Adam Matthews

I hope his head doesn't go down after playing like a demon since the winter break for a player who was just back from injury.

Ambrose starting was a gamble, Forrest starting ahead of the immense Adam Matthews was * criminal.

I love Jimmy but Matthews has been one of our best players recently.

Seeing him on the bench tonight was a real shocker for me.

 

Amazed he didn't start tonight, he's been brilliant the past few weeks

 

No idea how the * Forrest played ahead of him or lasted 90mins . Mathews has been * outstanding in the wide role lately .

 

I had been saying for the last four or five weeks that Matthews in front of Lustig would have been deadly.

Both like to get forward and both are adept at tracking back.

Matthews starting on the bench is a real head scratcher for me, even more so than Ambrose starting.

Lenny made a big mistake with this one.

 

Don't understand for the life of me why Matthews didn't start at RB. I really rate Lustig and thought he was fantastic against Juventus; possibly my MOTM (for the first half anyway). However, given the AFCON situation, I'd have left Ambrose on the bench and started with Lustig at RCB, with Matthews at RB.

 

Forrest was playing centre forward. Matthews is a right back.

Perspictive lads..

 

Perspective? James Forrest and Centre Forward in the same sentence.......

 

Not the first time he's played there for us, even in the youths he was used there a lot but I agree with you it wasn't a move I agreed with, it wasn't at Matthews expense though, that would be Lustig. Who had a great game until he came off.

 

Exactly...what the * did Lustig do to deserve being dropped?

As far as im concerned, the manager made a * of his tactics and player changes for this game.

Matthews shouldve been at RM in front of Lustig.

 

I think the only mistake was playing Ambrose.

I think the way we played was excellent, Forrest was a part of that as well (anyone else gobsmacked at the amount of headers he won?)

I would have preferred Matthews over Lustig but I can't argue with it.

 

The Ambrose thing is the key to every other bad pick Neil Lennon made. If he hadn't picked Ambrose, he would have probably moved Lustig into the centre, meaning he would have gone with Matthews at RB, meaning he would have had two short full-backs (giving him fewer options when defending set-pieces), so he would probably have benched Izzy and gone with Mulgrew at LB, making room for Joe Ledley in central midfield, with Forrest starting on the right-wing, and Commons on the left-wing.

 

Or he would just put Rogne in for Ambrose...

Or he would just play Mulgrew CB and play Joe Ledley.

Tactics would have been the same. No other changes would have been made for me.

 

Never said tactics would have changed - I think he basically got tactics mainly spot on anyhow. I'm 90% sure he wouldn't have gone with Mulgrew at LCB - Kelvin Wilson's been on the left-hand side of central-defence in Europe all season. That's where he's naturally most comfortable. Plus, Mulgrew's far too valuable at LB. Also, why go with Rogne when he hadn't played in Europe since Helsingborgs and has been injured for much of the season, especially when you have an international defender capable of switching from RB to CB, and have yet another international to step in at RB?

My basic point is that Ledley and Matthews should have been playing, and not picking Ambrose would have opened up a simple, logical way for that to happen.

 

Rogne played against Benfica and had been getting game time in the league recently.

He wanted Lustig as extra height, it would have been a straight swap. Either Joe Ledley with Mulgrew moved back or Thomas Rogne with Ambrose.

 

If he was desperate for height, why start Izzy? He could afford to have 1 small defender with 3 tall guys. Matthews, Lustig, Wilson, Mulgrew would have been a much better option than Matthews, Rogne, Wilson Mulgrew: Lustig just has much more experience and has made far fewer howlers than Rogne (who I like but who has far too much developing to do before I'd start picking him over a guy who's played in major international tournaments).

 

Because Izzy this year has been one of our best players in Europe, excellent in defence, excellent going forward, calm in possesion and his pace has bailed us out on more than one occasion.

Mulgrew infront of Izzy has proven one of our most valuable weapons this season, while Lustig has been very, very good in Europe.

Personally I think it would have been a straight swap for Rogne. Facts of the matter is that Lustig was the direct replacement for Matthews.

 

No need to replace Matthews though! He's been one of our best players recently (and all season). If he didn't use Ambrose, I'm pretty certain he'd have gone with Lustig and Matthews at RCB and RB respectively. Rogne's done nothing in Europe this season that Lustig hasn't done, and he looked v shaky vs Helsingborgs, while Lustig has looked one of our most composed players whenever he's played in the CL.

 

He has at RB though.

I know what your saying but base on Lenny's past behaviour I think that's what he would have done. I think thats why he was getting Rogne upto full match fitness.

Matthews wasn't earmarked to start. I would have liked him to.

 

Playing lustig centre half is a waste imo, his crossing is his main weapon and 9 time out of 10 he puts a great ball in, if he's playing centre half we won't get full use of that. It really is excellent, he rarely puts in a bad ball, if we had a striker who was good with his head he'd get so much goals from lustigs crosses

 

Anyone else think he's the player of the year?