Either way, if it's worked well we could end up starting the play offs with a potential midfield of Stone, Derry, Miller & Bakke ... Surely on paper the besst midfield we'll have been able to put out all season?!?!?! My only worry is Crainey who has looked poor, what on earth has happened to Harding????
> And your management/tactical credentials/experience are......? > > If the intention was to give blake a 20-25 min run out, bearing in mind he > has recently been ill and therefore lacks a bit of match practise, then > why > not make that sub as planned? It was a 'dead rubber' of a game. > > The rationale is they wanted to give Blake 20mins match practise, ideally > that wouldn't have been the last sub made, and the question would have > been > whether it was worth risking that last sub then with the chance of another > injury occurring in the last 20 mins. As the result was pretty > meaningless > I agree with the management that the benefit of giving Blake some decent > match practise vs the risk of losing the game due to an injury in those > last > minutes was worth it. What was more important, getting players back to > fitness for the playoffs, or getting a result on the day? > > As it happened they got both, you would have thought everyone would be > happy, but clearly not. > > By the way, from KBs comments I deduced that finishing 3rd or 4th means > you > play the first leg of the semi away, therefore if it goes to extra time or > pens in the second leg, you have home advantage. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J Moran >> Sent: 24 April 2006 20:50 >> To: Tim Leslie; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LU] Crewe >> >> I would always hold one sub back for injuries, etc. Deploy last sub as a >> time wasting measure if you're winning, otherwise, for the last 5-10 >> mins >> if >> you're after a win, or as on Saturday, for the knackered central >> midfielder >> with 20 mins to go. Overplaying an unfit Bakke won't get him fit, it's >> more >> likely to put him at risk of a strain. You just backed me up with your >> comments about Stone. Bakke and Stone are both just back from injury >> (yes, >> I >> realise Stone's is longer term) and need easing back in gently. I'd >> rather >> Bakke played for the stiffs midweek, than play too long in one session. >> >> Don't see why that's so controversial. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Tim Leslie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 7:39 PM >> Subject: Re: [LU] Crewe >> >> >> I am hoping I've got the wrong end of an ironic posting! but WTF? Subs >> had >> previously been used for injuries and, considering we're safely IN the >> play offs and now want to have everyone match fit and well prepared, >> what >> better way of giving everyone possible a good run out than against a >> team >> already relegated in a match that almost effectively means nothing! So >> long as we finish 3rd or 4th we get a home leg first, which the backroom >> team possibly prefer I don't know (My preference is to go away and >> counter >> attack either sneaking a win or frustrating the hell out of them, >> sneaking >> a win would mean they have to at least have a go at) Bakke may have >> looked >> knackered but isn't that what making him play 90 in THIS game as opposed >> to a vital MUST win one is all about? I bet (No money mind !-)) Stone >> starts against Preston for pretty much the same reason. Test his fitness >> to the limit although in that case he probably will be subbed to make >> sure >> he doesn't overdo it and injure himself again. >> >> >> > Exactly. Why bring on your last sub with 25 minnutes of the match >> > remaining. >> > A bad decision by Blackwell. >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: "Mark Humphries" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > To: "'J Moran'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Phill Shields'" >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; >> > <[email protected]> >> > Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 2:57 PM >> > Subject: RE: [LU] Crewe >> > >> > >> >> But presumably Bakke looked ok on 65mins when our last sub was used >> >> (Blake >> >> on for Lewis)? >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J Moran >> >>> Sent: 24 April 2006 14:26 >> >>> To: Phill Shields; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> Subject: Re: [LU] Crewe >> >>> >> >>> Total blame on Blackwell for that one. Bakke tried his nuts off firt >> >>> half >> >>> but is clearly lacking match fitness. >> >>> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> From: "Phill Shields" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> > Surprised no mention of Bakke doing an impression of a dog tied to >> a >> >>> 12 >> >>> > foot chain on centre circle for last 20 minutes of the game. >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> >>> administrators >> >>> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of >> >>> contributors. >> >>> Leedslist mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> >> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> administrators >> > accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of >> contributors. >> > Leedslist mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> > >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> administrators >> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >> Leedslist mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >> >> _______________________________________________ >> the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list >> administrators >> accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. >> Leedslist mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist > > _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
