An improved performance in a number of ways, but another defeat. A real shame, according to Antti Heinola who thought QPR could have won, but still aren’t creative enough going forwards.
Personally, I had no problem with the selection of this first XI. I know some felt we needed to go for it and we had a real chance of progressing, and I agree. But I also think the team showed that it was good enough to have won this game - and probably should have won it. But it's important to note that we are in the middle of a run that has us playing seven games in just 21 days. Smithies, Onuoha, Chery, Henry and Bidwell were the main players rested - all probably needed it and I have no complaints whatsoever about that.
I thought the defence did pretty well (more on that in a moment) without the two regulars, and I'd have liked to see Chery on earlier, but other than that, it was a decent side. Might we have won with three or four of those five in from the start? Maybe. But I'm not totally convinced, because I think their replacements, with the exception of El Khayati, did a decent job. And if you're not going to play your young players that you believe deserve a chance and need experience now, then when?
First of all, the positives. I was really impressed by both these players - particularly Kakay. Both looked strong, had good pace, weren't overawed, weren't afraid to take risks or bomb forward and, crucially, looked very comfortable in possession. It's only one game, but I'm wondering if the decision to let Furlong go out on loan might be because they feel Kakay could be a better prospect. Thought they both did really well.
However, it has to be said that the two goals were at least partly down to them. With the first, Kakay didn't track McNair and let him run off his shoulder (although Kakay might also note that Sandro should have done better in covering). And with the second, Hamalainen had allowed the winger a little too much space. Fans tend to get angry when a crossfield ball sees a full back scrabbling to make up ground and claim they've been 'sucked in', but of course, a back four has to remain compact - it would be suicide for a full back to leave a big gap between himself and his centre back. Still, there was too much space there. Bidwell may have just had the extra experience to head off that threat, who knows? But they'll learn and I was really heartened by the fact two of our youngsters played against a Premier League side and never looked out of place.
Quick word on Lynch. I was surprised about how good he was on the ball. I've not seen him play much, but assumed he'd be more of a battering ram, but he controlled the ball well and also played some nice passes. Much has been spoken of Caulker's form, but perhaps it's Hall that needs a bit of a rest. I'd like to see Lynch given a run - he has experience and leadership qualities and, crucially, gets his head on the bloody ball.
We did concede two goals, both preventable, but overall Sunderland didn't create a huge amount and I thought for the most part we defended reasonably well.
I listened to the JFH podcast on the way to the game, and I'm in full agreement on not picking Sandro. It amazes me that this player who is taking a huge wedge from the club, who in two years has played less decent games for us than I have fingers, who rarely completes a full 90 minutes, who has expressed a desire to leave, who therefore doesn't want to play for the club, is used as a stick with which to beat Hasselbaink. Sandro is a symbol of everything that was wrong with QPR.
Having said all that, he did play well for an hour or so last night, before, of course, blowing through his arse for the last 20 minutes, because he is never fit. But he did play well. He showed heart, strength, willing and was a definite improvement on Karl Henry, however unmerited some of the criticism of Henry might be. Perhaps crucially, he really seemed to help Cousins, who I thought probably had his best game for us. He won a lot of the ball and got himself next to and beyond El Khayati several times in the game - a marked contrast to the Blackburn match, for example. Whether that was down to JFH encouraging him to get forward, or because he felt safer with Sandro sweeping behind him, I don't know. But it was definitely a more solid, faster, stronger centre of the midfield.
And, just to show how much I know, I remarked to my neighbour at one stage in the first half after a clumsy foul that Sandro must be the least Brazilian Brazilian since Dunga. And then he scores that wonderful scissor kick. Really special, that. Perhaps he may keep his place for Saturday, who knows? In my view, I'd still use him sparingly. If he plays and plays well and gets a transfer in January, we'll be in this situation again in a few months. Better to use Borysiuk or Luongo.
Still early days, but I was impressed. When we play 4-2-3-1 with Washington there's lots of chat about how isolated he is. And that's true - the wingers and the number 10 and even a central midfielder need to get closer to him. But we saw last night what a difference a better target man makes. Sylla held the ball well. He shielded it. He got in front of his man and brought it down on his chest at least 5 or 6 times, which gave the team *time* to get closer to him. Therefore, the formation worked a lot better. Sylla didn't look isolated. Washington looked a lot happier playing facing the goal. Cousins had time to show support. Wszolek made himself available.
Now, the downside was it still didn't result in us looking massively dangerous going forward, but it was better. And here I'm with Jimmy again. Just because something isn't working properly after a few games, you don't need to abandon it. If you believe in it, what you need to do is get the players to make it work. And it did work better last night. Sadly, we needed our wingers to ping some decent crosses in for Sylla, but he barely got a good cross all night. That needs work when he's playing. And it might also improve with Chery behind him rather than El Khayati.
I found the criticism of JFH's podcast chat a bit baffling if I'm honest, with his words twisted to fit a particular narrative. He didn't say he would never play 4-4-2 - in fact, he said he may well play that way later in the season. But his point was correct - Chery is our best player at the moment and rather than sacrifice him, the wingers and the midfield need to learn their jobs better and give him the support to make the system work. I hope we saw the beginning of that last night and hopefully that will develop further in the coming games.
I've also seen a lot of criticism of Jimmy failing to react quickly enough to the triple substitution. Possibly a fair point, but let's look at it. In my view, this was a panicky move by Moyes. In his mightily relieved interview after the game he may have claimed that Sunderland didn't deserve to be a goal down, but at best this was a very even game that we had the slight upper hand in. If you think your team is doing as well as he implied, you don't make a triple sub in the 69th minute.
McNair equalised a minute later. I'm not quite sure how Jimmy was supposed to have reacted to a triple sub in that time, but the goal came because, as outlined above, Kakay didn't follow his man and Sandro wasn't alert to the encroaching danger, not because of some masterplan by Moyes.
But fair enough, people may be talking about what happened afterwards. Polter for Sylla was not imaginative and I think there was a case for having both on here, particularly as El Khayati was not threatening as a number 10 anyway, so ould have been sacrificed. But still, it wasn't as if Sunderland were blowing us away. The game was still in the balance - plus, he had extra time to have in the back of his mind. Sunderland had all their cards on the table. It might just pay to stick for a few minutes and assess. Luongo went on to stiffen things up and add some dynamism (which he did - brilliantly, I thought - he looked very hungry), just before their winner came. So Jimmy did react. Was it too slow? Possibly. I would have had Chery and Luongo on quicker personally, but I could still see his thinking.
And this is where I differ from a lot of fans: JFH may well have been wrong to hold back on subs by a possibly crucial 5 minutes. But that doesn't make him clueless. In his mind he is looking at the situation and trying to decide what he thinks will work best. Moyes gambled because he had to. You could argue Moyes reacted late because we were one up before he did anything - although his shake-up did work. Coaches are not puppet masters who control every movement a player has, every decision they make. They can influence things, and subs are of course vital. So, with hindsight, yes, I'd have had subs on slightly earlier, but I don't blame JFH for waiting to see how Moyes' subs worked before making his own changes, especially when you're only 15 minutes from extra time.
Pictures — Action Images