Lack of subs vs Soton

[grefstad 0]

Strange that Pilks did not come on for Snoddy, maybe swich wings with Redmond.

Snoddy was poor, never crosses, workrate lower than normal. Looking for freekicks, and sulking.

RvW cant get the ball when Snoddy is playing.

Also, Elmander was tired long before he was subbed.

Thought Hoots waited too long on that one.

Expected Tettey to come in for Bradley, nothing happened.

Certainly did not like us defending so deep the last 10 mins. Better to use subs and bring on players who can keep the ball better.

[ReadingCanary 0]

Some people just can''t be pleased can they..

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,109]

I got the feeling that a sub was imminent before the goal, Pilks seemed to be the likely replacement for Snodgrass and then switch with Redmond as you say.

The goal made the manager think again.

All in all, a day of positives, thought Snoddy was slightly off the pace.

[*** 0]

If it ain''t broke it didn''t need fixing.

[henrik 0]

My only issue yesterday was that I feel he called the sub tactically wrong. We were playing well in a system that works, when he took Elmander off I''d have preferred to see Becchio. Once Elmander went off we lost the ability to hold the ball in their half meaning we sank deeper and deeper. If he wanted the extra midfield man, in all hnesty I think I''d have preferred him to take both Elmander and RVW off for Becchio and Howson personally. The sub he made just invited pressure due to our lack of ability to hold the ball in their half.

[manbearpig 0]

Why change it when it was working fine?! There was no need to change anything! Why break up play with a sub?

[Cerberus 0]

Henrik - you have made some really good constructive comments, which I completely agree with, but I am afraid that anyone who feels that we can improve is just seen as some sort of negative anti-fan. yesterday was better, but the game could have turned either way and we hardly dominated Southampton at home. For me, we are painfully short of creativity and incisiveness. Team''s will work out that they have to shut down Fer to control our supply line and like you, I thought Snods was poor yesterday - his main weakness was holding on to the ball too long.I have always thought that we look a better team when Pilks is playing (even when he is not playing well) and I think we will look better once we have a settled AM/deep striker (Hooper?).

[BroadstairsR 1,660]

After his initial show of elation following our goal I noticed that the first thing Hughton did was look at his watch.

I remember wondering if the same thought had gone through his head as had mine, "How long have we to hold out?"

Southampton always seemed likely to grab one. They looked a decent unit throughout but couldn''t quite click on the day thanks to the performance of our defence and those other two heroes, Fer and Johnson.

I was happy with the substitution thinking it a good compromise between going too defensive and keeping our attacking formation.

It worked, what''s to complain about?

[nutty nigel 6,489]

I really can''t see how Becchio could have replaced Elmander unless we were chasing the game and needed to go two up top. Elmander was obviously tiring quickly and the Howson sub was the right one. If it had still been 0-0 I''d have preferred Wes.

 

 

[Gingerpele 0]

You know we won right?

[Cerberus 0]

Yes of course - the victory was very welcome, but let''s not kid ourselves that there wasnt room for improvement. I thought that throughout the game it was fairly even and that we wouldnt have had lots of complaints about a draw. Wanting better does not invalidate an opinion.

[CDMullins 420]

Theres no need to make subs for the sake of it,Making a change can have a negative effect,In hindsight, not making any changes was correct

[Mason 47 1,082]

I''ll admit I was looking over to the bench on a number of occasions thinking Pilks for Snoddy, just because the latter seemed to be struggling with the pace of the game. Unsurprising given the disrupted pre-season and injury recovery.

On the other hand, we had a (very pleasing) forward momentum that changes could have disrupted so guess Hughton put his trust on those on the pitch. Howson showed how difficult it would be coming into that game from the bench, he was hunched on his knees for the most part in what was a very high-paced game.

[flying high up in the sky! 1]

We won the game so hughton got everything right.

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Louis Cyphre"]Yes of course - the victory was very welcome, but let''s not kid ourselves that there wasnt room for improvement. I thought that throughout the game it was fairly even and that we wouldnt have had lots of complaints about a draw. Wanting better does not invalidate an opinion.[/quote]

That''s fine, of course there is always room for improvement. But yesterday was a very good performance, on another day playing like that we''d have won 3/4-0. There were at least a couple chances that really should have gone in yet somehow managed to squeeze past the post.

