By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Calvin Andrew and Ian Henderson started the game at full-back, and Hill says the two players had his full trust to do that.Â
“I’m really pleased for the two players because they accepted the challenge. We had a chat then we worked on it during the week. They were 100-percent all in and that’s why I trusted them. They’ve been excellent.
“It won’t be my plan for the remainder of the season, but against today’s opposition, I thought it could have yielded and should have yielded more opportunities. But once Joe Rafferty gets sent off and we go down to 10 men, it’s an uphill challenge no matter who is playing at full-back, or elsewhere on the pitch. You’re just trying to fill a hole that’s constantly leaking."
But we had already conceded two goals before Rafferty was sent-off...
We were losing 2-1 at that point and by all accounts still in the game. By no means a disaster. Having said that, I'd rather that formation be resigned to the 'not again' box.
We were losing 2-1 at that point and by all accounts still in the game. By no means a disaster. Having said that, I'd rather that formation be resigned to the 'not again' box.
Other than not defending corners - there wasn't much wrong with the Charlton performance - certainly going forward we were a massive threat. It beggars belief really that Hill chose to totally rip up the team sheet when all that was needed was a tweak. Especially as Peterborough were missing key players and had just lost 1-4 in their previous game. Playing your 2 best attacking players at fullback? Lunacy.
Its a BRILLIANT goal to cap a BRILLIANT start by Rochdale - Don Goodman 26/08/10
Not as critical as Keith obviously (they won) but McCann hints that the ref wasn't the best either.
Well of course he is not the best. He wouldnt be reffing in the third tier if he was. Peterboroughs brains trust might reflect on the fact that the two teams on the field werent the best either.
We were losing 2-1 at that point and by all accounts still in the game. By no means a disaster. Having said that, I'd rather that formation be resigned to the 'not again' box.
I know we were losing 2-1 at that point - I was there - but Hill implied his formation was working even though we had conceded twice.
If I was him, I'd be more concerned that having got back into the game at 2-1, two of his players then got themselves sent-off within the next 15 minutes of play.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
Other than not defending corners - there wasn't much wrong with the Charlton performance - certainly going forward we were a massive threat. It beggars belief really that Hill chose to totally rip up the team sheet when all that was needed was a tweak. Especially as Peterborough were missing key players and had just lost 1-4 in their previous game. Playing your 2 best attacking players at fullback? Lunacy.
This is why I don't understand these words in his post-match interview:
“It won’t be my plan for the remainder of the season, but against today’s opposition, I thought it could have yielded and should have yielded more opportunities."
So what was so special about Peterborough that merited such a dramatic change in positions for two of our most offensive players? It makes no sense and will continue not to do so until we hear otherwise.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
I know we were losing 2-1 at that point - I was there - but Hill implied his formation was working even though we had conceded twice.
If I was him, I'd be more concerned that having got back into the game at 2-1, two of his players then got themselves sent-off within the next 15 minutes of play.
I don't think he implied the formation was working at all. He comments that the two players in question were ready for it, praises their professionalism, and then laments the fact that Rafferty's dismissal meant any formation would suffer.
I don't think he implied the formation was working at all. He comments that the two players in question were ready for it, praises their professionalism, and then laments the fact that Rafferty's dismissal meant any formation would suffer.
Hmm, I suppose it depends how his words are interpreted. Fact is Rafferty's dismissal came AFTER we had conceded twice with that formation.
When I was your age, I used to enjoy the odd game of tennis. Or was it golf?
I didn't hear him complaining too much when they beat us in January.
[Post edited 27 Feb 2017 19:31]
Can't appeal two yellows can you? Having seen it, the first challenge was very very reckless and the second was poor defending followed by him pulling the forward back.
Every Dale fan would have been claiming for the penalty that Gillingham got too.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.