Updates from Harlow Match

[Simon BTFC]

Just a comment on the relative strengths of the teams: Harlow had 8 players in their starting XI that had started on saturday, as did we. Harlow had 2 players in their starting XI that had been on the bench on Saturday, as did we. Both sides had 1 player in the starting XI that didn't feature on the weekend. On that score it was pretty equal. Bet the manager wishes he had named a sub keeper though...

[jl]

Etchells and Frankis were only nominally on the bench. Neither was actually available to play.

 

It was thought that it might have been seen as a piss take sticking a keeper up field given the score. I think there is more benefit playing with 10 and trying to keep a clean sheet anyway - Let's face it that's a scenario we may have to deal with in the future....

[Barry_T]

"Etchells and Frankis were only nominally on the bench. Neither was actually available to play."

 

What does that mean?

If they weren't available to play they surely wouldn't have been named on the bench.

Why not name just 3 subs, or even get someone from the reserves to sit on the bench and not play?

 

Very odd.

 

 

[Pooch]

Maybe we didn't want to give our opponents a psychological advantage by knowing we were a bit light bench-wise?

 

Perhaps Jason & Grant were playing the Wenger/Ferguson mindgames

[Adam.S]

Originally Posted By: Barry_T

"Etchells and Frankis were only nominally on the bench. Neither was actually available to play."

What does that mean?
If they weren't available to play they surely wouldn't have been named on the bench.
Why not name just 3 subs, or even get someone from the reserves to sit on the bench and not play?

Very odd.

Etchells wasn't at the game, frankis was at the game but is currently getting over an injury, but should be back fit for the weekend. We had nobody else at the game to put on the bench.

[Rick the Dick]

Originally Posted By: jl

It was thought that it might have been seen as a piss take sticking a keeper up field given the score. I think there is more benefit playing with 10 and trying to keep a clean sheet anyway - Let's face it that's a scenario we may have to deal with in the future....

Perhaps we should have lent Jack to them

I did wonder if it was felt that a bit of practice at 10 versus 11, without too much pressure, may not be a bad thing.

All makes sense now that we know Frankis & Etchells weren't really available.

[Brightside Bloke]

Good tactics by the managers i'd say.

[Onthesidelines]

So,why wasn't Joe Flack and Sam West chosen to be in the squad?

[Adam.S]

Originally Posted By: Onthesidelines

So,why wasn't Joe Flack and Sam West chosen to be in the squad?

Because it could have been a risk to play Flacky, or they just wanted to save him and see how well he does in the reserves game, and maybe sam west was the same? Because he was playing in the reserves game, they didn't want him to play two nights in a row.

[Pooch]

I think Flacky was serving the 3rd of a three match suspension folling his red card at Concord.

[Adam.S]

Very true pooch, completely forgot about that, it seems so long ago.