Tweet
What was that all about?? 78th minute, take Mackie off, for a defender? Surely we should've been pushing for an equaliser in the last 10 and not taking off attackers for defenders! Did Warnock just bring Orr and Hill on because they support Liverpool!? If so, that's absolutely disgraceful management, Warnock was happy with the result, his own words, pathetic.
-
-
I can't remember the technical restructure of formation after that swap but we did have a our best period over that last 15 mins or so..... the swap may not have been as odd it first appears? -
What a load of B/ll//x Hill came on so Traora could move further forward it was an attacking moveComment
-
Orr and Hill coming on definitely had something to do with them supporting Liverpool. We said on the way up there they'd both play a part at some stage. So not surprised at all.
Dyer could have come on for 10 mins or so.First game: Arsenal vs Queen's Park Rangers at Highbury, Saturday 17th November 1984.Comment
-
your right dyer cld have come on , but then hed be injured first tackle and wed be down to 10 men for last 5Originally posted by HammersmithR View PostComment
-
Spot on ! it was an attacking moveOriginally posted by loftlag View Post
One for all.... and all for oneComment
-
Dyer was sitting on the bench but I dont think he was named among the subsComment
-
NW has always loved Hill and Bradders so I guess he thought this is the only ever chance they will have at playing at Anfield so gave them a run out!
Seriously, I would have played Hill at LB from the start, pushed Traore into left mid and we'd have looked a lot better. Hill would have been as good against Kuyt as Traore was, so we would have been more attcking22nd February away v Charlton is the 40th Anniversary of my support of QPR and my first game. Away v Chelsea 3-3 23rd Feb 1974. 40 years of pure magic!!Comment
-
hill coming was ok as it pushed traore forward but to bring on orr and swop young to centre back was disgraceful. id like to play at loftus road so do you think warnock will bring me on at some pointComment
-
Absolute nonsense about sentiment. Warnock may appear to 'fancy' Hill at times and they go back a long way, but it didn;t stop him signing a new LB and shipping Hill off to Forest. Ultimately its a results business and Warncok isn't going to give up on a game so a player can get a 15 minute run out in front of his mum and dad.
Didn't see anyone complaining when Hill played LB and Traore LW at stoke with pretty good effect - and that was Hill's old club etc.Comment
-
Clint Hill has an appearance fee in his contract that is split with warnock.
Or so I have heard.Comment
-
me & my son were glad to see him
we just like watching clint hillI don't care about morals 'cause the world's insane and we're all to blame anywayComment
-
Were you even watching the game? How is it 'disgraceful' seeing as Anton got injured and had to go off. What would you have done?Originally posted by QPR DEVON View Post
Typical fickle QPR fan. We lost 1 0 at Anfield. Warnock should be sacked. He's a disgrace.Comment
-
yes i did watch. it was disgraceful because he brought orr on so he got a chance to play at anfield, rather than use the TWO centre backs he had on the bench. warnock effectively gave up on the game at that point.Originally posted by rangertillidiedan View PostComment
-
Young, despite being a full back, is a far more sensible choice at CB than those we had on the bench yesterday meaning Orr had to come on.Originally posted by QPR DEVON View PostComment
Comment