Wagner’s stupid subs

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

5 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

See my post above - Josh 100% came over to the bench just before being subbed.

These days, people do seem incapable of trying to find out before they jump off at the deep end. 

An 80 percenter, I expect nothing less.

[canarybubbles 1,951]

Some desperate excuses for Wagner on here. Blaming Gunn, for instance, who has saved us God knows how many points this season with his shot-stopping, rather than a manager who has cost us at least the same number of points through his weird substitutions. Stacey was ill. So why not use Fisher? Saving Sargent for the Watford game. So why not use Hooijdonk? Wagner massively overthinks. With the fixtures we have, we have a serious chance of getting into the lottery of the play-offs if we had a manager who merely did the obvious with the resources he has at his disposal.

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

4 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

An 80 percenter, I expect nothing less.

As a complete muppet I expect nothing less from yourself than to leap off the deep end before you know any facts about why decisions were made.  Classic kneejerk, with the jerk bit being most apt.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,867]

I didn't actually follow the game today as I was busy, but having looked at the timing of the subs after the game, they looked a little strange. I guess this thread confirms that they indeed were.

[S_81 890]

18 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

See my post above - Josh 100% came over to the bench just before being subbed.

These days, people do seem incapable of trying to find out before they jump off at the deep end. 

I think it’s fair enough to question why Nunez and not Sydney. I truly believe had he made a like for like sub for Josh we’d have won the game. Instead, for reasons unknown, he didn’t want to give Sydney 20mins. And wanted to try shore up for a hold instead. It backfired. And actually it backfired almost immediately in terms of our tempo and dominance at that point. 

[Mason 47 1,403]

It's not so much the literal subs I have an issue with, it's the intangibles. We were on top, just gone ahead and had the momentum; going to Barnes lone striker and Lungi in at RB flicked a switch and turned us utterly passive until the equaliser. We had 3 players around the crosser and he had so much time to deliver, case and point.

I accept there were reasons that players had to come off, but the way we just ceded the momentum in the game was barmy IMO.

 

[S_81 890]

14 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Some desperate excuses for Wagner on here. Blaming Gunn, for instance, who has saved us God knows how many points this season with his shot-stopping, rather than a manager who has cost us at least the same number of points through his weird substitutions. Stacey was ill. So why not use Fisher? Saving Sargent for the Watford game. So why not use Hooijdonk? Wagner massively overthinks. With the fixtures we have, we have a serious chance of getting into the lottery of the play-offs if we had a manager who merely did the obvious with the resources he has at his disposal.

Totally agree with this. His substitutions more often than not don’t work in our favour. And he often overlooks the simple in doing so. 

[Helsinki canary 244]

9 minutes ago, S_81 said:

I think it’s fair enough to question why Nunez and not Sydney. I truly believe had he made a like for like sub for Josh we’d have won the game. Instead, for reasons unknown, he didn’t want to give Sydney 20mins. And wanted to try shore up for a hold instead. It backfired. And actually it backfired almost immediately in terms of our tempo and dominance at that point. 

Spot on

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

12 minutes ago, S_81 said:

I think it’s fair enough to question why Nunez and not Sydney. I truly believe had he made a like for like sub for Josh we’d have won the game. Instead, for reasons unknown, he didn’t want to give Sydney 20mins. And wanted to try shore up for a hold instead. It backfired. And actually it backfired almost immediately in terms of our tempo and dominance at that point. 

You clearly weren’t at the game - maybe didn’t even watch it. We were on the front foot when the subs were made and remained so.

The thing is, I know with 100% certainty that had we bought SvH on and drawn 2-2, you’d be slating him for being too attacking.  

Edited February 10 by Branston Pickle

[canarybubbles 1,951]

I am rapidly coming to the opinion that Knapper is well aware that Wagner is tactically inept and has zero chance of winning us promotion and very little chance of getting us into the play-offs, but he is quite happy to take the longer view and sack him in the close season when he has proved the same to the owners.

I feel a bit guilty saying this because Wagner is clearly a nice guy and he has done a very good job in terms of building squad unity and motivation, but someone off the street who sat on the bench and took no actions whatsoever would probably have done a better in-game job than Wagner has done this season.

[S_81 890]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

You clearly weren’t at the game - maybe didn’t even watch it. We were on the front foot when the subs were made and remained so. 

