Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clint

Subs

Recommended Posts

I''m not taking the blame away from old Gazza as from what I''ve seen there''s no way we''d have lost this with 11 vs 11.

However, at 1-1 and playing reasonably well in the circumstances, did anyone else think our subs were a bit suicidal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes a total disaster, manager totally stuffed it, Vadis much stronger player than Redmond and able to defend and then Jarvis who hasn''t played for months... The two Neil''s blew it for us tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes get back in the game against all the odds and bring two wingers on , substitutions right up there with the Newcastle game and killed off any slim chance we had .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
He''s got to be thinking of Saturday, surely? Weren''t we 2-1 down when the subs were made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hindsight is a wonderful thing...I think it was brave and we''d be saying what a genius he is if it had worked. Maybe a bit early to play that card in the game. At least Jarvis got some game time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to disagree.

If we wanted any possibility of nicking anything from the game then a counter attack/wing play would probably have been our best chance. They also pushed further up the pitch to support Mbokani, when needed.

With 10 men chasing the ball, fresh legs on the wings certainly helped.

Neither Redmond or Jarvis were at fault for any of the goals, so this feels like clutching at straws to whinge at something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor decision. Down to 10 men then surely you do not bring on two attacking wingers, one who has not played for several weeks and the other completely out of form. If you are going down this route they have to take on the defenders and go for it, but Redmond has not done this for weeks. The boy has lost confidence and treats the ball like a hot potato. If we had kept it tight we might have got away with a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subs did not alter the game. Thought Jarvis looked good, and for the unlucky 2-1 goal, none of the subs were involved. Just bad luck, and for me, AN had balls going for it. Perhaps more wise to bring on Jarvis for Wes first, and wait 10 more mins before introducing Redmond, but got no big complaints about the subs. Also think both subs were largely planned pre match, and part of the original game plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have gone olsson for wes but tactically there was logic behind them and they were bold - and i applaud that even if it didnt work this time - since when did we all love chris hughtons approach??

The two goals were due to central, not wide issues, not seeing how this is one to blame the manager with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we do have to developed though is a habit of conceding within a few of minutes of us making a sub - the second goal coming just 4 mins after the double changes.

That is something we have to improve upon - against hints at concentration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can see the logic behind the subs he made but I don''t think any of them worked. He ended up taking off the players who at the time they were dubbed were out best three players on the pitch and we''re having an influence on the game. I thought as soon as he made the double change Stoke started to get behind us down the flanks and got control of the game back.

Neil is a good manager but he''s no Lambert when it comes to making subs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree, Zipper.

Also, the goals conceded for 2-1 and 3-1 had a lot to do with bad luck.

2-1 through the legs of Bennett. A few centimeters to either side, and it would have hit Bennett''s leg. Small margins.

3-1 is another bad luck goal. Very good freekick into the box, pace and swing, shaves the head of Bennett into the top corner. A few centimeters here too, and it would sail over, or Bennett connects better to it and heads it away.

Blaming this poor luck on two, at the time, quite sensible substitutions is wrong.

Personally I think VOO was taken off for Redmond a bit too early, but the subs made perfect sense to me at the time, as legs were starting to tire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the goals were not down to the subs, I just don''t think the subs worked. They made it less likely we''d get something out of the game not more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brave tactics, didn''t work, but he gave it a go. I like a brave manager, so good on him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the subs were spot on, he rolled the dice and on this occasion partly lost.

I say only partly as by taking off VOO and Wes he will hopefully have them in good form for Bournmouth.

VOO actually impressed me as the game went on, his defending got quite good as the game progressed, and his attacking was quite good too. Only thing i noticed was his insistence to do the same cut inside each time which was seemingly always blocked by a Stoke Player, get him to mix up his movement a bit more and he''s going to be a nightmare for the opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point I could bring up the moaning that was done at hughton for his negative or lack of substitutions

The cries of "I don''t care if we don''t win, as long as we are attacking and giving it a go"

But that would be a bit too illuminating methinks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That''s why this whole "playing the Norwich way" annoys me.

The only thing the majority of fans care about is winning. If we did that by playing by tapping it about like Barcelona or hoofing it like Ipswich would not matter

And that''s not a problem

But when you pretend like you want football played the "notwich way" then get mad when we do, and lose, you''ve just abandoned your philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it did cost us, albeit not solely. However I understand the thinking behind it and would never criticise AN for making a decision such as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funnily enough when my companion and I saw Jarvis & Redmond being warmed up at half time we thought they would both be coming on straight away and thought this would be a good move in terms of keeping the ball better in wider areas and stretching Stoke a bit more. Can understand why the changes were made, unfortunately I don''t think we would have kept Stoke out with ten men whatever the tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...