Well we got what I expected - so what you might ask? Once the team was relayed the first reaction was - total negative, one up front no ambition. But with only three at the back for Chelsea meant that Vokes had no chance, This went on until the second goal went in and what did we do we subbed our one player up front with another one player (Wood) up front on his own with the same no chance affect. Now the game was gone and lost we send on Barnes for Hendrick and then Westwood for Cork. This negative way of being set up is no good and the lateness of substitutes is also a waste of time. It seems SD is unable to make the big decisions when they are needed. I remember going back a little when Oldham were doing quite well under Joe Royle and he would manovre his team to match the opponents defence so if there were 3/4 defenders Olham would have 3/4 attackers at least this made it one v one up front and for a time was really successful and ensured an energetic entertaining football which we sadly lack. I want to be entertained but this group are incapable of providing unless this is team tactics. The thing is that the board will have to decide what we do in January and here lies a dilemma do they give SD more money to spend or do they say no more money for SD the problem that then occurs is SD resigns or the board sack SD. If they sack SD then any new manager will have to be guaranteed money to spend so what will it be sack, resign or stay as we are? At the end of the day I invest my money to be entertained win, lose or draw and that is not happening I am getting a little fed up of the negative boring football that does not bring any entertainment value whatsoever