Originally Posted by
SwanVsDalton
This team are tightrope walkers and not necessarily good ones - when they make it all the way to the other side, they look heroic. When they fall off, they look idiotic.
So many feelings on tonight but for some reason I can't stop thinking about those half-time subs and our consistent inability to implement any kind of plan B.
No-one may like plan A but we can surely all agree that it basically comes down to not conceding and nicking a goal.
Against Wales at home, we needed a plan B. Didn't have it.
Against Serbia at home, we need a plan B. Didn't have it.
Before tonight, it wouldn't have taken a genius to work out there was a realistic chance we would go in at half-time one goal behind and needing two. So O'Neill responds by taking off two workhorse, combative midfielders for two passers who can't tackle butter.
Now, I appreciate the gamble inherent in this move. But how can we move from one tactical extreme (compact shape, defensive mentality, physical intensity) to another (passers, players looking for space, possession and interplay)? How does that make sense? Who was going to win the ball for us to play with it? Hendrick, who looked gassed after 30 minutes? Brady playing (please for the last time ever) in deep central midfield?
I almost think O'Neill saw us own the ball for 10 minutes before half-time and thought Denmark would sit back and let us have it...
I don't buy the game was over after 45 minutes, although we had dug ourselves a nice comfy hole. I just wish we had an idea of how to respond to the foreseeable situation we found ourselves in.
Was a bit surprised with the first 45, just expected us to wrap up and wait for the second half to go for a goal. Instead it was more like Serbia - thrash and metal, physicality, bite, pressure. At least we went for it, but, as ever, needed so much more composure. The problem with revving these players up is they're all the more likely to overheat.