Not sure why Arter

[H4usuallysitting]

replaced Reed, wouldn't StefJo be the better choice (Brentford kept going down their right).... Not sure why kamara not in squad....Cav instead of Kebano to start....if our starting 11 was our strongest team, play offs here we come

[clarkey]

For some reason Parker never plays StefJo properly or brings him on at the right time. He was exactly who we needed for last 25 mins of extra effort and pace.

Arter was off the pace, took it away and left holes in the defence. And as for Bryan a shocking performance.

This was pretty much ads poor as it can get.I'd like us to get  Eddie Howe in asap.Save Bournmouth sacking him.

Such a shame as that is the end of the automatic place hunt for us. Now we have play off defeat ignominy to look forward to.

[Southdowns White]

I don't think we should use him again, looks a liability whenever he comes on.

[os5889 mkII]

I don't think the change was tactical; it appeared to be an injury. Still begs the question of why we brought on Arter over KMac or Johansen, but then again, we love a bit of nepotism at Fulham.

[Arthur]

replaced Reed, wouldn't StefJo be the better choice...

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but from what I see on here, when we lose, ANY substitution is open to criticism. If Parker had done what you say and Brentford had won, I guarantee there'd be someone else asking why he replaced a defensive midfielder with an attacking one and suggesting that Arter or KMac were the more obvious choices.

[alfie]

replaced Reed, wouldn't StefJo be the better choice...

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but from what I see on here, when we lose, ANY substitution is open to criticism. If Parker had done what you say and Brentford had won, I guarantee there'd be someone else asking why he replaced a defensive midfielder with an attacking one and suggesting that Arter or KMac were the more obvious choices.

:plus one:
As no one has a crystal ball it's difficult to know how a player will perform until they are on the pitch,.

[Sinjun]

No idea why Scott Parkers brother in law came on. 😊

[Arthur]

No idea why Scott Parkers brother in law came on. 😊

Really?

For me to believe this, I'd have to assume that you have no idea what positions Reed and Arter play.

[H4usuallysitting]

It's nothing to do with crystal balls.... Brentford kept attacking down their right.... StefJo naturally play's more to our left.... that's my only reason for my statement..... I'm also thinking StefJo is a better player than Arter, but that's only my opinion

[Woolly Mammoth]

No idea why Scott Parkers brother in law came on. 😊

I have no idea why the Chairmans son was appointed Director of Football.

[bobby01]

I have no idea why Arter was standing with his arm in the air while they had 4 runners, or how he managed to get booked again

[FFC1987]

replaced Reed, wouldn't StefJo be the better choice...

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but from what I see on here, when we lose, ANY substitution is open to criticism. If Parker had done what you say and Brentford had won, I guarantee there'd be someone else asking why he replaced a defensive midfielder with an attacking one and suggesting that Arter or KMac were the more obvious choices.

:plus one:
As no one has a crystal ball it's difficult to know how a player will perform until they are on the pitch,.

I recall a match not logn before the break where Parker subs were applauded for the timing and positive impact it has on the game. This game obviously turned, I called it late into first half when I saw energy levels diminish that we'd lose. But Parker has 5 subs to turn the tide of exhaustion and create stability/positively influence the team but its very clear with hindsight, he failed. He's failed with subs more than succeeded in my opinion and its one of the reasons I think Parker is just a poor manager.

[Arthur]

This game obviously turned, I called it late into first half when I saw energy levels diminish that we'd lose. But Parker has 5 subs to turn the tide of exhaustion and create stability/positively influence the team but its very clear with hindsight, he failed.

Is it clear? Whenever we lose in the way we did today, there always seems to be an assumption on here that defeat could have been avoided if we had made a different set of substitutions. It's perfectly possible that, however many substitutions Parker had made, at whatever times in the game, we would still have lost.

[FFC1987]

This game obviously turned, I called it late into first half when I saw energy levels diminish that we'd lose. But Parker has 5 subs to turn the tide of exhaustion and create stability/positively influence the team but its very clear with hindsight, he failed.

Is it clear? Whenever we lose in the way we did today, there always seems to be an assumption on here that defeat could have been avoided if we had made a different set of substitutions. It's perfectly possible that, however many substitutions Parker had made, at whatever times in the game, we would still have lost.

That could well be the case but its my personal view that this loss was avoidable.

[Motspur Park]

This game obviously turned, I called it late into first half when I saw energy levels diminish that we'd lose. But Parker has 5 subs to turn the tide of exhaustion and create stability/positively influence the team but its very clear with hindsight, he failed.

Is it clear? Whenever we lose in the way we did today, there always seems to be an assumption on here that defeat could have been avoided if we had made a different set of substitutions. It's perfectly possible that, however many substitutions Parker had made, at whatever times in the game, we would still have lost.

That could well be the case but its my personal view that this loss was avoidable.

It was also avoidable had we taken any of our better chances.

[Skatzoffc]

I think what's more pertinent is their subs definitely changed the game in their favour.

We are always reactionary to the opposing teams subs. Or we make subs in reaction to going a goal behind.

Sorry, but for me that is a failing.

[Milo]

Arter had one great, debut game when he emulated what Reed did today.

Think if Reed can continue that form into (even the next few..) future games then he will have earned a permanent contract and that DM role next year.

I think Parker is the one under scrutiny for his place next season.. and I'd personally replace him.

[FPT]

replaced Reed, wouldn't StefJo be the better choice...

I'm not saying that you're wrong, but from what I see on here, when we lose, ANY substitution is open to criticism. If Parker had done what you say and Brentford had won, I guarantee there'd be someone else asking why he replaced a defensive midfielder with an attacking one and suggesting that Arter or KMac were the more obvious choices.

This is a fair assumption. I had no problem with the sub at the time.

[RaySmith]

Arter is a good player, and has a good attitude, don't understand the animosity.

[Motspur Park]

Arter is a good player, and has a good attitude, don't understand the animosity.

It's a case of the usual backbiting when the manager has before worked with or is related to a player. Always follows accusations of favouritism or nepotism. Arter is a decent enough player but at times he is a liability with his actions.