Really? Why drop the one player who would have the most to play for. He’s playing to get into the World Cup squad and we drop him
For barker who couldn’t finish his dinner?!? That was horrific. Totally don’t understand if. Why change a team that hasn’t lost in 11?
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Thread: Dropping Jamie
-
09-05-2018 09:18 PM #1
Dropping Jamie
-
09-05-2018 09:19 PM #2
Barker has all the pace and skill you could want but given that his %age of end product is woeful.
-
-
-
09-05-2018 09:24 PM #5
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
- Posts
- 2,137
I was worried going q up front as it reminded me of when we put Stokes up front on his own and we struggled for goals.
Kamberi and MaClaren are the reasons we were in for a shout for 2nd, mental to change it tonight.
-
09-05-2018 09:24 PM #6
- Join Date
- Mar 2018
- Posts
- 2,809
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-05-2018 05:56 AM #7This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-05-2018 06:00 AM #8This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-05-2018 06:14 AM #9
I don’t think Maclaren can complain at being dropped, but it should have been for oil shaw, and not to change the whole formation that had been working really well. Barker to me remains at best an impact sub.
Also madness not to start marv in these games, especially at tyncastle IMO. Draw would have been fine tonight too.
-
10-05-2018 07:05 AM #10This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-05-2018 07:11 AM #11This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
You are spot on. Maclarens record so far speaks for itself.
-
10-05-2018 07:16 AM #12
Changing the whole shape to shoehorn in a barker was a very very strange call, especially since we were undefeated for over 3 months playing 3 at the back and 2 up front.
This is what cost us the points imo.
Still absolutely gutted/raging this morning!!!
-
10-05-2018 07:17 AM #13
- Join Date
- Dec 2017
- Posts
- 755
I think the issue is that Lennon wanted both Barker and Boyle on the wings. If you go that route, you want 4 at the back (because you probably shouldn't rely on Barker to defend left-back) and so you only have one frontman, unless you want to drop a central midfielder, and why would this Hibs team ever want to do that?
It's a tactical decision, rather than having one player be a drop-in replacement for another. I don't think it's a slight against Maclaren, just a tactical decision which didn't work out.
I'm more perturbed that Whittaker is getting game time above Bartley.
-
10-05-2018 07:17 AM #14
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,195
Dropping one half of the inform strike partnership in the country was a ludicrous decision that bit Lennon on the backside.
-
10-05-2018 07:22 AM #15This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Bartley has always been outstanding against hertz. He would have been my number 1 pick on the teamsheet.
Lennon has said in the past that Tynie is not the place where you can play with 2 wide players yet that is exactly what he tried to do. It's baffling to say the least.
-
10-05-2018 07:27 AM #16This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-05-2018 07:31 AM #17This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
10-05-2018 07:32 AM #18Elephant StoneLeft by mutual consent!This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks