Andy_W
Well-known member
I don't think it was so much that it coincided with McGree going off, I think it was more down to us being knackered as a team, largely in the middle, but suppose McGree does drop in there too, and was knackered.Did you notice that , once again, when he was taken off in the second half, we got pushed further and further back into our own box and looked under growing pressure?
Coincidence?
Like I said a few weeks ago, our system and ultimate success lies on McGree and his link up play.
McGree was good though, he's a good player in that 10 role, but if we're resorting to launching it up, then it won't suit McGree's game, it would have possibly suited someone more like Hoppe or Forrss if we needed a goal. Watmore is more like for like I suppose, which made sense, given we were 1-0 up.
McGree could have been more clinical with his other chances, but I'll let him off as he did well with the one he scored, especially after the touch by their player. His first touch to make that chance was exceptional, as was Giles ball in to him.
Last edited: