Guernica Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Simple. Tranmere................................next! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Simple. Well, it isn't really. We won at Tranmere without him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xander_OAFC Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Tranmere................................next! Millwall, oh no, wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpTheLatics Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 No Lomax, no win. Simple (apparently) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeykieran Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 Simple.there were about 5 times today when i said "if that was hughes" or "if hughes was there" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernica Posted October 3, 2008 Author Share Posted October 3, 2008 there were about 5 times today when i said "if that was hughes" or "if hughes was there" Thankyou. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 there were about 5 times today when i said "if that was hughes" or "if hughes was there" This all makes us sound like we're a one man team. We're nothing of the kind, we showed that in a gritty win at the bindippers. I think we have to get used to the fact that Hughes will miss games from time to time with the groins he has. No, the loss of Hughes isn't where I'm looking at... it's the fact that we can't seem to handle congested, 5-man midfield formations by the opposition. that's twice in two games a team has packed midfield and come out on top. We need to match that. Simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 This all makes us sound like we're a one man team. We're nothing of the kind, we showed that in a gritty win at the bindippers. I think we have to get used to the fact that Hughes will miss games from time to time with the groins he has. No, the loss of Hughes isn't where I'm looking at... it's the fact that we can't seem to handle congested, 5-man midfield formations by the opposition. that's twice in two games a team has packed midfield and come out on top. We need to match that. Simple. Half what he said, have what Guernica said. We've been beaten back recently and got results, more than anything because our best forward and our best defender have pulled it out for us. There's no pretending those two aren't still hugely important to us, they are. We can do better this season without them but we are a whole lot better with. They are the sort of players that let us get a point in a game when D-Whitt is pushed back to the point of standing on defenders' toes. When the rest of the team is playing well we could cope without. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted October 3, 2008 Share Posted October 3, 2008 (edited) We aren't a one man team, but Gregan and not hughes was the biggest miss tonight. How many times did you think "if only gregan was in there"? I was thinking it from the moment we scored and am still tthinking it now. Edited October 4, 2008 by pukka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 We could have done with Lomax as well. Not sure why we were playing someone who only met the players at the game tonight, hasn't played for 3 weeks (so he says on Latics World) and kept giving the ball away in dangerous areas. He might prove to be a world beater but sticking him in straight away wasn't the wisest of moves. I thought Jones looked a good player - probably more potent than Lomax (who I like) both defensively and going forwards. I accept that making changes can unsettle a side, but we were basically outplayed by a 4-2-3-1 (5 man midfield?) that worked harder, fought for the ball and passed it better. Hudds played a 5 man midfield and we never really got the better of that either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc1955 Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 We aren't a one man team, but Gregan and not hughes was the biggest miss tonight. How many times did you think "if only gregan was in there"? I was thinking it from the moment we scored and am still tthinking it now. We may have a bigger and better squad this year but the simple fact is...without Gregan, Hughes and Taylor we would really struggle to make an impact in this division. No Gregan = No clean sheet...and No Hughes = No attacking threat. What you have with those three players is where our problem lies...intelligence..football nouse. They have more brains than the rest of the team put together. I really thought Davies would have been a revelation after his enforced absence but I saw nothing last night to suggest he's improved. He's totally,totally, unaware of what's going on around him on a football field..what you see is what you get..he will not change ... end of!!!! O'Grady is similar in that respect but given time I think potentially he will be a far better player. We definitely need to shore up the midfield as Allott and Whittaker are being overun. It happened against Hudds on Saturday, and again last night. We can't play two wingers when one is Liddell as he's a liability out wide...The only reason Shez has kept him in this formation is that we were winning games but lately we have been found out...Big Time!! I would like to see Taylor in a front three and have Maher in with Allott and see Whittaker doing his work further up the pitch where he would be more of a threat. We've had a great start to the season and have to be satisfied so far, but we now need to change our game plan and quickly before we end up back in mid table and chasing the pack! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLUMAX Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 Shez should have taken Hughes off after 60 minutes last week,he is running him into the ground and that will cause serious long term problems if he is not carefull. Brings back memories of Clyde Whinjard,who,if he had played a full season,would have taken us up automatically,with a little help from a bloody good set of team mates that is! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 We could have done with Lomax as well. Not sure why we were playing someone who only met the players at the game tonight, hasn't played for 3 weeks (so he says on Latics World) and kept giving the ball away in dangerous areas. He might prove to be a world beater but sticking him in straight away wasn't the wisest of moves. Not the wisest of moves? thought Jones was the one positive to come out of last night strong composed and a tidy footballer to boot. Certainly if you compare his performance to Eardley's who was given the runaround they got in behind him to often. I'm not pinning the whole blame of last night on Neals shoulders as we badly missed Gregan in their to marshall that defense but I just hope the lad gets last night out of his system quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosa Posted October 4, 2008 Share Posted October 4, 2008 We could have done with Lomax as well. Not sure why we were playing someone who only met the players at the game tonight, hasn't played for 3 weeks (so he says on Latics World) and kept giving the ball away in dangerous areas. He might prove to be a world beater but sticking him in straight away wasn't the wisest of moves.Wasn't at the game so can't comment on how Jones played but if you've already been forced into making one change at the back it doesn't make sense to make another change just for the sake of it,especially if you're throwing the lad in at the deep end when he's never trained with us. Can't have done his confidence any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.