's tearing them apart on the left, so you can bring on an eighteen year-old who has done absolutely nothing worthwhile in his previous three appearances?
He was our most threatening attacker and looked the most likely to find a solution. He was getting closer and closer to a goal as the game progressed,What had RVP done all game? Falcao was playing better and scored. Deserved to stay on.
He replaced a striker with a defender, hence Young switching sides. Because we had aman advantage and chased the win. Just because the subs didn't pay off doesn't mean they weren't reasoned.
In what way changing a striker for a defender is a reasoned decision when we need to score goals ?What had RVP done all game? Falcao was playing better and scored. Deserved to stay on.
He replaced a striker with a defender, hence Young switching sides. Because we had aman advantage and chased the win. Just because the subs didn't pay off doesn't mean they weren't reasoned.
Is this sarcasm? Why would you make a sub to "give a player a run out" when you're chasing a win against ten men and it costs you three points? You give players run outs when you're two goals to the good.Thought the subs were more or less spot on. Getting Fletch off, giving Di Maria a run out so he can start the next match, and getting Wilson on for some fresh legs.
In case you've been trapped on another planet, because that's his approach to get players match fit.Is this sarcasm? Why would you make a sub to "give a player a run out" when you're chasing a win against ten men and it costs you three points? You give players run outs when you're two goals to the good.
Yep. All the pressure after that just seemed to go.I thought the Van Persie sub completely ruined our rythum when we were having our best spell in the game. It was there to be won at that stage.
While Di Maria was shit in the centre, he completely vanished when moved to the left,That was actually to accommodate Di Maria, and to put him on the left. Still baffling. I'd rather he changed Wilson for Young, rather than put him on the right, where Valencia would've been a better choice I believe.
I meant to say he replaced a defender (Valencia) with a striker (Wilson), hence Young switching.In what way changing a striker for a defender is a reasoned decision when we need to score goals ?
In itself, it's not a bad decision like you said but the fact that our most dangerous player (Young) had to switch sides changed everything. We created feck all after it.I meant to say he replaced a defender (Valencia) with a striker (Wilson), hence Young switching.
Is that not the players fault though? Young had plenty of space at times on the right and did feck all with it. Some horrible crossing similar to the Young of old.In itself, it's not a bad decision like you said but the fact that our most dangerous player (Young) had to switch sides changed everything. We created feck all after it.
Yes it was his fault when it came to the poor crossing, just saying that when a player is doing so well in a position and specially against a precise opponent, why would the coach switch him to the opposite side ? Young had the beatings of Lowton and besides him we barely anybody creating anything.Is that not the players fault though? Young had plenty of space at times on the right and did feck all with it. Some horrible crossing similar to the Young of old.
We did seem to be resigned to crossing today which was odd.Both the result and the style of play were very Moyes esque.
I suppose it worked for the goal but beyond that it looked pretty brainless today.We did seem to be resigned to crossing today which was odd.
I think it was a symptom of having no midfielders on the pitch (I don't count Fletcher).I suppose it worked for the goal but beyond that it looked pretty brainless today.
Thing is it wasn't even a "normal" cross for the goal, it was Young beating his man and whipping a ball across the box. 99% of our crosses were just aimless punts into Guzan's arms floated in from well outside the area!I suppose it worked for the goal but beyond that it looked pretty brainless today.
Or because it's perfectly normal to throw a striker in when you're chasing a goal in last 10 min when Villa is basically packing their bus?People love easy targets don't they?Although Wilson is quite talented, the only reason he seems to be coming on is to justify Van Gaal's decisions earlier in the summer
it isn't always right to throw a striker on if it is not going to help in the flow. the substitution didn't make sense in terms of the match as well as wilson's last few outings with the first teamOr because it's perfectly normal to throw a striker in when you're chasing a goal in last 10 min?People loves easy targets don't they?