I'm I the only one surprised that Boyd was substituted, could have been a couple of reasons, give Brown 30 minutes match practice.... Boyd took a knock, I didn't see it if he did, game won(in Turner's mind ) so have Boyd ready for Saturday.

Was another Turner substitution I can't work out, thought Boyd was playing well and ball was stuck to his feet at times. The attempted chip over defender was almost perfect.

Not simply knocking Turner here, just surprised that he made that substitution that's all

Only reason I could think of, others just presuming. Though think could have given Brown the same match time on right even left, taking Boyd off was to say the least, surprising.

Possibly didn't look like scoring ....... but.... and this is reason I was surprised at him being taken off, looked interested, and looked a danger, and a Boyd that looks a danger is a SERIOUS THREAT to ANY TEAM in this division. Whose to say that the problems Brown caused may not have been 2 or 3 times more a problem if Boyd had got them.

I refer my honourable friend to this

"We wont rush Brown back".... not my words, so was the substitution a way of rushing Brown back ? That just a question.

Would you be saying the same if Boyd had been substituted playing that well in a game 2 or 3 weeks ago for say Bjornnson, Greulich or someone else.

I stick by my statement, taking off Boyd surprised me.

In the first half their keeper made a save to his left from a header. Was that not Boyd?

Totally agree MJ in hindsight, but what we had tonight up front was working.

You don't fix something that's not broke.

I will go as far as to say that if the substitution was made another 15 minutes later, though that means Brown only gets 15 minutes, I could see the point in it.

Maybe I'm being to harsh, maybe I've become blinkered and I'm looking for faults that aren't there.

But I will state categorically if that game had been at 0-0, or 0-1 and that substitution had been made 99% on here would be complaining. Once more that's in hindsight and of course it wasn't 0-0 or 0-1, so Turner had the safety net of doing it.

Yes give Brown the match practice, yes O' Donovan probably needed it as well, but possibly Larkin off and Brown wide left, not his ideal position(before anyone say's anything) but bringing him on was not about that, it was about Brown getting minutes on the pitch under his belt.

And before anyone say's anything...NO I wouldn't have played him in defence, centre midfield or goal.

I thought that Turner probably told him at half time to see what he could do for the first 15 minutes, and that he would be bringing Brown on for him for the last half hour. On second thoughts maybe not that would involve planning and forethought by Turner, silly me.

Sometime's it looked like Boyd's brain was to quick for his feet last night!

I can't help but think that negatives are being sought here, because this board is generally stuck in that rut

The game was almost sewn up. Brown had to come on to gain match fitness. Boyd was being saved for Saturday because last night showed he & O'Donovan have to start at Milwall; there are no viable alternatives.

Why put Brown on the left, as has been suggested, when he's right footed? CT has been berated for using players out of position, so why put Brown in an unnatural position when he needs to get back into the groove in his more usual role?

He'd be damned if he brings him on and he gets crocked, and damned if he doesn't briing him on with the match already won to get match practice.
I'm not a great supporter of CT by any stretch, but sometimes it sems he can't win either way.

Why keep Boyd on anyway 3-1 up and brown in need of minuets on the pitch, away at the weekend give Boyd a little rest made sense to me.

I have said on this thread that I may be being to harsh. My original post and some of my replies may read like I'm knocking CT, and in a round about way I suppose that may be correct. But that ,in this case, is not the case.

We all believe that Boyd and O'Donovan will start on Saturday at Millwall, which means Brown starts again on the bench, so there's another game where Brown can come on for some more match practice. So did he really need 30 minutes last night ?? (that's not a go at CT before I'm accused of it yet again)

Brown needs to be eased in so 15 minutes last night. More time on Saturday. I just thought we were on top, Boyd and O'Donovan playing well, there was no need to make a substitution at that time.

It seems to me that in this day managers make substitutions simply because of the amount of time played. (Benitez is a prime example always seems to make a sub between 60-65 minutes)

Even in the light of the day, and many hours later I still think the substitution, was unnecessary, AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. As I said 10-15 minutes later, so Brown get's some match time.

We will need Brown before this season finishes, we will hopefully get a full season out of him next year, let's not put him back in the treatment room.

Last night's substitution could actually put more pressure on CT, if in the next home game we're 1-0 after 50 minutes, some on the terraces may well be calling for Brown to be introduced, he said he wont rush him, and asked for fans to be patient as he's reintroduced to match practice.

They just thoughts and opinions, not a direct go at CT, it has got debate going and that is the intention of a message-board.

And my original post finishes with.................. Not simply knocking Turner here, just surprised that he made that substitution that's all

So I gave an opinion on something that occurred last night, Not a direct have a go a CT post, I still reckon a lot of fans there were also surprised it happened when it did.

30 minutes last night when the game is won and Carlisle by some accounts had given up a bit could probably be better than 15 minutes next game when we may be 1 up or 1 down or drawing and both teams are going all out for a result.

Good decision to give him a run out and Boydy a rest.

i cant believe this thread..we won 4-1 and still people are moaning about something!!! after it got too 1-1 i thought we were chasing shadows for the next ten minutes and was concerned we were going to get turned over again, but give credit wheres its due the players got back into it and where worthy winners. browny came on too get much needed minutes on the pitch thats not rushing him at all, boydy was knackered and came off with millwall in mind. fans on the mill house terrace where moaning when it was 1-1 then when we went 2-1 up said" we didnt deserve that"!!! unbelievable as long as we are winning does it matter if we deserve it or not???

Boydy still has his touches, but he's lacking what pace he used to have.