If we'd drawn or lost I could understand all this "I'd have had him off" or "I'd have done it sooner"But we won, so, surely there can't be any arguement with it.
I was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.
Quote from: Witton Warrior on March 12, 2012, 04:02:55 PMI was glanced down at AM on 69 minutes and he looked at his watch and turned into the dugout - I jokingly said it was "Heskey time" - it seemed a long time until the substitutions though.The overhit crosses were dire - can they really not see the absence of a team mate against the acre or so of (beautifully manicured) green grass?AM is damned if he do and damned if he doodn't I'm afraid - the booing is part pantomime.Has anyone considered the crosses were not overhit, just that there should have been somebody on the opposite wing?It is the same with corners. Everybody piles into the middle and a ball to the far post is considered 'overhit'. Fulham's central defenders are giants (so are most clubs' actually) so there is little point putting a ball into the goalmouth, why not keep somebody wide. Marc Albrighton is a great crosser of the ball, why not make full use of him?
www.thebirminghampress.com/2012/03/12/the-sun-shines-on-b6/
We look a better outfit without Bent and with Cuellar.I jut hope AM recognises this and builds from here. The problem with Bent is that he contributes very little, unless he scores he contributes nothing. The defence is allways going to be up against it if every ball played to Bent goes to the opposition. If you play Bent then you have to gear a game plan around him and have the players that can cope with playing with a passenger.