why did he take Spillane off rather than Hucks when Croft came on?

you CANNOT play Hucks and Croft AND two strikers. From that point on we didn't have enough ball winners on the pitch and thus couldn't get the ball off them, whereas we had at least matched them until that point. Altrnatively he could have left Hucks on and put him up front while taking Cureton off. But since Hucks was our worst player yesterday taking him off would have made more sense.

Posted By: mr carra on September 30th 2007 at 14:04:35

Message Thread

WHY? (NCFC) - Burge, Sep 30, 13:43:53
- why did he take Spillane off rather than Hucks when Croft came on? (NCFC) - mr carra, Sep 30, 14:04:35
  - I think with Spillane (NCFC) - alsosprachcreasotra, Sep 30, 14:21:09
    - while i agree subbing hucks is sacriligous (sp) (NCFC) - megson, Sep 30, 15:35:05
  - I seem to remember Spillane... (NCFC) - sheffieldcanary, Sep 30, 14:11:33
- No, Cureton in for Strihavka (n/m) (NCFC) - conker, Sep 30, 13:46:33
  - Cureton = Not good enough (NCFC) - Burge, Sep 30, 13:49:42
    - Wrong (NCFC) - conker, Sep 30, 13:58:07
      - cureton will score if he is getting the ball? (NCFC) - Burge, Sep 30, 14:00:32
        
        and brown - he averages 4 goals a season at this level... (NCFC) - phrankin, Sep 30, 14:44:10
- Answer because Grant is a Twat (n/m) (NCFC) - lappinitup, Sep 30, 13:45:53
  - Can't argue with you there? (n/m) (NCFC) - Burge, Sep 30, 13:50:09

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.