It didn't take us long to forget Garcia did it!

[One Teddy Maybank]

We started the game with the same team that gave Derby the run around in the first leg, minus Upson. Even Derby fans thought we out played them.

Buckley was the star of the show in the first half of the first game but carried his injury into the second, and Orlandi wasn't fit to play 90 mins so I don't get your "we should have put pressure on them" mantra.

Oscars plan would have been to use Buckley and Orlandi, as in the first game, then chuck on March, KLL and CMS later. But for the fact that Greer got injured after 15 we had to make a defensive substitution instead of an attacking one.

If you can provide a list of your prefered starting eleven and bench players? we can debate the scenario, rather than your simplistic version of just putting more pressure on them.

Ok.

If Buckley is half-fit, then don't start him, play March.

KLL should have started instead of Orlandi, who was also half-fit thereby providing cover to the RB and LB.

CMS should have started in a role behind Ulloa, personally for me instead of Lingaard. Thereby hounding the Derby defence and making them play long. If Ince and Andrews are tight in the middle, we starve Derby the ball. The key to all this though is pressurising higher up the pitch, and the two wingers also pushing on.

When Greer went off Calderon should have gone to CB and Chicksen to RB, where he had played before for MK (see my previous post).

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

But we weren't 3-1 down when Greer picked up his injury and which therefore threw all the match planning out of the window.

If we put Calde into centre half, who would have played RB?
How many games has Chicksen played for our first team?
How often did the defence that ended the game play as a unit together?

No you say the reason we lost hadn't anything to do with any of the above, but just because Oscar decided we shouldn't pressure them high up the field (which is odd as that is what we had been trying to do to teams all season (more sucessfully in some games than others)

You rip the heart out of the defence of any team, handicap the attacking options due to players being not completely fit and on form (but there is little else in alternatives due to the depleted squad available) and you'd still expect them to turn over a very good, highly motivated team like Derby? - Losing key players in Greer and Upson was pretty much always going to cost us the game, and there is little any manager could have done to counter it.

In terms of Chicksen you didn't read my response. He had previously played RB for MKeynes, so shouldn't have been too much of an issue.

Calderon talks really well during a game, and as the game wore on against Derby Dunk would have benefited from a cooler head alongside him.

At 3-1 down we still didn't change the pattern or go after the game. We lost 4-1 on the day, so whatever we were trying apparently did not work. Personally, I would rather us go for broke at 3-1 down on aggregate.

I do agree that Upson and Greer being injured clearly didn't help and was probably the one of the primary factors, but there remains no doubt in my mind that the lack of pressure played into Derby's hands.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

In terms of Chicksen you didn't read my response. He had previously played RB for MKeynes, so shouldn't have been too much of an issue.

Calderon talks really well during a game, and as the game wore on against Derby Dunk would have benefited from a cooler head alongside him.

At 3-1 down we still didn't change the pattern or go after the game. We lost 4-1 on the day, so whatever we were trying apparently did not work. Personally, I would rather us go for broke at 3-1 down on aggregate.

I do agree that Upson and Greer being injured clearly didn't help and was probably the one of the primary factors, but there remains no doubt in my mind that the lack of pressure played into Derby's hands.

I had read your response re: Chicksen - How long ago was his last competitive league fixture before being thrown in against Derby because of necessity?

I'm not saying that he isn't good enough, but he was untried and had no understandings with the other players on the field that day from playing in matches (where players will be to recieve passes so the player with the ball doesn't need as long to spot where to play it, etc) -He did well in the circumstances but we would have been stronger defensively without these changes

Greer going off also meant one less attacking substitution was possible and i doubt was something that was ever planned for (no Greer and Upson) and this limited our options. If the game was still close with 25 to 30 minutes to go (and Greer was still on the pithc) maybe Garcia would have gambled and put on a very attacking line-up with KKL, March, and CMS all coming on (maybe with Ulloa, Buckley and possibly Orlandi if fit enough and doing well) for the rest of the game. But you can' go all out attack for 90 minutes because you will leave yourself open and will get caught out by counterattacks (as we were when we went forward trying to get back into it. (we just were unable to break them down as we had struggled the rest of the season to do aagainst a lot of well organised and good sides.

 

[symyjym]

Ok.

If Buckley is half-fit, then don't start him, play March.

KLL should have started instead of Orlandi, who was also half-fit thereby providing cover to the RB and LB.

CMS should have started in a role behind Ulloa, personally for me instead of Lingaard. Thereby hounding the Derby defence and making them play long. If Ince and Andrews are tight in the middle, we starve Derby the ball. The key to all this though is pressurising higher up the pitch, and the two wingers also pushing on.

When Greer went off Calderon should have gone to CB and Chicksen to RB, where he had played before for MK (see my previous post).

So in this scenario Buckley and Orlandi shouldn't have made the bench, because of their injury issues it would have been a gamble to bring them on as subs.

So your starting line up and bench would have been as below;


29 Kuszczak
14 Calderón
17 Ward
38 Ince
03 Greer (Chicksen)
05 Dunk
30 March
04 Andrews
19 Ulloa
11 KLL
35 Mackail-Smith

Bench
01 Brezovan
10 Agustien
12 Lingard
15 Chicksen
18 Forster-Caskey

Now after bringing on Chickson we would have had two substitutions left, bearing in mind the potential of 120 mins plus penalties.

Also bearing in mind could CMS or KLL lasted the whole game? And your impact subs would have been?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I had read your response re: Chicksen - How long ago was his last competitive league fixture before being thrown in against Derby because of necessity?

I'm not saying that he isn't good enough, but he was untried and had no understandings with the other players on the field that day from playing in matches (where players will be to recieve passes so the player with the ball doesn't need as long to spot where to play it, etc) -He did well in the circumstances but we would have been stronger defensively without these changes

Greer going off also meant one less attacking substitution was possible and i doubt was something that was ever planned for (no Greer and Upson) and this limited our options. If the game was still close with 25 to 30 minutes to go (and Greer was still on the pithc) maybe Garcia would have gambled and put on a very attacking line-up with KKL, March, and CMS all coming on (maybe with Ulloa, Buckley and possibly Orlandi if fit enough and doing well) for the rest of the game. But you can' go all out attack for 90 minutes because you will leave yourself open and will get caught out by counterattacks (as we were when we went forward trying to get back into it. (we just were unable to break them down as we had struggled the rest of the season to do aagainst a lot of well organised and good sides.

Of course we would have been stronger, but you have to react to the cards dealt. Ward had been a revelation so why move him over, Calderon was struggling anyway, so playing Chicksen at RB wouldn't have made things any worse, and Calderon has played CB before.

Of course you can't attack for 90 minutes, but it is equally wearing chasing back all the time if you are Derby. We did not give Derby enough to think about and by pressuring the ball, you may get caught but you make them make a decision, and we did not do that.

But your point of 'if the game was close', going for it, a 3-1 down, it wasn't close so why not go for it then?

Other than Ulloa's miss before half-time, I think our next shot may well have been Kaz's goal.
See my other discussion on this thread the line-up was wrong as well (IMO).

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

So in this scenario Buckley and Orlandi shouldn't have made the bench, because of their injury issues it would have been a gamble to bring them on as subs.

So your starting line up and bench would have been as below;


29 Kuszczak
14 Calderón
17 Ward
38 Ince
03 Greer (Chicksen)
05 Dunk
30 March
04 Andrews
19 Ulloa
11 KLL
35 Mackail-Smith

Bench
01 Brezovan
10 Agustien
12 Lingard
15 Chicksen
18 Forster-Caskey

Now after bringing on Chickson we would have had two substitutions left, bearing in mind the potential of 120 mins plus penalties.

Also bearing in mind could CMS or KLL lasted the whole game? And your impact subs would have been?

Did I say I'd leave them out entirely then? I believe I said 'don't start them', and there are your impact subs.

Anyway my team is not intending going to penalties or extra-time...... (incidentally not losing)

 

[Dick Head]

The fact that Garcia got us into the play-offs for the second year running would have made Bloom's job of recruiting a decent replacement that much easier.

I've been disappointed with a lot of the comments recently about Oscar - he achieved the same outcome as Gus with a far less talented squad AND he gave our youngsters a chance to shine. The football wasn't easy on the eye but he kept the show on the road, and for that he deserves some credit.

Word.

 

[symyjym]

Did I say I'd leave them out entirely then? I believe I said 'don't start them', and there are your impact subs.

Anyway my team is not intending going to penalties or extra-time...... (incidentally not losing)

But you cannot use two injury prone and unfit players (Buckley, Orlandi) as impact subs, they had to start or play no part at all.