I think the OP is very very over the top with his opinion. Pilks probably would have come on in the next few minutes had Redmond not scored when he did. But at that point Hughton as never going to take the more useful in defence Snodgrass. Johnson didn''t need to come off, that''s an odd suggestion, and Howson for Elmander was fine I think, Elmander was tiring.

[Cerberus 0]

Ginger - yesterday was a lot better and pleasing given fears raised by the Hull game, but I think we were watching a different match, there really wasnt much in it. They had better possession a clear cut penalty tuned down and had hit the post before we scored. Ruddy also made a couple of fine saves. I am happy with the three points, but just trying to temper the view that there are not glaring areas where we need to improve, perhaps most pertinently, how we get the ball to our £8M striker whose movement in the box was really good. Some of this will be about wavelengths, but taking away Redmond''s dribbling, we simply never really looked liked creating many chances in open play. I am thinking more about one-two passing and little dinked balls into the box rather than always crossing.

[Rivvo 257]

[quote user="Louis Cyphre"]Ginger - yesterday was a lot better and pleasing given fears raised by the Hull game, but I think we were watching a different match, there really wasnt much in it. They had better possession a clear cut penalty tuned down and had hit the post before we scored. Ruddy also made a couple of fine saves. I am happy with the three points, but just trying to temper the view that there are not glaring areas where we need to improve, perhaps most pertinently, how we get the ball to our £8M striker whose movement in the box was really good. Some of this will be about wavelengths, but taking away Redmond''s dribbling, we simply never really looked liked creating many chances in open play. I am thinking more about one-two passing and little dinked balls into the box rather than always crossing.
[/quote]

Their ''clear cut penalty'' I didn''t think was in live play, but having seen the replays I think it was, their shot against the post was against the run of play and was the first time they''d been in our half for about 10 minutes and we''d already had two efforts practically cleared off the line if we''re counting ''ifs and buts''. The penalty appeal for Snoddy at the nd I thought he''d dived in live play but obviously the replay shows different and it looked nailed on.

All in all I thought it was a decent performance from which we deserved the win and apart from the ten minutes at the start of the second half I didn''t think Soton offered much.

 

Yes there were areas for improvement ie Snoddy had a poorish second half I felt and some of our forward plyers clearly need time to gel and get used to each other but all in all I thought it was a good day at the office. 

[grefstad 0]

Some of you lot really need to see beyond the fecking result!

Agreed that Tettey for Johnson may not have been needed, but it is not much between them, and it is a squad game. Keep everyone on their toes. Snodgrass should have been subbed, no doubts.

Also, our overly negative approach after taking the lead is typical Hughton.

We should look for the second goal instead, Hughton NEVER does.

Hughtons system is the same as last season, his tactical flexibility is non existant, and RvW will strighle to match Holtys 8 goals with the poor service he gets.

Amazed none of you others cant see this pretty obvious thing.

Let me remind you we were lucky to survive last season. Hughtons negative approach is killing us softly. Get rid, and remove all the defenders in the coaching staff. Its all about 1-0s with Hoots, Calderwood and Trollope

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- Gingerpele: But yesterday was a very good performance, on another day playing like that we''d have won 3/4-0. There were at least a couple chances that really should have gone in yet somehow managed to squeeze past the post.

It was a good performance, but no 3/4-0. For starters Southampton had a stonewall penalty turned down and hit the woodwork.

[Warren Hill 0]

I thought he played for draws? It was 0-0s last week and now it''s 1-0s he''s playing for, that has to be seen as an improvement?

[CDMullins 420]

[quote user="grefstad"]Some of you lot really need to see beyond the fecking result!

Agreed that Tettey for Johnson may not have been needed, but it is not much between them, and it is a squad game. Keep everyone on their toes. Snodgrass should have been subbed, no doubts.

Also, our overly negative approach after taking the lead is typical Hughton.

We should look for the second goal instead, Hughton NEVER does.

Hughtons system is the same as last season, his tactical flexibility is non existant, and RvW will strighle to match Holtys 8 goals with the poor service he gets.

Amazed none of you others cant see this pretty obvious thing.

Let me remind you we were lucky to survive last season. Hughtons negative approach is killing us softly. Get rid, and remove all the defenders in the coaching staff. Its all about 1-0s with Hoots, Calderwood and Trollope[/quote]LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL and LOL

[A Load of Squit 4,492]

[quote user="grefstad"]Some of you lot really need to see beyond the fecking result!

Agreed that Tettey for Johnson may not have been needed, but it is not much between them, and it is a squad game. Keep everyone on their toes. Snodgrass should have been subbed, no doubts.

Also, our overly negative approach after taking the lead is typical Hughton.

We should look for the second goal instead, Hughton NEVER does.

Hughtons system is the same as last season, his tactical flexibility is non existant, and RvW will strighle to match Holtys 8 goals with the poor service he gets.

Amazed none of you others cant see this pretty obvious thing.

Let me remind you we were lucky to survive last season. Hughtons negative approach is killing us softly. Get rid, and remove all the defenders in the coaching staff. Its all about 1-0s with Hoots, Calderwood and Trollope[/quote]I didn''t notice a change but if we went ''overly negative after taking the lead'' then that would indicate a change in tactics but you stated that Hughton''s ''tactical flexibility is non existant''. As for being ''lucky to survive last season'', well that''s a load of squit. 

[morty 0]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="grefstad"]Some of you lot really need to see beyond the fecking result!

Agreed that Tettey for Johnson may not have been needed, but it is not much between them, and it is a squad game. Keep everyone on their toes. Snodgrass should have been subbed, no doubts.

Also, our overly negative approach after taking the lead is typical Hughton.

We should look for the second goal instead, Hughton NEVER does.

Hughtons system is the same as last season, his tactical flexibility is non existant, and RvW will strighle to match Holtys 8 goals with the poor service he gets.

Amazed none of you others cant see this pretty obvious thing.

Let me remind you we were lucky to survive last season. Hughtons negative approach is killing us softly. Get rid, and remove all the defenders in the coaching staff. Its all about 1-0s with Hoots, Calderwood and Trollope[/quote]LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL and LOL[/quote]I''ll add a lol to that.

[grefstad 0]

Let me then remind you, mudheads, that if it was not for Wba and Man C on the beach, we could easily have gone down. Some of you are easily fooled...

[Gingerpele 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- Gingerpele: But yesterday was a very good performance, on another day playing like that we''d have won 3/4-0. There were at least a couple chances that really should have gone in yet somehow managed to squeeze past the post.

It was a good performance, but no 3/4-0. For starters Southampton had a stonewall penalty turned down and hit the woodwork.[/quote]

We also had a stonewall penalty turned down. Had an attack in the last minute 3 on 2 that Redmond could have done better with. Had a Whittaker shot/cross across the goal that the defender so nearly turned into the back of the net, had a chance from a corner that was saved twice then somehow went wide rather than in the goal. There was another one in the first half, but at the other end so I couldn''t see as well that looked like it was all but in, Fer probably should have scored with a header, he had a couple of very good chances. And then there was the Southampton hand ball that could have easily been given as a penalty.

[morty 0]

[quote user="grefstad"]Let me then remind you, mudheads, that if it was not for Wba and Man C on the beach, we could easily have gone down. Some of you are easily fooled...[/quote]Is this a wind up?Can I just point out that we could have lost both of those games and still stayed up?

[CDMullins 420]

[quote user="grefstad"]Let me then remind you, mudheads, that if it was not for Wba and Man C on the beach, we could easily have gone down. Some of you are easily fooled...[/quote]We could have lost both games 10-0 and we would still have stayed up, mudhead

[A Load of Squit 4,492]

[quote user="CDMullins"][quote user="grefstad"]Let me then remind you, mudheads, that if it was not for Wba and Man C on the beach, we could easily have gone down. Some of you are easily fooled...[/quote]We could have lost both games 10-0 and we would still have stayed up, mudhead[/quote]I don''t think he''s clever enough to be a Mudhead!

[grefstad 0]

Notice the word "could", mudheads ;)

We could have gone down, and you know it. Like me, you were wetting your pants in April. Get rid of negative Hoots.

McNally will see to it before Xmas. Mind my words

[Herman 8,495]

There''s always one.