NUFC v Liverpool | Page 6 | Vital Football

NUFC v Liverpool

Rza said:
Gordon sub wasn't a mistake in hindsight it was a mistake even without hindsight. Rookie mistake really to the point id say the opponents were glad he was took off. I'm not doubting Howe I don't think there's anyone else would be suited to our transition at the minute. I don't think we'll win anything with him though.
Click to expand...
Gordon was brilliant v Villa and provided a crucial first goal assist. He was replaced by Barnes who scored and assisted. No 1 complained then, Rza
 
Finn_the_Dog said:
Gordon was brilliant v Villa and provided a crucial first goal assist. He was replaced by Barnes who scored and assisted. No 1 complained then, Rza
Click to expand...
Well for starters the game was won by the time Barnes came on but I've said this numerous times Barnes should be starting in place of almiron. I'd have him and Gordon on and even in the villa match I would have kept Gordon on. Why is he constantly being subbed when there are passengers being left on the pitch.
 
Matty cash missed a sitter and stopped it being a nervy 3-2 so not quite over.

I was referring to a straight swap and that Eddie wanted to keep the same dynamic - I assume. I’m not disagreeing Miggy was disappointing.
 
Last edited:
Finn_the_Dog said:
Matty cash missed a sitter and stopped it being a nervy 3-2 so not quite over

I was referring to a straight swap and that Eddie wanted to keep the same balance- I assume. I’m not disagreeing Miggy was disappointing.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you in fact I mentioned in an earlier post is almiron being picked because he's left footed because if not it's favouritism and if it is then we're not gonna see anyone else there no matter how badly he plays. Unless young Hall can play there?
 
I don’t think we are disagreeing Rza cos neither of us wanted Gordon off. All I’m saying is no1 complained at the same substitution a fortnight earlier.

At the end of the day it was our profligacy in front of goal that cost us more than timings of subs and personnel swapped. That - and being sucked into Liverpool’s only real get out plan of staying in the game to have 1 chance to score when they hoped it would get nervy. Which it did. They also had a nigh on £100M forward to call upon, who clearly likes playing against us. The fact they got 2 with a winner scored in the injury time they largely created with time-wasting tactics (oh, the irony) made it all the more galling.
 
Finn_the_Dog said:
I don’t think we are disagreeing Rza cos neither of us wanted Gordon off. All I’m saying is no1 complained at the same substitution a fortnight earlier.

At the end of the day it was our profligacy in front of goal that cost us more than timings of subs and personnel swapped. That - and being sucked into Liverpool’s only real get out plan of staying in the game to have 1 chance to score when they hoped it would get nervy. Which it did. They also had a nigh on £100M forward to call upon, who clearly likes playing against us. The fact they got 2 with a winner scored in the injury time they largely created with time-wasting tactics (oh, the irony) made it all the more galling.
Click to expand...
Nobody complained about it a fortnight earlier because as far as anyone was concerned it was a one off. My point is it's the same substitution now 3 matches running at the same point of the match regardless of how the players are playing. It's predictable
 
You must log in or register to reply here.