Mariners v $ydney FC

[Bear]

I agree with the sub thing. Iv always believed Lawrie leaves it to late to make effect subs. Players need time to adapt to the flow of the game, and we dont have a Solskjaer on the bench we can chuck on and expect goals out of.

 

[goingtoadisco]

Thought lawrie should have made the subs earlier, but as a coach i understand thats much easier said after the game.

 

[Ursus]

Lots of brilliant coaches here. 

It's so easy with hindsight. 

 

[goingtoadisco]

But even at the game there was alot of people asking why lawrie wasnt making any subs. I dont think it was hindsight, i think that that sitting in the coaches seat on game day and making the big calls is alot different then sitting in the stands with a pie and beer.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Slagging Porter for being a kid starting out up against argueably the best MF in the comp is a bit harsh IMHO.

No, he didnt have the best of games but he was hardly on his own there. This was the 1st time he has looked out of his depth.

I have watched him for 2 seasons at Lightning now and he has enormous potential. Indeed, I would let him take our freekicks as he has scored some crackers. Cole.........pffft.

 

[Don]

had no room for pie and beer mostly chewing off my fingernails

 

[clarence]

Lots of brilliant coaches here. 

It's so easy with hindsight. 

Yeah well that's true Ursus, but Lawrie's had these guys training and playing all off season - which is a hell of a lot better than hindsight.

He has to accept, and we have to be fearless enough to say it too, that he stuffed up in putting Boogs on at LB.

I can see no good running around saying "In Lawrie we trust" and being one eyed about it when people in the stands were seeing Boogs pantsed time and again with a lack of speed.

A wiser choice may have been D'Apuzzo who has been playing LB. Boogs hasn't been playing due to injury, so it is clear that Lawrie had NO confidence in D'Apuzzo doing the job (and in fairness, young David had a hard time vs. Newcastle so confidence was an issue with him) and looked at who he had, who could defend. Boogs, however, didn't have the pace to do the job. And I can recall Lawrie putting Boogs in at RB last season early on, and having a similar result: not enough pace to play out wide in defence. Now if I can remember this, why couldn't Lawrie?

In centre midfield, Lawrie didn't have much choice. But the stange thing there is that the week previous he had Osman in from the start helping out in Centre midfield, but left Sasho running solo upfront.

So against Newcastle, Lawrie had concerns about holding down Centre midfield, but against Sydney (and Corica and Musialik) he didn't have the same concerns, or was more concentrated on getting Matt Simon on, and attacking?

Your argument about 20/20 hindsight, I feel, is negated by the fact that Lawrie picked these guys, he trains with them all week, he knows their physical condition and attitude leading into the match, and he appeared to make errors. We don't have all that info, yet there were murmurs right from the start when Boogs took up LB position.

And it was more mystifying when he didn't put Osman on at half time to strengthen up the centre midfield when it was obvious that Sydney were dominant there.

 

[Arabmariner]

beer.

Give some to Lawrie then he'll be an expert like the rest of us!!

 

[goingtoadisco]

beer.

Give some to Lawrie then he'll be an expert like the rest of us!!

Lol. Anyone know what he drinks ?

 

[clarence]

beer.

Give some to Lawrie then he'll be an expert like the rest of us!!

Lawries IS an expert, but maybe sometimes, he's too close to the action and his heart felt loyalty to the players to make calls early, and by doing so, call into question the competency of a player in the game.

 

[Don]

agree 100%

 

[dibo]

He has to accept, and we have to be fearless enough to say it too, that he stuffed up in putting Boogs on at LB.

He did accept it, and acted on it - he swapped Boogs and Bojic over and we looked *much* better.

 

[Bear]

Lots of brilliant coaches here. 

It's so easy with hindsight. 

Iv always thought Lawrie leaves subs to late, just that someone else brought it up and I agreed. Show me 10 times in the mariners history where Lawrie has made a sub in the 1st 65 minutes through tactic and not injury

 

[Ursus]

Lots of brilliant coaches here. 

It's so easy with hindsight. 

Bear the hindsight crack was not specifically addressed to the subs, but this thread in general.


Iv always thought Lawrie leaves subs to late, just that someone else brought it up and I agreed. Show me 10 times in the mariners history where Lawrie has made a sub in the 1st 65 minutes through tactic and not injury

 

[Ursus]

Lots of brilliant coaches here. 

It's so easy with hindsight. 

Yeah well that's true Ursus, but Lawrie's had these guys training and playing all off season - which is a hell of a lot better than hindsight.

He has to accept, and we have to be fearless enough to say it too, that he stuffed up in putting Boogs on at LB.

