Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jb

Last Night's Tactical Changes

Recommended Posts

In my view (and it’s just my view), our football in the first half last night was something of a revelation, and unlike anything we’ve seen since Hughton took charge – a fluid 4-2-3-1 with attackers interchanging (see Snodgrass’ chance), the ball played quickly through the middle and box-to-box support from both Tettey and Johnson.  Far from the rigid, predictable wing play that we’ve become used to.  Things changed in the second half, though – Fer dropped further back and we reverted to the more typical 4-5-1/4-3-3, concentrating our attacks down the flanks.  I’ve been trying to work out the justification for the change, and have come up with the following reasoning:

1)      our most likely attacking threat throughout the first half had been Redmond, so it makes sense to channel our attacks through him

2)      having 3 deeper-lying midfielders allowed the full backs to become more involved in the West Ham half – they barely got forward in the first 45, but Olssen in particular was notably more positive in the second

3)      perhaps the introduction of Boriello for Cole at half time signaled a change in approach from West Ham, playing shorter balls through the middle which could be covered by having Fer sitting a little deeper

 

The thing is, West Ham’s approach didn’t really change at all (they just seemed to try and hit Downing with long balls rather than Cole), and our attacks became so predictable that West Ham snuffed out Redmond’s threat almost entirely by doubling up on him.  With Snodgrass, Redmond and Hooper (and to an extent Fer) all switching positions in the first half, the West Ham defence were far less able to concentrate on a single player.  Trying to get the full backs more involved is a positive move, but clearly the wrong one as it came at the expense of Fer’s (and Johnson’s) attacking remit.  We were doing fine with a new system in the first half, so why change things in the second?

 

Hughton’s answer to all this was, rather than revert to the system that had served us well in the first 45, to withdraw the player most able to hurt West Ham (Redmond), and remove our most mobile forward (Hooper).  Rather than seeing a system which wasn’t working and fixing it (something that would’ve been simple to do as he’d already seen the solution working fine for 45 minutes!) he solidified our return to type and we created pretty much nothing.  Perhaps the change in personnel and the added option of hitting long balls to Elmander was intended to make us more solid and likely to get a point – what actually happened was that West Ham were handed the momentum at a time where we COULD have changed things and gone for the win, simply by reverting to the system used in the first half.  Of course, there are no guarentees (especially with our strikers’ form at the moment!) but the whole situation reeks of a lack of belief/courage from the man giving the instructions from the touch line.

 

A lot has been said about last night’s substitutions, so sorry if this is re-treading old ground, but I wanted to try and understand Hughton’s mindset and intentions… I think I more-or-less do, and can only conclude that he’s lost belief not only in his players, but also in himself.  Whether or not a change would make any difference now is very debatable (and I don’t want to turn this into an in/out post), but I really believe that a fundamental change in mindset is essential to our chances of staying up.  There was good, positive football last night – but when push came to shove the manager retreated into his shell. 

 

Ready to be shot down…

JB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hughton has seemed to improve the way we are playing but his substitutions are poor and the timings are poor, look at the cardiff game 25mins between cardiff''s 2nd goal and our subs going on.

I think he has a mentality of if we can get a point a game thats good (and would probably keep you up) and that is what he did last night and has done in so many games, it gets to about 80mins and he then would be happy with the point so takes off the more attacking minded players for those more defence and who can slow the game down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]
Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]
Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]
Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]


Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Why then did Hughton say the following when directly asked about his reasons for the subs?[:^)] -  "No, it''s just a change in the game" ......"Just to get fresh legs on at that stage in the game"........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]

Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Why then did Hughton say the following when directly asked about his reasons for the subs?[:^)] -  "No, it''s just a change in the game" ......"Just to get fresh legs on at that stage in the game"........

 

[/quote]

 

I have got no idea. Perhaps because he has to say something? What did you see buddy. Did you see like for like?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]

Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Why then did Hughton say the following when directly asked about his reasons for the subs?[:^)] -  "No, it''s just a change in the game" ......"Just to get fresh legs on at that stage in the game"........

