post match

Hurst told Parslow to get ready to come on before the second goal went in. When we scored the second, they delayed the substitution. With Mahon running the midfield, the decision to replace him for Palmer was made. Can see his thought processes as the midfield was getting overrun but Palmer was an outlet for long balls over the midfield and was a handful for their defenders. He had to do something but unless Palmer was injured his absence allowed their defence to play further forward.

Quoted from barralad

This:- The defending for their goals was appalling and the first one certainly didn't come from a period of sustained Chester pressure because of the change in formation. There is no strong evidence to suggest that we wouldn't have conceded the goal if the substitution hadn't taken place...

But doesn't the opposition take the clear signal on board that they could come and attack us for the last quarter of the game as we thought our defence would be good enough to keep them at bay? Sort of come and have a go if you think you're good enough....and they were!!

Call that being naive or arrogant or a bit of both but if we had carried on taking the game to them instead of conceding territory maybe there'd have been more chance of us seeing the game out?

Quoted from FishOutOfWater

But doesn't the opposition take the clear signal on board that they could come and attack us for the last quarter of the game as we thought our defence would be good enough to keep them at bay? Sort of come and have a go if you think you're good enough....and they were!!

Call that being naive or arrogant or a bit of both but if we had carried on taking the game to them instead of conceding territory maybe there'd have been more chance of us seeing the game out?

All teams playing us now will try and keep the score down until the last 20 mins,

Then Hurst makes his change which is a signal for the opponents to attack

Hurst said we have a good defence,

Maybe our defence has been good because the ball is at the other end of the pitch,

If we invite teams to attack us we ask for all we get.( well Hurst does )

Interesting that the Chester fans on their forum think that the substitutions that they made, was the difference in the change. Not our substitutions.

Quoted from mimma

Interesting that the Chester fans on their forum think that the substitutions that they made, was the difference in the change. Not our substitutions.

Impossible!! An opposing manager cannot possibly be given the credit for trying substitutions to improve his team, who were up until that point pretty awful.
I would have preferred to see Brown in there but the change probably did have to be made...

Quoted from FishOutOfWater

But doesn't the opposition take the clear signal on board that they could come and attack us for the last quarter of the game as we thought our defence would be good enough to keep them at bay? Sort of come and have a go if you think you're good enough....and they were!!

Call that being naive or arrogant or a bit of both but if we had carried on taking the game to them instead of conceding territory maybe there'd have been more chance of us seeing the game out?

There were FOUR minutes(ish) between the substitution and their first goal. During that four minutes there wasn't a spell of concerted Chester pressure. When you take into account the fact that they were by then losing 2-0 and had nothing to lose by attacking-especially with two fresh subs of their own the argument doesn't hold water for me.

Why didn't he being Brown on? Why sign him and put him in the squad if you don't trust him to go on and play?! I just don't understand Hurst. Just like McLaughlin, it's a waste of 2 far superior footballers - to bring on a loanee playing out of position.

Quoted from chestermariner

Hurst told Parslow to get ready to come on before the second goal went in. When we scored the second, they delayed the substitution. With Mahon running the midfield, the decision to replace him for Palmer was made. Can see his thought processes as the midfield was getting overrun but Palmer was an outlet for long balls over the midfield and was a handful for their defenders. He had to do something but unless Palmer was injured his absence allowed their defence to play further forward.

I'm not at all sure Palmer is 100% fit yet. He looked pretty tired before he was substituted. I'd rather see him for 70 minutes than risk losing him altogether for the next/last few games. Hurst's problem then was that he didn't have anyone who could play that role on the bench due to LJLs continuing absence. I strongly suspect you wouldn't have many takers on here for Jolley playing that central role given the reaction to his recent foray in that position.

Quoted from chaos33

Why didn't he being Brown on? Why sign him and put him in the squad if you don't trust him to go on and play?! I just don't understand Hurst. Just like McLaughlin, it's a waste of 2 far superior footballers - to bring on a loanee playing out of position.

It's a strange one granted....

Quoted from mimma

Interesting that the Chester fans on their forum think that the substitutions that they made, was the difference in the change. Not our substitutions.

Do you have selective vision as there are a number that were glad we (or should I say Hurst) made that substitution.