Aggy 766 Posted October 26, 2013 I''ve seen a lot of posts suggesting we were poor today. I think result wise, yes, it was a poor result.However, to dominate in the way we did and create as many chances as we did, I don''t think we can call it a poor performance. In fact, it was a very good performance with some rather poor/unlucky finishing. Look at it this way; could any other manager have set us up in a way which would have seen us dominate this game more than we did today? I very much doubt it.Unfortunately, the substitutions at the end left a lot to be desired and perhaps show some naivety/poor judgement calling on behalf of the management team. But they are two different issues. Better substitutions/tactical tinkering in the last 20/30 minutes could have improved our chances of winning, and for that the management team and Hughton need to have a look at themselves. Yet in terms of performance, that was exactly what we would have wanted from today - absolutely demolishing a team who we made look very much like a championship side. Now, my view of Hughton dropped today because of the poor substitutions (Elmander instead of RVW has still got me extraordinarily confused), but if we''re going to criticise, let''s make it a fair fight - the overall performance today was not poor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary Wundaboy 1,360 Posted October 26, 2013 I don''t think we were poor today, but the result is nothing short of a disaster. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Masked Raccoon 0 Posted October 26, 2013 We were poor? We just didn''t score. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Brownstone 0 Posted October 26, 2013 I thought we were as good as I can remember us being under Hughton in the first half. God only knows how we went in at 0-0, could and should have been 3 or 4-1.2nd half Malky changed it and matched us in midfield and nullified our threat. I think this is the area that frustrates most fans about Hughton, he seems to struggle to make a positive impact on the game from the subs bench. It was obvious the game was drifting towards a 0-0 draw and it took us too long to make changes, and when we did they didn''t change the system, until RVW came on in the 86th minute.If he wasn''t fit he shouldn''t have been on the bench full stop. Thought it was the sort of situation that was crying out for Wes. I know things went tits up last week when he came on, but he''s much more likely to have a positive impact on a game in which we''re dominating but struggling to make the breakthrough, rather than a game we''re chasing away at the most in form team in the country. Strange decision to not have him on the bench if he was fit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 I agree mostly with your post, I don''t think we were poor today either.As for the subs, I don''t have massive issue frankly.I suspect that RVW wasn''t that fit, and how much he was involved with after he came on probably bears this out. Elmander was brought on because he is a clever striker, with good pedigree. And as the game was drawing to desperation stakes he gave us an option of going long.Also bringing in Redmond at the same time gave us the option of pacy crosses into the box, which Elmander could feed on better than Hooper could.Yeah it didn''t work, but what else could he have done? Hooper had played the lone striker all game, a role I really don''t think he is suited to, and for me faded in the second half. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ricardo 7,401 Posted October 26, 2013 If we were as poor as that every week we would probably win the league. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland Canary 76 Posted October 26, 2013 If you don''t score, the maximum points total is 38. Hardly, a champion winning total. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
can u sit down please 0 Posted October 26, 2013 Absolutely spot on brownstone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 766 Posted October 26, 2013 Morty, if RVW was only fit enough to last 4 minutes, then why was he even on the bench in the first place? If he wasn''t able to come on for 15-20 minutes and do a job then his place should have been taken by someone like Hoolahan (or even Becchio!)And I''d dispute your point about Elmander''s record - he averages worse than 1 goal every 4 games. Clever, I''d probably agree. A natural striker who can finish one of the many chances you''ve been creating all game? I''m not so sure.Redmond, can''t complain too much, I would possibly have taken Snodgrass off rather than Pilks but either of those was probably about ready to change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Year of the tiger 59 Posted October 26, 2013 I know no one plays 2 up front from the start but surely most teams have a plan B where you play 2 strikers when you''re trying to break down a defence in the last 15 minutes at home.Trouble is most of the time we''re slow & pedestrian giving plenty of time for the opposition to get everyone back behind the ball Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Aggy"]Morty, if RVW was only fit enough to last 4 minutes, then why was he even on the bench in the first place? If he wasn''t able to come on for 15-20 minutes and do a job then his place should have been taken by someone like Hoolahan (or even Becchio!)And I''d dispute your point about Elmander''s record - he averages worse than 1 goal every 4 games. Clever, I''d probably agree. A natural striker who can finish one of the many chances you''ve been creating all game? I''m not so sure.Redmond, can''t complain too much, I would possibly have taken Snodgrass off rather than Pilks but either of those was probably about ready to change.[/quote]Lol, seriously, Becchio?I suspect Hughton hoped he could win the game without bringing Rickie on, did you see how long he warmed up for?I''m not sure how many of the chances Hooper had, but I''d wager it wasn''t that many of them. A lot of people seem to be fooled by players running around a lot and see that as a good game unfortunately.Pilks faded too much in and out of the game, on his best day I love him, but he doesn''t do it for enough minutes for me.I didn''t think Snoddy had that bad a game, but he probably faded just less than Pilks did, and his ability to switch wings probably kept him on the field. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Juler 156 Posted October 26, 2013 The issue is for Hughton a draw at home to Cardiff isn''t a bad result. Hence he''s not going to go all out just incase we ended up losing. Wrong mentality for a football manager, sometimes you have to gamble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Matt Juler"]The issue is for Hughton a draw at home to Cardiff isn''t a bad result. Hence he''s not going to go all out just incase we ended up losing. Wrong mentality for a football manager, sometimes you have to gamble.