Millwall boss explains what he means by ‘pretty damaging’ reference in post-match press conference

Gary Rowett was far happier with the second-half performance his Millwall players put in to come back and secure a point against Hull City at The Den on Saturday than the manner in which they played the opening 45 minutes.

The Lions form at home this season has been decidedly mixed with seven points collected from six matches.

It needed a fine strike by Joe Bryan to prevent the South Londoners slipping to successive Championship losses on their own patch as they drew 2-2 to make it four points banked from their last two matches before the international break.

Rowett made a shape and personnel change at the break against Hull City, ditching a back four to go to a wing-back system.

Aidomo Emakhu had the chance to score a late winner for the Lions but smashed over after being played into the box by Romaine Esse.

Millwall went into the contest having lost five of their previous seven home league games – winning two – and had conceded 12 goals during that time, as many as in their prior 16 such games (won eight, drew six and lost two).

Rowett talked post-game about how losing to Hull would have been “pretty damaging”. Asked what he meant by that comment, he said:  “I’ve been here four years and if you go and lose another home game…that is your job, to win games of football. I don’t like losing football matches – I’m sure the players don’t and the fans don’t.

“I meant more damaging that it would have been another home defeat. What happens then is the pressure starts to build on those home games.

“I’m only bothered about the players’ performance – I’m not bothered about myself or anything other than that.

“They showed the relevant character on Tuesday night and then they showed the relevant character and quality in the second half today.

“Yes, I’d like us to do that from the start. I think we can certainly piece together long and better performances.

“I’d have been even happier (with his substitutions) if Aidomo had scored. I was happy that when we changed it, it changed the game a little bit. It wasn’t because I changed it tactically or I changed the formation – it was players going out and putting a bit more energy and aggression into the performance.

“Maybe the formation made it easier for us to do that. It’s why I did it. But the players still have to do it, with a bit of bravery. I would’ve been quite pleased whatever happened, if it had even stayed 2-1, if we had performed like that because you have to show a bit of character in those circumstances.

“To get the equaliser and maybe have a chance to nick it at the end was certainly what we were looking for.”