Tony Pulis lambasts referee and defends selection policy after Sheffield Wednesday's 2-0 defeat at Nottingham Forest
Tony Pulis lambasted a refereeing decision and answered questions on whether he felt his consistency in selection should change after Sheffield Wednesday fell to a sorry 2-0 defeat at relegation rivals Nottingham Forest.
The Owls boss is now eight matches without a win at the outset of his Wednesday career. The defeat leaves his side seven points shy of safety with five matches to go until the halfway point.
Speaking on the performance, he said he didn’t believe his squad lacked character, but are shy on quality: “I can’t fault the players for their effort. We went a goal down and we did enough in the first half to warrant being level.
"Second half I thought Forest were better and we looked tired. The changes that we made didn’t make an impression at all, but they had a go.
“We just lack what is needed to win games.
“This hasn’t just started. This time last year they lost a couple of games and from that time onwards things have spun the way they shouldn’t spin.”
Asked whether his policy of consistency in selection and set-up would change given their run of form, he told The Star: “I looked at a couple again tonight.
“I don’t want to get caught on who should play and who shouldn’t play. I just want to get players together who can win football matches at this level. It’s not just one individual, I don’t want to single out one or two.
“Hunty [Alex Hunt] has got a chance tonight, I haven’t seen much of him but he’s a good footballer, so he had a touch today.
“But it’s difficult for lads to come on and play when the team are struggling.”
He also pointed the finger at referee Steve Martin for missing what he described as a ‘horror tackle’ on Tom Lees in the lead-up to Forest’s second goal.
“I think it’s a disgrace,” he said. “The referee was so close. It’s not only a bad, bad challenge, it’s close to being a leg breaker.
“What on earth is the referee doing with that challenge? We’ve got Tom Lees with stud marks, not on his shin, above his knee.”