Comments on: The infamous Nottingham Bottlers gift Leicester the win…

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:35:55 +0000

Apologies Dave, that last sentence didn’t quite read how it sounded in my head ! What I meant was that Forest have a tendancy to concede late goals which has been prevelent for the last few seasons and that cannot be always down to substitutions. The late goals we conceded on Tuesday night had nothing (IMO) to do with substitutions, it was mistakes by the players, they have to hold their hands up and accept responsibility.

By: dave

dave — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 09:04:49 +0000

Paul,

Which was the last game when we made no subs?

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:36:14 +0000

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. If Calderwood had not made the substitutions, and Leicester had scored due to a visibly tiring Lennon and a limping Tyson missing a tackle etc - he would have been slaughtered !
The players need to cope with changes and see games out. The substitutions were the correct thing to do at the time - and the majority of managers would have done the same. Saying we were winning and could of held is a classic - how many time have we seen Forest concede late goals without substitutions !

By: Forest Forest

Forest Forest — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:04:36 +0000

Re: Lennon and Tyson.

Fair enough, Lennon is 36, poor old thing. But we fielded the strongest team we could, which means we were going for the win in the cup, over the game next Saturday. If the game’s so important then we need our midfield boss, even if he then needs a rest on Saturday. Replacing him ruined the balance, and let Leicester back in. Fact. If he absolutely had to be replaced, then why Perch? Is he a holding midfielder? Not so’s I’ve noticed.

Tyson could have done 4 more minutes, surely? If not, why replace him with Holt who is always:
a. offside
b. fouling or diving
c. moaning to the ref

…when we had Emile Sinclair on the bench who is much fater than Holt, and could have occupied Leicester’s (tired) defenders, and made them stay back.

I applaud the fact that the subs were more positive than usual, but the tactical nous is just way off the mark. It was positive on paper, but anyone could see that Perch is not a like-for-like replacemement for Lennon. So you therefore have to change the style of play, right? It would have actually made more sense to play 4-5-1 and close out the game, even though it’s more negative. What ifs don’t get us anywhere, however.

Barrow Red and mattyboy: I may seem negative, but it is precisely because I thought we DID play well that I am so frustrated that we threw it away. The first game was ours for the taking, if it had finished, and last night I thought the team put in a good night’s work. I think Leicester shaded it on play/chances, but we weren’t far behind - very creditable given our relative positions, and the squad that the Foxes have. And we WERE winning, and could have held on.

Hindsight’s a wonderful thing, but as I said before, you could feel the doubts when Lennon went off, and it could only go downhill once Holt was on.

By: Pete

Pete — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:22:54 +0000

a good report of the game, however i disagree with 2 points.
1. Agogo man of the match, well he looks good once or twice during the game, but is far too slow witted, and cant seem to read the game at all. he is undoubtedly quick but is unable to react quick enough to situations. grant holt may be slower, but is far better at influencing a game and reading situations.
2. calderwood - it seems harsh to blame him for two sensible substitutions , with a 36 year old who has played every league game and played on saturday, and tyson who ran his arse off and has only just got back from injury.
the reason we lost this game is the loss of possession from the short corner! then leicester equalise from this loss of possession, and it just gave the hangover from THAT yeovil game another chance to rear its ugly head!
I’m sure that forest will go up at the end of this season once evryone is fit and the hangover has wore off. I agree though it needs to wear off quick!
Keep up the good work on the website!

By: mattyboy

mattyboy — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:30:35 +0000

Sorry chaps, the nurse gave me the wrong pills.

Calderwood out.

By: mattyboy

mattyboy — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:28:42 +0000

We were bloody unlucky last night. Individual errors cost us the game, together with a lack of clinical quality upfront.
Smith, who has saved us so many times, misjudged the free-kick (which incidentally never was - we were turned down an identical free-kick moments earlier). And the second goal…once again it was left to Sammy to make a last ditch tackle in the left back position and the ball popped out to be snaffled by a Leicester player. The resultant shot was spilt by Smith. I know, I was sat right behind him, and he knew it too. Shame, because he has been our best player so far this season.

I sort of understand the criticism of the substitutions, but as I recall nobody complained when the board was held up? And what the fuck was all the booing about at the end?? We were unlucky. We outplayed a Championship side for long spells in the game, particularly after the goal which was pleasing.

I don’t like or really rate Calderwood, but for the sake of our Club I now think we need to keep him for the next few games at least, and build on some of the recent performances as his signings all come good.

By: Aylesbury Red

Aylesbury Red — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:10:29 +0000

Lo and behold, Tyson linked with loan move to Leicester. Didn’t see that one coming did we Kieran?! Let’s hope that Tyson is one of the dressing room that didn’t like Mugson!

http://www.nottinghamforest-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=354076

By: Barrow Red

Barrow Red — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:36:57 +0000

….so we did play well then? Judging by some of the rubbish written here, you would have thought we had lost to Hucknall 5-0, not outplay for long periods a Championship side that frankly were made to look second best for the majority of the game.

There was not one Forest player who played badly last night, and the reason we lost is not the manager but the fact our players are not clinical enough in front of goal. You see them practice before the start of each match and even then only get 50% of the shots on target. That just about sums it up and is the main reason we continue to struggle to get out of Division 1.

Forest created chances galore last night, 15 opportunities according the Post. We only actually managed to score one proper goal out of 15 attempts. THAT is the real reason we lost.

Having said all of that, I do think the impact substitutions have on a match are a good indicator for the quality of the manager. It is rare for Calderwood to be able to make a positive substitution and I do agree that we were under so little pressure at the time last night that both substitutions appeared unnecessary.

However, as someone who now only goes to the home games, I must say that there is no comparison between the way we are playing now to how we were playing 12 months ago (even though we were somehow getting results this time last year). Both Leicester games and the Leeds match have shown real positives for the rest of the season. If we play like that against Gillingham, you would think we should win comfortably.

It is too early to panic and whilst last night’s mirroring of the Yeovil capitulation is worrying, it is something I do believe the team will get over.

By: Mansfield Red

Mansfield Red — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:34:58 +0000

we were unlucky to lose, simple as that.

i thought we played well