supporter wrote:Neil even if Matt had started it would not have changed the fact that the defence and midfield were changed after 3 minutes causing disruption. The game winning change was the formation and this is why Sheehan came off, you wanted a centre forward off and the same formation, if we'd done that we would probably of lost the game.

Starting the match with a player who is carrying an injury and unlikely to last 90 minutes limits a manager's options during the game. For this reason, in he professional game, managers more often choose to have the player on the bench to be used if needed.

supporter wrote:Fact is different to hindsight Neil and the fact is the change of formation won the game.

I did say I wouldn't say any more on the subject but when you post that FACT is different to hindsight it is easy to post that because we all know the outcome of the match...Fact..
You cant prove it was the change in formation that won us the game or whether it was mainly down to Cambridge not being able to cope with Matts Ariel presence . In fact the Cambridge manager told the reporter of their local paper that when Matt came on that was the turning point in the game. He didn't mention the formation change MF made....
Look up the meaning of Hindsight and you will see it means pretty much the same thing......''understanding of a situation or event only after it has happened or developed '', your saying that it is FACT that the formation change was the reason

I explained why I posted what I did and I stick to it regardless of what you or any poster replies with.
We were 2 goals down , not playing very well and if it was me I would have brought Matt on because after watching us play Cambridge earlier in the season I knew their defence struggled to cope against a target man , just as they did when Matt played in that game.
We can never answer whether it was bringing on Matt that was the sole reason of this or whether it was him coming on and the formation change that MF made...As it turned out it could point out the latter but if Matt had come on and it was Semenyo who came off and not Sheehan it could have ended the same way ? IMO Semenyo wasn't having a very good game and thats why I would have taken him off.
regardless of who is right or wrong I still feel that MF should have played Matt from the start, try to build up a lead then take him off because Cambridge coped far to easily with the two we started off with.


That is my final word on the subject FACT

Even if the lad isn't at his best yet I find thread like this pathetic.

He's barely played, he's very young and he's contributing to a squad that is massively overachieving.

I'm sure he'll continue to grow in confidence as the season goes on.

Some people on here are sad as ****.

rncfc wrote:Even if the lad isn't at his best yet I find thread like this pathetic.

He's barely played, he's very young and he's contributing to a squad that is massively overachieving.

I'm sure he'll continue to grow in confidence as the season goes on.

Some people on here are sad as ****.

His experience last season at the hands of the F.G.R. fans must have had a horrendous effect on his confidence, which, no doubt, will take a while to re-build.

neilcork68 wrote: That is my last word on the subject because we will never agree on it.. Your views are with hindsight , mine was what I would have done whilst the game was in progress.

Weeeeeeellll actually your comments are what you've said you'd have done when it was in progress, but with the same benefit of hindsight as everyone else. We've only got your word that you actually thought that at the time.

SJG99 wrote:

neilcork68 wrote: That is my last word on the subject because we will never agree on it.. Your views are with hindsight , mine was what I would have done whilst the game was in progress.

Weeeeeeellll actually your comments are what you've said you'd have done when it was in progress, but with the same benefit of hindsight as everyone else. We've only got your word that you actually thought that at the time.

Neal is a person of strong views, and of course that is bound to cause argument. However Neal's integrity has never been in doubt and in making such a squalid little remark SJG99 says far about himself than Neal.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:

SJG99 wrote:

neilcork68 wrote: That is my last word on the subject because we will never agree on it.. Your views are with hindsight , mine was what I would have done whilst the game was in progress.

Weeeeeeellll actually your comments are what you've said you'd have done when it was in progress, but with the same benefit of hindsight as everyone else. We've only got your word that you actually thought that at the time.

Neal is a person of strong views, and of course that is bound to cause argument. However Neal's integrity has never been in doubt and in making such a squalid little remark SJG99 says far about himself than Neal.

You've spelt his name wrong , Bren .... just saying like .......

Corpaboy wrote:
You've spelt his name wrong , Bren .... just saying like .......

[/quote][/quote]

Assuming Bennett will have drop back into defence with O'Brien injured and Cooper can't play on loan against FGR, do we give Cooper a start tonight and give Dolan longer to recover?

George Street-Bridge wrote:Assuming Bennett will have drop back into defence with O'Brien injured and Cooper can't play on loan against FGR, do we give Cooper a start tonight and give Dolan longer to recover?

My view is that you should always concentrate on the next game. If Dolan's fitness is in doubt then Cooper's availability v FGR shouldn't come into the equation. Cooper should play.

However, if League form holds and an hour in we are comfortably beating Macclesfield, if Dolan is playing I can see the point of subbing him then.

My problem with picking Cooper, if you take the view that you would prefer Dolan but need to consider Saturday, is that you look pretty damn silly if we trudge off tonight defeated.

If, and it's a mighty big if, we lose tonight then it will will be down to more than the absence of Dolan. My opinion is, if fit, Dolan should play. Cooper will be used as and when but always play the strongest team. That may mean tactical changes, for instance, Pipe away and Forbes at home, but we don't exactly have that luxury in midfield. Crofts' fitness is a problem in that department.

excessbee wrote:If, and it's a mighty big if, we lose tonight then it will will be down to more than the absence of Dolan. My opinion is, if fit, Dolan should play. Cooper will be used as and when but always play the strongest team. That may mean tactical changes, for instance, Pipe away and Forbes at home, but we don't exactly have that luxury in midfield. Crofts' fitness is a problem in that department.

My point is that it is my view that making decisions based on future games is the wrong approach. It is only an opinion and one with which you are entitled to disagree.

Change of formation gave us more chance of winning the game FACT, leaving it with 2 up front gave us less chance that's obvious to anyone who saw the game, also Semenyo had a good game. The pleasing thing for me in the bigger picture is we've now got 4 centre forwards who are totally different and that gives us options to change things in that area if needed which is great.

supporter wrote:Change of formation gave us more chance of winning the game FACT, leaving it with 2 up front gave us less chance that's obvious to anyone who saw the game, also Semenyo had a good game. The pleasing thing for me in the bigger picture is we've now got 4 centre forwards who are totally different and that gives us options to change things in that area if needed which is great.

You cant say that changing the formation was the reason that we won Saturday FACT........How can you prove that if Matt had come on and Sheehan stayed on the result could have been the same ?
We know the FACT that we won the game but no one can tell if it as solely down to that and the formation change.
The Cambridge manager in an interview with his local paper points to the introduction of Matt and his sides inability to deal with him was the turning point in the game. Not once does he mention our change of formation.
Those are the FACTS....the word your looking for for the formation change is ''CONJECTURE'' not ''FACT''

Wow! A lesson in semantics?