 

[/quote]

 

I have got no idea. Perhaps because he has to say something? What did you see buddy. Did you see like for like?

 

 

[/quote]

Thing is, Elmander can''t play the lone front man role - he''s less mobile and less able to hold the ball up compared to Hooper. That''s before we throw in the fact that he has zero goal threat. It''s pretty obvious he can only be used effectively as one of a front two.

Hughton claimed that it the substitutions were made to ''freshen things up'' but the change dramatically reduced on our attacking threat and handed the initiative to West Ham.

The manager lost us at least a point last night, if not all three. The naivety of his in-game management is quite astonishing for a Premier League manager. I don''t make any claim to be an expert, I''m just a regular punter but Hughton''s flaws have become so obvious that it''s no wonder the fans are sick of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dion DublinLegend"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]

Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Why then did Hughton say the following when directly asked about his reasons for the subs?[:^)] -  "No, it''s just a change in the game" ......"Just to get fresh legs on at that stage in the game"........

 

[/quote]

 

I have got no idea. Perhaps because he has to say something? What did you see buddy. Did you see like for like?

 

 

[/quote]

Thing is, Elmander can''t play the lone front man role - he''s less mobile and less able to hold the ball up compared to Hooper. That''s before we throw in the fact that he has zero goal threat. It''s pretty obvious he can only be used effectively as one of a front two.

Hughton claimed that it the substitutions were made to ''freshen things up'' but the change dramatically reduced on our attacking threat and handed the initiative to West Ham.

The manager lost us at least a point last night, if not all three. The naivety of his in-game management is quite astonishing for a Premier League manager. I don''t make any claim to be an expert, I''m just a regular punter but Hughton''s flaws have become so obvious that it''s no wonder the fans are sick of him.[/quote]

 

Listen. I''m not saying the subs were right. I wouldn''t have made any subs because we were still creating. But Elmander for Hooper was tactical not like for like. All our woes last night were self inflicted because we couldn''t take any of the good and clear cut opportunities we created.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Dion DublinLegend"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]

Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Why then did Hughton say the following when directly asked about his reasons for the subs?[:^)] -  "No, it''s just a change in the game" ......"Just to get fresh legs on at that stage in the game"........

 

[/quote]

 

I have got no idea. Perhaps because he has to say something? What did you see buddy. Did you see like for like?

 

 

[/quote]

Thing is, Elmander can''t play the lone front man role - he''s less mobile and less able to hold the ball up compared to Hooper. That''s before we throw in the fact that he has zero goal threat. It''s pretty obvious he can only be used effectively as one of a front two.

Hughton claimed that it the substitutions were made to ''freshen things up'' but the change dramatically reduced on our attacking threat and handed the initiative to West Ham.

The manager lost us at least a point last night, if not all three. The naivety of his in-game management is quite astonishing for a Premier League manager. I don''t make any claim to be an expert, I''m just a regular punter but Hughton''s flaws have become so obvious that it''s no wonder the fans are sick of him.[/quote]

 

Listen. I''m not saying the subs were right. I wouldn''t have made any subs because we were still creating. But Elmander for Hooper was tactical not like for like. All our woes last night were self inflicted because we couldn''t take any of the good and clear cut opportunities we created.

 

[/quote]

Hughton disagrees. He was asked what the thinking behind the substitutions was by Chris Goreham and said it was to ''freshen things up''. No mention of tactics playing a part in his decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]Hind sight is always 20/20 vision.[/quote]

Hi Ricardo. Thanks for the reports, I always enjoy reading them on a Saturday night. Did you watch the game last night? I can only speak for myself but I think most City fans were nonplussed by Elmander''s introduction and could predict that we were going to be less of an attacking threat as a result. I don''t think hindsight has anything to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="John from the Tomorrow People"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Tactical changes? What tactical changes?[:^)]  The only reason for the subs was to bring on fresh legs!  How tactical is that?[:^)][/quote]


Who believes that? I mean... truth is. Hoots was crapping himself because we were attacking too much.

