Mitch Clark
Re: Mitch Clark
Or could it be that after 63 minutes we had used all of our 10 substitutions????
Re: Mitch Clark
Fumper27 wrote:Or could it be that after 63 minutes we had used all of our 10 substitutions????
he used two by bringing Mitch on for 10 mins.
- corvusxiii
- Academy Player
- Posts: 226
- Joined: 28 Sep 2016, 19:52
- Location: Redhill.
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark
There is a definite trend here. Subs on the bench either playing short minutes or not at all. Can't do their confidence any good. If they are not good enough then why are they on the bench? I think this is a valid/reasonable question. Didn't see the match last night, but we'll done Huddersfield.
To finish last in the Tour de France, first you must finish.
Re: Mitch Clark
I would agree. Clark would have been more useful than Shenton or Ellis last night if we’d shuffled the team about and catered for it. Or, instead of Moors or Holmes even!
Daryl does have a problem some times I can’t work it out myself re the unused sub? It’s almost a disadvantage!
What is also very clear is that DP can’t talk well after a loss. He really struggles with his usual unflappability after a defeat. Watch.
Daryl does have a problem some times I can’t work it out myself re the unused sub? It’s almost a disadvantage!
What is also very clear is that DP can’t talk well after a loss. He really struggles with his usual unflappability after a defeat. Watch.
Audacter Et Sincere
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 86 guests