So we switched to five at the back

[cambridgeshire canary 7,933]

And then let in two goals?

[Ian 1,226]

Individual errors cost us today.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,271]

19 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

And then let in two goals?

This is inevitably what happens when you try to defend a 1 goal lead. More defenders simply invites pressure. Best form of defence is attack. 

Southgate was regularly guilty of this when England took the lead

[CDMullins 506]

5 at the back with four CB’s on the pitch.

WTAF.

[Mason 47 2,030]

5 at the back isn't an automatic golden ticket to not conceding goals. It actually works best when you're in control of games.

Today it had the effect of placing the bulk of our manpower in our third and thusly, the ball staying in our half. Not a critical error, not great though being as we were pretty comfortable. I think it contributed to the winner as there were lots of bodies in our box, very 'busy', but the intent wasn't really there.

As with any defence it needs to be tight-knit and we just allowed Cardiff to find holes repeatedly. The right side of the pitch- after the changes- in particular was a huge weakness and Cardiff found it and executed with aggression.

There are also other contextual issues with today, IMO, I think as soon as Hanley came on and instantly had a wobble the confidence of the unit drops. And conversely, Cardiff would feel invited to test him.

[Capt. Pants 5,152]

Don't know why this couldn't have been added to the matchthread but there you go, but a chance to have a dig at JHT I suppose.

 

[Yellow and Green 354]

1) Many were suggesting that we should start with five at the back (albeit not with four CBs).

2) The unused subs were Mair, Mahovo, Springett and and unfit Fassnacht... I'd sugest they wouldn't have made much difference.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,704]

39 minutes ago, Ian said:

Individual errors cost us today.

From individuals needlessly brought on as subs.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,271]

You can decide to change how you're playing and decide to defend instead with a 2 goal cushion imo but not one. Put defenders on, change the formation, often to one you're not familiar with with players you didn't consider worthy of the starting line up and stop doing what it was that had you on top of the game. 

So often this is like shooting yourself in the foot. 

Were winning! How do we gift this to our opponents? Should we change what were doing? Great idea! 

Edited November 2, 2024 by The Great Mass Debater

[The Great Mass Debater 1,271]

When the gamble fails and they equalise, your attackers are on the bench and theirs are on the pitch, so another conceded far more likely than reestablish ing the lead. It's a sh*t or bust strategy

Edited November 2, 2024 by The Great Mass Debater

[Ian 1,226]

8 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

From individuals needlessly brought on as subs.

Do you actually believe they were needlessly brought on? Borderline delusional statement.

[Yobocop 1,476]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

Individual errors cost us today.

And the fact we never killed the game off 

[Ian 1,226]

16 minutes ago, Yobocop said:

And the fact we never killed the game off 

Yes, agreed. Arguably you could suggest these were individual errors too - the list of badly misplaced passes in key areas was a bit too long today.

No wonder Sainz wants to do everything himself.

[chicken 3,138]

1 hour ago, CDMullins said:

5 at the back with four CB’s on the pitch.

WTAF.

Yet many folks were calling for Doyle to be played as DM from the start.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,704]

56 minutes ago, Ian said:

Do you actually believe they were needlessly brought on? Borderline delusional statement.

Yes. We were on top, the changes weren’t required. Unless I’m proven wrong by injury, Schwartau and Sorenson could’ve lasted another 15 minutes. Why? They’d played 75 mins and looked comfortable, as was the overall performance at that point. You’re telling me they couldn’t last another 15 mins? You’ll argue Sorenson couldn’t, for obvious reasons, but I reckon he could’ve done it.

Those changes completely changed the game. If he had to make a change, make one? Just like his decision to change both full backs, another common move. It doesn’t take a master tactician to see how unsettling multiple changes can be. 

Listen, I like JHT. I like him a lot. But his inexperience has cost us 3 points today. And IMO, his cavalier attitude to subs, was a disaster waiting to happen. 

Edited November 2, 2024 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[Unthink road 167]

3 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Yes. We were on top, the changes weren’t required. Unless I’m proven wrong by injury, Schwartau and Sorenson could’ve lasted another 15 minutes. Why? They’d played 75 mins and looked comfortable, as was the overall performance at that point. You’re telling me they couldn’t last another 15 mins? You’ll argue Sorenson couldn’t, for obvious reasons, but I reckon he could’ve done it.

Those changes completely changed the game. If he had to make a change, make one? Just like his decision to change both full backs, another common move. It doesn’t take a master tactician to see how unsettling multiple changes can be. 

Listen, I like JHT. I like him a lot. But his inexperience has cost us 3 points today. And IMO, his cavalier attitude to subs, was a disaster waiting to happen. 

Do you know the players you mentioned weren't struggling? We see the game from the stands or screen, but the reality is the communication between player and coach. I agree the substitutions changed the game, but as fans we don't know the detail of those changes. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,704]

3 minutes ago, Unthink road said:

Do you know the players you mentioned weren't struggling? We see the game from the stands or screen, but the reality is the communication between player and coach. I agree the substitutions changed the game, but as fans we don't know the detail of those changes. 

Look at the pattern of his substitutions this season. He’s a ‘serial changer.’

Edited November 2, 2024 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[Mello Yello 2,588]

So we switched off with five at the back....

There, that's more apt.....

[Unthink road 167]

Do you think he's producing results you expected? My expectations are a season or two of development. 

[daly 556]

Pissed it up against Middlesbrough with his late changes when we were on top irrespective of losing KM we had them on the ropes till he took off Borja

 

Edited November 2, 2024 by daly

[Unthink road 167]

I'm enjoying the new style. As much as I want us to win every game, we won't. The recent results have shown great character. Today shouldn't dishearten us. 

[Ian 1,226]

1 hour ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Yes. We were on top, the changes weren’t required. Unless I’m proven wrong by injury, Schwartau and Sorenson could’ve lasted another 15 minutes. Why? They’d played 75 mins and looked comfortable, as was the overall performance at that point. You’re telling me they couldn’t last another 15 mins? You’ll argue Sorenson couldn’t, for obvious reasons, but I reckon he could’ve done it.

Clearly we will never know what would have happened had JHT NOT made changes, but I am willing to trust that the coaching squad, who have access to discussions with the players and live statistics on their performance are probably better places to determine whether a player is comfortable or not.

Factor in that we also have 3 games in a week, two of which are long away trips, I find it a really bizarre take to suggest he was unnecessarily tinkering today.

Of course, in hindsight, it did not work out and ultimately managers are rightly judged on the decisions that they make, but I just personally find it difficult to be as arrogant and hyper-critical of the coaches as some people have been today, given the circumstances.

[Commonsense 830]

2 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Yes. We were on top, the changes weren’t required. Unless I’m proven wrong by injury, Schwartau and Sorenson could’ve lasted another 15 minutes. Why? They’d played 75 mins and looked comfortable, as was the overall performance at that point. You’re telling me they couldn’t last another 15 mins? You’ll argue Sorenson couldn’t, for obvious reasons, but I reckon he could’ve done it.

Those changes completely changed the game. If he had to make a change, make one? Just like his decision to change both full backs, another common move. It doesn’t take a master tactician to see how unsettling multiple changes can be. 

Listen, I like JHT. I like him a lot. But his inexperience has cost us 3 points today. And IMO, his cavalier attitude to subs, was a disaster waiting to happen. 

His inexperience, compared to your knowledge gained from where. Clearly you know that a player back from long term injury can manage the full 90, while those who work with the squad don’t. This is self delusional arrogance of the highest order.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,704]

5 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

His inexperience, compared to your knowledge gained from where. Clearly you know that a player back from long term injury can manage the full 90, while those who work with the squad don’t. This is self delusional arrogance of the highest order.

How about the near collapse at Derby then, following similar subs?

[S_81 1,138]

Felt like Wagner was in the dugout at the end there today 

[CardiffCanary 164]

29 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

His inexperience, compared to your knowledge gained from where. Clearly you know that a player back from long term injury can manage the full 90, while those who work with the squad don’t. This is self delusional arrogance of the highest order.

In JHT I trust 

[hogesar 10,953]

Thorup shouldn't be immune from criticism. During our injury-heavy period last season, Wagner was slaughtered when leads slipped after he made subs.

And this time the change in shape and subs didn't work. Less than not work, it made us inherently worse all over the pitch.

But equally Wagner was criticised for not making subs. I suspect we should have rotated more and I've said for a while even when winning we've flogged Sargent for 90 minutes.

Plus point is we did look better than we did last season with similar injuries. Much more in control etc. 

 

[Mason 47 2,030]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Thorup shouldn't be immune from criticism. During our injury-heavy period last season, Wagner was slaughtered when leads slipped after he made subs.

And this time the change in shape and subs didn't work. Less than not work, it made us inherently worse all over the pitch.

But equally Wagner was criticised for not making subs. I suspect we should have rotated more and I've said for a while even when winning we've flogged Sargent for 90 minutes.

Plus point is we did look better than we did last season with similar injuries. Much more in control etc. 

 

A lot of fair points. I even thought earlier, if Wagner had gone 5 at the back & put Gibson in midfield there would have been an angry mob outside Carrow Rd. This is far from that.

It's entirely fair to say we were in control and got it badly wrong today. If/when we are still in the Championship in a years time, in the same situation, I have no doubt that JHT won't choose the same tact. It's a (horrible) learning experience. 

 

 

[Canaries north 156]

As others have said, with a slim squad and injuries and suspension he was always going to try to save some legs for Tuesday. He obviously thought he would still have enough on the pitch to see it out. Lesson learned. 

 

Yes when all players are back we can rotate more but with the lack of depth on the bench at the moment, we are always going to struggle late on in games. 

[TheGunnShow 7,470]

Doesn't help when Nunez, McLean AND Gibbs are all out, and Lungi's just come back from a fairly heavy-duty injury. Chuck in no Sargent and no Barnes to act as a focal point up top....