LFW’s resident coach Neil Dejyothin is back for the new season with his chalkboard and critical eye to delve deeper into the tactics of the weekend’s action. A lovely 5-0 home defeat for QPR for him to start with.

Catalogue of failings

First of all I think a poor selection of pre-season opposition contributed to what happened here. We looked ill-prepared.

The tour of Asia was for commercial purposes rather than footballing ones, and while I get the whole idea of playing weaker sides to allow your team to gel and give them time on the ball, an approach that Neil Warnock uses himself, you can only do that for one or two matches tops. In the matches we won at a canter we were literally walking the ball into the net and having two or three men in positions to roll the ball home.

That kind of workout doesn't do you any favours in defence or attack. It doesn't allow your team an opportunity to try and pry and work their way properly through a defence, nor does it give them a chance to turn that defence around and get behind them. It's just too easy.

Similarly for the defence, there's no real opportunity to work on team shape. You are barely pressed or put under any pressure and the opposition struggle to hold any decent possession of the ball. Even the Wycombe friendly saw very little pressure put on us as a team, so the complete collapse when Swansea were able to do those things and put us under pressure did not surprise me.

I knew Augsburg would cause us problems, because the Germans are so tactically efficient, but we struggled to even get into their half last week, and they exposed us really easily at the back. That was the first indication and I had a feeling and told many that I thought this was a really dangerous match for us and we'd find out very quickly where we were. I hoped what happened on Saturday wouldn't be the case, but deep down I had my suspicions.

I didn't think we had a lot of pattern play going forward. We did create some nice moments and hold possession well, but it wasn't very team based. It was all individuals reacting to what was in front of them.

From there, whenever we lost the ball, you could really see the problems. Our reaction to change over in possession, both when we'd won the ball back or lost it, was very slow and you could see most players didn't realise where they should be going or who they should be tracking. By contrast, Swansea's players each knew their roles and responsibilities both in defence and attack, as well as on the counter. Once they had us on the ropes it was really easy for them to finish us off and they did so beautifully. And despite the experience we’ve added to the squad, we were so naive.

In addition to that, we've played the ball on the deck all pre-season, but as soon as you saw correct pressure applied, or us face a team that knows how to hold its shape and reduce passing angles and choice, our players reverting to some aimless punts up the pitch.

We were very open and part of that problem was down to the way we tried to deal with Michel Vorm. Whenever he had possession of the ball in his hands, or from a goal kick, we moved and pressed high up against their defenders. Clearly the plan was to force them to go long and see if we could win it, but when Vorm decided not to go short, not only did we lose those battles, but we never contracted and retreated back into shape quickly enough and at times were incredibly spread out across the pitch.

Our recoveries were way too slow. The heat probably played a part, but it was the same story for every changeover of possession. When we got hit on the counter, we were too open and not determined enough to chase back and get back into position. Strangely this also affected us when we won the ball and had the opportunity to counter ourselves. Usually players have no hesitation in bombing forward, but we were always a bit too slow and therefore suffocated our own play before we got started.

Then we've had this situation with Robert Green. There's no hiding place for him right now because his mistake has cost us the match. The last thing you want to do is go behind to a cheap goal in that kind of heat, and unfortunately for Green he's had a bit of a nightmare start to his QPR career. He's looked nervous and jittery for most of the pre-season matches I've seen him play in and I can't work out why. There's no reason for him to be, or to lack confidence.

I am also concerned by his distribution. The way he throws the ball so forcefully at some of our players without paying respect to their body shape is alarming. He must be under instruction to do this, but if he continues, we’ll end up conceding possession in dangerous areas of the pitch. Right now it looks like he needs some experienced and commanding centre-backs in front of him, because otherwise he's going to put himself under an extraordinary amount of pressure so early on. I hope it's just a blip for him and as fans, we do need to try and get behind him and help him through.

Finally, Mark Hughe has to take responsibility for this massacre and reflect on his own decision making on the day. He highlighted how poor some of the decisions his players made on the pitch, but his announcement of the captain, team selection and substitutions all raised eyebrows for me.

Is it wise to name your captain one hour before kick off? If you really wanted it, and weren't chosen, or felt the man who got the nod wasn't the best choice, would you be aggrieved? It could have unsettled some players. It could have affected their focus.

I liked the look of the starting eleven on paper, but I didn't think it was fair that having missed a chunk of pre-season that Samba Diakité was put straight into the side. Player equality is important, so those who have done the work and played matches that didn't get the nod would have felt some unfairness about that. It also hints that Hughes doesn't have faith in some of those players.

And then there was the substitutions. None of them had any impact in a positive manner and in fact, it seemed to make us worse. Why did he play Shaun Wright-Phillips at right-back? I know the game was lost, but it just made a real mess of what was already a shambles and we were very fortunate not to lose by more than five. You can’t really complain that we were so gung-ho when you’ve made such a change and have Fabio out on the other side and Adel Taarabt in the middle.

I am concerned that after all this time, we still see these kind of performances and drubbings. It should not happen to you against sides of a similar stature, especially at home on your own turf and these kind of performances can't be a coincidence. We took some battering’s last year that I was bitter about, but considering the circumstances you could forgive and forget. But this one was pretty unforgivable given the amount of time we've had to prepare for it.

The performance was littered with structural problems, tactical problems, and individual problems and seeing players like Nedum Onuoha give the ball away in the manner he did for Swansea’s fifth was mind blowing - it was more like Sunday League standard.

You don’t see that kind of error at professional level that often. He’d made up his mind to pass infield into a dangerous area long before he actually performed the pass. That requires extra care, but he made the mistake of not thinking about how the picture might change between the time he turned on the ball to the time he decided to play it, and made the cardinal sin of also not looking before he passed and was caught cold, despite having plenty of time.

We seem to lack an identity at the moment and a personality on the pitch in terms of our style of play, but perhaps that's normal after yet another transfer window where we've added so many players.

Taarabt’s new role

If we look at our midfield and forward set up from the tail end of last season and place it against the Swansea set up from Saturday (first diagram), Taarabt still would have had space to operate in and get one on one with Rangel if we’d played in that shape again, even with De Guzman and Chico added to a new Swansea system. Instead we played him centrally and deep (second diagram) where he found traffic ahead of him when he had the ball, and Dyer and co willing to exploit is lack of tracking when he didn’t.

I didn't really understand why Taarabt played as a central midfield player. I actually thought he played okay in there, apart from not tracking back for Nathan Dyer's goal, which was really poor on his part, but you want Taarabt further up the pitch. You want him out wide on the left, in a one-on-one situation with Rangel or somewhere high up in and around the striker where he can be really dangerous and effective when he's on the ball.

Djibril Cissé was really isolated as a result and we never saw any player bursting beyond or alongside him. Therefore there was no opportunity to stretch the play and Cissé himself had no opportunity to play on the shoulder of his markers, and instead, had to come short with his back to goal and that's just not his game. Whenever Taarabt had the ball in midfield, every time he looked up and tried to make a pass, it almost looked like he was looking to pass to himself, to where you would expect him to be. We never played with this set-up at all in pre-season, much like we never played Shaun Wright-Phillips at right-back or even 4-5-1 in this way.

Changes for Norwich

Just back to basics. After a performance like that, you've got to reboot and start over.

There's no reason to panic and the situation is more than recoverable. It's all about just trying to get at least a point on board going into the Manchester City and Chelsea games, because if we play anything like we did here against those two, we will be in serious trouble and see similar score lines. Those two tough matches will provide us with the perfect competitive opportunity to put team defensive work into practice, so we will improve on that account even if we are beaten and that will bode well in the future.

It will be a real blow to lose to Norwich though. That really would be a confidence drainer having seen them get thumped at the weekend as well, so let's start on solid ground and rely on our experience. I'd start Bosingwa at right-back, Ryan Nelsen in the centre with Anton Ferdinand and move Clint Hill to left-back. If we need a bit more pace or power, we can call on Nedum Onuoha or Fabio during the game. Of course, I wrote this before the news emerged that we’re trying to sign Michael Dawson and Ricardo Carvalho, so if any of those arrive, expect to see them shoved straight in there.

I'd also go for two up top here, Cissé and Bobby Zamora. They played together last season and that continuity is important. Andrew Johnson can stretch the play if needed, and we can either move Adel Taarabt to one of the wings at the expense of one of the wide men, or start him from the bench.

Tweet @loftforwords, @neildejyothin

Pictures – Action Images

Photo: Action Images

QPR4Me added 20:44 - Aug 22 It all went wrong because Mark Hughes spent 7 months looking at a defence that all of us knew was totally incapable, yet he did nothing about it. WTF did he get that OBE for? Certainly not for being an Observant and Brainy Erbert!!
0

NZHoopster added 22:45 - Aug 22 Neil, another fine article and bang on the button. I know last season we were woefully short of experience on the pitch but Sparkie seems to be building sides just to stay in the Premiership for that season. With or without Sparkie at the helm I believe there is enough talent on the pitch to stay up but I'm not sure we'll be inspirational and entertaining to watch. JH was clearly our best player on the day as well as SD, even Tarbs played ok albeit he still needs to work on his defensive attributes. The defense was shocking and I think AF was poor. To think that he could have been our club captain makes me shiver as he did nothing to take control of a worsening situation. Park didn't lead either which makes me think that Sparkie got this appointment oh so wrong. A good captain should make the players shake at the knees if they mess up, they should inspire and coordinate, I didn't see any of those qualities from Park. I wonder if appointing Park will have a negative effect by not letting him play his natural game where someone else might actually grow with that responsibility. I hope last weekend was just a bad day at the office and we will see a renewed vigor and cohesion against the cookery team. I don't particularly care if we lose as long as we start gelling and building for the long season ahead. Headless chickens isn't a good look and TF will lose patience with Sparkie if the team doesn't perform. He is a true businessman who will make tough decisions regardless of who our manager is. Finally SRP works well in a team with space and counter attacking prowess, we don't do either so loan/sell him and get a stronger play maker instead. Sorry but my 8 year old son is stronger on the ball. Come on U Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr's.

0

TacticalR added 23:22 - Aug 22 Nice one Neil. A post-mortem is definitely necessary after a defeat of this magnitude, although perhaps Hughes doesn't think so, as it seems his solution is to buy a new defence! After our great home form at the end of last season, there suddenly seems to be a huge question mark over Hill, Ferdinand and Onuoha. Hughes's plan on Saturday may have been for Hoilett and Mackie to stay out wide and deliver crosses to Cissé. At one point Cissé was clearly telling Mackie to stay out wide and cross the ball, so I don't know if that was that really was the 'the plan', or that was just what Cissé wanted Mackie to do. In answer to one question you raised, Taarabt may have been moved inside to accomodate Hoilett, who also cuts in from the left. Taarabt ended up in a sort of playmaker role, with absolutely everything going through him. I like seeing Taarabt on the ball, but not everything should go through him. He's not a Gheorghe Hagi (or Faurlin) who circulates the ball. Having said that, early in the match he was spraying some nice passes out to Fabio on the left. After all the running around he was doing I am not surprised he didn't track back with Dyer. Agree that a lot of players didn't seem to know their roles were, or couldn't adjust to do what was necessary during the match. I am not sure what Park's position was, but he seemed to be trying to get forward at every opportunity, ending up on the right wing a couple of times in the first half. Wasn't he supposed to be the defensively disciplined one? As the match went on we were wide open in midfield, and this made the defence look even worse than it was. We really could have done with someone in the Sean Derry role, even if it's not Sean Derry. One thing that this match had in common with the match at Chelsea was that Swansea let the ball do the work, by running off the ball and passing through us at the right moment. I do wonder if one of the dangers of players like Taarabt who hold on to the ball is that they can paralyse the rest of the team, which has to wait for them to release the ball, and has to be prepared to go back if the ball is lost.

0

Kaos_Agent added 03:01 - Aug 23 TacticalR you may be right about Taarabt. Love his skills but he has to complete passes and finish offensive opportunities. I pretty much expect 50/50 that he will do neither, and I wonder if his mates think so too.
0

Neil_SI added 06:21 - Aug 23 Thanks NZHoopster. There is certainly enough talent in the side. I'm not sure I agree with our transfer policy or the strategy to build the side, but I guess they see worth in a lot of short term pain for long term game. It's important Hughes and the backroom staff show their worth in terms of their ability to coach and educate though. If they are good enough, they can teach the players and improve them whatever their age. Sometimes I think they lack belief of faith in their own ability to do this and will happily sign another player to see if they are the finished article instead. I don't mind that Park is the captain, but I just found the timing of the announcement strange and unhelpful to the squad. We don't have a stereotypical leader and sadly we do have a lot of characters at the minute who are only to happy to shirk responsibility when things get tough. The positive is that it's easy to regroup and get back to basics. Hughes' sides know how to do the whole two banks of four and be hard to beat. He managed to do that with a decence last season that was poorer on paper, so he can do it again.

