Is subbing Martins causing these late reversals?

[Parky]

Right I'm very, very bored so I've whipped a quick set of stats together for you (applies to the Premier League only):

 

Since joining us Martins has been substituted 24 times, on average around the 67th minute mark.

 

In total, after he has been benched, we have gone on to score 11 goals, interestingly we've only conceded 10.

 

Martins has come off the bench a total of six times since joining us, on average after 62 minutes. He's never scored on any of these occasions.

 

The team however have score six times after he has come on, only conceding once.

 

Under Kinnear Martins has been subbed six times. After he has left the field we have never scored and conceded twice.

 

And for knit-pickings sake and just to show off, Martins has been replaced by Owen five times. Of these five occasions the team has scored four times (Owen getting two himself) and have also conceded four times.

 

What's your point?

 

Didnt particularly have one...

 

Well if you haven't got a point make really long posts then none will notice. 

 

I'd say the point was people need to stop making mountains out of molehills when it comes to Martins being subbed.

 

I beg your pardon?

[johnnypd]

so youre talking about second half goals? i didnt include coventry due to the weakness of the opposition. and the west ham game shows how pathetic we can be without some pace upfront. the bolton goal was scored in the aftermath of a set piece with everyone in their box and the game reduced down to the static with people trying to win one or two yards in the box. as i said in my post owen is always a threat in those kinds of situations, but against stoke where he is marooned on the half way line we're effectivey playing with 10 men.

[The Prophet]

Right I'm very, very bored so I've whipped a quick set of stats together for you (applies to the Premier League only):

 

Since joining us Martins has been substituted 24 times, on average around the 67th minute mark.

 

In total, after he has been benched, we have gone on to score 11 goals, interestingly we've only conceded 10.

 

Martins has come off the bench a total of six times since joining us, on average after 62 minutes. He's never scored on any of these occasions.

 

The team however have score six times after he has come on, only conceding once.

 

Under Kinnear Martins has been subbed six times. After he has left the field we have never scored and conceded twice.

 

And for knit-pickings sake and just to show off, Martins has been replaced by Owen five times. Of these five occasions the team has scored four times (Owen getting two himself) and have also conceded four times.

 

What's your point?

 

Didn’t particularly have one...

 

Well if you haven't got a point make really long posts then none will notice. 

 

I'd say the point was people need to stop making mountains out of molehills when it comes to Martins being subbed.

 

I beg your pardon?

 

You heard me.

 

Na, my post with the stats on pretty much confirms what I thought. The subbing of Martins isn't cuasing a late reversals but a general lack of pace, attacking threat and ruthlessness is.

 

I think you can look at previous squads, hold your hands up and say the back line was piss poor. Yet you look at this one and the fact they can comfortably keep a clean sheet gives you a bit of hope yet like the defence of old they still ship late goals. Now I think unless you have a top four defence with your Ferdinands and Terrys, etc, sitting back and trying to defend any form of lead is a dangerous game, particularly with the nature of our league.

 

So to answer your original post, no.  There's no doubt that subbing Martins doesn't help in the slightest and sometimes contributes to the problem but it isn't the sole cause. The reason we squandered the lead against Stoke is because we insisted on trying to hold back and attempt to protect it. Even if we had Owen and Viduka up front and we continued to push forward I feel we would of comfortably beaten them.

 

Also, if you also take note of some of the other results: Martins was on the field against Wigan, while we were down to ten men against City, circumstance hasn't always helped this season but as I say neither have our tactics.

[Wullie]

You heard me.

 

Na, my post with the stats on pretty much confirms what I thought. The subbing of Martins isn't cuasing a late reversals but a general lack of pace, attacking threat and ruthlessness is.

 

I think you can look at previous squads, hold your hands up and say the back line was piss poor. Yet you look at this one and the fact they can comfortably keep a clean sheet gives you a bit of hope yet like the defence of old they still ship late goals. Now I think unless you have a top four defence with your Ferdinands and Terrys, etc, sitting back and trying to defend any form of lead is a dangerous game, particularly with the nature of our league.

 

So to answer your original post, no.  There's no doubt that subbing Martins doesn't help in the slightest and sometimes contributes to the problem but it isn't the sole cause. The reason we squandered the lead against Stoke is because we insisted on trying to hold back and attempt to protect it. Even if we had Owen and Viduka up front and we continued to push forward I feel we would of comfortably beaten them.

 

Also, if you also take note of some of the other results: Martins was on the field against Wigan, while we were down to ten men against City, circumstance hasn't always helped this season but as I say neither have our tactics.

 

The stats don't say anything because we're talking about a certain situation, one where we're desperately trying to hang onto a lead and the best way to do that is not allow the opposition backline to move up onto the halfway line. You're right in that of course it's not the only reason but it's a major factor. It's not simply a case of who scores at certain times and after coming on or whatever - in the last ten minutes when you desperately need a goal, there aren't many players I'd rather have than Michael Owen (see Wigan) but that is not the case here. Why is he leaving a specialist poacher on when he clearly has no interest in scoring another goal?

 

Just looking at stats and goals doesn't tell you anything about how much fear Martins' presence alone puts into a defence (especially one like Stoke's - hardly blessed with pace) and stops them playing a high line, no matter how he's performing on the day. Kinnear shouldn't be trying to defend these leads at all but in taking Martins off, he's shooting himself in the foot because it makes it harder to defend such a lead.

 

He'd gone off when Man City equalised btw.

[Parky]

You heard me.

 

Na, my post with the stats on pretty much confirms what I thought. The subbing of Martins isn't cuasing a late reversals but a general lack of pace, attacking threat and ruthlessness is.

 

I think you can look at previous squads, hold your hands up and say the back line was piss poor. Yet you look at this one and the fact they can comfortably keep a clean sheet gives you a bit of hope yet like the defence of old they still ship late goals. Now I think unless you have a top four defence with your Ferdinands and Terrys, etc, sitting back and trying to defend any form of lead is a dangerous game, particularly with the nature of our league.

 

So to answer your original post, no.  There's no doubt that subbing Martins doesn't help in the slightest and sometimes contributes to the problem but it isn't the sole cause. The reason we squandered the lead against Stoke is because we insisted on trying to hold back and attempt to protect it. Even if we had Owen and Viduka up front and we continued to push forward I feel we would of comfortably beaten them.

 

Also, if you also take note of some of the other results: Martins was on the field against Wigan, while we were down to ten men against City, circumstance hasn't always helped this season but as I say neither have our tactics.

 

The stats don't say anything because we're talking about a certain situation, one where we're desperately trying to hang onto a lead and the best way to do that is not allow the opposition backline to move up onto the halfway line. You're right in that of course it's not the only reason but it's a major factor. It's not simply a case of who scores at certain times and after coming on or whatever - in the last ten minutes when you desperately need a goal, there aren't many players I'd rather have than Michael Owen (see Wigan) but that is not the case here. Why is he leaving a specialist poacher on when he clearly has no interest in scoring another goal?

 

Just looking at stats and goals doesn't tell you anything about how much fear Martins' presence alone puts into a defence (especially one like Stoke's - hardly blessed with pace) and stops them playing a high line, no matter how he's performing on the day. Kinnear shouldn't be trying to defend these leads at all but in taking Martins off, he's shooting himself in the foot because it makes it harder to defend such a lead.

 

He'd gone off when Man City equalised btw.

 

In a nutshell.

 

Also it's a familiarity breeds contempt scenario as in we underestimate the fear other sides have of not only the pace of Martins but his unpredictability. I think as an out ball you have to leave him on..No question. And as pd said earlier not only is Viduka not able to hold onto the ball as he used to, when we are defending he has no one to lay it off to either. Comes straight back..........

[Guest Sniffer]

Imagine how good a player Martins would be if he actually learned how to play the game. Then he might not get subbed continually.

[Offshore]

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

[garth]

With quality of players we have, I'd like us to go back to 4-3-3, we were far more effective then.

[Offshore]

With quality of players we have, I'd like us to go back to 4-3-3, we were far more effective then.

 

Need Barton or another competent midfielder for that, although if its a toss up between going 4-3-3 with what we've got now and what we had out the 2nd half, then lets go for it.

[garth]

With quality of players we have, I'd like us to go back to 4-3-3, we were far more effective then.

 

Need Barton or another competent midfielder for that, although if its a toss up between going 4-3-3 with what we've got now and what we had out the 2nd half, then lets go for it.

 

I thought Geremi would half do a decent job in the centre.

[Offshore]

With quality of players we have, I'd like us to go back to 4-3-3, we were far more effective then.

 

Need Barton or another competent midfielder for that, although if its a toss up between going 4-3-3 with what we've got now and what we had out the 2nd half, then lets go for it.

 

I thought Geremi would half do a decent job in the centre.

 

'Half' being the operative word.

 

Jokes aside, all of our centre midfielders have some sort of major'ish fault - pace.

 

Geremi, the mind is willing but the legs are shot.

Butt is canny good defensively but takes too long to decide what to do with the ball then loses it.

Guthrie is probably the best out of that bunch (imo) but is still learning, not blessed with pace and can get bullied quite easily, but would probably last 90mins.

 

If we 'had' to go 4-3-3 then i'd put Guthrie in with Jonas and Zog/Duff (depending on who we're playing).

But for me i'd stick with 4-4-2 until we had Barton back as it would compensate for the lack of drive we have.

 

 

[TRon]

 

 

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

 

Again, that's just looking at it from a purely stats point of view. The reason we are conceding late goals against Wigan, Sunderland, Fulham and now Stoke ( all shit sides btw) is because we are sitting back on our lead, dropping deeper and deeper allowing the opposition to overwhelm us. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and then countering fast on the break, but if we take our quicker players like Martins off, we don't have any real threat on the counter.

 

We are actually playing very brainless football in these situations. A single player, Fuller was allowed to single handedly devastate us on our own ground. He wasn't dealt with in 45 mins, we were too busy giving ourselves problems by switching players from defence to midfield and generally panicking rather than controlling the game through possession.

[madras]

 

 

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

 

Again, that's just looking at it from a purely stats point of view. The reason we are conceding late goals against Wigan, Sunderland, Fulham and now Stoke ( all s*** sides btw) is because we are sitting back on our lead, dropping deeper and deeper allowing the opposition to overwhelm us. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and then countering fast on the break, but if we take our quicker players like Martins off, we don't have any real threat on the counter.

 

We are actually playing very brainless football in these situations. A single player, Fuller was allowed to single handedly devastate us on our own ground. He wasn't dealt with in 45 mins, we were too busy giving ourselves problems by switching players from defence to midfield and generally panicking rather than controlling the game through possession.

it's not really when the goals are conceded as much as when do we get pushed back and haven't got a clue how to get out. thats happened when martins has been both on and off the pitch.

 

you could counter the "needing a fast player to counter attack" with the "of our three front line centre forwards he is the least likely to hold it up and take pressure of the defending"

[ChezGiven]

You heard me.

 

Na, my post with the stats on pretty much confirms what I thought. The subbing of Martins isn't cuasing a late reversals but a general lack of pace, attacking threat and ruthlessness is.

 

I think you can look at previous squads, hold your hands up and say the back line was piss poor. Yet you look at this one and the fact they can comfortably keep a clean sheet gives you a bit of hope yet like the defence of old they still ship late goals. Now I think unless you have a top four defence with your Ferdinands and Terrys, etc, sitting back and trying to defend any form of lead is a dangerous game, particularly with the nature of our league.

 

So to answer your original post, no.  There's no doubt that subbing Martins doesn't help in the slightest and sometimes contributes to the problem but it isn't the sole cause. The reason we squandered the lead against Stoke is because we insisted on trying to hold back and attempt to protect it. Even if we had Owen and Viduka up front and we continued to push forward I feel we would of comfortably beaten them.

 

Also, if you also take note of some of the other results: Martins was on the field against Wigan, while we were down to ten men against City, circumstance hasn't always helped this season but as I say neither have our tactics.

 

The stats don't say anything because we're talking about a certain situation, one where we're desperately trying to hang onto a lead and the best way to do that is not allow the opposition backline to move up onto the halfway line. You're right in that of course it's not the only reason but it's a major factor. It's not simply a case of who scores at certain times and after coming on or whatever - in the last ten minutes when you desperately need a goal, there aren't many players I'd rather have than Michael Owen (see Wigan) but that is not the case here. Why is he leaving a specialist poacher on when he clearly has no interest in scoring another goal?

 

Just looking at stats and goals doesn't tell you anything about how much fear Martins' presence alone puts into a defence (especially one like Stoke's - hardly blessed with pace) and stops them playing a high line, no matter how he's performing on the day. Kinnear shouldn't be trying to defend these leads at all but in taking Martins off, he's shooting himself in the foot because it makes it harder to defend such a lead.

 

He'd gone off when Man City equalised btw.

 

In a nutshell.

 

Also it's a familiarity breeds contempt scenario as in we underestimate the fear other sides have of not only the pace of Martins but his unpredictability. I think as an out ball you have to leave him on..No question. And as pd said earlier not only is Viduka not able to hold onto the ball as he used to, when we are defending he has no one to lay it off to either. Comes straight back..........

 

So presumably you can both state categorically that Stoke played a higher line after Martins went off?

[TRon]

 

 

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

 

Again, that's just looking at it from a purely stats point of view. The reason we are conceding late goals against Wigan, Sunderland, Fulham and now Stoke ( all s*** sides btw) is because we are sitting back on our lead, dropping deeper and deeper allowing the opposition to overwhelm us. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and then countering fast on the break, but if we take our quicker players like Martins off, we don't have any real threat on the counter.

 

We are actually playing very brainless football in these situations. A single player, Fuller was allowed to single handedly devastate us on our own ground. He wasn't dealt with in 45 mins, we were too busy giving ourselves problems by switching players from defence to midfield and generally panicking rather than controlling the game through possession.

it's not really when the goals are conceded as much as when do we get pushed back and haven't got a clue how to get out. thats happened when martins has been both on and off the pitch.

 

you could counter the "needing a fast player to counter attack" with the "of our three front line centre forwards he is the least likely to hold it up and take pressure of the defending"

 

I think that's already been covered with the observation that when he's replaced b y Viduka the defenders move 10 yards up the field because they know that they won't be caught on the break if they push up for offside.

[madras]

 

 

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

 

Again, that's just looking at it from a purely stats point of view. The reason we are conceding late goals against Wigan, Sunderland, Fulham and now Stoke ( all s*** sides btw) is because we are sitting back on our lead, dropping deeper and deeper allowing the opposition to overwhelm us. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and then countering fast on the break, but if we take our quicker players like Martins off, we don't have any real threat on the counter.

 

We are actually playing very brainless football in these situations. A single player, Fuller was allowed to single handedly devastate us on our own ground. He wasn't dealt with in 45 mins, we were too busy giving ourselves problems by switching players from defence to midfield and generally panicking rather than controlling the game through possession.

it's not really when the goals are conceded as much as when do we get pushed back and haven't got a clue how to get out. thats happened when martins has been both on and off the pitch.

 

you could counter the "needing a fast player to counter attack" with the "of our three front line centre forwards he is the least likely to hold it up and take pressure of the defending"

 

I think that's already been covered with the observation that when he's replaced b y Viduka the defenders move 10 yards up the field because they know that they won't be caught on the break if they push up for offside.

i don't see that as martins isn't exactly a whizz at beating the offside trap and it leaves more of a gap in behind the defence for him to play the ball into,which he is more likely to do than martins and owen is more likely to read.

 

have to be honest and say i haven't noticed any teams defences push up more because of any tactical change rather than pushing up more as the game goes on through a necessity to get back into the game.

[TRon]

 

 

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

 

Again, that's just looking at it from a purely stats point of view. The reason we are conceding late goals against Wigan, Sunderland, Fulham and now Stoke ( all s*** sides btw) is because we are sitting back on our lead, dropping deeper and deeper allowing the opposition to overwhelm us. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and then countering fast on the break, but if we take our quicker players like Martins off, we don't have any real threat on the counter.

 

We are actually playing very brainless football in these situations. A single player, Fuller was allowed to single handedly devastate us on our own ground. He wasn't dealt with in 45 mins, we were too busy giving ourselves problems by switching players from defence to midfield and generally panicking rather than controlling the game through possession.

it's not really when the goals are conceded as much as when do we get pushed back and haven't got a clue how to get out. thats happened when martins has been both on and off the pitch.

 

you could counter the "needing a fast player to counter attack" with the "of our three front line centre forwards he is the least likely to hold it up and take pressure of the defending"

 

I think that's already been covered with the observation that when he's replaced b y Viduka the defenders move 10 yards up the field because they know that they won't be caught on the break if they push up for offside.

i don't see that as martins isn't exactly a whizz at beating the offside trap and it leaves more of a gap in behind the defence for him to play the ball into,which he is more likely to do than martins and owen is more likely to read.

 

have to be honest and say i haven't noticed any teams defences push up more because of any tactical change rather than pushing up more as the game goes on through a necessity to get back into the game.

 

It's been a long tinme since I've seen Owen run onto a through ball from midfield and scoring on the break. He used to do it at Liverpool. Whether teams push up by design or not when Martins goes off, it must make it easier to do that when you know you have a better chance of catching the forward if he is picked out on the break. If I was setting a team up to soak up pressure then hit on the break I'd prefer to have a quick striker on the shoulder of the last defender.

[madras]

 

 

I'm a bit late to this party like, but what late reversals?

 

As far as I can see, its only the Stoke game where we've drawn after leading that had Martins being subbed before the opposition equalised.

 

Someone else (O Nut) got it, mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

 

 

Again, that's just looking at it from a purely stats point of view. The reason we are conceding late goals against Wigan, Sunderland, Fulham and now Stoke ( all s*** sides btw) is because we are sitting back on our lead, dropping deeper and deeper allowing the opposition to overwhelm us. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and then countering fast on the break, but if we take our quicker players like Martins off, we don't have any real threat on the counter.

 

We are actually playing very brainless football in these situations. A single player, Fuller was allowed to single handedly devastate us on our own ground. He wasn't dealt with in 45 mins, we were too busy giving ourselves problems by switching players from defence to midfield and generally panicking rather than controlling the game through possession.

it's not really when the goals are conceded as much as when do we get pushed back and haven't got a clue how to get out. thats happened when martins has been both on and off the pitch.

 

you could counter the "needing a fast player to counter attack" with the "of our three front line centre forwards he is the least likely to hold it up and take pressure of the defending"

 

I think that's already been covered with the observation that when he's replaced b y Viduka the defenders move 10 yards up the field because they know that they won't be caught on the break if they push up for offside.

i don't see that as martins isn't exactly a whizz at beating the offside trap and it leaves more of a gap in behind the defence for him to play the ball into,which he is more likely to do than martins and owen is more likely to read.

 

have to be honest and say i haven't noticed any teams defences push up more because of any tactical change rather than pushing up more as the game goes on through a necessity to get back into the game.

 

It's been a long tinme since I've seen Owen run onto a through ball from midfield and scoring on the break. He used to do it at Liverpool. Whether teams push up by design or not when Martins goes off, it must make it easier to do that when you know you have a better chance of catching the forward if he is picked out on the break. If I was setting a team up to soak up pressure then hit on the break I'd prefer to have a quick striker on the shoulder of the last defender.

so would i, even when we aren't soaking up pressure i'd prefer to have a quick forward playing down the sides of the centre halves instead of inbetween them...unfortunatly we haven't got one with the footballing sense to do it. martins done it against villa. his best allround game in at least a year,then back to the same old headless chicken routine.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

On Pro Evo, I never take Martins off because he can get you something out of nothing at the end of the game... especially on the break.

 

Case closed

[Mick]

i don't see that as martins isn't exactly a whizz at beating the offside trap and it leaves more of a gap in behind the defence for him to play the ball into,which he is more likely to do than martins and owen is more likely to read.

 

have to be honest and say i haven't noticed any teams defences push up more because of any tactical change rather than pushing up more as the game goes on through a necessity to get back into the game.

 

The Stoke defence moved up the minute Martins left the pitch, I expected that to happen and watched for it.

[madras]

i don't see that as martins isn't exactly a whizz at beating the offside trap and it leaves more of a gap in behind the defence for him to play the ball into,which he is more likely to do than martins and owen is more likely to read.

 

have to be honest and say i haven't noticed any teams defences push up more because of any tactical change rather than pushing up more as the game goes on through a necessity to get back into the game.

 

The Stoke defence moved up the minute Martins left the pitch, I expected that to happen and watched for it.

like i say i didn't see that. just means we didn't take advantage of it. fwiw i thought stoke played a quite high line all game.

[KaKa]

Off the top of my head Martins against Tottenham last season and against Blackburn the previous season.

 

Basically situations in which the opposing teams had pushed a number of players up to try to get a goal and Martins has got the ball at the half way line and taken it all the way to the other end to score.

 

Owen simply cannot do this.

 

My issue isn't with Owen though, it is with Viduka. he does not hold the ball up anymore so why is he being brought on exactly? Leave Owen and Martins on. Simple.

[Dave]

My issue isn't with Owen though, it is with Viduka. he does not hold the ball up anymore so why is he being brought on exactly? Leave Owen and Martins on. Simple.

 

Because spaKinnear thinks because he's taller he can automatically hold the ball up better.

 

The change from the first half (pass and move) to the second (hoof the ball up-field at every opportunity) was a disgrace.

[madras]

My issue isn't with Owen though, it is with Viduka. he does not hold the ball up anymore so why is he being brought on exactly? Leave Owen and Martins on. Simple.

 

Because spaKinnear thinks because he's taller he can automatically hold the ball up better.

 

The change from the first half (pass and move) to the second (hoof the ball up-field at every opportunity) was a disgrace.

down to moving everything round for the sake of 1 injured player when there was no need imo.

[Guest Howaythetoon]

A number of factors are effecting us, removing Martins in the latter stages of the second half being the least of them in my opinion. Fear is the biggest factor - it grips the club in every aspect and it stems from the negative mentality of the manager who all his life has been running survival campaigns where any point will do, where protecting whatever he has rather than going out and building on what he has, is the order of the day. This is actually a good mentality to have on the road... but at home?

 

The players too are conditioned to this state making it a perpetual cycle that we just can't seem to get out of. I remember when KK came back and he said one of the toughest challenges for him was to reverse the fear factor in his players and getting them to enjoy and express themselves, to restore confidence in their ability and belief systems that not only could they compete but they could also achieve something.

 

Kinnear is the anti-thesis of that model if you like and so was Roeder, Souness and Allardyce who all failed here and at a club like Newcastle United where it really is either black or white or translated - up and down (win and we're top of the world, lose and its the end of the world) - there needs to be this positive and pro-active drive from the manager and players at all times, even in bad times.

 

Cast your mind back to Sir Bobby's first 2 years at the club which saw us finish in mid-table with rather uninspiring displays and KK's first 7 or so games on his return, the biggest thing that stood out wasn't the performances, our ability or the poor results but that we all knew via the respective managers' positive approach, we were in good hands on would at some point turn the corner which we did.

 

We've turned no corner and have went full circle almost back to the dark days of Souness, Roeder and at times under Big Sam where teams like Sheff Utd were coming to St. James' Park and winning, times when fans just couldn't see a victory coming, home or away.

 

I see nothing whatsoever in Kinnear that fills me with any real confidence he himself has the ability to steer these wary and conditioned in fear and failure players out of these deep waters.

 

Essentially to survive we are relying on two things which have been the curse of our club for decades - fitness and luck.

 

In short we are f***ed.