Ricardo's report v Man Utd

[hogesar 9,673]

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

It would certainly have made more sense than sticking him wide and expecting him to pick up that work load. Like I said, I wouldn''t have done it, but if you wanted Elmander up top then Wes was the option as well as getting Murphy on for Snodgrass.

 [/quote]

A triple change... I don''t think we will be seeing that type of risky but potentially game changing management any time soon  [:D]

What were your thoughts on Hughton playing Wes on the wing by the way, given you did not consider it a serious option yesterday.

[/quote]

 

I''m a great lover of Wes and he''s given us terrific entertaimnet over the years. I wouldn''t start him every game. And i''d never waste him out wide. I think keeping him where he was was our best chance yesterday but I also think he would have to have been sacrificed to go two up front. If Elmander had replaced Wes carrow road would have been in melt-down. Who''d be a manager Foggy? [;)]

 

I''m off here now for a while. It''s my late dinnertime and my support is no loneger needed on rays funds. I''ve enjoyed this discussion with you and Hoggy. Why don''t you two join our great team of PUPs next week? If you do I''ve got a great little job for you both in February. In fact any of you City supporting posters who''d like to join a winning team..

 

 

[/quote]

Agree with the bold completely! And thanks for the offer, if i get the time i''ll give it a go!

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="I.S."]Purple, again this is hindsight. It''s very easy to say how poor Hughton is at influencing a game after the fact, but ultimately we still had enough good opportunities to take something from the game second half. Poor decision from players cost us in that respect.

As others have said, apart from a freak goal, they created very very little so I struggle to see how you say we didn''t cope with Welbeck effectively.

If I might say so it seems that you are predisposed to your dislike or "concern" of Hughton''s tactics and are trying to focus on things that prove your case. I think that is very harsh considering it was a very good performance that for want of better finishing, should have seen us take at least a point.[/quote]That is just not true. Please don''t try to assume what was in my mind while I was watching the game. I saw very soon into the second half (and apparently I was far from alone in this) that - for what ever reason- we were doing nothing to stop Welbeck being so influential. I only posted this view this afternoon because that was the first time in 48 hours I had access to the internet.If you really don''t think the introduction of Welbeck, linked to our failure to negate him, didn''t change the game on its head then you are welcome to that opinion. I think you are in a minority.

[Guest]

Purple, by hindsight I meant that it is easy to say that the manager should have done something differently after the event. As I said, we still had several second half opportunities that we did not make the most of. I would not claim to know what you were thinking at the time.

I would not dispute that Welbeck had an impact for United, but that is inevitable when you look at the quality available to their manager on their bench. My point is that I believe we coped well with his introduction.

Yes, it is unarguable that we were not as dominant in the second half, and of course, Welbeck took his winner exceptionally well. My question to you is exactly how we could have coped better - the opposition hardly tore us apart in the second half?

I would genuinely like to hear what you think we should have done better as I believed the performance was one of our more dominant, and less mistake-ridden of recent times. Criticism is easy, constructive criticism less so.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

[quote user="I.S."]Purple, by hindsight I meant that it is easy to say that the manager should have done something differently after the event. As I said, we still had several second half opportunities that we did not make the most of. I would not claim to know what you were thinking at the time.

I would not dispute that Welbeck had an impact for United, but that is inevitable when you look at the quality available to their manager on their bench. My point is that I believe we coped well with his introduction.

Yes, it is unarguable that we were not as dominant in the second half, and of course, Welbeck took his winner exceptionally well. My question to you is exactly how we could have coped better - the opposition hardly tore us apart in the second half?

I would genuinely like to hear what you think we should have done better as I believed the performance was one of our more dominant, and less mistake-ridden of recent times. Criticism is easy, constructive criticism less so.[/quote]I''m not the person you were asking the question to but I find personally we seem to leave too large a gap between our midfield and defensive line for players to run into. That was the space Welbeck utilised well second half and the space that Suarez was playing in for Liverpool and the area Fulham got their goals from. Taking into account that when we were putting balls into the box second half neither Johnson or Fer made runs into the box to draw attention away from Hooper / RVW they need to do more to stop opponents making free runs at our back line.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="I.S."]Purple, by hindsight I meant that it is easy to say that the manager should have done something differently after the event. As I said, we still had several second half opportunities that we did not make the most of. I would not claim to know what you were thinking at the time.

I would not dispute that Welbeck had an impact for United, but that is inevitable when you look at the quality available to their manager on their bench. My point is that I believe we coped well with his introduction.

Yes, it is unarguable that we were not as dominant in the second half, and of course, Welbeck took his winner exceptionally well. My question to you is exactly how we could have coped better - the opposition hardly tore us apart in the second half?

I would genuinely like to hear what you think we should have done better as I believed the performance was one of our more dominant, and less mistake-ridden of recent times. Criticism is easy, constructive criticism less so.[/quote]Possibly. But entirely irrelevant to me. This was not something I decided after the event. I decided it at the time. Very early in the second half. As I patiently explained, I only posted it here this afternoon because that was the first time I had access to the internet. And I did so having read nothing about the game -  no professional reports of the game or pink ''un comments, apart from the first post on this thread. Which didn''t make this tactical point about Welbeck.As it turns out, as shef has confirmed, not only did others agree with my assessment, but said so during the game. Which I would have done had I been able. I am as surprised as anyone that it seems as if, totally unprompted, I actually got something right. But there it is.

[Badger 2,405]

Holtcantshoot - surely the reason for the

reason that Welbeck and Suarez make runs that Fer and Johnson didn''t make is

the position they were playing?

Cleverly and Carrick didn''t make those runs either. Yesterday, this was Wes''s role and he did - but his finishing has never been great.

[Badger 2,405]

Holtcantshoot - surely the reason for the

reason that Welbeck and Suarez make runs that Fer and Johnson didn''t make is

the position they were playing?

Cleverly

and Carrick didn''t make those runs either. Yesterday, this was Wes''s

role and he did - but his finishing has never been great.

[Holtcantshoot 0]

[quote user=" Badger"]

Holtcantshoot - surely the reason for the

reason that Welbeck and Suarez make runs that Fer and Johnson didn''t make is

the position they were playing?

Cleverly

and Carrick didn''t make those runs either. Yesterday, this was Wes''s

role and he did - but his finishing has never been great.

[/quote]I agree with you. But I do think that Cleverely and Carrick''s role would also have included the restriction of Hoolahan''s space and time on the ball. In the same way if we are playing a 4-5-1 rather than 4-4-2 I would expect two holding midfielders to be able to handle one second striker in Welbeck between them. Just think it''s something the team could work on to improve defensively.