Wagner and the strange selections

[dylanisabaddog 4,931]

Having heard the injury news I posted on Friday with a team that I thought pretty much picked itself. I haven't looked back but from memory it was quite a short thread because everyone had come to the same conclusion. 

I wonder what goes through Wagner's mind. My approach to the game yesterday would have been to select the obvious team, sit them down and tell them that individually collectively they were better than QPR. 

I know that sometimes it helps in certain games to make tactical changes but does Wagner ever think of the phycological angle? We weren't away to Leicester, it was QPR for God's sake. Just pick your best team and tell them to go for the throat. I wonder, for example, what on earth Nunez thought when he was told he wasn't playing. 

If we do reach the play offs it will be in spite of Wagner, not because of him. 

[Mason 47 1,383]

I must admit I felt frustrated when I saw the lineup yesterday, as I thought the Coventry lineup + subs pretty much nailed it (Rowe injury aside).

To go back into Standby Mode for QPR and spend the first half as relative spectators is really disappointing. To then claw our way back in before inexplicably hitting the reset button in the second half, well, I've posted enough about that elsewhere.

I've yet to see 'Barnes lone striker' offer anything worth having. He's got his uses but that certainly isn't one.

[hogesar 9,677]

Teams don't reach the playoffs "in spite" of a manager over a 46 game season. Especially not a squad like ours that does have imbalance and weaknesses. 

[Conrad 170]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Teams don't reach the playoffs "in spite" of a manager over a 46 game season. Especially not a squad like ours that does have imbalance and weaknesses. 

So whose fault is it that our squad has 'imbalance and weaknesses'? 

 

[canarybubbles 1,923]

21 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Teams don't reach the playoffs "in spite" of a manager over a 46 game season. Especially not a squad like ours that does have imbalance and weaknesses. 

I'm sure we can agree that squads differ in their levels of players available, that Rotherham's squad, for example, is much inferior to Leicester's. Any manager will either add value to a squad of players, subtract value from them , or have no significant overall effect. Therefore, some teams will reach the playoffs in spite of a manager, because the squad level was higher than the manager achieved (e.g. 'should' have been third, or even automatic, but in reality finished sixth).

And if you don't believe that managers can make that kind of difference, why bother having a manager?

Edited February 11 by canarybubbles

[hogesar 9,677]

4 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

I'm sure we can agree that squads differ in their levels of players available, that Rotherham's squad, for example, is much inferior to Leicester's. Any manager will either add value to a squad of players, subtract value from them , or have no significant overall effect. Therefore, some teams will reach the playoffs in spite of a manager, because the squad level was higher than the manager achieved (e.g. 'should' have been third, or even automatic, but in reality finished sixth).

And if you don't believe that managers can make that kind of difference, why bother having a manager?

There's a difference between a manager getting more out of a group than their individual abilities vs, over 46 games, a squad that everyone on here has criticised for lacking certain positions and depth, reaching the playoffs in spite of a manager. 

We might not reach the playoffs and that could be on Wagner as over a 46 game season we weren't good enough but if we achieve it over a 46 game season it's completely unfair to say it was in spite of a manager.

This has of course been brought up in this thread because of our starting line up. The concensus being we wouldn't be able to control the game without Nunez.

That was also the concensus at half time.

Yet we took a 2 goal lead and when we brought Nunez on I didn't see us take any further control. So sorry if I think that perhaps fans aren't the best judge here. Wagner has made loads of mistakes for me, but the narrative post game has been desperate to really dig into Wagner when his changes helped us win last week and our results in this very hard run in against teams above and around us have been good.

[Robert N. LiM 4,388]

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

when we brought Nunez on I didn't see us take any further control.

Didn't see the game so can't comment in practice, but just on the face of it, isn't it worth saying that Wagner brought Núñez on for Josh Sargent, whereas most fans, in arguing for Núñez to play, would have had him in place of Barnes. And playing Barnes up front on his own is a strange decision, isn't it?

I know what you mean when you take issue with the 'in spite of' phrase, and I wouldn't put it like that myself, but it's a completely legitimate view that another coach could get more out of this group of players. We do seem to have relied on moments of individual brilliance to win games this season and it's certainly arguable that we could sneak into the play-offs on the back of having some real weapons at this level, not because we have a workable system. That's not miles away from it being 'in spite of the coach'.

[canarybubbles 1,923]

20 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There's a difference between a manager getting more out of a group than their individual abilities vs, over 46 games, a squad that everyone on here has criticised for lacking certain positions and depth, reaching the playoffs in spite of a manager. 

We might not reach the playoffs and that could be on Wagner as over a 46 game season we weren't good enough but if we achieve it over a 46 game season it's completely unfair to say it was in spite of a manager.

This has of course been brought up in this thread because of our starting line up. The concensus being we wouldn't be able to control the game without Nunez.

That was also the concensus at half time.

Yet we took a 2 goal lead and when we brought Nunez on I didn't see us take any further control. So sorry if I think that perhaps fans aren't the best judge here. Wagner has made loads of mistakes for me, but the narrative post game has been desperate to really dig into Wagner when his changes helped us win last week and our results in this very hard run in against teams above and around us have been good.

