City 2nd 191 Posted February 13, 2016 At 2-0 we were in the ascendency and cruising, bossing midfield and creating chances, in fact should have had a 3rd. AN changes Olsson for Naismith and within minutes we start to sit deeper, lose the attacking intent, and WHU score. Two more subs later, Dorrans for wes and Mbokani for Jerome and we capitulate and we''re lucky IMO to get the draw. Wise decision or not? We r so much better on the offensive and if we had stayed with the starting 11 could have won that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Juler 148 Posted February 13, 2016 I believe Olsson came on at 2-1 and we conceded within 30 seconds of his introduction. Brady was nowhere for their first, so could understand the change.All I want to see if 11 players in their natural position. The best team isn''t the best 11 players, it''s the best player for each position. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonyc 5,491 Posted February 13, 2016 Managing momentum is our biggest Achilles heel. And still remains one of the things Neil must learn and quick. Sorry to mention Lambert but he would have made quite attacking subs at 2-0, it send the message to the team that they are in control and psychologically are the dominant team. But he makes the wrong subs and tactical decisions ( Worthington used to frustrate me no end like that too) and will bring on two upfront, when and only when, we are behind. I know I am an armchair fan and not the manager. But he has got to learn quick in my opinion. If ever we needed Bamfords pace to stretch WH then today was the day.Hell, please learn quickly ...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lessingham Canary 99 Posted February 13, 2016 West ham did make very positive strong substitutions, Moses and Carrol made a difference Carrol just put everyone on the back foot just with his presence and Moses played a massive part in getting them back into it, so maybe more credit for them rather than negatives against us ? just a thought. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kanadyan Kanary 121 Posted February 13, 2016 "Matt Juler" wrote - Brady was nowhere for their first, so could understand the change.What do you mean? Brady was the one who tackled Moses after he had left Klose in his trailing wake. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Jenkins 0 Posted February 13, 2016 Didn''t see too much wrong with the substitutions, the blame for cmcedng two goals so softly can only rest with the players on the field.Partly a massive failure in concentration but also the stark reality of being a low table team and not having the quality to cope with an onslaught following the West Ham subs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
City 2nd 191 Posted February 13, 2016 Wouldn''t disagree with you there lessingham c. Their subs were positive, and changed the game. The point I''m trying to make us that our subs, IMO, were negative and as a result we capitulated and we lost our organisation, shape and discipline, particularly when under pressure from the West Ham subs, who as you say, changed the game. Had we been the more positive in maintaining our forward momentum, I do think we could have won it. However we went into that defensive mode, dropped deeper and deeper, and both full backs got caught out for their goals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 7,345 Posted February 13, 2016 [quote user="City 2nd"]At 2-0 we were in the ascendency and cruising, bossing midfield and creating chances, in fact should have had a 3rd. AN changes Olsson for Naismith and within minutes we start to sit deeper, lose the attacking intent, and WHU score. Two more subs later, Dorrans for wes and Mbokani for Jerome and we capitulate and we''re lucky IMO to get the draw. Wise decision or not? We r so much better on the offensive and if we had stayed with the starting 11 could have won that?[/quote]It was the right change and came at 2-1. It should have come at 2-0, the game was won and we didn''t need to go after a third. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0 Posted February 13, 2016 WRONG !Even AN says that the reason we conceded was because we didn''t continue to go for the 3rd and sat back ! Hang on ! It was AN who made the disastrous subs 😳😳😁😁😁 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
im spartacus canary 0 Posted February 13, 2016 Olsson was getting ready at 2-0 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fiery Zac 1,066 Posted February 13, 2016 So now people want Brady to be our LB? I thought he was one of the main reasons we were getting relegated it''s mentioned that often.Olsson sub was the right one at the rut time. I even said at the game Naismith had had it and needed to come off. We needed someone with pace on the wing to counter while sitting a little deeper and keeping what we had. Brady into midfield (where apparently he should always be playing) was the right choice.Their first was a result of us still ''going for it'' in a simply kamikaze way when 2-0 up and the 2nd was the exact opposite of sitting too deep because of their 1st. Nothing to do with AN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
City 2nd 191 Posted February 13, 2016 Mutinous Orange wrote:Their first was a result of us still ''going for it'' in a simply kamikaze way when 2-0 up and the 2nd was the exact opposite of sitting too deep because of their 1st. Nothing to do with AN. How were we going for it in a kamikaze way? We were playing an offensive game, admitted by AN. The best form of defence is to have the ball at the other end, and to do that you need the offensive style.........as soon as we changed that style we conceded! You miss the point completely. And if Naismith had had it and needed to come off then you have to question his, and some others fitness! Several West Ham players had played 210 minutes in the last week, Naismith 70! And the goals conceded were once again simply awful defending! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted February 14, 2016 We conceded two goals on the counter attack whilst two nil up. On both occasions our fullbacks (right fullback anyway) and defence were way too far up the pitch and the game was way too stretched. We should have sat back and closed that game out but we displayed horrendous tactical naivity once again and it cost us. Overall we played better yesterday with the sort of intensity we will need but if we remain so staggeringly naive we will go down. Martin was nowhere near his man for the last half an hour and Redmond was a disgrace defensively as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fiery Zac 1,066 Posted February 14, 2016 [quote user="City 2nd"]Mutinous Orange wrote:Their first was a result of us still ''going for it'' in a simply kamikaze way when 2-0 up and the 2nd was the exact opposite of sitting too deep because of their 1st. Nothing to do with AN. How were we going for it in a kamikaze way? We were playing an offensive game, admitted by AN. The best form of defence is to have the ball at the other end, and to do that you need the offensive style.........as soon as we changed that style we conceded! You miss the point completely. And if Naismith had had it and needed to come off then you have to question his, and some others fitness! Several West Ham players had played 210 minutes in the last week, Naismith 70! And the goals conceded were once again simply awful defending![/quote]How were we going for it in a kamikaze way? Look at their first goal, for a team 2-0 up, to only have Klose in our half and both full backs pushed so high up when they win the ball, is madness. At 2-0 and after a run of 6 straight defeats, we needed to protect our ''comfortable'' lead and as a team, drop back a bit. We could still play offensively without be suicidal. ANs sub of Olsson for Naismith (who was ready to come on at 2-0) shows it was his thoughts too.Not sure how I''ve missed the point completely? Also you can question the fitness all you like but like it or not, it was clear to see Naismith was knackered and was getting less and less effective. We needed pace on the counter which moving Brady into midfield would provide. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites