But we definitely went for it. Why change it like that otherwise?

There's an argument to be had that taking Tettey off meant they ran through us, but people would've b***hed like hell had an attaching player came off for an attacking player - you know they would.

Posted By: Yellalee on October 19th 2013 at 17:27:58

Message Thread

Interesting from Michael Bailey.. (NCFC) - loz, Oct 19, 17:24:55
- Why wait until we are losing (NCFC) - Pragmatist, Oct 19, 17:27:26
  - There's two teams on the pitch though... (NCFC) - Yellalee, Oct 19, 17:29:00
- i don't recall many efforts after we scored tbh (NCFC) - SCC 28, Oct 19, 17:25:47
  - But we definitely went for it. Why change it like that otherwise? (NCFC) - Yellalee, Oct 19, 17:27:58
    - He loses either way (NCFC) - norway, Oct 19, 17:30:06
      - Yep, indeed. (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Oct 19, 17:30:28
    - no problem with going for it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Oct 19, 17:29:30
  - Not about that though point is.. (NCFC) - loz, Oct 19, 17:27:05
    - they dominated the early stages too (NCFC) - SCC 28, Oct 19, 17:28:38
      - Yeah disappointing from Redmond, considering the effect he had against Chelsea. (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Oct 19, 17:30:01
      - Well fox Bailey disagrees to be fair (n/m) (NCFC) - loz, Oct 19, 17:30:01
        
        Well he has an opinion, as do we all (n/m) (NCFC) - Yellalee, Oct 19, 17:31:10

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.