Nexus_Canary 1,016 Posted October 26, 2013 Anyone actually see the logic or the reason for this substitution. I am blind to it and really want to see if someone can explain exactly why they think Hoots made this choice.To me seemed like a car wreck, thats no disrespect to Elmander. Simply Hooper was really working and seemed like he could have forced something, thought he had a stunning game. So why take him off ?Also , RvW with 4 mins left ? He should have bought Nash on and played him up front would have had the same impact.Totally inept !! Please somoene give some rational to these moves. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
City 2nd 191 Posted October 26, 2013 Nexus - there isn''t one, simples. Mentioned it earlier, was totally dumbfounded by it, when we hadn''t really crossed a decent ball into the box, he put Elmander on for what - to hold the ball up?Couldn''t agree with you more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 752 Posted October 26, 2013 Taking Hooper off, I''m not too bothered about. Yes he was creating a lot and getting into goalscoring positions, but he wasn''t finishing. And like I said elsewhere, sometimes you don''t want to change the formation when you''re dictating the game like we were doing - so a straight swap for your front man who is firing blanks is fine imo.However, why Elmander over RVW I do not know. Like I also said elsewhere, RVW hasn''t had much service all season but has scored a good headed goal and created another when we have put the ball into the box for him. Today he would have excelled had he come on in the 70th minute (if not earlier). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted October 26, 2013 Hooper had been fairly average but begun to look a threat just before he came off, which made it a poorly timed change. Elmander was woeful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CambridgeCanary 0 Posted October 26, 2013 Hooper was getting little change from the large centre backs and Elmander has greater physicality. Elmander played well, held the line, brought others into play and used his guile to win corners and free kicks so it''s not as if the change was not effective.Hughton said Ricky was not fit enough to risk at that stage of the game. Seems to have been a gamble putting him on the bench Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="CambridgeCanary"]Hooper was getting little change from the large centre backs and Elmander has greater physicality. Elmander played well, held the line, brought others into play and used his guile to win corners and free kicks so it''s not as if the change was not effective.Hughton said Ricky was not fit enough to risk at that stage of the game. Seems to have been a gamble putting him on the bench[/quote]^^^THIS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Phillip J Fry"]Also the substitution of Hooper did make sense. Hughton tried 2 things to get around Cardiff''s agressive pressing in midfield:1) He encouraged Howson and Fer to drop deeper, offering more support to Tettey when he recieved the ball. The issue with this was that the wingers and forward did not drop deep as well, meaning there was a huge amount of space between midfield and attack, making it harder to link up with them and create speedy passing plays.2) When this didn''t work, he went more direct. I''m not saying we hit the ball long every attack, but there was a definite shift in tactics that meant the ball was spending less time in the midfield. If you''re going to do that, you need a striker who is good in the air, good with his back to goal and able to link the play. Elmander fits that role better than either of Hooper and Wolfswinkel, it was logical to bring him on. You could argue that he should''ve held off on the Elmander substitution until it was later in the game and then brought him on and played 4-4-2 (as he did with Wolfswinkel and Elmander with 5 mins + stoppage remaining), but that''s a different argument entirelty. [/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 26, 2013 RvW was on the bench when fit enough to play 5 minutes football... You couldn''t make it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted October 26, 2013 Does no one think the Elmander was brought on as the tactics we had adopted were more effective using him than they would be with Wolfswinkel? Or am I just thinking about this too hard? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CambridgeCanary 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Phillip J Fry"]Does no one think the Elmander was brought on as the tactics we had adopted were more effective using him than they would be with Wolfswinkel? Or am I just thinking about this too hard?[/quote]Agreed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Making Plans 936 Posted October 26, 2013 Can someone explain how Hughton came to the conclusion that RVW was fit enough to play 8 minutes but not fit enough to play 22 minutes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 752 Posted October 26, 2013 But Fry, if Elmander was more suited - why didn''t he start? I personally feel we were creating plenty where Hooper (and Elmander later on) wasn''t invovled in the build up play. For me, when it got to the 70th minute or so, we didn''t necessarily need someone to come on and hold the ball up or allow others to drop deeper etc. What we mostly needed was our most clinical striker on the pitch. That''s got to be RVW. Let''s not forget RVW''s goal against Everton and the knock down against Stoke for Pilkington where he did really well to get on the end of crosses - he''s more than capable of doing that. Now if he wasn''t fit enough, then that''s fair enough to bring Elmander on, but then why have RVW on the bench in the first place? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Aggy"]But Fry, if Elmander was more suited - why didn''t he start? [/quote]Because we changed our tactics in the middle of the game to counter-act the pressing of Cardiff in the midfield. Cardiff stopped our passing, we went more direct to avoid their pressing and when you go more direct, you bring on your biggest striker who thrives on direct football. Hooper was suited to the playstyle we adopted throughout the majority of the game, that of quick, short passing. Hooper was not suited to a clear tactical change and was removed in favour of someone who was far more suited. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,499 Posted October 26, 2013 Listening to Hughton, I don''t think he wanted to play RvW if he could avoid it - he''s clearly carrying an injury He seemed pretty sure we were going to score at some point, so throwing Ricky on at the end was a result of frustration & desperation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Making Plans 936 Posted October 26, 2013 The bottom line is that either RVW was fit or he wasn''t - Hughton can''t have it both ways. If RVW wasn''t fit then he shouldn''t have been on the bench & if he was fit he should have been on the pitch earlier. This is where Hughton fails time & time again - he dithers too much, doesn''t make the right desisions and invariably ends up getting it wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snake-eyes 13 Posted October 26, 2013 It is an odd one. If Hughton was worried about RvWs fitness why waste a spot on the bench when you could have had a fit Becchio on there and rest him until fully fit with no risk attached?At least this gives you more of an option if needed? Snake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,499 Posted October 26, 2013 Life can be complicated. I would imagine RvW''s injury is such that he CAN play, but the longer he''s on the more damage he does. So it becomes a choice between having Becchio or Ricky on the bench; it looks like Hughton reckons Ricky can have more influence on the game in 10 minutes than Luciano can in, say, 30. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="CambridgeCanary"]Hooper was getting little change from the large centre backs and Elmander has greater physicality. Elmander played well, held the line, brought others into play and used his guile to win corners and free kicks so it''s not as if the change was not effective. Hughton said Ricky was not fit enough to risk at that stage of the game. Seems to have been a gamble putting him on the bench[/quote]Agree that Hooper wasn''t really causing them too many problems. Disagree about Elmander. Might have won a couple of set pieces but offered very little else. Slow to react, slow to move, didn''t hold the ball or link up that well and wasn''t exactly a threat infront of goal. But overall we''ve spent £5m on Hooper, £8m on RVW and loaned in a very experienced Swedish international and we look less of a threat than we did with Holt upfront (Lambert Holt or Hughton Holt). Which is a bit of a worry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
QHcanary 0 Posted October 26, 2013 RVW didn''t come on for Hooper at that point because he clearly isn''t fully fit and to bring him on at that point was a risk.I''m not sure I''d have brought elmander on at that point as hooper was pretty good throughout the game, but that''s kind of academic in this context. As the game went on the risk:reward became favourable enough to risk RVW for a few minutes. If anyone struggles to understand this, they''re a bit thick. Sorry :) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snake-eyes 13 Posted October 27, 2013 Nobody is questioning the logic of bringing RvW on! If you think that then you really must be a bit thick! Sorry! The query is that if you really are that worried about a players fitness enough that you think that they coukd bare play 5 mins why have them as a sub in the first place taking the place of a fully fit player who would give you more options and could play at full pace for longer? Is this not the reason for having a squad? Furthermore why risk losing your main striker for even longer? 1 game vs 28?As much as I want RvW to play if hecwas not fully fit I would not have had him in the team until he was! We should have been able to win that game without him.The risk reward for this was just not worth it and I am a gambling man!Snake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nexus_Canary 1,016 Posted October 27, 2013 Yeah I do like the theory that RvW was a desperation move rather than anything else. Direct play big striker does make sense, but Hooper was winning a lot of headers. Elmander did not impact the game at all really.Is Hoots out of his depth ? Would be interesting to see what other real managers would have done in that situation. Almost need a simulator like in the Rocky film :pNice one though guys, loved all the opinions , and this might be a pinkun record ?2 pages of actual debate and no flames ?!? wtf. !! :D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,578 Posted October 27, 2013 [quote user="CambridgeCanary"]Hooper was getting little change from the large centre backs and Elmander has greater physicality. Elmander played well, held the line, brought others into play and used his guile to win corners and free kicks so it''s not as if the change was not effective.Hughton said Ricky was not fit enough to risk at that stage of the game. Seems to have been a gamble putting him on the bench[/quote]Did he? I thought he was woeful barely won any headers and looked his usual slow self. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted October 27, 2013 [quote user="Nexus_Canary"]Elmander did not impact the game at all really.[/quote]But I think it''s harsh to blame Hughton for that. He made a tactical change and brought on a striker who was suited to that game, if the player then performs poorly it seems harsh to blame the manager for a decision that was entirely logical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nexus_Canary 1,016 Posted October 27, 2013 True enough mate, for me I would have sacrificed a midfielder Tettey perhaps or Howson for Elmander and sat Hooper in the hole behind him.Snoddy or Pilks for Redmond pref Snoddy.And just gone for it, sure in Hoots head he would have felt safer with the draw than risk losing. But thats football.My management ability and xp is limited to under 16''s and Footy manager :p so i have no real foundation, its just the move that would make the most sense to me.I agree to bring on a player capable of bringing the ball down etc and the choice backfired for Hoots, just dont see why he didnt throw a second striker on. As that prat on canary call said to a caller, its safe to stop harping on about 2 strikers as Hoots obviously is not going to do it. I just fail to understand why he cant take a risk.I bet IRL hes a really boring bloke to be mates with ?! lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snake-eyes 13 Posted October 27, 2013 l would have gone 3 at the back, pushed Ollson up on the left, put Redmond on the right and taken Snodgrass off for 2 up front. The very formation we should have used against a 10 man Hull.But hey the likely hood of this happening is slim.Snake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GJP 79 Posted October 27, 2013 Going back to the RVW thing... since when are players only fit enough to play 5 minutes? If he''s that unfit he shouldn''t be in the squad. Load of rubbish. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites