Ricardo's report v Man Utd

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

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.

[/quote]Newcastle was hilarious, a double sub on 89 minutes....  Hughton had already been forced to change the system at 2-0 down on 49 minutes when Pilkington went off, although we did continue with the same system for a while with Elmander stuck out on the left wing in comical fashion!

[Barry the boy 0]

We scored with ten minutes left. Leaving it as it was after we scored didn''t work as we lost.

To bring two players on with a minute left isn''t really very effective

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="Barry the boy"]We scored with ten minutes left. Leaving it as it was after we scored didn''t work as we lost.

To bring two players on with a minute left isn''t really very effective[/quote]

 

Yes we scored with 10 mins left. But the wails for him to make subs were much, much earlier. Hoots decision got us a goal and he tried to give it a chance for another. He was proved more right than any conjecture of what might have happened if he''d made changes after an hour.

 

 

[Barry the boy 0]

I acknowledge your point. But is a double sub in the 89th minute very effective? Also giving elmander the same amount if time?

Shape or not we were losing. But I guess that''s where top managers earn their money.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Citizen Journalist Foghorn - you said that Murphy was played on the right as an ''inverted winger'' when he came on.

Just out of curiosity - do you think Murphy is left footed or right footed?

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Yes we scored with 10 mins left. But the wails for him to make subs were much, much earlier. Hoots decision got us a goal and he tried to give it a chance for another. He was proved more right than any conjecture of what might have happened if he''d made changes after an hour.

 [/quote]

Hughton had already made changes, he was forced into by the injury to Pilkington on 49 minutes. He brought on Elmander, initially on the left wing to keep the same formation, and then switched it around about 10 minutes later.To be fair to Hughton, when we are losing really badly, he does make a change.

[hogesar 9,618]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Barry the boy"]We scored with ten minutes left. Leaving it as it was after we scored didn''t work as we lost.

To bring two players on with a minute left isn''t really very effective[/quote]

 

Yes we scored with 10 mins left. But the wails for him to make subs were much, much earlier. Hoots decision got us a goal and he tried to give it a chance for another. He was proved more right than any conjecture of what might have happened if he''d made changes after an hour. 

[/quote]

He played Elmander on the wing. I don''t think i''ve ever been so frustrated at an away game. 5 hour trip, Newcastle didn''t get out of 3rd gear and we played Elmander on the wing. I was pretty much ready to top myself at that point.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Thirsty Lizard"]Citizen Journalist Foghorn - you said that Murphy was played on the right as an ''inverted winger'' when he came on.

Just out of curiosity - do you think Murphy is left footed or right footed?[/quote]I thought Josh Murphy was left footed?  But I don''t know for sure.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Barry the boy"]We scored with ten minutes left. Leaving it as it was after we scored didn''t work as we lost.

To bring two players on with a minute left isn''t really very effective[/quote]

 

Yes we scored with 10 mins left. But the wails for him to make subs were much, much earlier. Hoots decision got us a goal and he tried to give it a chance for another. He was proved more right than any conjecture of what might have happened if he''d made changes after an hour. 

[/quote]

He played Elmander on the wing. I don''t think i''ve ever been so frustrated at an away game. 5 hour trip, Newcastle didn''t get out of 3rd gear and we played Elmander on the wing. I was pretty much ready to top myself at that point.

[/quote]I understand that St. James'' Park even provides you with enough stairs to do it!

[Barry the boy 0]

I felt the same hogesar.

Also at "then champions" Tottenham when two down with 15 left tettey was brought on for elmander.

The comment at arsenal when we were losing regarding settling for what we have or do you go for it, was also baffling.

I like Hughton but have to say that sometimes he does leave you scratching your head.

[hogesar 9,618]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Barry the boy"]We scored with ten minutes left. Leaving it as it was after we scored didn''t work as we lost.

To bring two players on with a minute left isn''t really very effective[/quote]

 

Yes we scored with 10 mins left. But the wails for him to make subs were much, much earlier. Hoots decision got us a goal and he tried to give it a chance for another. He was proved more right than any conjecture of what might have happened if he''d made changes after an hour. 

[/quote]

He played Elmander on the wing. I don''t think i''ve ever been so frustrated at an away game. 5 hour trip, Newcastle didn''t get out of 3rd gear and we played Elmander on the wing. I was pretty much ready to top myself at that point.

[/quote]I understand that St. James'' Park even provides you with enough stairs to do it![/quote]

Yep. I couldn''t have been to far from a heart attack by the time i reached the top of them anyway. Then I had to sit next to a 40-50 year old NCFC fan who had the mentality of a 14 year old stressy teenager. Refusing to sit down (he was the only one standing) so some womans 10 year old son could see. When i made an objective point that he should prioritise his energy on sorting out various aspects of his life rather than refusing to sit down an arguing with a woman who''s taken 2 kids to a NCFC game...well, he actually started behaving in the second half.

Ahh, i digress. I was miserable - that''s the point I''m trying to make.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Rickyyyyy''s thread is becoming more and more ridiculous as the afternoon goes on. Instead of getting answers about yesterdays substitutions we are now discussing playing Elmander on the left at the Toon. You''ll make a hole in the bottom of that barrell by bedtime[S]

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Apart from the OP I haven''t read through this thread (or any of the others) so I don''t know whether the following chimes or not (probably the latter) with what other posters have said.Firstly, in terms of how they played that was as poor a Man Utd starting eleven as I have seen in the top flight at Carrow Road. The other contender would be the side we beat 2-0 in a televised game early in Ferguson''s reign. This is not an anti-Hughton point. We made them look even worse than they were. But when they had control of the ball and were not under pressure their passing was truly shocking.Secondly, and this is an anti-Hughton point, what changed that game was Moyes'' subsitution at half -time. Welbeck on for Giggs. Not just a substitution but a change. I pride myself on knowing less about tactics than pretty much anyone else here, but even I could see what Welbeck had been told to do - find space in between the midfield and the striker.If I could spot that how come our management/coaching triumvirate couldn''t, or if they could see it either didn''t know what to do about it, or just decided to do nothing? Because Welbeck started running the game, unchallenged. There was one moment after about 15 minutes when Johnson pointed him out to Bassong, but that was when Welbeck was on the edge of the penalty area. A bit further back and Welbeck was allowed to do as he pleased. The goal was a scrappy fluke, but that Welbeck would do something decisive was not a surprise.By contrast Hughton''s two subsitutions (I discount the Elmander one as I didn''t see him touch the ball) didn''t change anything. They were like for like. I may well be missing something subtle that Hughton did (please enlighten me if so) but on the face of it it was another game (as with Cardiff) where the opposition manager showed more tactical nous (including the ability to think on his feet) than Hughton.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Apart from the OP I haven''t read through this thread (or any of the others) so I don''t know whether the following chimes or not (probably the latter) with what other posters have said.Firstly, in terms of how they played that was as poor a Man Utd starting eleven as I have seen in the top flight at Carrow Road. The other contender would be the side we beat 2-0 in a televised game early in Ferguson''s reign. This is not an anti-Hughton point. We made them look even worse than they were. But when they had control of the ball and were not under pressure their passing was truly shocking.Secondly, and this is an anti-Hughton point, what changed that game was Moyes'' subsitution at half -time. Welbeck on for Giggs. Not just a substitution but a change. I pride myself on knowing less about tactics than pretty much anyone else here, but even I could see what Welbeck had been told to do - find space in between the midfield and the striker.If I could spot that how come our management/coaching triumvirate couldn''t, or if they could see it either didn''t know what to do about it, or just decided to do nothing? Because Welbeck started running the game, unchallenged. There was one moment after about 15 minutes when Johnson pointed him out to Bassong, but that was when Welbeck was on the edge of the penalty area. A bit further back and Welbeck was allowed to do as he pleased. The goal was a scrappy fluke, but that Welbeck would do something decisive was not a surprise.By contrast Hughton''s two subsitutions (I discount the Elmander one as I didn''t see him touch the ball) didn''t change anything. They were like for like. I may well be missing something subtle that Hughton did (please enlighten me if so) but on the face of it it was another game (as with Cardiff) where the opposition manager showed more tactical nous (including the ability to think on his feet) than Hughton.

[/quote]

this is what some people have been trying to get across. But others have said to change it would have been suicidal - we were losing, we lost, so don''t see how anything could have been suicidal. It worked in the first half. In the second half we barely had a chance, yet some still think we played the right way when losing and anybody who thinks differently is just desperately trying to find a stick to beat Hughton with

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Apart from the OP I haven''t read through this thread (or any of the others) so I don''t know whether the following chimes or not (probably the latter) with what other posters have said.Firstly, in terms of how they played that was as poor a Man Utd starting eleven as I have seen in the top flight at Carrow Road. The other contender would be the side we beat 2-0 in a televised game early in Ferguson''s reign. This is not an anti-Hughton point. We made them look even worse than they were. But when they had control of the ball and were not under pressure their passing was truly shocking.Secondly, and this is an anti-Hughton point, what changed that game was Moyes'' subsitution at half -time. Welbeck on for Giggs. Not just a substitution but a change. I pride myself on knowing less about tactics than pretty much anyone else here, but even I could see what Welbeck had been told to do - find space in between the midfield and the striker.If I could spot that how come our management/coaching triumvirate couldn''t, or if they could see it either didn''t know what to do about it, or just decided to do nothing? Because Welbeck started running the game, unchallenged. There was one moment after about 15 minutes when Johnson pointed him out to Bassong, but that was when Welbeck was on the edge of the penalty area. A bit further back and Welbeck was allowed to do as he pleased. The goal was a scrappy fluke, but that Welbeck would do something decisive was not a surprise.By contrast Hughton''s two subsitutions (I discount the Elmander one as I didn''t see him touch the ball) didn''t change anything. They were like for like. I may well be missing something subtle that Hughton did (please enlighten me if so) but on the face of it it was another game (as with Cardiff) where the opposition manager showed more tactical nous (including the ability to think on his feet) than Hughton.

[/quote]

this is what some people have been trying to get across. But others have said to change it would have been suicidal - we were losing, we lost, so don''t see how anything could have been suicidal. It worked in the first half. In the second half we barely had a chance, yet some still think we played the right way when losing and anybody who thinks differently is just desperately trying to find a stick to beat Hughton with

[/quote]That is not really the main point I''m making. I''m not saying we should have switched to gung-ho attack once we were losing. But that we should have done something tactically different (not necessarily a substitution) early on in the second half (when it was still 0-0) as soon as it became obvious how effective Moyes'' change had been.

[ron obvious 1,501]

That sounds like a valid point to me PC: PMgh (if you''re reading) do you have any observations to make?

[nutty nigel 7,513]

He did change like for like. But the point I was making was the only realistic option to change it would have been to take off Wes earlier. That was the change that could have kept us solid and play to the strengths of our wide players. Keep both full backs on, keep two wingers on. And played Elmander and RVW together up top. I''d have been tempted but I was happy he kept Wes on for as long as he did. However if Hughton had made that change Carrow Road would have melted as would this message board.

 

 

[Roodge 0]

Unable to get to many home games, so I have to settle for internet streams. Thanks again Ricardo for your Reports, the first thing I usually go for a view of someone who was actually there. Even like the way you tell us about the crowd, atmosphere & weather. Informative, accurate & optimistic. Fair play mate. Thanks

[shefcanary 2,389]

Purple, exactly the points I made in my analysis during the game in the match thread and in other posts in other threads. A high proportion of us watching could see the problems that Welbeck was causing. The first 5-10 minutes of the half was the time for the tactical change - to avoid the pressure being applied by Welbeck that eventually led to the Bassong pass and Bennett fluffed clearance. That is the reason why I am tiring of Hughton now.

In this case I will give the benefit of doubt I am sure the call should have come from his spotter Calderwood and I still think Hughton can rescue his reputation if he ditched that waste of space.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

You may believe that Sheff, but how do you know a high proportin of "us watching" do?

 

What changes would you have made? It was after all only one fluffed clearance that led to a goal. 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="shefcanary"]Purple, exactly the points I made in my analysis during the game in the match thread and in other posts in other threads. A high proportion of us watching could see the problems that Welbeck was causing. The first 5-10 minutes of the half was the time for the tactical change - to avoid the pressure being applied by Welbeck that eventually led to the Bassong pass and Bennett fluffed clearance. That is the reason why I am tiring of Hughton now.

In this case I will give the benefit of doubt I am sure the call should have come from his spotter Calderwood and I still think Hughton can rescue his reputation if he ditched that waste of space.[/quote]shef, thanks for that confirmation. I couldn''t really believe I was the only person to see this. It was just that I haven''t had time to trawl through the multitude of threads. I do, though, I think you''re being kind to Hughton. A manager surely doesn''t need a spotter to spot something that obvious.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

There''s no doubt Man Utd casused us more problems and were a better side after Wellbeck came on for Giggs. But they still didn''t cause us any more problems than any sane observer would have expected them to do. As Sheff points out we still only lost thanks to a fluffed clearance with a spawny ricochet. Any one who thinks we''re going to play 90 mins against Man utd and have them in our pockets like we did at the end of the first half is in cloud cuckoo land.

 

 

[Guest]

I thought they instucted Johnson to drop deeper in an attempt to pick Welbeck up. Makes you wonder why Moyes didn''t make a tactical substitution to force Hoolahan out of the game if it''s that simple to mark out class players.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I reckon an agenda free neutral observer would probably think Hughton got more right than Moyes yesterday. The fact that most of those with an agenda have gone to Newcastle for their ammunition also suggests Hughton got most things right...

 

 

[hogesar 9,618]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Rickyyyyy''s thread is becoming more and more ridiculous as the afternoon goes on. Instead of getting answers about yesterdays substitutions we are now discussing playing Elmander on the left at the Toon. You''ll make a hole in the bottom of that barrell by bedtime[S]

[/quote]

Oh i didn''t mean to take it off-topic. Oh, actually i didn''t, it''s fairly relevant. We''re discussing our inability to change the course of a game. Which we didn''t do effectively enough in the second half, unfortunately. Newcastle is a good example of not changing a game and just letting it pass you by. I wouldn''t say that was necessarily the case on Saturday but i certainly thought there was scope to go two up front with wes behind in the last 10 minutes or so when United were more interested in running to the corners than the goal.

[hogesar 9,618]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I reckon an agenda free neutral observer would probably think Hughton got more right than Moyes yesterday. The fact that most of those with an agenda have gone to Newcastle for their ammunition also suggests Hughton got most things right... 

[/quote]

For the most point yes Hughton did get things right. I''ve not said otherwise.

To say he get more right than Moyes, maybe. But Moyes made the only noticeable difference during the game - something i''ve yet to really see Hughton do. Maybe that''s why he manages Man Utd.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I reckon an agenda free neutral observer would probably think Hughton got more right than Moyes yesterday. The fact that most of those with an agenda have gone to Newcastle for their ammunition also suggests Hughton got most things right...

[/quote]Yep Hughton got the starting lineup and tactics spot on.  Moyes made the key tactical change which turned the game. Hughton did nothing to counter this as the game fell away from us relying on his initial tactics which failed for the whole of the second half to create a single effort inside the box.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Rickyyyyy''s thread is becoming more and more ridiculous as the afternoon goes on. Instead of getting answers about yesterdays substitutions we are now discussing playing Elmander on the left at the Toon. You''ll make a hole in the bottom of that barrell by bedtime[S]

[/quote]

Oh i didn''t mean to take it off-topic. Oh, actually i didn''t, it''s fairly relevant. We''re discussing our inability to change the course of a game. Which we didn''t do effectively enough in the second half, unfortunately. Newcastle is a good example of not changing a game and just letting it pass you by. I wouldn''t say that was necessarily the case on Saturday but i certainly thought there was scope to go two up front with wes behind in the last 10 minutes or so when United were more interested in running to the corners than the goal.

[/quote]

But we scored in the last 10 mins at Newcastle. Or would it only have counted if a sub had scored it? The last 20 mins was probably our best period of the game where we actually pinned Newcastle back and looked dangerous. What changes would you have made prior to that? And would you have been happy if those changes had the effect that the nonchanges had?

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I reckon an agenda free neutral observer would probably think Hughton got more right than Moyes yesterday. The fact that most of those with an agenda have gone to Newcastle for their ammunition also suggests Hughton got most things right... 

[/quote]

For the most point yes Hughton did get things right. I''ve not said otherwise.

To say he get more right than Moyes, maybe. But Moyes made the only noticeable difference during the game - something i''ve yet to really see Hughton do. Maybe that''s why he manages Man Utd.

[/quote]

 

Or maybe he didn''t have Danny Wellbeck on our bench...

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]I wouldn''t say that was necessarily the case on Saturday but i certainly thought there was scope to go two up front with wes behind in the last 10 minutes or so when United were more interested in running to the corners than the goal.[/quote]They were doing it from the moment they scored.  They barely had a worthwhile effort either before or after the goal. But believe some people on here and if we switched from our 4-5-1 we would have been torn a new one.