'Teams don't reach the playoffs "in spite" of a manager over a 46 game season.' This was your original statement.

I was not arguing whether Wagner was or was not over/underperforming. I was making the general point that your statement is simply not true unless you believe that squads are interchangeable. Some squads will make the playoffs in spite of their managers, just as others will make the playoffs because of their managers. In other words, the managers make a difference.

Any judgement call on a specific manager cannot be proven, of course. If at the end of the season, we finish sixth and A says it's in spite of Wagner while B says it's because of Wagner, that's a debate.

Edited February 11 by canarybubbles

[Jim Smith 2,322]

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There's a difference between a manager getting more out of a group than their individual abilities vs, over 46 games, a squad that everyone on here has criticised for lacking certain positions and depth, reaching the playoffs in spite of a manager. 

We might not reach the playoffs and that could be on Wagner as over a 46 game season we weren't good enough but if we achieve it over a 46 game season it's completely unfair to say it was in spite of a manager.

This has of course been brought up in this thread because of our starting line up. The concensus being we wouldn't be able to control the game without Nunez.

That was also the concensus at half time.

Yet we took a 2 goal lead and when we brought Nunez on I didn't see us take any further control. So sorry if I think that perhaps fans aren't the best judge here. Wagner has made loads of mistakes for me, but the narrative post game has been desperate to really dig into Wagner when his changes helped us win last week and our results in this very hard run in against teams above and around us have been good.

We actually did completely control the last ten to fifteen minutes in a way we hadn’t before. If Barnes could finish or Onel make the correct decision on whether to pass or shoot just once in the season we would have won. What’s frustrating is that during this period we had removed our main striker who probably would have finished something plus also Sainz. We never had our best unit on the pitch at the same time.

One positive was I thought MCCullum looked a real presence once he came on. I am now tempted to say he should be starting ahead of Dimi. There is a player there that a decent coach should be able to mould. 

[yellowrider120 765]

39 minutes ago, hogesar said:

There's a difference between a manager getting more out of a group than their individual abilities vs, over 46 games, a squad that everyone on here has criticised for lacking certain positions and depth, reaching the playoffs in spite of a manager. 

We might not reach the playoffs and that could be on Wagner as over a 46 game season we weren't good enough but if we achieve it over a 46 game season it's completely unfair to say it was in spite of a manager.

This has of course been brought up in this thread because of our starting line up. The concensus being we wouldn't be able to control the game without Nunez.

That was also the concensus at half time.

Yet we took a 2 goal lead and when we brought Nunez on I didn't see us take any further control. So sorry if I think that perhaps fans aren't the best judge here. Wagner has made loads of mistakes for me, but the narrative post game has been desperate to really dig into Wagner when his changes helped us win last week and our results in this very hard run in against teams above and around us have been good.

That's because we reverted (with that substitution) to the truly bizarre strategy of an ageing, 'plodder' trying to lead the line himself instead of having a striker partner brought on to help him or replace him.  

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

I think the problem is that we’d have all started Rowe, but he isn’t fully fit (we didn’t know that); then we wouldn’t have subbed Josh (who was due to only play an hour) or Stacey (who had been unwell the previous day).

A lot of comments were made not knowing the facts, yet rather than use them as mitigation for decisions made, people just double-down when we know what’s what.  I do find that particularly strange. That isn’t meant as a comment to back-up Wagner, as it has happened under far more popular managers - some of us seem unable to accept the fact that we don’t get told everything in advance. Managers keeping certain information close to their chest simply makes sense sometimes.

One thing I am rather bemused about is the sheer lack of criticism for a particularly ropey first half from Gunn - who looked like he had grease on his gloves.  Had Long made the same error for their first goal (which imo was worse than anything Long has done) we’d have had thread after thread about it.  I get that Angus has credit in the bank, but even so. 

[Jim Smith 2,322]

Rowe had a wrist injury. The idea he’s not match fit is laughable 

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Rowe had a wrist injury. The idea he’s not match fit is laughable 

Did DW not say that he only trained a couple of times in the week?  These things affect different players differently - I imagine Barnes would thrive on it, but Rowe is only young.

[Jim Smith 2,322]

34 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Rowe had a wrist injury. The idea he’s not match fit is laughable 

Or at least it was before he injured himself yesterday 

[hogesar 9,677]

1 hour ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Didn't see the game so can't comment in practice, but just on the face of it, isn't it worth saying that Wagner brought Núñez on for Josh Sargent, whereas most fans, in arguing for Núñez to play, would have had him in place of Barnes. And playing Barnes up front on his own is a strange decision, isn't it?

I know what you mean when you take issue with the 'in spite of' phrase, and I wouldn't put it like that myself, but it's a completely legitimate view that another coach could get more out of this group of players. We do seem to have relied on moments of individual brilliance to win games this season and it's certainly arguable that we could sneak into the play-offs on the back of having some real weapons at this level, not because we have a workable system. That's not miles away from it being 'in spite of the coach'.

Re your first point, yes. But in terms of control of the game we still ended up with Sara, Mclean and Nunez all in midfield which is what people claim creates that 'control'. Or certainly, was the claim at half time before we then scored 2 goals and had control pre-Nunez.

I do take issue with "in spite" of - it's basically posters who've spent the year consistently berating Wagner's go-to option just in-case we unfortunately accidentally sneak the play-offs. Or that's what it feels like. And ultimately, a point away against a resurging QPR isn't a bad point. We lost 3-1 under Farke. For me, it's the issue of preconceptions.

[Capt. Pants 4,248]

1 hour ago, yellowrider120 said:

That's because we reverted (with that substitution) to the truly bizarre strategy of an ageing, 'plodder' trying to lead the line himself instead of having a striker partner brought on to help him or replace him.  

It seems nonsensical to expect a 34 year old who had already been on the pitch since minute 1 to suddenly play as a loan striker.

I don't have an issue with 1 up top but surely that needed to Van Hooijdonk? Barnes' post match comments suggest he was a bit frustrated as well.

A draw wasn't a disaster but if we miss out on the play-offs by a point or two we can harp back to this game where we (Wagner) wrenched a draw from the jaws of victory.

 

[Corbs1 89]

I defer to the goal keepers amongst us, but I’m a bit surprised to hear criticisms of Gunn. That shot fairly fizzed to his right, my instinct was is is up to defenders to anticipate the reaction save. As mentioned I thought McCallum looked ‘Brazil like’ when he came on, nice long thrown too, and QPR  fans must have been fearful of Onel; so not as poor a bench as intimately recently. 

[ridgeman 131]

Now Wagner says Sainz was withdrawn because he believed he had been booked which he hadn’t !

[Year of the tiger 54]

1 hour ago, ridgeman said:

Now Wagner says Sainz was withdrawn because he believed he had been booked which he hadn’t !

In fairness to Wagner, I saw the ref show the yellow card to Sainz in the aftermath of the Sargent goal. We assumed for kicking the ball into the stand, (an offence he did not punish the QPR 30  for doing exactly the same after the first goal). 

[Petriix 2,840]

12 hours ago, hogesar said:

Teams don't reach the playoffs "in spite" of a manager over a 46 game season. Especially not a squad like ours that does have imbalance and weaknesses. 

We're not currently on target for the playoffs so I'd say our position is a fair reflection of the players and manager combined. Right now we're not quite good enough; if we do make it then we'll have to do better. If we do see a sufficient sustained run of form then I don't think anyone will still be complaining. 

[hogesar 9,677]

14 minutes ago, Petriix said:

We're not currently on target for the playoffs so I'd say our position is a fair reflection of the players and manager combined. Right now we're not quite good enough; if we do make it then we'll have to do better. If we do see a sufficient sustained run of form then I don't think anyone will still be complaining. 

You're not new here, let's stop being silly

[Jim Smith 2,322]

10 hours ago, Petriix said:

We're not currently on target for the playoffs so I'd say our position is a fair reflection of the players and manager combined. Right now we're not quite good enough; if we do make it then we'll have to do better. If we do see a sufficient sustained run of form then I don't think anyone will still be complaining. 

Our position is a fair reflection of the players and manager combined. But it’s not a fair reflection of the players. The latter is dragging down the former. 

[Capt. Pants 4,248]

11 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Our position is a fair reflection of the players and manager combined. But it’s not a fair reflection of the players. The latter is dragging down the former. 

Not sure I totally agree tbh, I think our league position is a fair reflection. 

Trying to be objective, I don't think our best players are as good as we think they (eg Sara) plus we lack squad depth beyond a pretty nailed on starting XI.

That's not saying I'm totally in support of Wagner, but the challenge for us will be finding someone better who's prepared to work within our severe budget constraints. Wagner seems happy to chug along and do that.

[Haus 259]

23 hours ago, Conrad said:

So whose fault is it that our squad has 'imbalance and weaknesses'? 

 

Especially after years of parachute payments and premier league  money 

Edited February 12 by Haus

[Google Bot 3,278]

11 hours ago, Petriix said:

Right now we're not quite good enough; if we do make it then we'll have to do better. If we do see a sufficient sustained run of form then I don't think anyone will still be complaining. 

That's the concern for me also.  We're only a few points off top six, but to actually finish there we'll be needing to turn our 1.45 pts/game average into 2 pts/game during the run-in. (Based on 74 points being the historic average).

I think most of us would be happy with the number of points gained in recent games as it feels an upturn, but in truth still isn't enough and we need to pushing harder:

Past 10 games = 1.5 pts/game.

Past 6 games = 1.8 pts/game.

Just shows how costly dropping points at the weekend was, it's the difference between top six and where we are currently.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

The truth is that we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, whether the Sports Scientists advised against 3 games in 8 days for Nunez, whether Van Hooijdonk has looked well off the pace in training etc.

I would have liked to have seen Van Hooijdonk come on for Sargent, that is my main gripe rather than the Nunez one, which could be explained (probably) by the fixture congestion and not wanting to risk burning him out, it felt like having a slow player leading the line when Sargent went off gave QPR the confidence to play with a higher line as they then weren't too worried by the ball in behind.