The reason for this is that if Buckley and Orlandi came on as subs and broke down after 20-30 mins, which was very highly likely, we would be down to 9 men.

Oscar had no choice but to use them from the start. Surely you do see that point?

 

[Rookie]

Totally agree. And he did it all without whingeing and generally got on with the job. I'm actually disappointed he's gone as I'd liked to have seen what he could have done with a full squad but, hey ho, onwards and upwards.

Very much this. Wish him all the best back in Israel and still think he will rock up on the bench for Barcelona in a few years time. The football played was a result of injuries to key players and should not be interpreted as the way Oscar wanted to line up (first half v Derby was more the Oscar way)

 

[Brixtaan]

I loved him, anyone who was expecting fireworks was naive. We needed a personality like Garcias at the time after the unprofessional histrionics of Gus. The only question mark i had was the unfathomable decision to drop PIG for the FA cup.
Anyway the latin experiment is over (for now anyway, there's no reason why we can't go back to it someday Tony) now its time for an aryan experiment and i'm excited by his English experience and German education.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

But you cannot use two injury prone and unfit players (Buckley, Orlandi) as impact subs, they had to start or play no part at all.

The reason for this is that if Buckley and Orlandi came on as subs and broke down after 20-30 mins, which was very highly likely, we would be down to 9 men.

Oscar had no choice but to use them from the start. Surely you do see that point?

There's absolutely no evidence for that at all and sorry but I don't agree. Buckley came on as sub a number of times as he worked his way back to fitness without difficulty. If you look at when his injuries re-occur, its usually when he starts matches.

 

[kevtherev]

But we weren't 3-1 down when Greer picked up his injury and which therefore threw all the match planning out of the window.

If we put Calde into centre half, who would have played RB?
How many games has Chicksen played for our first team?
How often did the defence that ended the game play as a unit together?

No you say the reason we lost hadn't anything to do with any of the above, but just because Oscar decided we shouldn't pressure them high up the field (which is odd as that is what we had been trying to do to teams all season (more sucessfully in some games than others)

You rip the heart out of the defence of any team, handicap the attacking options due to players being not completely fit and on form (but there is little else in alternatives due to the depleted squad available) and you'd still expect them to turn over a very good, highly motivated team like Derby? - Losing key players in Greer and Upson was pretty much always going to cost us the game, and there is little any manager could have done to counter it.

If we hadn't have sold El Abd or replaced him, there would have been a ch on the bench. Piss poor planning.

 

[severnside gull]

Reflecting on Bloom's comments about his apparent involvement and his speedy return to Maccabi I do wonder if Oscar very quickly regretted leaving Israel and his mentor Jordi Cruyff.
That neednt be anything to do with us.
I have certainly left a job and then wished I hadn't.

I also wonder if we undervalue Jones' contribution in getting us to the play offs?

 

[symyjym]

There's absolutely no evidence for that at all and sorry but I don't agree. Buckley came on as sub a number of times as he worked his way back to fitness without difficulty. If you look at when his injuries re-occur, its usually when he starts matches.

There is plenty of evidence that Buckley and Orlandi get injured easily and would have been gamble substitutions that could put us down to 9 men If you cannot even agree with that I am wasting my time.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

There is plenty of evidence that Buckley and Orlandi get injured easily and would have been gamble substitutions that could put us down to 9 men If you cannot even agree with that I am wasting my time.

But not when they've come on as sub.

How many times has Buckley ever been substituted having come on as a sub due to injury?

Zero.

If they had started you are correct in that the likelihood of them getting injured was high, but then that is why I would have them as impact subs......... At least Buckley anyway.

 

[symyjym]

But not when they've come on as sub.

 

[meanmachine25]

Who?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

Sorry have added a bit more above as on my phone........

 

[symyjym]

But not when they've come on as sub.

How many times has Buckley ever been substituted having come on as a sub due to injury?

Zero.

If they had started you are correct in that the likelihood of them getting injured was high, but then that is why I would have them as impact subs......... At least Buckley anyway.

I will let you get out, I need to too, we can come back to this later, but Buckley would have made an impact sub for 20 mins before being helped of the pitch putting us down to 10 men.

I wil give you that Buckley may have lasted more than 20 mins as an impact sub, but it would have been at a high risk because there would have been no chance to replace him if he was a used sub.

I would have started with Grabban and Conway myself

 

[Worried Man Blues]

I for one will never forget Orvill