Ricardo's report v Man Utd

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Yes I agree that''s why he finally made the change. But I wouldn''t have made it any earlier and wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t made it at all. I think by far our best chance of scoring was having Wes exactly where he was.[/quote]And yet just last week and at various other points in the season, I was told bringing Wes on and switching to a 4-5-1 would make no difference at all. I just don''t buy it I''m afraid.  We very rarely try and switch formation during a game under the current regime. It is a weakness in Hughton''s management.[/quote]

 

What don''t you buy? Every game is different. We have changed formations loads of times! We didn''t yesterday because we were having success with what we had.

 

 

[ricardo 7,384]

Lets face it some people are never going to give CH any credit for anything.Bad things are his fault, good things are due to player revolts or some such twaddle.It''s a point of view but it has more basis in prejudice than logic.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

You''re just scraping the barrell to come up with something that you can say he got wrong. At a push I guess he could have sacrificed Olsson but that would have weakened our supply from the left. Martin, Bennett and Bassong would be equally as dangerous as Elmander from set plays.

 [/quote]

I think Hughton should have changed it. It wasn''t working second half, we were reduced to long range punts, and we didn''t change it.  Sticking did not work, and I have proof.  Because it didn''t and we created nothing.

Any supply line was ineffective as our single striker was dealt with easily, and seemed to be playing in midfield anyway. 

As with every single game where Hoot does nothing, I am told it would have made no difference anyway.  Against Fulham, apparently switching to a 4-5-1 would have done nothing, no choices on the bench etc etc.

Hoot changes it so rarely he may as well not be on the touchline.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

What don''t you buy? Every game is different. We have changed formations loads of times! We didn''t yesterday because we were having success with what we had.

 [/quote]

What success? First half yes, then Moyes switched his side around.  We weren''t creating any chances and were losing, how is that a success.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

You''re just scraping the barrell to come up with something that you can say he got wrong. At a push I guess he could have sacrificed Olsson but that would have weakened our supply from the left. Martin, Bennett and Bassong would be equally as dangerous as Elmander from set plays.

 [/quote]

I think Hughton should have changed it. It wasn''t working second half, we were reduced to long range punts, and we didn''t change it.  Sticking did not work, and I have proof.  Because it didn''t and we created nothing.

Any supply line was ineffective as our single striker was dealt with easily, and seemed to be playing in midfield anyway. 

As with every single game where Hoot does nothing, I am told it would have made no difference anyway.  Against Fulham, apparently switching to a 4-5-1 would have done nothing, no choices on the bench etc etc.

Hoot changes it so rarely he may as well not be on the touchline.

[/quote]

 

I wasn''t around last night but I''m guessing you were so what changes were you suggesting he should have made? Take off Wes? A winger? Bassong? The ''keeper even?

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]Lets face it some people are never going to give CH any credit for anything.[/quote]Credit where credit is due, 38 points in the last 38 games is an excellent showing. I think.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I wasn''t around last night but I''m guessing you were so what changes were you suggesting he should have made? Take off Wes? A winger? Bassong? The ''keeper even?

 [/quote]

Tough one, but probably take off Snodgrass who looked completely knackered by about 60 minutes. Put Elmander Up front behind RvW, Redmond on the right and Wes on the left drifting inside.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I wasn''t around last night but I''m guessing you were so what changes were you suggesting he should have made? Take off Wes? A winger? Bassong? The ''keeper even?

 [/quote]

Tough one, but probably take off Snodgrass who looked completely knackered by about 60 minutes. Put Elmander Up front behind RvW, Redmond on the right and Wes on the left drifting inside.

[/quote]I thought Snoddy had a pretty decent game, and Wes is no left winger.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I wasn''t around last night but I''m guessing you were so what changes were you suggesting he should have made? Take off Wes? A winger? Bassong? The ''keeper even?

 [/quote]

Tough one, but probably take off Snodgrass who looked completely knackered by about 60 minutes. Put Elmander Up front behind RvW, Redmond on the right and Wes on the left drifting inside.

[/quote]

 

Well thought out. But I wouldn''t have. I was enjoying watching Wes influence the game and have a long enough memory to remember constant frustration at watching him out wide even at a lower level. You are welcome to your opinion but I''m just glad Hootun''s is the one that counts.

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Well thought out. But I wouldn''t have. I was enjoying watching Wes influence the game and have a long enough memory to remember constant frustration at watching him out wide even at a lower level. You are welcome to your opinion but I''m just glad Hootun''s is the one that counts.

 [/quote]

Bringing Wes on in the right wing seemed Hughton''s more recent bizarre preference... 

Wes didn''t have anywhere near the influence in the second half as the first. Of course I realize he is not as good on the left as behind the front man, but needs must and we needed to switch something.

Hughton did nothing and we created nothing.  A bit like the Fulham game where they took charge of the game in the 2nd half and Hughton did nothing to try and wrestle back control and we deservedly lost.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

I think that Snoddy is being asked to sit more. His partnership with Whittaker for the Fulham game was poor, he kept running towards Whits and closing down his space. I thinks that due to him beign asked to be mindful of when we lose the ball and Redmond being given a more advanced role.

 

Oddly enough , it was when we took Snoody off , that we looked even more exposed to Fulham, and they scored.

 

He plays very deep, and is the outlet for many of Ruddys kicks.

 

Yesterday he spent the first 15 mins marking Evra, (Utd were effectively 3 at the back in possession) but when Russ got forward overlapping Snod we looked dangerous.

 

I agree Snoddy looked OK yesterday. Like many wider players we need to try and understand their roles before we judge. Much of their play is due to the player behind them.  

 

that''s why Drury was so good. Imagine playing behind Hucks? No thanks [:)] Fantastic player, but as a defender he makes Wes look like Big Dunc!

[Barry the boy 0]

I''m just glad hughton didn''t put Wes on the right again.

The changes were too little. Too late.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Well thought out. But I wouldn''t have. I was enjoying watching Wes influence the game and have a long enough memory to remember constant frustration at watching him out wide even at a lower level. You are welcome to your opinion but I''m just glad Hootun''s is the one that counts.

 [/quote]

Bringing Wes on in the right wing seemed Hughton''s more recent bizarre preference... 

Wes didn''t have anywhere near the influence in the second half as the first. Of course I realize he is not as good on the left as behind the front man, but needs must and we needed to switch something.

Hughton did nothing and we created nothing.  A bit like the Fulham game where they took charge of the game in the 2nd half and Hughton did nothing to try and wrestle back control and we deservedly lost.

[/quote]

 

Why can''t you just admit that the only way to get Elmander up top effectively would have been to take off Wes. But you won''t get much support for that on here. But that was the change with which to effectively go 442.

 

 Each game is different so other games aren''t really relevant to this discussion are they Foggy?

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Yankee, saying PHgm isn''t watching as a coach is rather disingenuous. It''s like saying a surgeon watching an operation from a gallery is watching in the same way as a member of the public.

Excellent post as well from RTB.[/quote]

Ron, you may disagree with my opinion but to suggest it is disingenuous is incorrect. Although I don''t know Parma personally I accept his input that he has coaching qualifications, and I acknowledged that by stating he probably has a keener eye for what he is observing, just as Sir Alec Ferguson would sitting in the stands observing the game now but recognising, despite all of his experience, that he is not the one guiding the players as to what he expects on the pitch. There is a world of difference between a coach observing players in a game and observing players under your instructions in a game you are responsible for coaching.

[Barry the boy 0]

Elmander entered the fray in the 89th minute. Are you really advocating a change so late in the game when chasing it?

[Barry the boy 0]

" Each game is different so other games aren''t really relevant to this discussion are they Foggy?"

I agree Nige. Which is even more baffling when we use the same approach to most games.

We aren''t flexible in our approach, not our changes.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Why can''t you just admit that the only way to get Elmander up top effectively would have been to take off Wes. But you won''t get much support for that on here. But that was the change with which to effectively go 442.

 Each game is different so other games aren''t really relevant to this discussion are they Foggy?

[/quote]Not really because Snod was knackered in the 2nd half.  But I agree with the sentiment of not moving someone playing well, aside from the fact Wes didn''t have the same influence in the second period. Well the games are relevant, because the issue is Hughton barely ever changing anything during games aside from a like for like here and there.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

But Murphy came on for Snoddy when he tired. The alternative was too put Wes out wide and leave Murphy on the bench. So which is it Foggy/Barry... Wes out wide or a straight swap Elmander for Wes?

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

But Murphy came on for Snoddy when he tired. The alternative was too put Wes out wide and leave Murphy on the bench. So which is it Foggy/Barry... Wes out wide or a straight swap Elmander for Wes?

 [/quote]

I wouldn''t have brought Murphy on for Snodgrass when he tired.  I would have double subbed when Hooper went off.  As the game proved as we created no good chances in the 2nd half, like for like failed.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="ron obvious"]Yankee, saying PHgm isn''t watching as a coach is rather disingenuous. It''s like saying a surgeon watching an operation from a gallery is watching in the same way as a member of the public. Excellent post as well from RTB.[/quote]


Ron, you may disagree with my opinion but to suggest it is disingenuous is incorrect. Although I don''t know Parma personally I accept his input that he has coaching qualifications, and I acknowledged that by stating he probably has a keener eye for what he is observing, just as Sir Alec Ferguson would sitting in the stands observing the game now but recognising, despite all of his experience, that he is not the one guiding the players as to what he expects on the pitch. There is a world of difference between a coach observing players in a game and observing players under your instructions in a game you are responsible for coaching.
[/quote]

 

For Gods Sake dont let Coaching Badges cloud the issue. I''ve got those, and have spent hours watching, coaching and discussing football with many qualified coaches. 

 

What I can tell you is that if you have three coaches in a room, you will get at least four opinions.  I''m sure Parma Ham has played for Italy or whatever, but his opinion is no more, or no less, than any of us that broadly understand the game.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Alos an opinion is no more or less than any of us who have no understanding whatsoever of the game. Football supporters follow their team for all kinds of reasons. But I think it does help discussion to put reasoning along side an opinion.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

But Murphy came on for Snoddy when he tired. The alternative was too put Wes out wide and leave Murphy on the bench. So which is it Foggy/Barry... Wes out wide or a straight swap Elmander for Wes?

 [/quote]

I wouldn''t have brought Murphy on for Snodgrass when he tired.  I would have double subbed when Hooper went off.  As the game proved as we created no good chances in the 2nd half, like for like failed.

[/quote]

 

Double subbed who? If you would have put Wes wide to go 442 then say it.

 

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Not going to trawl through all ten pages to see if this has already been mentioned but Hooper picked up a minor hamstring injury which is why he needed to go off. (Sky reported this in the live commentary).

Obviously Hoolahan was one of our best performers so he needed to stay on..

So I don''t really see what Hughton was supposed to do, a great performance but left the game feeling completely disappointed.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Double subbed who? If you would have put Wes wide to go 442 then say it.

[/quote]

I already said I would have because Snodgrass was tiring????  But wide left, not Hughton''s preferred wide right position for him.We could of course have gone all Lambert and brought on for Murphy on the left wing for Wes, but I guess the normals would have gone a bit crazy at that, and he played an excellent first half.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Double subbed who? If you would have put Wes wide to go 442 then say it.

[/quote]

I already said I would have because Snodgrass was tiring????  But wide left, not Hughton''s preferred wide right position for him.We could of course have gone all Lambert and brought on for Murphy on the left wing for Wes, but I guess the normals would have gone a bit crazy at that, and he played an excellent first half.[/quote]

 

So rather than sub Wes for Elmander and Snoddy for Murphy you''d have stuck Wes out wide. For what purpose?

 

 

[Barry the boy 0]

Wes off of elmander and the wolf due to hoops coming off. A narrow mid 3 with full bks providing width like they did.

You could call it a diamond also. Football isn''t just 442/451.

Why not go 3 at the back? 1 or 2 nil a defeat is a defeat and our gd can''t get much worse.

I still laugh about the double substitution in the 89th minute at Newcastle.

Tactically baffling.

[hogesar 9,658]

I''d have probably gone 3 at the back with only a few minutes to go, but that''s just me. Man Utd weren''t really trying to score at that point just run it into the corners - if anything encouraging them to actually go for goal would have given us a better opportunity to counter if we did win the ball.

At the end of the day it''s a case of it''s and but''s - i do think Hughton is somewhat improving with his substitutions, some of them happening earlier than they used to. But yes, one''s like that at Newcastle do allow cause for concern.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

So Foggy would have put Wes out wide and Barry would have, well I''m not quite sure what. Three at the back? Probably sacrifice Olsson who would be least threat at a set play? Or play 424 with Johnson and Fer left to cope in midfield. The game''s all about opinions but I think our best chance of scoring was replacing like for like because it had been working. These other changes are pure conjecture scraping around trying to be wise after the event.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

And as for Newcastke. Hoots left it and was rewarded by a goal. Would we have scored if he''d changed it? Pure conjecture. But as I said elsewhere we''ve scored more goals in the last half hour of games than the first hour.

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So rather than sub Wes for Elmander and Snoddy for Murphy you''d have stuck Wes out wide. For what purpose?

[/quote]Huh?  I said... Hooper off for RvW and Snod off for Elmander.Wes out to the left and Redmond to the Right. 4-4-2 with Elmander behind RvW.Interesting that when Murphy did come on he was initially played on the right.  The usual inverted winger.