I can see no good running around saying "In Lawrie we trust" and being one eyed about it when people in the stands were seeing Boogs pantsed time and again with a lack of speed.

A wiser choice may have been D'Apuzzo who has been playing LB. Boogs hasn't been playing due to injury, so it is clear that Lawrie had NO confidence in D'Apuzzo doing the job (and in fairness, young David had a hard time vs. Newcastle so confidence was an issue with him) and looked at who he had, who could defend. Boogs, however, didn't have the pace to do the job. And I can recall Lawrie putting Boogs in at RB last season early on, and having a similar result: not enough pace to play out wide in defence. Now if I can remember this, why couldn't Lawrie?

In centre midfield, Lawrie didn't have much choice. But the stange thing there is that the week previous he had Osman in from the start helping out in Centre midfield, but left Sasho running solo upfront.

So against Newcastle, Lawrie had concerns about holding down Centre midfield, but against Sydney (and Corica and Musialik) he didn't have the same concerns, or was more concentrated on getting Matt Simon on, and attacking?

Your argument about 20/20 hindsight, I feel, is negated by the fact that Lawrie picked these guys, he trains with them all week, he knows their physical condition and attitude leading into the match, and he appeared to make errors. We don't have all that info, yet there were murmurs right from the start when Boogs took up LB position.

And it was more mystifying when he didn't put Osman on at half time to strengthen up the centre midfield when it was obvious that Sydney were dominant there.

Nothing is better than hindsight.

I would agree with starting Boogard as LB. Bojik at centre back has been outstanding. D'appuzo has been found wanting. Boogard is slow but was not a disaster when he played RB last season. With the swap things improved but more work is needed.

We now can see that Bojic can handle either position and have already hinted in an earlier post he may become a permanent fixture even with Heff back.

Sash on his own was not a success last week, we definitely needed 2 up front. There was no other choice but to move one position forward.

Ossie is a good right back and will play there when he can force Clarke out, he was lost in mids last week.

Maybe we can play him on the left and use Bojic as a stopper if Jedi is not fit.

Whatever, our back 4 have obviously been relying too heavily on Jedi.

Neither Porter nor Hutch could handle the requirements of the defence needed in the middle.

I would be interested to see how Porter would go as AM with Jedi behind him. Could be interesting.

 

[FFC Mariner]

Porters natural position is AM I believe??

433 soon becomes 451 unless you have a specialist target man. Saso is a poacher and has never been a target man.

Matty/Dylan could play that role and hold the ball up so that the wide guys support him. This failed dismally in the Olympics because we didnt play a target man and if the opposition presses the wide guys, you isolate the front man.

As we saw at the scumdome, if it degenerates to 451, you keep giving possession back and they have spare defenders to push up.

442 is what we do and IMHO we need to add some steel to DM ASAP. Bojic deserves a shot

 

[marinermick]

Paul Goodwin is a good journo and knows his football but what drugs was he on when chose Hutch and Cole in his 3-2-1?

http://spirit.webcity.com.au/AFN/2008-2009/R2/R2-CCvsSF.htm

 

[kevrenor]

Paul Goodwin is a good journo and knows his football but what drugs was he on when chose Hutch and Cole in his 3-2-1?

http://spirit.webcity.com.au/AFN/2008-2009/R2/R2-CCvsSF.htm

Lol.  Whatever they were dishing out in the gourmet sandwiches - I was in Bay 7 with Pete so we missed out.  :'(

Mate, I can't let go this opportunity to say you should have got gold with some your comments on radio - especially twice suggesting that Ben Williams was about to 'find any opportunity to even up the score' after the penalty. You 'podiumed', despite your team's fast footwork! 

 

[marinermick]

Paul Goodwin is a good journo and knows his football but what drugs was he on when chose Hutch and Cole in his 3-2-1?

http://spirit.webcity.com.au/AFN/2008-2009/R2/R2-CCvsSF.htm

Lol.  Whatever they were dishing out in the gourmet sandwiches - I was in Bay 7 with Pete so we missed out.  :'(

Mate, I can't let go this opportunity to say you should have got gold with some your comments on radio - especially twice suggesting that Ben Williams was about to 'find any opportunity to even up the score' after the penalty. You 'podiumed', despite your team's fast footwork! 

cheers, referees are fairly predictable in their inconsistencies

i won't be in brissy this week (parent's 50th wedding anniversary) and trent is back, so luke (bulldogmariner) is taking up the analyst reigns

 

[Capn Gus Bloodbeard]

That one always makes me laugh.

If he was so determined to 'even up the score', wouldn't he have just put down a penalty the other way?  There's enough physical challenges in the box that he had plenty of opportunity.