Would you have benched Colin Samuel?

[whayuhsay]

OK, I know Beenie is regarded as a God around here but seriously, if we had a different result yesterday (losing, not winning), allyuh would ah be questioning every move Beenie made. 

I personally thought Colin Samuel was one of the better players in the first half, what was the reasoning for taking him off, considering that as great as me Mum is, Birchal was not having his best game?

[Rastaman]

All the other midfielders are better defensively. It was sad because he possed a great threat but at the end of the day somebody had to be sacrificed.....
As regards to Birchall, good game or not, Samuel cannot play in his position.

Answer this question....Who else would you have taken off and why ?

[whayuhsay]

Colin Samuel would not have been subbed, I would have taken off Birchal or Theobold....

[whayuhsay]

Padnah, relax yuh arse nah, I do not agree with benching Samuel, do I have a right to question Beenie's move?

Yuh sounding like a jackarse, I am not criticizing the team, I am asking a question, relax yuh phu*uing self!

Steeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeups, how do you really come up with these posts. You just think of ways to antagonize forumites. YOu should behappy for the out come, you know what even if had lost and the fellahs still play as well as they did I would still be proud of them.

The is what if BS does not belong here..............

[g]

Colin Samuel would not have been subbed, I would have taken off Birchal or Theobold....

In context to the state of the game all what really happened was replacing an attacking position with a player with a fresh pair of legs, samuel did plenty running down the left, he did really well. Bringing on Glen allowed for Sweeden to maintain a 4 man back line keeping another player from joining the attack and putting the defense under more pressure. Also look at how it changed our tactical approach instead of stern trapping and laying back onto a overworked midfield Glen actually played in front of Stern making runs behind the backline. Giving the defense and midfield a chance to catch a breath.

With respect to the Birchall and Theobald, remember that center of midfield is a much more crucial part of the field and Beenie made the right change in bringing on Whitley who is a bit better defensively than Theobald and can still join the attack when needed. Birchall is a workhorse and will play 90 mins everygame once fit. Sometimes grit and determination will count more in these types of situations.

You entitled to your opinion though, 

[Rastaman]

OK OK lets not get carried away here. The man ask a valid question it is up to us to answer the question properly or not at all.

But you ent anwer my whole question. You say Birchall or Theobald, Why

[UK_Soca_warrior]

In my honest opinion, you could not bench Birchall because he has that tigerish play in midfield. Take him out, unless he's tired or having an absolute stinker, and you risk loosing that bite in midfeild.

he may not have had his best game, but hey, it was world cup match 1, da real deal, and it was fast tempo sweden team he was playing. much like Czech. So he had to work like a horse to stop them the best way he could. He did his best.

And I think Beenie made smart moves, because in the end, his subs worked. We got the result we wanted with the circumstances.

[richpy]

OK, I know Beenie is regarded as a God around here but seriously, if we had a different result yesterday (losing, not winning), allyuh would ah be questioning every move Beenie made.

I personally thought Colin Samuel was one of the better players in the first half, what was the reasoning for taking him off, considering that as great as me Mum is, Birchal was not having his best game?

Ah see wha yuh saying boss, but I think we have to stick with  Birchall because of his great defensive positioning. It was frustrating to see him givaway simple passes, but he had a poor game possession-wise. If Spanner was there, then we might have had another option to him. Or maybe there is someone you have in mind for that spot?