- Jun 28, 2006
- 1,905
- 2,939
I could see no point in the selection of Werner as main striker. If it wasn't Solanke the only logical alternative was Lankshear.as Werner does not fit the profile of an Ange 9. We don't know if there were any concerns in the background though.And Lankshear? I expect he will be off to at least a league 1 club shortly.
Just sounds like a clutching at straws attempt at justification imo.
Look, there may be numerous reasons as to why he didn't use some of the younger players, and I expect those reasons probably have merit. As I have said had he not played the very poor Werner and Johnson for as long as he did I probably wouldn't be questioning it tbh, but he did, and there is no way the likes of Lankshear could have been any worse.
The rest of the selection was sound and stronger than I anticipated.
The fact that the midfield and front three were ineffective, showed no desire, no inspiration or determination was a major concern (I could excuse Moore as first game back, but needs to be accountable too).
It was almost as if they expected it to turn but without actually doing anything to make it happen.
To me Ange always knew he could throw on the big guys to tidy up the mess but i believe what he was trying to do was make those on the pitch more responsible and see who would stand up and make the difference.
The answer was unfortunately no-one - he had to make the changes he didn't want to do because no-one was prepared to come out of their comfort zone.
Also believe if the game had been 90 minutes and replay then those big changes would have been around the hour mark - extra time gave starting XI longer to put things right.
I don't believe it was a step back for Ange, but it was for the players who could not affect the game - limitations exposed again.