bob12345
20-05-2012, 04:38 PM
I don't think there's much doubt that Pat didn't get his tactics right yesterday. We had a lack of numbers in the middle of the park, a lack of natural width out wide and the one area we were well catered for - up front - didn't get the ball as a result of us making these sacrifices.
I've went through the alternatives in my head and the only way we could have came close to nullifying their threats is by going with 1 up top and either binning a striker or playing Griffiths outwide. The problem with doing that is we don't have anyone close to Skacel provide a link, so they would tend to get isolated.
BUT I'm sure the score wouldn't have been 5-1. Would you have preferred a Chelsea style display (and because we have nothing like Chelsea's defence, discipline and commitment, it would have ended up 1-0, 2-0 or something along those lines)? Or do you think Pat was right to go with a formation with attacking potential, hoping against the odds, we would have enough of the ball to feed our dangermen?
I've went through the alternatives in my head and the only way we could have came close to nullifying their threats is by going with 1 up top and either binning a striker or playing Griffiths outwide. The problem with doing that is we don't have anyone close to Skacel provide a link, so they would tend to get isolated.
BUT I'm sure the score wouldn't have been 5-1. Would you have preferred a Chelsea style display (and because we have nothing like Chelsea's defence, discipline and commitment, it would have ended up 1-0, 2-0 or something along those lines)? Or do you think Pat was right to go with a formation with attacking potential, hoping against the odds, we would have enough of the ball to feed our dangermen?