By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
York dominated after their goal but we weren't 2nd best in first 15 mins when we pressed well and built several attacks - if McBride's shot isn't cleared off the line it's a different game
it was frustrating especially when we looked to be in complete control first half but to be fair the pitch was terrible and as a team who depend on a passing game that didn't help
agree Hogan doesn't suit a wide CB role but against an inform Boston we needed to settle into our pattern early and take the sting out of the game whereas EEL's continual use of a long ball gave away possession, handed them the impetus and disrupted our midfield shape; plus his lack of pace is a liability.
Gilmour back to his best makes a difference too and East finding space ahead of Gilmour allowed for a quick pass out from Waller after we've repelled an attack which nearly brought a couple of goals.
Interesting - I'd have said one of the strengths of Saturday's performance was 'professional' fouls which stopped their breakaways (eg Gilmour's shirt tug) and more robust tackling which inevitably can lead to late tackles - even the time wasting could be seen as 'managing the game'. How we all see things differently.
rather it may imply that, unlike too often this season, we were suitably on the front foot, aggressive in the tackle and pressed high leading to the win?
Agree about the lack of physicality throughout the squad but from the highlights that didn't seem the problem yesterday? Accepting also that we missed a couple of excellent chances to put the game to bed the highlights suggest a dominant performance for most of the game with some excellent build up play with Allarakhia in a new more central position which seemed to work well - anyone who went able to confirm that?
Yes, I believe it refers to a dozen or so representative areas which is a better structure than any dozen fans off the street but the issue will still be to what extent those dozen accurately represent the greatest number of fans as opposed to expressing their own individual views?
It's the dilemma of all 'Focus' groups! But focus groups usually have a much more formal analysis to ensure that the sample is representative - perhaps the interview stage will aim to do this?
The CAB may well be an improvement on Fans Forums and Trust Research meetings but clear structures alone don't guarantee effective decision making and lots of talking doesn't guarantee satisfied customers.
Surely the issue will be to what extent this body accurately represents the views of the greatest possible % of our current and future fans rather than the involvement being limited to we very few individual voices on this forum?
or we could have retained 3 at the back with 5 in midfield which would have given an extra body in central areas which is where I think we were light on Tuesday - the dilemma is who the 3rd central midfielder is and whether he plays a holding role (if we have such a player?) with East & Gilmour further ahead or whether the 3rd midfielder is in a no 10 role (again who fits that bill).
I agree that Gilmour is usually our most effective midfield tackler, although he was seriously off his game on Tuesday, but I can't recall us using 3 in midfield this season - McNulty used to select 2 out of Gilmour, Henry & East. Having said that it's a change I would have made on Tuesday night.
I suppose I agree about tempting folk to return but is it really our aim to sell Man U as our football dream for the prawn sandwich fan rather than the gourmet dish that is supporting your own home team? ps - no I'm not attending any of these Premier league 'pieces of silver'.