[/quote]Given the amount of shots we had, can you seriously say he set out negatively, or intended just not losing the game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 766 Posted October 26, 2013 If RVW was only fit enough to last 4 minutes, then yes I would have had Becchio on the bench instead of him. If you can only last 4 minutes, then you''re not fit enough tobe on the pitch at all. If you can maybe last 15 or so, then fair enough, but what''s the point in having someone there who you feel you can only bring on for 4 minutes? What impact is anyone going to have in 4 minutes, never mind someone who is barely fit?Mr. B - agree that generally we don''t seem to be able to change the plan up much during a game. However, today, I''m not sure that a change of formation was necessarily what was required. Whilst the threat may have diminished slightly in the second half, we were still dominating and creating more than enough chances to win the game. If you change the formation, you always risk it going the wrong way. If the game is stagnant or you''re being overrun then change is a gamble worth taking, but when you are so much on top, it is perhaps not a great idea. Having said that, somebody should have probably been on before the 70th minute, and then, for me, it should have been RVW. Again, if he wasn''t fit enough to come on then, then he shouldn''t have been on the bench. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 Has he said it wasn''t a bad result, and he''s happy with it also? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland Canary 76 Posted October 26, 2013 Agree with this Matt. Wrong mentality, wrong approach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Legend Iwan 30 Posted October 26, 2013 What tactical changes would you have made today to go "all out", Matt? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Aggy"]If RVW was only fit enough to last 4 minutes, then yes I would have had Becchio on the bench instead of him. If you can only last 4 minutes, then you''re not fit enough tobe on the pitch at all. If you can maybe last 15 or so, then fair enough, but what''s the point in having someone there who you feel you can only bring on for 4 minutes? What impact is anyone going to have in 4 minutes, never mind someone who is barely fit?Mr. B - agree that generally we don''t seem to be able to change the plan up much during a game. However, today, I''m not sure that a change of formation was necessarily what was required. Whilst the threat may have diminished slightly in the second half, we were still dominating and creating more than enough chances to win the game. If you change the formation, you always risk it going the wrong way. If the game is stagnant or you''re being overrun then change is a gamble worth taking, but when you are so much on top, it is perhaps not a great idea. Having said that, somebody should have probably been on before the 70th minute, and then, for me, it should have been RVW. Again, if he wasn''t fit enough to come on then, then he shouldn''t have been on the bench.[/quote]Have you seen Becchio play? I watched him come on in the cup, when we were winning the game easily, and he frankly couldn''t have looked less interested.Whatever is wrong with him, he clearly doesn''t deserve a place in the team right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0 Posted October 26, 2013 --- morty: Hooper had played the lone striker all game, a role I really don''t think he is suited to.Which does beg the question, if Hooper is not suited to the lone striker role wtf was he signed for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phillip J Fry 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- morty: Hooper had played the lone striker all game, a role I really don''t think he is suited to.Which does beg the question, if Hooper is not suited to the lone striker role wtf was he signed for.[/quote]He can play a lone striker role. He was actually quite involved today, having a decent number of shots and passes. The reason he was taken off was tactical. We went more direct to combat the pressing in midfield by Cardiff, Hooper plays well when the ball is on the ground. As we were going more direct, there is very littler point in playing a striker who is unsuited to such a tactic when you have a striker like Elmander (perfect for more direct football) on the bench. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Phillip J Fry"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- morty: Hooper had played the lone striker all game, a role I really don''t think he is suited to.Which does beg the question, if Hooper is not suited to the lone striker role wtf was he signed for.[/quote]He can play a lone striker role. He was actually quite involved today, having a decent number of shots and passes. The reason he was taken off was tactical. We went more direct to combat the pressing in midfield by Cardiff, Hooper plays well when the ball is on the ground. As we were going more direct, there is very littler point in playing a striker who is unsuited to such a tactic when you have a striker like Elmander (perfect for more direct football) on the bench.[/quote]I don''t doubt he can play the role, and he had a good first half, but I doubt very much that is his preferred role. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aggy 766 Posted October 26, 2013 Oh Morty, I don''t think that Becchio is anywhere near being good enough to be a regular premiership substitute. But then neither do I think you should be wasting a substitute position with someone you feel is only capable of lasting 4 minutes. Nobody can have an impact in 4 minutes. Hoolahan, Becchio, one of the young kids from the academy would be more worthwhile being on the bench than someone who is only fit enough to play 4 minutes of football. I just really don''t see the logic behind him being there. Like I said, if you wanted to give him a 20 minute run out or so, then fine. But clearly that wasn''t the case. And if the plan was to chuck him on in the last 4 minutes if we were very desperate, then I still don''t see the logic - if he can''t run around for 15 minutes, then what are you expecting him to be able to do in 4? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted October 26, 2013 [quote user="Aggy"]Oh Morty, I don''t think that Becchio is anywhere near being good enough to be a regular premiership substitute. But then neither do I think you should be wasting a substitute position with someone you feel is only capable of lasting 4 minutes. Nobody can have an impact in 4 minutes. Hoolahan, Becchio, one of the young kids from the academy would be more worthwhile being on the bench than someone who is only fit enough to play 4 minutes of football. I just really don''t see the logic behind him being there. Like I said, if you wanted to give him a 20 minute run out or so, then fine. But clearly that wasn''t the case. And if the plan was to chuck him on in the last 4 minutes if we were very desperate, then I still don''t see the logic - if he can''t run around for 15 minutes, then what are you expecting him to be able to do in 4?[/quote]Did you see how long RVW warmed up for?I suspect that perhaps it didn''t go as well as was hoped, and I do not think for one minute that he would be on the bench if he was only up to 4 minutes of football. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Brownstone 0 Posted October 26, 2013 I still, after 9 months, don''t have a clue if Becchio has anything to offer at this level. He can''t have had more than 90 combined Premier League minutes can he? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites