Wagner’s stupid subs

[Branston Pickle 3,667]

Just now, Indy said:

No you didn’t, you edited that bit! 😂

I edited before your post was posted; that’s life.

I thought it pretty obvious I can’t comment about 2500 people, but can definitely comment on the ‘feel’ around me at the time.  As I said, I think we thought vH would come on later.

[hogesar 9,705]

4 minutes ago, S_81 said:

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. 

Yeah the subs didn't work but were forced. We will never know I'd Sydney would have been a better sub as none of us have really seen him play, but perhaps he would have done.

Wagners changes helped us win last week. This week some forced changes might have been the difference but who knows.

Re Webber, if some posters think we would easily be top 6 without Wagner then the summer transfer window was very good because plenty thought the squad was miles off and we lost Omo and Max 

[Indy 3,307]

1 minute ago, canarybubbles said:

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

He’s started to get more right recently! Give Wagner a break, let’s see Tuesday and how he sets us up.

[Indy 3,307]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I edited before your post was posted; that’s life.

I thought it pretty obvious I can’t comment about 2500 people, but can definitely comment on the ‘feel’ around me at the time.  As I said, I think we thought vH would come on later.

I’ll let you off but I posted your original quote before you edited it! Had you just said that from the start and not claimed everyone I wouldn’t have said anything! 😂

Edited February 10 by Indy

[RobJames 883]

4 minutes ago, S_81 said:

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. 

Is that a serious comment. Do you understand what you have written ?

The bleats on here by the whiners are a desperate attempt to link the substitutions with QPR's second goal. Other than the goal was scored after those substitutions, there is no evidence of that. No proof of cause and effect, just something to grasp if you don't like our club and/or Wagner. That both have put us with a point or so of a play off place is now ignored. The whine is now that we should not be drawing games. So who got us into this position ? The little drummer boy, the chuckle brothers, Keith Scott ?

[Indy 3,307]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Re Webber, if some posters think we would easily be top 6 without Wagner then the summer transfer window was very good because plenty thought the squad was miles off and we lost Omo and Max 

I must be one of a very select few who think Wagner is getting more out of a poor summer group of players, Duffy & Barnes the only two who can be looked at as decent squad players, the rest terrible really, Christ two have gone before January was finished and Baath utterly crap! Considering all the players we lost and those who came in, credit to Wagner for getting Rowe, Sarah & Sargent playing so well, along with Gunn & McLean, otherwise we’d be fighting with QPR in a relegation dog fight, IMO.

[canarybubbles 1,924]

I want Wagner to succeed because he seems a really nice guy and he's working his **** off and he is not at all like that lazy fake who he replaced. But responding to a game as it is happening is an absolutely key skill in football management and he seems incapable of reading a game and changing it if it is going wrong or not changing it when that is the right thing to do.

[HazzaJet 256]

1 hour ago, Virtual reality said:

Surely we should just concentrate on getting the 3 points in the bag today before getting ahead of ourselves. Wrong decision to take him off at all. Those two lost points could be costly 

Yes. Although I would still have taken Sargent off, I would have given him at least 10 more minutes on the pitch and brought van Hooijdonk on as his replacement

[Branston Pickle 3,667]

3 minutes ago, HazzaJet said:

Yes. Although I would still have taken Sargent off, I would have given him at least 10 more minutes on the pitch and brought van Hooijdonk on as his replacement

We know now that he didn’t train hardly at all this week and it was largely planned.  He came over to the bench about a minute before being taken off, presumably to say he was or wasn’t ok.  We do have to consider we have two more games this week, and the rest of the season.

[HazzaJet 256]

4 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

We know now that he didn’t train hardly at all this week and it was largely planned.  He came over to the bench about a minute before being taken off, presumably to say he was or wasn’t ok.  We do have to consider we have two more games this week, and the rest of the season.

If Sargent wanted/needed to come off, then the reason for him being subbed is understandable. Even so, I would have brought van Hooijdonk on as his replacement, not Nunez

Edited February 10 by HazzaJet

[Conrad 171]

1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

We know now that he didn’t train hardly at all this week and it was largely planned.  He came over to the bench about a minute before being taken off, presumably to say he was or wasn’t ok.  We do have to consider we have two more games this week, and the rest of the season.

Possibly, but it is better to win the game being played before worrying about the ones not. 

To take Sargent off should not mean that we have to make such negative substitutions. Additionally Barnes has yet to show that he can play up front alone, so surely the sensible substitution would have been to replace Sargent with VHD? 

[S_81 816]

27 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Is that a serious comment. Do you understand what you have written ?

The bleats on here by the whiners are a desperate attempt to link the substitutions with QPR's second goal. Other than the goal was scored after those substitutions, there is no evidence of that. No proof of cause and effect, just something to grasp if you don't like our club and/or Wagner. That both have put us with a point or so of a play off place is now ignored. The whine is now that we should not be drawing games. So who got us into this position ? The little drummer boy, the chuckle brothers, Keith Scott ?

It was a draw that should have been a win. We should have gone like for like, Josh for Sydney. Call me and others whiners all you like but you’ll find more people agree with that than disagree 

[tea total 79]

Plenty of 'managers' on here who don't agree with DW whatever he does.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

8 hours ago, S_81 said:

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. 

I think the subs were a mistake but this isn't true. We have no idea of Hoijdonk's sharpness or otherwise behind the scenes, nor his integration in terms of tactics/positioning etc. People forget that even Buendia took months to settle in and establish himself and we're currently seeing similar with Sainz.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

11 hours ago, RobJames said:

Is that a serious comment. Do you understand what you have written ?

The bleats on here by the whiners are a desperate attempt to link the substitutions with QPR's second goal. Other than the goal was scored after those substitutions, there is no evidence of that. No proof of cause and effect, just something to grasp if you don't like our club and/or Wagner. That both have put us with a point or so of a play off place is now ignored. The whine is now that we should not be drawing games. So who got us into this position ? The little drummer boy, the chuckle brothers, Keith Scott ?

I mean the result is pretty good evidence. 

Wagner made those changes to try and see the game out and be more defensive. We conceded soon after and then didn’t see the game out. Therefore, his decision to make those two subs and change tact, resulted in a negative one.

Yes there are plenty of other factors and eventualities, but objectively, we can compare what were doing against what we ended up doing, post change. 

[S_81 816]

3 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I think the subs were a mistake but this isn't true. We have no idea of Hoijdonk's sharpness or otherwise behind the scenes, nor his integration in terms of tactics/positioning etc. People forget that even Buendia took months to settle in and establish himself and we're currently seeing similar with Sainz.

I’m certain he’s ready for 20mins vs a team the standard of QPR. 

[The Real Buh 3,446]

Wagner should just televise the FA cup draw style sub selection he makes the week before the game so we all know the absolute guff he’s going to attempt this week.

He has no idea what’s going on.

Edited February 11 by The Real Buh

[Conrad 171]

3 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I think the subs were a mistake but this isn't true. We have no idea of Hoijdonk's sharpness or otherwise behind the scenes, nor his integration in terms of tactics/positioning etc. People forget that even Buendia took months to settle in and establish himself and we're currently seeing similar with Sainz.

Assuming that you are correct, then why have him on the bench if there is no intention of playing him?

[Mr.Carrow 378]

35 minutes ago, Conrad said:

Assuming that you are correct, then why have him on the bench if there is no intention of playing him?

Because being part of the group and maybe coming on if we're two goals up is part of his education/integration. Look, i actually think the energy he would've brought to the pitch would've outweighed his naivety, so i think Wagner made a mistake (although his subs vs Cov were superb, so.....). I was just pointing out that things are not as simple as the post i was replying to suggested. 

[Commonsense 630]

16 hours ago, S_81 said:

After a poor first half we found our rhythm second half and started it really well. We got ourselves ahead, looked like we could go on to get a third - and then Wagner, with 70 not even on the clock - decides to protect a one goal lead. 
 

It was Southgate-like. With the same inevitable outcome - inviting pressure onto a team who are better going forward than back. 
 

Really unclear why Sarge wasn’t replaced with Sydney either - if the former had to come off at that point (which IMO he didn’t). What’s the point in the latter signing if he gets no time in a game like today when we are level.  
 

QPR are a poor team and Wagner cost us two points. That may well be very costly end of season. 

 

Did you know about Sarge’s illness and the fact that he hadn’t trained all week, coupled with the fact that we have Watford on Tuesday- I guess not so that makes your opinion worthless!

He should though have been replaced with Sydney.

[Capt. Pants 4,262]

6 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I think the subs were a mistake but this isn't true. We have no idea of Hoijdonk's sharpness or otherwise behind the scenes, nor his integration in terms of tactics/positioning etc. People forget that even Buendia took months to settle in and establish himself and we're currently seeing similar with Sainz.

With all due respect we shouldn't be sending a striker out on loan in January and bringing someone in who isn't ready.

In any case SVH came off the bench against Coventry and looked pretty mobile with a couple of nice lay-offs. It would seem a natural progression to allow him 15-20 mins against QPR, so he's in even better shape for Watford.

[Corbs1 90]

My neighbour st the game was very critical of the subs as negativity, I felt ambivalent but now understand the reasoning. To finish with 10 men, and injured Rowe and no sight of Van the man; did take the shine off an enjoyable day. Chair was good again, and one felt for Sorenson. On reflection I think the biggest factor was a resiliency in the Rangers ranks which we hadn’t catered for. I cannot remember a Coach being treated this way before at City. We are doing slightly better than expected, certainly nothing hugely downward, yet there is an odd assumption the he is the caretaker. 

[ricardo 7,395]

1 hour ago, Corbs1 said:

I cannot remember a Coach being treated this way before at City. We are doing slightly better than expected, certainly nothing hugely downward, yet there is an odd assumption the he is the caretaker. 

Yes, very perceptive. Some appear to think there is already someone waiting in the wings. Personally I don't think his job is at anymore risk to events and results than any other manager in this league.

[yellowrider120 766]

18 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Yeah can’t argue with the OP. 

Wagner firstly should have started Nunez IMO and left Barnes as a sub which worked so well last week. 

I understand the need to be careful with Sarge.. but if we’re going to sub him early and cost us points then really what is the point? He may as well be injured!! If he must make the sub, then it has to be for SVH and keep the same set up.

Really annoyed to seemingly given away 2 points. If he leaves it till 75/80 mins I reckon Sarge Probably scores again and puts the game to bed.

Puts a bit more pressure on Tuesday now, which is must win if Playoffs are the aim. 4 points from these two is a minimum. 

Totally agree. last week was (arguably) our best performance (Or close to) of the season. Also, the cameo by Barnes was (in many peoples eyes) one  of his nest performances (a low bar of achievement it has to be said) so why the hell change the line up! Barnes can't manage 90 minutes nor can he lead the line himself. The fact that he did so yesterday was a shocking indictment of Wagner's judgement.    

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,789]

4 hours ago, Conrad said:

Assuming that you are correct, then why have him on the bench if there is no intention of playing him?

It does seem a frequent theme at this club that whilst other clubs sign players who play straight away ,our new signings take weeks/months to 'get up to speed'...

[mannings bandy legs 391]

8 hours ago, Mr.Carrow said:

I think the subs were a mistake but this isn't true. We have no idea of Hoijdonk's sharpness or otherwise behind the scenes, nor his integration in terms of tactics/positioning etc. People forget that even Buendia took months to settle in and establish himself and we're currently seeing similar with Sainz.

All this "tactics/positioning,looking at ipads on touchline,telling players to do this ,do that." Christ he's a footballer,who must be fairly decent i'd dare say. Give him 20 mins,say go and enjoy yourself ,rough 'em up and get us the winner!!!!!FFS!!!!!

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,789]

3 minutes ago, mannings bandy legs said:

All this "tactics/positioning,looking at ipads on touchline,telling players to do this ,do that." Christ he's a footballer,who must be fairly decent i'd dare say. Give him 20 mins,say go and enjoy yourself ,rough 'em up and get us the winner!!!!!FFS!!!!!

Indeed...the thing is ,if Idah had been on the bench , he would probably have been brought on at that point.

If we've signed someone that they dont think is as good/ready/capable as Idah ,its a worry

[Branston Pickle 3,667]

29 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

It does seem a frequent theme at this club that whilst other clubs sign players who play straight away ,our new signings take weeks/months to 'get up to speed'...

Actually, QPR had two new signings on the bench - they set up/scored the second goal - so it isn’t true to say that other sides start them straight away.  It’s a mix.

That said, of course I think we did all expect to see vH come on, it does feel very odd to sign a guy and have him play about 3 minutes across his first two games at the club. 

Edited February 11 by Branston Pickle

[S_81 816]

4 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Did you know about Sarge’s illness and the fact that he hadn’t trained all week, coupled with the fact that we have Watford on Tuesday- I guess not so that makes your opinion worthless!

He should though have been replaced with Sydney.

Glad you agree re the latter. Cheers 

[yellowrider120 766]

So (van Hooidjonk) this was not really in consideration. Barnsey (Ashley Barnes), I think, was a threat in the link up and obviously in front of goal as well.

OMG - the actual view of our 'Head Coach' on the decision NOT to give Sydney any game time. So we take off our main striker to 'protect' him, 'rest' him whatever and that may have been a perfectly reasonable decision but then we retain (for the whole match) a 34 year old who offers virtually no goal threat and does not have the legs to lead the line and play the lone striker role. Let that sink in for a while! One wonders now how much we will see of Sydney for the last three months (less actually) of the season. Next it will be ...........'his numbers aren't up to our standard yet' and / or 'he needs to take on information better'