You clearly didn’t watch it - as Chair ran Sorenson ragged and the loss of Josh up top was evident, with Barnes trying to up the free kick winning and generally looking knackered. 
We could have course still won it, it was a scrappy affair at both ends. But there’s no doubt that in the immediate 10-15mins after those subs QPR felt able to come onto us more. They scored within that period. Prior to those subs we were all over them and looked set for a third. 
 

It’s high time you stopped defending everything Wagner does. Whilst the changes may well have been forced upon him - his decisions of who to replace with were poor today and that cost us. 

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

9 minutes ago, S_81 said:

You clearly didn’t watch it - as Chair ran Sorenson ragged and the loss of Josh up top was evident, with Barnes trying to up the free kick winning and generally looking knackered. 
We could have course still won it, it was a scrappy affair at both ends. But there’s no doubt that in the immediate 10-15mins after those subs QPR felt able to come onto us more. They scored within that period. Prior to those subs we were all over them and looked set for a third. 
 

It’s high time you stopped defending everything Wagner does. Whilst the changes may well have been forced upon him - his decisions of who to replace with were poor today and that cost us. 

What?  I was there.  No one at the game complained about the subs when they were made.  I suppose you see what you want to see - which in your case is “what can I whinge about today”.

It is classic of you that you haven’t read what I have said.  I’m not defending Wagner in any way, and I couldn’t care less if he left tomorrow. I have been talking about the kneejerk reaction to subs when you’ve no idea what’s behind them.  That you can’t see this actually makes perfect sense.

Edited February 10 by Branston Pickle

[S_81 890]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

What?  I was there.  No one at the game complained about the subs when they were made.  I loose you see what you want to see - which in your case is “what can I whinge about today”.

It is classic of you that you haven’t read what I have said.  I’m not defending Wagner in any way, and I couldn’t care less if he left tomorrow. I have been talking about the kneejerk reaction to subs when you’ve no idea what’s behind them.  That you can’t see this actually makes perfect sense.

They didn’t make perfect sense at under 70mins. They cost us a win. It may have looked different to you from the stand, but it was obvious on the screen. He played to protect the lead, far too early. He should have put Sydney on and won us the game. It was a Southgate move. It backfired.

Im not getting it out of context. We are still in reach of 6th. But we could have been level and that angers me, yes. And there’s a lot of people on here who agree with me. And not just because they dislike Wagner or feel he’s a poor tactician. On the basis of today in isolation it felt almost like a loss. 

[Indy 3,323]

4 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

What?  I was there.  No one at the game complained about the subs when they were made. 

Bold claim, I know of two who were at the game and both have questioned the subs! Especially the Sorensen & Sargent off without VH coming on! But hey you must have missed getting their opinion in the stands!

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

1 minute ago, S_81 said:

They didn’t make perfect sense at under 70mins. They cost us a win. It may have looked different to you from the stand, but it was obvious on the screen. He played to protect the lead, far too early. He should have put Sydney on and won us the game. It was a Southgate move. It backfired.

Im not getting it out of context. We are still in reach of 6th. But we could have been level and that angers me, yes. And there’s a lot of people on here who agree with me. And not just because they dislike Wagner or feel he’s a poor tactician. On the basis of today in isolation it felt almost like a loss. 

You haven’t read what I said again, have you.

[RobJames 905]

The whiners tie themselves into contradictory knots, as ever.

On one hand they have endlessly whined how bad the squad is, how the club has cheated them etc, then belly ache that we were good enough to win but for Wagner.

The thought that it might help to listen to any explanation as to the reasoning behind the substitutions is not for them.Like a petulant six year old before bedtime, a tantrum is their response.........isn't it always ?

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

Bold claim, I know of two who were at the game and both have questioned the subs! Especially the Sorensen & Sargent off without VH coming on! But hey you must have missed getting their opinion in the stands!

The only comments were when Sainz went off, but hey - you appear to know better than me what was being said.  There was no disquiet or negative comment at the game - it’s great what happens with hindsight, though.

Edited February 10 by Branston Pickle

[Indy 3,323]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

The only comments were when Sainz went off, but hey - you appear to know better than me what was being said.

You’re the one claiming to know what everyone said at the game! Not me….i just pointed out you missed two fans out who weren’t so happy at the time! You must do better next time!

[S_81 890]

Just now, RobJames said:

The whiners tie themselves into contradictory knots, as ever.

On one hand they have endlessly whined how bad the squad is, how the club has cheated them etc, then belly ache that we were good enough to win but for Wagner.

The thought that it might help to listen to any explanation as to the reasoning behind the substitutions is not for them.Like a petulant six year old before bedtime, a tantrum is their response.........isn't it always ?

