Bolton 2-2 Nottingham Forest.

wanderlust wrote:

Did you slag off the substitutions too?

Yes, because we were under pressure. By bringing on two tools like Pratley & Trotter he just invited more pressure which is exactly what happened.

He should have at least brought Feeney on to give the Forest defence (which looked as shaky as ours) something to think about.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

Did you slag off the substitutions too?

Yes, because we were under pressure. By bringing on two tools like Pratley & Trotter he just invited more pressure which is exactly what happened.

He should have at least brought Feeney on to give the Forest defence (which looked as shaky as ours) something to think about.

OK I'll play.

  advocate would say....

I would agree with you wholeheartedly but for 2 facts:
1. Defence improved. We have been shipping stupid avoidable goals since the beginning of the season - 3 against Watford and 2 yesterday before the substitutions. After Trotter and Pratley came on we didn't concede any more and saw out the game to claim our first point.
2. Attack improved. After Trotter and Pratley came on we carved out the clearest chance of the entire game - an absolutely perfect cross from McNaughton straight on to Cavies head, smack bang in front of an open goal. We could and should have won the game right there and if Cavies wasn't so shit Dougie would have been hailed as the tactical genius..

They say football is a simple game and sometimes the way to improve defence and attack is to get control of midfield - which is what happened.

 

But did we get control of midfield lusty? Not according to the commentators. Sure we didn't concede again but Forest were able to get past us far too easily. 

As to your comment about improved defence? Seriously. You write we've shipped FIVE AVOIDABLE goals in TWO matches and claim that's an IMPROVEMENT?   

And how did the attack improve? We scored twice before the substitutions and none after despite as you rightly point out creating a sitter Cravies should have buried. Unfortunately that was about the ONLY chance we created in that last half hour. 

Look, I really would have settled for a point before the game and I'll admit happily that the first half performance was much better than the Watford and Bury horror shows BUT we really did have a chance to go for the win and Freedman bottled it. It's typical of the man. I know you think he should have a few more games and I don't but in all honesty I'd prefer to be proven wrong about him even though I can't see it happening. Tell me please why you can.

Both commentators thought Trotter improved things.

luckyPeterpiper wrote:But did we get control of midfield lusty? Not according to the commentators. Sure we didn't concede again but Forest were able to get past us far too easily. 

As to your comment about improved defence? Seriously. You write we've shipped FIVE AVOIDABLE goals in TWO matches and claim that's an IMPROVEMENT?   

And how did the attack improve? We scored twice before the substitutions and none after despite as you rightly point out creating a sitter Cravies should have buried. Unfortunately that was about the ONLY chance we created in that last half hour. 

Look, I really would have settled for a point before the game and I'll admit happily that the first half performance was much better than the Watford and Bury horror shows BUT we really did have a chance to go for the win and Freedman bottled it. It's typical of the man. I know you think he should have a few more games and I don't but in all honesty I'd prefer to be proven wrong about him even though I can't see it happening. Tell me please why you can.

  advocate would say...

Stick to the facts Peter.
Those substitutions put us in the position to win against a team that has invested heavily and was strongly fancied to absolutely hammer us - according to you and Nat amongst others. Those substitutions got us to the point where a simple header would have won it for us - we were that close. 

And whilst we're on the subject, another fact is that I'm undecided as to whether Dougie should be given more time to sort things out or not. I merely pointed out that yesterday's match probably bought him some time.

I won't get drawn into speculating about "what he thinks" or what is typical of the man" when I've never actually met him. All I can see is that from an almost impossible position pre-match, we could and indeed should have taken all 3 points.

bwfc1874 wrote:Both commentators thought Trotter improved things.

I was there!!!

He Didn't!!!!

LPP was right it just encouraged Forest to attack even more, Feeney instead of Pratley should have been a no brainer quite a few times we were in promising positions and Prat's either checked back or passed back losing all momentum, fair play the chance that Davies fecked up was really well made, but considering that was the only notable attacking contribution of the second half it was pretty poor fare, i'ii bet the commentators also said "A good  Forest side"?? they weren't, they were very average!!!!!

Well they're a very good side on paper, plenty of investment and some seriously good players for this level. I didn't realise how good they're attacking players are before I saw the lineup yesterday. Some very good players there. Glad that we made then look average though, sounds as if the defence limited them to only half chances second half? Can't believe Cravies missed that header so badly, it was a simple chance.

Love the articulate comments from people who werent at the match,the commentators said this the commentators said that !!!!! ffs it was fucking dire for the most part and bringing on the worst player ever and I mean EVER was the most nonsensical,half brained fucking useless substitution in the little jocks bizarre tenancy.We created one half chancein the second half  in the 90th minute against a very poor Forest side,where the fuck can you draw positives from that ffs !!!!

Tigermin wrote:Love the articulate comments from people who werent at the match,the commentators said this the commentators said that !!!!! ffs it was fucking dire for the most part and bringing on the worst player ever and I mean EVER was the most nonsensical,half brained fucking useless substitution in the little jocks bizarre tenancy.We created one half chancein the second half  in the 90th minute against a very poor Forest side,where the fuck can you draw positives from that ffs !!!!

But didn't you think that Pratley added that much needed "bite" in midfield to disrupt their flow when he came on Tiger? Certainly seemed to work. According to the facts anyway.


 

Pratley added his usual headless chicken routine Lusty, he gets around a lot without actually doing anything of note. Dougie was happy to sit and play for a point and proved it by bringing on Pratley and Trotter and then by dropping Mason back to make a midfield 5.

wanderlust wrote:
But didn't you think that Pratley added that much needed "bite" in midfield to disrupt their flow when he came on Tiger? Certainly seemed to work. According to the facts anyway.


 

Pratley played on the right of midfield and was Bobbins when he came on, fair play he was part of the best move of the game, but like I said it was mostly check back, pass back from decent positions, it came across as the home team parked the bus and settled for a point.

Funny though when announcing the substitutions "and replacing Neil Danns, Darreeeennnn PRRRRAATTTLLLEEYYYY"
you could hear a pin drop!!!!   haha!!!

bryan458 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
But didn't you think that Pratley added that much needed "bite" in midfield to disrupt their flow when he came on Tiger? Certainly seemed to work. According to the facts anyway.


 

Funny though when announcing the substitutions "and replacing Neil Danns, Darreeeennnn PRRRRAATTTLLLEEYYYY"
you could hear a pin drop!!!!   haha!!!

There's nowt like popularity.
And that's nowt like...

Is a stunned silence even more damning than a chorus of boos?

I'm not sure but I think it might be....

wanderlust wrote:
There's nowt like popularity.
And that's nowt like...

I was there, I saw it with my own ears!!!!!!! 

bryan458 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:There's nowt like popularity.
And that's nowt like...

I was there, I saw it with my own ears!!!!!!! 

 What did it smell like?

bryan458 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:
But didn't you think that Pratley added that much needed "bite" in midfield to disrupt their flow when he came on Tiger? Certainly seemed to work. According to the facts anyway.


 

Pratley played on the right of midfield and was Bobbins when he came on, fair play he was part of the best move of the game, but like I said it was mostly check back, pass back from decent positions, it came across as the home team parked the bus and settled for a point.

Funny though when announcing the substitutions "and replacing Neil Danns, Darreeeennnn PRRRRAATTTLLLEEYYYY"
you could hear a pin drop!!!!   haha!!!

Spot on mate,the silence was deafening and emphasised the point far more than a chorus of boos would have done.

Avoid the trap, Avoid the trap!!!!

ROSES!!!!!!

wanderlust wrote:

bryan458 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:There's nowt like popularity.
And that's nowt like...

I was there, I saw it with my own ears!!!!!!! 

 What did it smell like?

Not sure but it tasted like chicken.

wanderlust wrote:

bryan458 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:There's nowt like popularity.
And that's nowt like...

I was there, I saw it with my own ears!!!!!!! 

 What did it smell like?

Bullshit!!!

MartinBWFC wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

bryan458 wrote:

wanderlust wrote:There's nowt like popularity.
And that's nowt like...

I was there, I saw it with my own ears!!!!!!! 

 What did it smell like?

Bullshit!!!

  DOH!!!!!!!!!