Why Redmond gets taken off

[Skerritt 0]

People who criticise Hughton for taking Redmond off really don''t have a clue what they are talking about. There is obviously a plan in place with Redmond where in the second half he runs until he becomes too tired before being replaced with pilks. This enables Redmond to tire out the other team leaving Pilks to come on and make more of an impact. Next time think before criticising Hughton.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,423]

I have no idea if you are serious ? If you are, then give my regards to the rest of the folk in Narnia? If you not I can only wish you well with the stand up career.

[ReadingCanary 0]

Redmond came off because he was in Villa''s pocket towards the end of his time on the pitchI was angry that Snodgrass stayed on, but having watched the match again I can see why the decision was made.

[Skerritt 0]

Have you seen Redmond in the second half of every game hes been taken off in. He ups his work rate as he must have been told by Hughton he is going to be replaced with Pilks.

[CDMullins 436]

Redmond was poor all game and becoming increasingly frustrated,Although Snoddys end product wasnt there, everything we did well went down that side.

[Olly 0]

I can see why he was taken off against Villa, he really wasn''t in the game much.

Personally would like to see him used in the hole behind RVW at some point, think he could be dangerous there

[GJP 79]

He basically had a poor game from start to finish.

 

He''s got a lot of potential but at the moment he''s a lot of step-overs and not too much else. Though he did obviously score a good goal against Southampton.

 

For me, to play our best team, we''d have Pilkington wide left.

[crabbycanary 2]

In the 1st half he was the one buzzing around trying to make things happen. It didn''t always come off, because he was double marked. We were using Snoddy a lot more, and perhaps Hughton thought that with all the chances Snoddy was getting, that on the basis of probability,he would eventually put in a decent delivery.

Alas, no

[Salopian 1]

Most people seem to agree that Redmond had his first slightly poor game, and was contributing less than usual. If Benno had been available, I suspect we would have had a double winger change.

 

Whether the Villa defence was very good, which I doubt, or Redmond has gone a little stale after so many games in a few weeks, I don''t know, but it seems that the winger was less threatening.

[AJ 0]

He was useless against Villa so why people booed when he was taken off was beyond me

[Hannibal II 0]

i think the manager should of swapped wings with Redmond and Snodgrass to try and get him into the game more after 30 mins or so. Again was reluctant to make any tactical change to influence the game in a positive way. Same old story if we go a goal down its usually game over these days....

[snake-eyes 13]

I can''t believe l am hearing this! I do despair!

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Hannibal II"]i think the manager should of swapped wings with Redmond and Snodgrass to try and get him into the game more after 30 mins or so. Again was reluctant to make any tactical change to influence the game in a positive way. Same old story if we go a goal down its usually game over these days....[/quote]

he took a left winger off and replaced him with another left winger rather than playing 2 players out of position....

How many football teams have you managed?

[Juggy 0]

English clubs destroy all of our young talents by playing them too much.

In my opinion Redmond is playing too much. You shouldn''t play teenagers every week, that''s how they become injury prone, because their bodies are still in development and they need more rest.

Look how much Barcelona played Messi as a kid, he wasn''t playing week in week out until he was 22. That''s one of the world''s two best players, and at Redmonds age he played half a season.

I hope that Hughton isn''t going to play Redmond week in week out to ensure the short term results that he requires to keep his job, when he will know that playing a teenager every week is a bad thing for their development.

In Spain and Italy it doesn''t matter how good you are, you don''t play every week until you are 21 or 22. This is why whenever we do get a talent like Michael Owen they are effective until they are 25, and when Italy get a talent like Francesco Totti they are world class until they are 35. 

English players fizzle out young. 

[Nicko 0]

Rooney.

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

IMO Redmond was taken off because he was playing crap. He was constantly slowing the game down when receiving the ball and his petulance was becoming annoying and getting the better of him. Easily managed by the Villa defence.

 

Redmond is very raw and has a lot to learn. His footballing brain has not developed yet. I''d prefer to see him more as an impact player fro the bench for this season.  

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="Nicko"]Rooney.[/quote]

What about him? In his first three seasons in the Premier League:

Starts:  64

Sub:     32

Not used:  18

Out of a total possible 114 Premier League games he started a little over half of them in his first three seasons.

Rooney is actually an example of one who was used somewhere near correctly as a kid, particularly by Moyes. Ferguson probably used him too much.

Rooney probably has a lot to thank Moyes for, he was responsible with his talent and concerned primarily with his development. 

[Hannibal II 0]

Jas i''m not sure if you watch or play much football but its pretty common practice for wingers to swap sides during games if they are not getting any change out of their respected full backs. Again not sure if you are cultural enough to watch spanish football but even the mighty Ronaldo and Gareth Bale had to swap sides last week to make any sort of impact in the game. sometimes when a full back has your number changing flanks can give you a new lease of life mid game. Thanks next footballing lesson for you will be on passing and moving. As for my managing qualifications i have a few badges from the FA probably more than you have....

[snake-eyes 13]

Redmond can play right wing as well as left, in fact he is right footed, but I know everyone says you have to play wingers on the opposite side now because that is the way it is done.

 

Strange as he has played right wing for England U21s and Birmingham and done it effectively as well.  He would not have been out of position.  In fact I don''t see how a winger can be out of position if he is still played on the wing.

 

I played both wings as well as Centre Forward.  I watch Chris Waddle, John Barnes, Steve Highway to name 3 be able to play on both wings with great effect as well (although not often as was not considered necesary).  Why is this not possible now?

 

The pointabout over playing youngsters is valid, but again I felt this was not necessary on Saturday and that by switching wings and bringing on Pilks on the left would have caught Villa off guard. Whether the result would have been different who knows? 

 

I don''t know where this ''Petulance'' accusation came from?  I never saw any of that even when rewatching the game.  Please advise what catagorises petulance?

 

Snake

[lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0]

[quote user="snake-eyes"]

Redmond can play right wing as well as left, in fact he is right footed, but I know everyone says you have to play wingers on the opposite side now because that is the way it is done.

 

Strange as he has played right wing for England U21s and Birmingham and done it effectively as well.  He would not have been out of position.  In fact I don''t see how a winger can be out of position if he is still played on the wing.

 

I played both wings as well as Centre Forward.  I watch Chris Waddle, John Barnes, Steve Highway to name 3 be able to play on both wings with great effect as well (although not often as was not considered necesary).  Why is this not possible now?

 

The pointabout over playing youngsters is valid, but again I felt this was not necessary on Saturday and that by switching wings and bringing on Pilks on the left would have caught Villa off guard. Whether the result would have been different who knows? 

 

I don''t know where this ''Petulance'' accusation came from?  I never saw any of that even when rewatching the game.  Please advise what catagorises petulance?

 

Snake

[/quote]

 

He was trying to get somebody booked by waving his hand at the referee. That''s pretty petulant. He also pretended to thro the ball at a villa player and was constantly mouthing off after every tackle.

Perhaps petulant is a bit strong, but his head was certainly a little rattled and the Villa defence knew they''d done a job on him.

 

It was the right time to take him off.

[snake-eyes 13]

Agreed Villa did a job on him on that side  of the pitch, and the ref failed to deal with the deliberate ankle hacking and one tackle which should have received a yellow.  We also did not give him much to work with as when ever he received the bal he had men on him with no room to manouvre. However as I have previous explained before, but I will say it again, he was effective in that the Villa defense was focused on him and the threat he posed.  That meant greater time and space for Snodgrass and Marting on the right side of the pitch. Which we saw.

 

The problem was we never really exploited this advantage due to the poor delivery from Snodgrass and to a much lesser extent Martin.

 

By switching earlier and taking Snodgrass off, they would not have been able to double team the fresh Pilkington and Redmond at the same time.

 

Pilkington had an effect against a tiring defense and also less pressing by the Villa right side.  I believe by switching Redmond would have got more freedom and still taken some pressure with him giving even more space and time to Pilks and Garrido, who could not have done any worse with the delivery of crosses than Snoddy! I actually think Garrido whips in a better ball than Snodgrass.

 

I understand what people are saying, but I ask you to please revisit the game and you may well see what you thought you saw in a different light.

 

The petulant one on the pitch was Snodgrass and he has been like that for quite a while now.  He was the one who needed to be subbed (halftime would have been right for me!) and from the reaction of the crowd, which was not small in number, a great many agreed with me, not that I advocate the reaction. Although I know there are quite a few on here who don''t agree with me and we can all be beligerent when it comes to our own opinions, there is enough evidence in the game to show there was more to the perceived ineffectiveness of Redmond than has been expressed by some on here.

 

I would however agre that maybe he may well need a rest from starting games and we could easily over play him, but I believe that will be hard due to losing Elliot Bennett.  Maybe if one of the Murphy brothers shines tonight we might just have another option on the wing to go to?

 

Snake