playing for a draw

[nose]

i understand that garbutt was injured but replacing kaka with matilla did for us. from that change the whole commentary changed from us on top to us not in it. if kaka needed replacing put on smith or another more offensive player but to use matilla meant joka had settled and he settled even though he knew we cannot defend, we had to keep attacking. the manager got it wrong. He is still my man but I am mighty uneasy at the moment.

[Hoppus]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[westcliff white]

 then you lose ross as you have to play him wide, I agree it was a strange sub but putting smith on for him would have been just as strange, Kaca probably should have stayed on as we had no further option out wide with Garbutt being injured other wise you could have put Ream on for Kaca and moved Garbutt forward.

[nose]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[MJG]

I didn't see it that way at all. We played a flat 442 and Mattila came on it allowed O'hara freedom to get forward more, which he did.
Should he have made a double sub?  Maybe not, and would they have been my subs?,  no.  But it was not for a draw,  and that's from watching it in the stadium and not for GJ.

[nose]

I didn't see it that way at all. We played a flat 442 and Mattila came on it allowed O'hara freedom to get forward more, which he did.
Should he have made a double sub?  Maybe not, and would they have been my subs?,  no.  But it was not for a draw,  and that's from watching it in the stadium and not for GJ.

OK
after he did it, did it look like we were more offensive or did we actually get pushed back because that is the way it sounded, I am asking because i didn't go and GJ said garbut was injured so had to be replaced.

[MJG]

I didn't see it that way at all. We played a flat 442 and Mattila came on it allowed O'hara freedom to get forward more, which he did.
Should he have made a double sub?  Maybe not, and would they have been my subs?,  no.  But it was not for a draw,  and that's from watching it in the stadium and not for GJ.

OK
after he did it, did it look like we were more offensive or did we actually get pushed back because that is the way it sounded, I am asking because i didn't go and GJ said garbut was injured so had to be replaced.

Garbutt was injured,  he hit the advertising boards five minutes earlier. And yes we did with O'hara and Cairney much more advanced and Cairney got on the wing as well. Did it fully work.. No.  And Wednesday had more changes as we pushed forward.
But all in all I can see what he tried,  even if I don't agree fully with it.

[Mince n Tatties]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[rogerpbackinMidEastUS]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[fulhamben]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[nose]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[fulhamben]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[westcliff white]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[MJG]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[fulhamben]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[MJG]

Lets be honest. He was never 'your man'

[ffc73]

Is it not in Kaca's contract that he is not allowed to play 90-minutes, irrespective if his withdrawal from the field of play is detrimental to the team's performance? 

I say this as every manager we have had rarely keeps him on the park when starting him or uses him as a sub.  Whereas some others are never subbed no matter how abject their performance.

Most clubs seem to have players that fulfil the roles outlined above