PDA

View Full Version : Craig should of been the sub at 80 minutes



California-Hibs
26-10-2014, 04:07 PM
Might not be possible with some, but I feel an older head with some experience would of shored things up abit.

I said at the time that I felt it was a mistake bringing on Stanton and Harris. I can see what his thinking was, but both are very lightweight and although we should of went for a 2nd, Craig offers alittle more protection aswel as offering an attacking threat.

Completely agree with him being benched again though, shows Stubbs can make big decisions. Our 3 in midfield of Robertson, Allen and Mcgeough should be the midfield every week. All of them very impressive!

Pretty Boy
26-10-2014, 04:10 PM
Stanton had a bit of tough time when he came on. His 1st 2 touches were a miscontrol that gifted Heart possession and a trip over the ball.

Hard to say what sub would have been the right one tbh. I can see the logic in Craig but I question his heart at the best of times never mind with 10 minutes to go in a derby

O'Rourke3
26-10-2014, 04:25 PM
Craig on if only to sit on Gomez. Gave him too much time and possession. Not closing down quickly enough all over with an extra man. Surprise surprise the centre half gets his wonder strike in.

silverhibee
26-10-2014, 04:27 PM
Stanton had a bit of tough time when he came on. His 1st 2 touches were a miscontrol that gifted Heart possession and a trip over the ball.

Hard to say what sub would have been the right one tbh. I can see the logic in Craig but I question his heart at the best of times never mind with 10 minutes to go in a derby

Was there a need to make the changes.

Pretty Boy
26-10-2014, 04:30 PM
Was there a need to make the changes.

Thought Allan and Cummings were dead on their feet so the subs were probably needed.

18Craig75
26-10-2014, 04:30 PM
You can't legislate for a strike like that. The guy will never hit the ball the same again. Craig should be nowhere near the first team.

Leith Green
26-10-2014, 05:46 PM
Was there a need to make the changes.

Thought Handling was definitely needing hooked, he wasnt offering enough going forward, and was caught out a lot defensively.. Allan had put a shift in, and probably blew his tank ..

Nakedmanoncrack
26-10-2014, 05:49 PM
You can't legislate for a strike like that. The guy will never not the ball the same again. Craig should be nowhere near the first team.

Spot on.

marinello59
26-10-2014, 05:54 PM
You can't legislate for a strike like that. The guy will never not the ball the same again. Craig should be nowhere near the first team.

Agreed.

blackpoolhibs
26-10-2014, 06:00 PM
I think our substitutions just showed how slim our squad is, we'd all have liked the team to stay the same and not use any of the subs.

We were in control and looking good, but a couple of the players had run their races, and there were another couple who could have been hooked too.

The gimps got out of jail today, no matter who we brought on that strike normally goes nowhere near the goal.

Not In The Know
26-10-2014, 06:08 PM
Prob correct with the craig call. I think more than anything Stanton and Harris didn't do anything to enhance their reputations when they came on. Stanton stood off ozturk for the goal and Harris nearly cost us day dreaming in the right back position.

I like them but are they stepping up? I don't think they are.

Alfred E Newman
26-10-2014, 06:20 PM
Thought Allan and Cummings were dead on their feet so the subs were probably needed.

Malonga was dead on his feet after a couple of minutes.

Stuarty27
26-10-2014, 06:44 PM
Craig should never play in the first team again.

thebakerboy
26-10-2014, 06:51 PM
I think that Craig and Heffernan should have come on for Handling and Cummings and Stanton for Allen as these three were knackered and experience was required and much as I agree with Craig not starting his experience could have been useful and he might just have been in front of CH when he scored and maybe prevented it.

LaMotta
26-10-2014, 06:51 PM
Thought Handling was definitely needing hooked, he wasnt offering enough going forward, and was caught out a lot defensively.. Allan had put a shift in, and probably blew his tank ..

Handling shpuld have been off before he was ....gave away possesion several times and looked weak in the second half he was excellent in the first by the way.

But scott allen was magnificent. I dont care how tired he was. Are you seriuosly telling me a 22 yr old boy cant manage 90 mins of football? That sub was only justified if he was injured and im not convinced he was.

Jonnyboy
26-10-2014, 06:54 PM
Might not be possible with some, but I feel an older head with some experience would of shored things up abit.

I said at the time that I felt it was a mistake bringing on Stanton and Harris. I can see what his thinking was, but both are very lightweight and although we should of went for a 2nd, Craig offers alittle more protection aswel as offering an attacking threat.

Completely agree with him being benched again though, shows Stubbs can make big decisions. Our 3 in midfield of Robertson, Allen and Mcgeough should be the midfield every week. All of them very impressive!

I agree with the sentiment and have said the same re the subs on the PM board. They changed tactics after the red card and flooded the midfield. We should have strengthened there but went for the second goal which is hard to criticise but a tad naive IMO

DH1875
26-10-2014, 08:03 PM
Thought Allan and Cummings were dead on their feet so the subs were probably needed.

Yeah, have to agree. Substitutions were made when they had to be and to be fair, I dont think it would have mattered who we brought on. None of them would have stopped that goal.