The Keogh sub??

I haven't seen the game but it sounds like we switched to a back 3 and pushed Gabriel and husband forward to support Bowler and Anderson, so not necessarily a defensive move?

Critch started with nothing and built a promotion side on a minimal budget that has now established itself in the Championship. He's done that by making us hard to break down primarily, out if necessity, we lack the quality going forward to be a very offensive side. But we do have a go. 18 shots to Rovers 10 at Ewood isn't negative in my book. He just has to be a bit pragmatic with the resources he has.
 
voyeur said:
I haven't seen the game but it sounds like we switched to a back 3 and pushed Gabriel and husband forward to support Bowler and Anderson, so not necessarily a defensive move?

Critch started with nothing and built a promotion side on a minimal budget that has now established itself in the Championship. He's done that by making us hard to break down primarily, out if necessity, we lack the quality going forward to be a very offensive side. But we do have a go. 18 shots to Rovers 10 at Ewood isn't negative in my book. He just has to be a bit pragmatic with the resources he has.
Click to expand...
Great post 👍👍
 
Yeah seemed negative, mat have been switching to a different formation but for me lavery stays on.

However some of the same old passing back and lack of quality ball, final pass etc was evident again today.

Better then Tuesday but still many things
 
Knew it was coming, negative for me, but he’s got plenty of history. If he was going to do that, leave on Lavery or use Jerry as a 4th sub, like they did, following their head injury.

Critch must get over his obsession with Gaz up front. I think we’ll lose Jerry in the summer.
 
I'd have preferred to see Jerry coming on but here we are with another point in the bag. Jerry must be pretty frustrated though to be so uninvolved. Hope all's ok.
 
Agree with OP... just before I was saying jerry for lavery... I got lavery off.. just wrong replacement.. but odd imo, esp as we are just playing for pride now... just go for it!!
 
Yes. And you're right we did go three at the back. I was surprised to see Husband pop up outside their box when we had the ball in our half. I thought we were going for it, but not in a way that could have lost us the match.
voyeur said:
Didn't we have 2 goal attempts to their none in time added on? Something like that.
Click to expand...
 
voyeur said:
I haven't seen the game but it sounds like we switched to a back 3 and pushed Gabriel and husband forward to support Bowler and Anderson, so not necessarily a defensive move?

Critch started with nothing and built a promotion side on a minimal budget that has now established itself in the Championship. He's done that by making us hard to break down primarily, out if necessity, we lack the quality going forward to be a very offensive side. But we do have a go. 18 shots to Rovers 10 at Ewood isn't negative in my book. He just has to be a bit pragmatic with the resources he has.
Click to expand...
Of course it was a defensive move

The game was there for the taking and he gave up the chance of a win to settle for a draw

Unbelievably negative again from the manager

1 point from 3 games isn't good enough
 
We created the better chances in the latter stages and were pushing for a winner in injury time so not necessarily a negative substitution. Thought our three centre backs (cost £0) coped admirably with Gallagher and Brereton (combined cost in excess of £11m).
Again Critchley continues to work wonders against experienced Championship / ex Premier League managers who have the advantage of massively higher budgets at their disposal.
We are very fortunate indeed to have him.
 
L’étranger said:
We created the better chances in the latter stages and were pushing for a winner in injury time so not necessarily a negative substitution. Thought our three centre backs (cost £0) coped admirably with Gallagher and Brereton (combined cost in excess of £11m).
Again Critchley continues to work wonders against experienced Championship / ex Premier League managers who have the advantage of massively higher budgets at their disposal.
We are very fortunate indeed to have him.
Click to expand...
Agreed - barring Thornily being at fault for their goal - otherwise, we looked like the play-off contenders.
 
Philbfctrois said:
Of course it was a defensive move

The game was there for the taking and he gave up the chance of a win to settle for a draw

Unbelievably negative again from the manager

1 point from 3 games isn't good enough
Click to expand...
We disagree again. You seem to think football management is dead simple, whatever your budget is.
 
Last edited:
I always think most of the best managers/coaches generally go for the positive option and also instil that positivity in their players. Remember a win is worth 3 points a draw 1 point and a loss 0 points so a win and a loss is worth more than two draws, plus positivity has a beneficial effect on the psyche of players.
 
1950`spoolfan said:
I always think most of the best managers/coaches generally go for the positive option and also instil that positivity in their players. Remember a win is worth 3 points a draw 1 point and a loss 0 points so a win and a loss is worth more than two draws, plus positivity has a beneficial effect on the psyche of players.
Click to expand...
Which is why he went for a tactically positive substitution as confirmed in his post match.

The fact that our fans are too thick to realise what’s going on isn’t the managers fault.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Which is why he went for a tactically positive substitution as confirmed in his post match.

The fact that our fans are too thick to realise what’s going on isn’t the managers fault.
Click to expand...
I`ve just listened to Critchley`s fairly long post match interview. There was much reference to the team`s character and team spirit but no direct reference to any of the substitutions certainly not the replacement of Lavery with Keogh..
 
Last edited:
voyeur said:
I haven't seen the game but it sounds like we switched to a back 3 and pushed Gabriel and husband forward to support Bowler and Anderson, so not necessarily a defensive move?

Critch started with nothing and built a promotion side on a minimal budget that has now established itself in the Championship. He's done that by making us hard to break down primarily, out if necessity, we lack the quality going forward to be a very offensive side. But we do have a go. 18 shots to Rovers 10 at Ewood isn't negative in my book. He just has to be a bit pragmatic with the resources he has.
Click to expand...
I was furious with the sub, but yeah, he did that. We created two more really decent efforts after the sub and after initially sitting too deep, it was more like a back three, with Gabriel wide right, Bowler and Keshi getting forward and it worked ok. Whether 10 minutes of Jerry running like a maniac would have worked better, no one can say.
 
Wizaard said:
I don't think it was a negative move at all. We created our best two chances after going 3 4 3, with the full backs going to more wing backs and Keshi and Bowler playing alongside Madine.

If the full backs had stayed back in a 5, I might agree, but that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

They did initially, but it was remedied. There was a spell when I was thinking "why the fuck have we invited pressure on?" but it didn't last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top