MATCH THREAD vs Newcastle.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hank shoots Skyler"]I think so, with still over 15 minutes of game to play camped in front of our goal. Perhaps not if we were approaching the 90th minute.

As King said, Murphy is a good counter-attacking outlet to have on the field, defenders need breaks in order to reorganise but instead they faced constant pressure - which inevitably proved too much.

Of course, maybe the same thing could''ve happened with Murphy on the pitch... I don''t at all think it was a terrible decision but do you think Neil will look back and think ''yes that was spot on''? I don''t think he will.

Perhaps THAT Tettey sub there last season was playing on his mind...[/quote]Well, exactly.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

But surely if that''s your stance here then no manager can ever make a poor substitution?

As I said, I don''t believe AN will look back and think he got it spot on tactically with that sub and it''s timing - do you? If so then we''ll have to agree to disagree..

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hank shoots Skyler"]But surely if that''s your stance here then no manager can ever make a poor substitution?

As I said, I don''t believe AN will look back and think he got it spot on tactically with that sub and it''s timing - do you? If so then we''ll have to agree to disagree..[/quote]Listen to his post match interview.Tell me what you disagree with.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

I''ve now listened to it, cheers, I understand his reasoning, but bringing on another CB in this manner surely only encourages the number of over the top balls for the defence to deal with? Why not stop the supply?

I''m sure he''s considered that an alternative substitution in an attempt to stifle the number of balls coming in may have worked better than basically surrendering that side of the pitch and falling back; we completely handed them the initiative.

Funny how it''s the opposite of last year at St James'' with the Tettey change. Perhaps this time round AN will switch to an all-out attacking approach instead...

[morty 0]

[quote user="Hank shoots Skyler"]I''ve now listened to it, cheers, I understand his reasoning, but bringing on another CB in this manner surely only encourages the number of over the top balls for the defence to deal with? Why not stop the supply?

I''m sure he''s considered that an alternative substitution in an attempt to stifle the number of balls coming in may have worked better than basically surrendering that side of the pitch and falling back; we completely handed them the initiative.

Funny how it''s the opposite of last year at St James'' with the Tettey change. Perhaps this time round AN will switch to an all-out attacking approach instead...[/quote]Like I say, easy after the fact.But away from home, protecting a lead, theres pretty much any manager in the land would have done similar..

[king canary 7,580]

Sorry Morty but I just don''t agree- a centre half for a winger is the kind of change I''d maybe expect a manager to make in the 88th-89th minute, not the 80th.

In fact, because I''m bored I just looked at the three games Newcastle have lost this season- none of those teams made a switch that defensive, that early.

Most managers would want to make us more solid- I could see an argument for Thompson coming on for Howson or even Murphy to make the midfield more compact, or even brining on Bennett for Pinto to deal with aerial balls. But what we did basically surrendered any attacking momentum to Newcastle and said for 15 minutes ''come at us.'' Which we couldn''t handle.

[hogesar 9,618]

I''m not being funny but we conceded two goals in the last 2 minutes of stoppage time. That''s nothing to do with the manager, its about the players stepping up and throwing everything on the line for the last two minutes. 

Bennett was brought on to deal with aerial balls yet it''s his useless clearance that led to the equaliser. IF players aren''t going to do the bare basics 3-2 up away from home with 2 minutes left there''s not much the manager can do about it.

[king canary 7,580]

@Hogesar

Disagree. It is in part due to the manager as his change subjected to the defence to a non-stop barrage of attacks from a very good team- it was inevitable they would crack under that sort of pressure.

I''m not disputing that those defenders did well or that they are particlarly good- I just don''t think the managers decisions put them in the place to succeed.

In any situation you want to highlight your strengths and hide your weaknesses. Our weaknesses are clearly in defence so a sensible course of action would have been to try and see the game out by playing keep ball, slowing it down and having some pace further up the pitch to give the defenders as an out ball. As it was, whenever we repelled a Newcastle attack no matter where the defenders cleared it it was inevitably coming straight back as we had no outlet. The defence cracked under the huge pressure Neil put on them.

[hogesar 9,618]

[quote user="king canary"]@Hogesar

Disagree. It is in part due to the manager as his change subjected to the defence to a non-stop barrage of attacks from a very good team- it was inevitable they would crack under that sort of pressure.

I''m not disputing that those defenders did well or that they are particlarly good- I just don''t think the managers decisions put them in the place to succeed.

In any situation you want to highlight your strengths and hide your weaknesses. Our weaknesses are clearly in defence so a sensible course of action would have been to try and see the game out by playing keep ball, slowing it down and having some pace further up the pitch to give the defenders as an out ball. As it was, whenever we repelled a Newcastle attack no matter where the defenders cleared it it was inevitably coming straight back as we had no outlet. The defence cracked under the huge pressure Neil put on them.[/quote]

I totally agree King, problem is our team have proven time and time again their inability to see a game out for themselves through keep-ball etc. Hence Neil decided this time to throw on an extra defender.

It wasn''t the right decision because we lost the game but I could see why he done it based on his previous experience with this squad and there''s no guarantee keeping Murphy on wouldn''t have resulted in the same.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="king canary"]@Hogesar

Disagree. It is in part due to the manager as his change subjected to the defence to a non-stop barrage of attacks from a very good team- it was inevitable they would crack under that sort of pressure.

I''m not disputing that those defenders did well or that they are particlarly good- I just don''t think the managers decisions put them in the place to succeed.

In any situation you want to highlight your strengths and hide your weaknesses. Our weaknesses are clearly in defence so a sensible course of action would have been to try and see the game out by playing keep ball, slowing it down and having some pace further up the pitch to give the defenders as an out ball. As it was, whenever we repelled a Newcastle attack no matter where the defenders cleared it it was inevitably coming straight back as we had no outlet. The defence cracked under the huge pressure Neil put on them.[/quote]

I totally agree King, problem is our team have proven time and time again their inability to see a game out for themselves through keep-ball etc. Hence Neil decided this time to throw on an extra defender.

It wasn''t the right decision because we lost the game but I could see why he done it based on his previous experience with this squad and there''s no guarantee keeping Murphy on wouldn''t have resulted in the same.

[/quote]^^^This.We have all seen it so many times, out defence retreating closer and closer towards the goal, which would have made bringing a player on / keeping a player on further up the pitch irrelevant.I accept Alex Neil''s reasoning and logic on the decision, and I just watched an interview with Jerome, and he admitted that once you step over the white line, the major onus is on the players to manage themselves.

[ron obvious 1,501]

Newcastle wouldn''t have given a monkey''s if we''d left Murphy on, or even brought on more attacking players. They were confident they could outscore us, & they were right.

Their approach was almost Lambertesque. It came within a gnat''s of failing for them. Imagine their reaction if there''d not been those last 2 minutes of extra time? The toon would be in meltdown.

And I wouldn''t be too concerned about our reaction. Remember what Alex said about fans'' mood swings over a season compared to managers & players.

[John C 0]

It may have already been said so apologies if so but last night listening to the radio 5 commentary I was struck by praise from the commentators directed at Martin in the closing minutes i.e. just before the disastrous turn of events. He went down in our penalty area after contact with a Newcastle player. The crowd started to boo in anticipation of Martin staying down and wasting time but he was up in a flash, the crowd stopped booing and the commentators said ''credit to Martin for not time wasting'' or words to that effect. So, my point is in regard to the naivety of our players when trying to see out a game. Martin clearly should have stayed down and milked the situation to break Newcastle''s momentum. Equally, when we score or the other side scored as they did last night our players should delay the re-start by as long as possible for the self same reason. Of course, I am not saying that it would have definitely made the difference but I was left wondering whether or not it might have done. in summary, I do think Neil and our players need to wise up and get cynical - you would have thought that the tactics and brinkmanship displayed by the Middlesborough players and manager the season before last would have imprinted themselves on our players and manager, but apparently not.