| Defence 05:15 - Mar 12 with 1645 views | davman |
So GA may be more direct, but with this defence and this midfield whose passing qualities are clearly questionable, it is a good move. Tactically, however, he has already done what Beale and Critchley seemed to be blind to.
Yes, the change to three was a fairly obvious change to see and he justified it post match as shutting down the gaps in the defence, but it was so much more - Dickie and Dunne need to be in a three at the back; Kakay and Drewe much better as wing backs (as are Laird and Paal (if we ever see either of them again...).
But the stand out thing for me was the engagement at the back. Our defence (and Dozzell in the midfield) were right up close as soon as they got the ball. That physical contact wound Watford's millionaires up no end. On the occasion the Watford player wriggled free there was someone chasing back, backing their mate up.
And how we celebrated every little win on the pitch, especially at the back was joyous.
So, when GA says he worked on the defence, yep he sure did.
Yesterday was the bar this lot need to judge themselves by; let's see if they can follow that up away from home on Tuesday... |  |
| |  |
| Defence on 07:52 - Mar 12 with 1490 views | QPR_Jim |
Agreed, I noticed that too except second half they seemed to fade and struggle to get as tight and close down as well. |  | | |
| Defence on 09:27 - Mar 12 with 1313 views | davman |
| Defence on 07:52 - Mar 12 by QPR_Jim |
Agreed, I noticed that too except second half they seemed to fade and struggle to get as tight and close down as well. |
That is always the problem with such tactics. Need Ainsworth / Holloway levels of fitness to keep it up after 90, although 5 subs should help... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
