• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Brighton 2-2 Wolves: Verdict Thread

Aikiwolf said:
MM wouldn't have said he didn't want to play a formation but the lads "deserved" the opportunity to have another go at it....

GON is taking this team down, unless he somehow generates a winning streak. And that isn't done by choosing a way of playing because the lads deserve it.
Click to expand...
Didn’t MM do this after the QPR second half followed by the fateful game against Sandwell Town.
 
I think today confirmed a lot, but didn't really provide many answers.
A back 5 and we still concede soft goals. A back 4 under GON and we'll score them but look very open. The answers are there in the squad, at least to be lower mid table, but I'm unconvinced he's capable of finding them.

The primary sources of the 2 goals are obvious, but both were still preventable after those errors. On the first Bueno starts to come round on the cover and hesitates, that split second is enough to mean he's not able to put a challenge in when the ball is played through to Welbeck. On the second Doyle is just soft, has to make a challenge.
 
Last edited:
Wilf Wolf said:
Who knows what would have happened if we’d retained the ball on the occasions he overplayed it?
Click to expand...
Not a lot I'd imagine, we don't have much flair in the side aside from him and RAN, we don't tend to create much unless those two are involved either, and they "try things".

I think it's a simplistic view to want us to continually retain the ball, horseshoe of doom etc.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
He scored today, that is what I was referring to in this instance.
Click to expand...
As I said it’s not that simple. His goal was standard forward play running into the box and shooting. Earlier in the game he overplayed in positions where doing something simple would have been a better option.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Not a lot I'd imagine, we don't have much flair in the side aside from him and RAN, we don't tend to create much unless those two are involved either, and they "try things".

I think it's a simplistic view to want us to continually retain the ball, horseshoe of doom etc.
Click to expand...
Wilf Wolf said:
As I said it’s not that simple. His goal was standard forward play running into the box and shooting. Earlier in the game he overplayed in positions where doing something simple would have been a better option.
Click to expand...
I think you are both correct. He does overplay, you could argue even for the goal there were better options than the shot, but when we don't have any other defined pattern of attacking play and haven't at any time under O'Neil, other than hope one of your flair players can conjure something up, then you can't complain when that's what they try.
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Not a lot I'd imagine, we don't have much flair in the side aside from him and RAN, we don't tend to create much unless those two are involved either, and they "try things".

I think it's a simplistic view to want us to continually retain the ball, horseshoe of doom etc.
Click to expand...
On a number of occasions he gave the ball away cheaply when a simple pass to a teammate in a good position would have been a better option. I don’t want us going backwards at the first sign of an opponent closing down but equally I don’t want a player trying unnecessarily difficult dribbles 10 or 20 yards from our own box.
 
Tony Towner said:
I think you are both correct. He does overplay, you could argue even for the goal there were better options than the shot, but when we don't have any other defined pattern of attacking play and haven't at any time under O'Neil, other than hope one of your flair players can conjure something up, then you can't complain when that's what they try.
Click to expand...
Try it in the opposition half by all means not where the risk exceeds the reward.
 
Just watched the goals back, if GON ever needed a few slices of luck at the right time it happened in the 93rd minute. Brighton players runs it into the corner we lose, plays a better square ball we lose, carries a few more yards than squares it we lose. But no squares a weak ass pass to Doyle.
Not to mention the deflection on the goal.
Fine margins
 
Elephant Pyjamas said:
Not all of it, no.

And the majority of managers never take any responsibility for anything at all.

I'm surprised to see him criticised for taking responsibility for things.
Click to expand...
If you’re responsible for coaching a group of players who haven’t won a competitive game of football since a poxy 2-1 win over last season’s whipping boys, when it comes to comments regarding who ‘it’s on’, it might be a good idea to keep your trap shut.
 
If this was football manager (an old version, haven’t played in over a decade), then the late flukey goal to steal a point stops the rot and means we’re going on a winning run now
 
Why the hell was there 12 minutes of added time?
 
Dinowolf said:
Why the hell was there 12 minutes of added time?
Click to expand...
Should have been 5, went to about 7 and a half IIRC. Goal celebrations and we made 3 subs in injury time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The Bear
Wolves 1-2 Man City: Verdict Thread
21 22 23
Replies
440
Views
14K
Paddingtonwolf
Paddingtonwolf
The Bear
Wolves 1-2 Newcastle: Verdict Thread
7 8 9
Replies
176
Views
7K
big mean bunny
big mean bunny
The Bear
Wolves 1-2 Ipswich: Verdict Thread
6 7 8
Replies
148
Views
5K
Wilf Wolf
Wilf Wolf
The Bear
Fulham 1-4 Wolves: Verdict Thread
7 8 9
Replies
172
Views
6K
Elephant Pyjamas
Elephant Pyjamas
The Bear
Nottingham Forest 2-2 Wolves: Verdict Thread
3 4 5
Replies
92
Views
5K
Tredman
Tredman
Back
Top