The only reasoning to not put Sydney on for Josh is that Wagner wanted to tighten it up and hold the lead. But we were over 20mins out and it backfired as it invited QPR on. If you can’t see that then you need help. 

[hogesar 9,776]

I dont think Barnes plays the lone striker well brilliantly but he had been holding up well etc. That's the only decision I really see as being relevant.

Stacey was ill so fair enough.

There is a little funny irony in half time everyone slating Webber for not starting Nunez. Some of those same individuals on twitter then moaned that we brought him on.

Not a terrible away point. 

I'm seeing a lot more of "this squad is easy top 6 without Wagner"

In which case, yet another successful transfer window from Webber..

Edited February 10 by hogesar

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

You’re the one claiming to know what everyone said at the game! Not me….i just pointed out you missed two fans out who weren’t so happy at the time! You must do better next time!

Way to go to deliberately miss the point.  I can’t speak for everyone there any more than you, but the fact is there was no negative comment from anyone around me at the time.

Edited February 10 by Branston Pickle

[S_81 890]

5 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

You haven’t read what I said again, have you.

I’ve read exactly what you said - that people are criticising the subs being made without knowing why. That’s half the point. The other half is that it’s totally reasonable, given what followed, to question who he put on instead. 
You’re the one that doesn’t seem to be able to read re that regard. Or see that he made an error. 

[Indy 3,323]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

Way to go to deliberately miss the point.  I can’t speak for everyone there any more than you, but the fact is there was no negative comment from anyone at the time.

There you go again! There was some negative when Sarge went off without VH coming on, I have had a chat with my Cuz who was at the game! But hey ho…..

[Chelm Canary 404]

I have to say as soon as I saw Sarge being subbed I was worried. If it wasn't a fitness issue then that is a very strange decision. 

In my opinion if Sargent had stayed on the field, we would have gone on to win the game. 

I was also somewhat confused by Sorenson coming on for Stacey.

These strange decisions worried me at the time, and my fears became reality. 

[S_81 890]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

I dont think Barnes plays the lone striker well brilliantly but he had been holding up well etc. That's the only decision I really see as being relevant.

Stacey was ill so fair enough.

There is a little funny irony in half time everyone slating Webber for not starting Nunez. Some of those same individuals on twitter then moaned that we brought him on.

Not a terrible away point. 

I'm seeing a lot more of "this squad is easy top 6 without Wagner"

In which case, yet another successful transfer window from Webber..

Or, alternatively- Webber got some things right and some things wrong. And some players are better suited to this level. And, crucially - 5th/6th downwards - it’s a much of a muchness this year and a handful of talented players in an 11 can be enough - IF also the manager also makes the positive difference. Unfortunately today Wagner made a difference for the wrong reason 20mins out. Even if those subs were forced upon him. 

[Gordon Bennett 794]

DW has probably got it wrong today but this all feels a bit OTT to me. 

On to Tuesdsy.

[Branston Pickle 3,707]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

There you go again! There was some negative when Sarge went off without VH coming on, I have had a chat with my Cuz who was at the game! But hey ho…..

I said ‘around me’. That is factually correct, there was no negative comment in the people around me at the time.  That’s all I can comment about.

We did expect to see vH later, but didn’t. That was more puzzling, but not when Josh went off.

Edited February 10 by Branston Pickle

[Indy 3,323]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I dont think Barnes plays the lone striker well brilliantly but he had been holding up well etc. That's the only decision I really see as being relevant.

Stacey was ill so fair enough.

There is a little funny irony in half time everyone slating Webber for not starting Nunez. Some of those same individuals on twitter then moaned that we brought him on.

Not a terrible away point. 

I'm seeing a lot more of "this squad is easy top 6 without Wagner"

In which case, yet another successful transfer window from Webber..

Indeed a point away is always a decent result, and it’s a squad game, Wagner decided this team with two more games this week….. I would have started with Nunez instead of Barnes, but can see why he played Barnes, my only criticism is not replacing Sargent with VH. 
I’m more than happy with a point and hopefully we can follow it up with two home wins.

[Indy 3,323]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

I said ‘around me’. That is factually correct, there was no negative comment at the time.  

No you didn’t, you edited that bit! 😂

[canarybubbles 1,951]

2 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

DW has probably got it wrong today but this all feels a bit OTT to me. 

On to Tuesdsy.

If this were just a one-off, I'd agree. But he's got it wrong a load of times, that's the issue.