0

Neil_SI added 07:17 - Aug 23 TacticalR - Cheers. I think they've always been looking to address the defence, but shouldn't have allowed it to take until now in order to do so. They've had long enough to ask those questions and find out the answers about the defence. But needs must, it does need to improve and markedly. The only real plan I saw on Saturday was the way we dealt with Michel Vorm and pressed high up the pitch and man-to-man with Swansea's defenders. But we never dealt with the phases or context of play whenever they reacted to that and that caused us lots of problems. I sometimes got the impression that Taarabt and Park were in each others space, both wanting to do similar things on the ball or go into similar positions. And it's fine to move Taarabt inside, even fine to have him more withdrawn, but if anybody needed to burst forward and provide support from central areas, it should have been him and more often. Had he got on the ball in that area between defence and midfield, he'd have been in some great positions. Cissé could only play basic balls backwards whenever he received it in the hole, and whenever he did, there was a lack of movement from our lot. In contrast, there was one key moment in the second half when Swansea lumped the ball forward and Michu ran to contest it in the air. He was all alone and surrounded by several QPR players and the only ball he could possibly play was to Nathan Dyer some way back on the wing or to try to go it alone. I wondered briefly if he would, and he disguised his jump beautifully and at the last minute he played it into the space for Dyer to burst onto, which he timed to perfection - well coached and players who understood what to do in any given situation. We'd have given it away in the same situation. I think Fabio has been instructed to bomb forward and attack. But by the same token when talking about positions, at least three or four times, I kept asking myself why Nedum Onuoha kept popping up in midfield. There were several occasions where he drifted well into the middle to make a challenge or just pick up the ball. And for sure, we need to let the ball do the work, but this is where the defence have been weak for us for a long time. The answer, without replacing the defenders who can't pass effectively to help us build that platform, is actually Alejandro Faurlin. If they can find him, he'll pass side to side, controlling the tempo and rhythm and allowing us to find proper structural shape before releasing it forward.

0

parker64 added 08:08 - Aug 23 The pressing was very half hearted, more stopping a couple of yards off the Swansea players. They had so much time to pick and play a pass. I'd call pressing the way we played Chelsea in the win last season. There was one point in the second half when Williams could have sat on the ball and had a rest. They also had Michu dropping back and collecting the ball to add to the mix. As you say you could tell Swansea were coached - not sure what Rangers have been doing.

0

ozranger added 10:07 - Aug 23 I too was concerned about the 4-5-1 shape, but for a different reason and this goes back to the gaffer. Was this formation chosen in defence to what was expected from Swansea? I could understand being defensive when on the road and playing to nullify the opponents by choosing such formation, but what does this say about our coach when he is at home? How does this formation attempt to dictate play, which I would hope one would want to do at home? To me, it seems naive to take this option, unless he believed that he did not have the players to be more aggressive. I certainly hope not and I think we all agree we do have the players. So, why does Hughes do this? I am also concerned that he will play the same formation at Norwich, given it is an away game and a point there is what we require desperately.

0

Myke added 15:15 - Aug 23 Hi Neil, some glaring similarities between this debacle and the hammering at the Bridge last season. The most notable of these fall suarely on the shoulderrs of the manager. The initial selection and formation led to the total isolation of our lone striker (be it Cisse or Zamora) and a complete inability to make tactical or personnell changes to alter the game. Throw in unforced goalkeeping errors, and a criminal and cowardly 'giving up' ( something I would never have associated with MH in fairness) and there was a strong feeling of dejavue

0

Neil_SI added 15:26 - Aug 23 ozranger - I do think our shape and formation was in direct response to the way Swansea set up and play. It can work, but you really need your wide men to burst forward and for someone to get in and around or beyond whoever is up top as the lone striker. Swansea's support of Danny Graham was superb, whereas our support of Cissé was pretty poor. It will be interesting to see how we set up at Norwich. We can either be cautious and look to grind out a result with experience, or just carry on and see whether this Swansea match was a total one off.

0

Neil_SI added 15:31 - Aug 23 Hi Myke, yes I agree, there were similarities between this and the Chelsea match, although we were in the game much more in the first half here. The real difference was we literally just gave up after Swansea went 2-0 up and that was very disappointing to see. Like you say, it's not something you would associate with Mark Hughes' teams, but we've seen a number of performances last season and this one that suggests it does happen and way more often than you would expect. They simply need a period of settling down now and just working on their pattern play and that should be enough to turn things around. The Norwich result is important for confidence, but the three games after are simply an opportunity to blend the team and style and whatever happens happens. It may be more short term pain for long term gain, and anything between that's positive is a bonus.

0

JonDoeman added 16:19 - Aug 23 Neil what are your thoughts on Hughes since he's been with us? Seems to be all hype and no substance to me. =============================================== Hill at L/B is a no no for me, I remember Snodgrass ripping him to bits.
0

Neil_SI added 17:13 - Aug 23 JonDoeman - I wasn't impressed at all by our performances at the back end of last season, but it's hard to be critical when somebody has been put in place smack in the middle of the season and asked to get on with it. We had a lot of new players coming in back then too, so it was always going to be one hell of a risk that we just about got away with by the skin of our teeth. I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt back then, but I've yet to see us play well for an entire 90 minutes under Mark Hughes and that worries me greatly. We had one decent performance against Arsenal in that 'backs to the wall' job kind of way and that's just not enough at this level and far too many atrocious ones. The performances against Bolton, Blackburn, Sunderland and Chelsea last season were pretty horrific (and now Swansea) to say the least. Even in that game against Manchester City we completed the least number of passes in a Premiership game by some distance... But now he has a fair crack of the whip and has had all off-season and pre-season to prepare and mould his side. He's said as such himself and that he's had a chance to stamp his authority on the team, but I'm seeing much of the same through pre-season and obviously against Swansea. My fear for him is that he has a certain style of play and that it only works with a certain type of player. It can be very effective and get success, but we've not found that formula under him just yet. The other worry I have is what if other teams work out that style? Did Swansea already do that? It's too early to tell, but if the other Premier League sides have moved on and can deal with the method and approach Hughes likes to go for, then he has to adapt too and that's where the question mark lies for him. Can he adapt? I'm not so sure he can... But I do like a lot about him too. I think he assesses problems quite well and early doors. When I saw us against Wycombe for example, I came away feeling the balance wasn't quite right even though we dominated and looked eye catching at times and the first thing he mentioned in his press conference afterwards was the balance was wrong. He's also generally quite fair, when you look at the likes of Tommy Smith, Rob Hulse and DJ Campbell. They were all given opportunities last season but didn't do enough, in the same way he just didn't ditch the likes of Kieran Dyer, Hogan Ephraim and Matthew Connolly initially - he gave them a chance to prove and I think that is a good trait to have. He can obviously attract reputable players too, though I am not sure I like the strategy they've gone for. I suppose the overall plan is to see out this season and possibly next, and once the training ground and youth set up are properly underway, then they can start attracting the players for tomorrow. So a lot of the stuff that goes on off the pitch, the foundations and so on, I do like a lot and am pleased about. But I am not quite convinced by the stuff I see happening on the pitch just yet and I suppose when it boils down to it, that's the most important part.

0

Antti_Heinola added 18:02 - Aug 23 Great article, but you place far too much emphasis on friendlies, even seeming to suggest that players forget how to defend when they don't have any games for a few weeks. Three of the back four kept plenty of clean sheets at home at the back end of last season. I think a lot of Saturday was panic after Swansea's second goal, and a loss of discipline, but agree with all your points about Cisse, Taarabt etc. Would now only ever play Hill at CB though, never LB.

0

e1337prodigy added 18:07 - Aug 23 Your first 3 paragraphs explain my feeling perfectly. I was saying that back when they were winning those games 4-0,5-0 etc. Yes start off with 2or3 of those games but then you need to play teams that are equal/better than you to test you.
0

Neil_SI added 18:29 - Aug 23 Antti_Heinola - Thanks Antti. But for me, that's what pre-season is all about, especially if you've signed so many players. It's there to work out what system and formation you want to play and what kind of style and philosophy you want to introduce and instil in your players. You put that into practice. Sometimes you need matches just to raise fitness levels and get minutes under your belt, but you need to progress it to the point that you can actually work on the defensive, midfield and attacking units and how they interact with one another. Smarter still, you play against sides that may be similar in terms of style that you might come up against in the competition you're playing in. The Premier League offers a wide variety of styles, so you want a mixture, but going into the opening period of the season we're coming up against a lot of sides, apart from Norwich, who dominate possession. You know Swansea are going to do it, and the matches against Manchester City, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur all offer a similar theme. If you've not prepared for that, then you're going to find there is a lack of practice and continuity in terms of how you deal with phases of play and context on the pitch. Last season's team took several weeks of hard work and effort, done in competitive matches, of getting the team into a better defensive shape. It takes teamwork and practice to do this and we had to sacrifice performance and in some cases results in games to get that part of our play more solid. It was also at the expense of our attacking play that relied on individual brilliance to see us through. But this pre-season we've not really worked on that at all, and we've added a whole bunch of new players who weren't here and part of that practice last season. Had we kept relatively the same team, they would know what to expect. But further more, you'd be looking at where you want to take it forward. Last season was a work in progress in the time available, so really they should only get better as they get accustomed to the expectations and style of play. It's not really about forgetting how to defend, it's knowing how to react to certain situations on the pitch, and how you want to recycle possession and what your pattern of attack is, in terms of when the defence have the ball, where the midfield and strikers take up positions to receive the ball from them. Along that chain, you work out where you might lose the ball, from defence, midfield to attack, for each type of pattern you try to build. From there, if you do breakdown, each person must know what his responsibility is if the attack goes wrong at each part of the chain. You apply this to when you win the ball as well, because it's about risk assessment. When do you go for the jugular and on impulse, and when do you recycle possession to launch the type of attack you want to do. That's where Alejandro Faurlin excels, because he understands when to hold the ball and when to build up momentum and waves of pressure on the opposition to surpress them back into a defensive mentality.

0

JonDoeman added 18:30 - Aug 23 Thanks for the reply Neil, seems you're in a similar place on him, to me.
0

isawqpratwcity added 11:52 - Aug 24 Thanks, Neil, a great report on a game that deserves intense scrutiny. I appreciate your tactical analysis, it helps explain cause-and-effect in an area that I don't yet understand. My gripe is the captaincy. There was no mention of who was the captain in either the match thread or Clive's report and, as I'd missed the first half web link, I had no idea who wore the armband. I felt that the captain had failed significantly in not meting out encouragement or criticism last Saturday. (To let you know where this is coming from, my example of a tough, backs-to-the-wall captain is Allan Border, captain of the Australian cricket team. In the late '80's; the team was floundering after the retirement of several superlative players. The rest of the team was still pretty good, but underperformed due to lack of confidence or commitment. Border would consistently produce a 'captain's knock' while everyone else failed. and wasn't afraid of reading the Riot Act, including telling star bowler, Craig McDermott, at Lords, within sight and hearing of TV cameras, that he risked being "on the next plane home". Eventually, the message got through, and Australia resumed it's supremacy, but it was a huge fight.) That of the starting line-up Park was the most experienced and likely candidate, and that announcing the appointment an hour before the match strongly undermined his authority, is basically a given. That snafu is down to MH: more comment on that later. Unfortunately I don't think Park even tried to stamp his authority on the game. We currently have two recent historic captains, Barton and Derry (Taarabt's appointment was a shrewd bit of flattery by NW and of no genuine import whatsoever). Barton is obviously not available. Derry's suitability/fitness for this level is a moot point, but I'd argue that the lack of captaincy shown last week was a much worse omission than a degree of fitness or individual footballing skills. Basically, the team just fell apart. Over the next few weeks, Park, or maybe Nelsen, may emerge as a deserved captain. In the meantime, I'd put some-one out there (as a starter) Derry, who has a history with the club, a knowledge of the squad and a proven commitment to the role. We need some-one on field to try to hold it together. For now, IMHO, Derry is the only candidate. As for MH, I am so disappointed that he failed to assemble a decent game plan, worse, failed to correct the team structure with substitutions, and, maybe unfairly (?), failed to show the passion and intellect to lead the team out of a losing situation. Did we ever see NW hanging his head rather than yelling encouragement or criticism? (This isn't an early "MH Out": because I'm not of the opinion that he can't get it together, and I'm also appalled of the idea of some-one else given the job of trying to get this squad together.)

0

Kaos_Agent added 21:14 - Aug 27 [img] http://s1162.photobucket.com/albums/q537/Kaos_Agent/[/img] Great analysis Neil.
0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Queens Park Rangers Polls