31-10-2014, 15:51
IMO, we didn't lose this game because of the wholesale changes.
We lost because Irvine picked a team with no balance, no pattern of
play and personnel that do not compliment each other.
Anichebe is a player who thrives on short balls into his feet, so he can
return the ball to the midfielder or roll the defender, when there's a 40
yard gap between him and the midfield, he's always going to look useless.
We have a £10m striker who thrived in a team with pacy wingers and
then play him in a side with 3 sitting midfielders and no width, with an
international winger sitting on the bench.
Then, when we decide to bring the winger on, we play him up top and
take the striker off.
Irvine did exactly the same against Oxford, played a disjointed team of
players with no width. We were very lucky yo beat them.
But he doesn't learn, it's like banging your head against a brick wall.
We lost because Irvine picked a team with no balance, no pattern of
play and personnel that do not compliment each other.
Anichebe is a player who thrives on short balls into his feet, so he can
return the ball to the midfielder or roll the defender, when there's a 40
yard gap between him and the midfield, he's always going to look useless.
We have a £10m striker who thrived in a team with pacy wingers and
then play him in a side with 3 sitting midfielders and no width, with an
international winger sitting on the bench.
Then, when we decide to bring the winger on, we play him up top and
take the striker off.
Irvine did exactly the same against Oxford, played a disjointed team of
players with no width. We were very lucky yo beat them.
But he doesn't learn, it's like banging your head against a brick wall.