[/quote]

 

They were certainly tactical. I would say Elmander was brought on to try and involve players supporting him in and around the box. This was a change that Darel Russell had been calling for prior to it being made. He then said that the change was spot on when it was made. I suppose Pilks for Redmond was an extension of this change in an attempt to get another goalscorer in and arond Elmander. Someting that Redmond isn''t.

 

Now I was against the subs being made. Even more so after seeing the extended highlights on football first. I thought what we had was working so the best chance of scoring was staying with it. So this is not in defence of the substitutions just pointing out that they were very much tactical and in no way like for like.

 

 

[/quote]

 

Why then did Hughton say the following when directly asked about his reasons for the subs?[:^)] -  "No, it''s just a change in the game" ......"Just to get fresh legs on at that stage in the game"........

 

[/quote]

 

I have got no idea. Perhaps because he has to say something? What did you see buddy. Did you see like for like?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Maybe it was because he had to say something and he didn''t want to elaborate on the real reasons or full reasons, but why, when he doesn''t have a history of saying such things?

 

It wasn''t like for like.

 

To me, possibly, it sounded like he was a bit lost.  The game was ticking on, we were still attacking with intent and creating good chances, but the goals weren''t coming.  At times it was reminiscent of a cup game with West Ham attacking too.  I think the best analogy I can come up with is a player who gets into a good position and is in 2 minds whether to cross the ball or shoot and in the end, ends up doing neither.  Hughton is not stupid and I have no doubt that he recognised that we were doing some good things attacking wise and creating good chances, but he was also aware that West Ham were also going for the win as well, as shown by their substitutions.  Of course he wanted to win the game, but obviously he didn''t want to lose it either, and perhaps in reaction to the time remaining, the hammers subs and his thoughts on the game so far, he was like that player in 2 minds who neither crossed or shot and we lost.

 

For 80 minutes we definitely went out to try and win that game (anyone who says different is an idiot), and then a strange decision from the manager obliterated the 80 minutes of good work in just 10 minutes.

 

I too wouldn''t have made any substituions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dion Dublin Legend"][quote user="ricardo"]Hind sight is always 20/20 vision.[/quote]

Hi Ricardo. Thanks for the reports, I always enjoy reading them on a Saturday night. Did you watch the game last night? I can only speak for myself but I think most City fans were nonplussed by Elmander''s introduction and could predict that we were going to be less of an attacking threat as a result. I don''t think hindsight has anything to do with it.[/quote]

Yes I watched it on a stream last night.I never think it wise to

second guess team changes or substitutions because none of us are privy

to what goes on behind the scenes with regard to fitness or who is

carrying an injury. The manager makes what changes he thinks necessary

having full knowledge of this and he will be the only one to pay with

his head if he gets it wrong. City had plenty of opportunities to score

and didn''t and keeping the same personnel on the pitch for the whole

match would have been a triumph of hope over experience.Why the

armchair critics think they know best is beyond me. They aren''t the ones

who will be getting the sack when it all goes tits up. A manager lives

or dies by his results and the way things are going CH is already on

life support.A few weeks ago the critics were full of how they

didn''t care about results as long as we played attacking football. At

the time I was berated because I said that this was nonsense and only

results counted. Now that we have had some decent displays but no credit

in the way of points a lot of people are coming round to my way of

thinking. Results are the ONLY thing that matter in the long run.West Ham were rubbish last night but got the points. Does anybody think that their fans care about their performance????12

games to go and as I said at the end of October, we will be in it right

to the bitter end. It is usually possible to call it after Xmas but not

this year but looking at the goal differences you would have to say

that we are fast becoming 3rd favourites. Lots of teams won''t get 40

points and 36 points could well be safe. 3 wins and 3 draws needed, home

games are fast becoming "must wins".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Le tissier said the subs were baffling. Hooper was getting in good positions and was playing well enough a good striker can score in any minute, at least he was getting in the position, Elmander is not and never will be a prolific goalscorer, so hardly the sort of sub to hang your hat on to get a win, which at the time of substitutions was well within our grasp, Westham were pretty pathetic and it was a chance lost imo, you have to be brave as a manager sometimes Hughton is way too cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Dion Dublin Legend"][quote user="ricardo"]Hind sight is always 20/20 vision.[/quote]

Hi Ricardo. Thanks for the reports, I always enjoy reading them on a Saturday night. Did you watch the game last night? I can only speak for myself but I think most City fans were nonplussed by Elmander''s introduction and could predict that we were going to be less of an attacking threat as a result. I don''t think hindsight has anything to do with it.[/quote]

Yes I watched it on a stream last night.I never think it wise to

second guess team changes or substitutions because none of us are privy

to what goes on behind the scenes with regard to fitness or who is

carrying an injury. The manager makes what changes he thinks necessary

having full knowledge of this and he will be the only one to pay with

his head if he gets it wrong. City had plenty of opportunities to score

and didn''t and keeping the same personnel on the pitch for the whole

match would have been a triumph of hope over experience.Why the

armchair critics think they know best is beyond me. They aren''t the ones

who will be getting the sack when it all goes tits up. A manager lives

or dies by his results and the way things are going CH is already on

life support.A few weeks ago the critics were full of how they

didn''t care about results as long as we played attacking football. At

the time I was berated because I said that this was nonsense and only

results counted. Now that we have had some decent displays but no credit

in the way of points a lot of people are coming round to my way of

thinking. Results are the ONLY thing that matter in the long run.West Ham were rubbish last night but got the points. Does anybody think that their fans care about their performance????12

games to go and as I said at the end of October, we will be in it right

to the bitter end. It is usually possible to call it after Xmas but not

this year but looking at the goal differences you would have to say

that we are fast becoming 3rd favourites. Lots of teams won''t get 40

points and 36 points could well be safe. 3 wins and 3 draws needed, home

games are fast becoming "must wins".[/quote]

I agree with much of that - only the management team know exactly what''s going on regarding players'' fitness, anyone carrying/picking up a knock etc. I concur that making substitutions was a logical step. It also goes without saying (to me anyway) that CH is trying to do his best for the team and win matches.

However I disagree that it is never wise to question a manger''s substitutions. Even allowing for what we know we don''t know, a number of questions persist:

Why bring on a striker who is clearly best suited to play in a two as a lone striker?

Why not bring on the Wolf, given he was first choice striking sub on Saturday and was clearly fit enough to get on in the last five? He''s much more suited to playing as a lone striker.

Why take off Redmond? I don''t think we should be over-reliant on young Nathan but he was having a good game, no sign of injury plus you have to factor in we have no game this weekend.

Last night has moved me from the fence to the out camp. I think it''s made even worse by the fact that our last manager was so pro-active during a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
63 substitutions and not one goal or assist from a sub, I think that gives us justification enough to question his in game management and use of subs.

Also, does this suggest that most of his substitutions are negative, the wrong ones or too late? I would suggest it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clint I''ve just seen that Table of Subs from the Mail, and hadn''t realised just how awful our Subs have been compared with the rest of the Clubs, although Aston Villa the 2nd worst record quite revealing too at only 3 goals/assists. Still, that;s better than Zilch!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just read a piece analysing substitutions and their impact in the premier league, 2012/13

These do look at scoring only and not assists so not quite like for like with the Mail article.

Of 1734 substitutes used only 5% of them scored.

Most interestingly only 2% of all substitutes used will score and make a positive impact to the games result (draw to win or loss to draw)

No data in the article for negative results, expect that difficult to quantify.

Not making any particular point, just thought it was a interesting article.

http://eplindex.com/30756/do-substitutes-win-games-stats-analysis.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KeepTheFaith wrote the following post at 12/02/2014 6:44 PM:

We lost cause we did not score when we had the chance.

Nothing to do with the subs.

That''s spot on. There have been soooo many times when we have failed to perform away from home but ironically, considering the reaction, this isn''t one of them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing tactical about our subs last night, & on numerous occasions before, was that they were designed to secure a draw rather than risk going for the win that was there for the taking. And last night, just like on numerous occasions before, it didn''t work.The substitutions removed our 2 best chances of getting a goal, it disrupted the flow & understanding that we had built up & it boosted to WH just when they looked like caving in. The bottom line is that you don''t put Elmander on as lone striker if you are serious about wanting to score a goal because it has become apparent to everyone that Elmander doesn''t do goals (or much else either)What I still fail to understand is that we have played 3 strikers who scored 6 PL goals between them and yet our 4th striker, who has shown in a former life that he knows where the back of the net is, can''t even get a game.Time to forget about what he does/doesn''t do in training & give him a chance. After all, he can''t do any worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Making Plans"]The only thing tactical about our subs last night, & on numerous occasions before, was that they were designed to secure a draw rather than risk going for the win that was there for the taking. [/quote]Really? Do you actually think Hughton felt as though West Ham were reducing the chance of a draw just before he made the changes? Given the score was 0-0 at the time, WH had barely registered a shot on target and we were failing to take our chances, did it not look as though a draw was on the cards anyway? I would have thought there was more of a chance of securing a 0-0 draw that you seem to think Hughton craved by maintaining the status quo rather than by making radical changes.Do you not agree?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Putting aside the matter of whether the subs were the right thing to do or not, they were a clear PR disaster.

Surely CH can''t be unaware of how he''s perceived, and what the specific criticisms of his management are about. Also, he can''t be unaware that Elmander is hardly a fans'' favourite.

Having clawed back a bit of goodwill after the previous performances (and the first 80 mins of that one), can he really not have realised that he''d be slaughtered for those subs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chewy, you''re spot on but if he''d made no subs, which would have been my choice at the time, he would have been slaughtered too. Unless of course we''d managed to somehow score a goal - then he''d have been lucky.

 

I listened to the Radio Norfolk commentary and Darel Russell was calling for Elmander/Hooper sub a while before it happened. His reasoning was that Elmander could perhaps link better with the players around him. I disagreed but what that does show is that the substitution was viewed as tactical and positive by at least one person in the game.

 

The later substitution of Pilkington for Redmond was another roll of the dice but also was tractical in as much as Pilks would have been far more likely to feed off Elmander in the box as we became more direct in an attempt to score.

 

Ultimately Hughton should and will be judged on results. We lost the game so he rightly comes out with no credit. But people suggesting those subs weren''t tactical or were negative are wide of the mark.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Do you think West Ham fans care about the performance?"

 

I think with regards to the specific game, no not at all, but in the long term, if they think that they played very badly, and are playing very badly, they will consider they got lucky this time. So yes, Im sure they would be concerned about the performance as they wont get lucky in every match.

If you are watching your team playing well, making chances and not getting the rub of the green, it is more likely your luck will change and the results will come. If you''ve been playing ineffectively for months and somehow the opposition contrives to give you a result (like West Brom and West Ham a few months ago with us), the result is not particulalry reassuring as it is not perceived to come as a result of effective play.

 

Now we are in this position results are the only thing that matters. Hughton clearly tried to get a result by consolidating a point, and it failed. In this respect, he is not very effective at getting the results he should. Last year style of play was awful, but for a period (the unbeaten run), the dire entertainment value wasnt that important as you could see the team was hard to break down and playing effectively with regards to grinding out results. We havent done this for over a year now, we huffed and puffed, style was terrible AND the results were not coming. Now the style has improved, but the results are not there.

I dont mind dire football sometimes if its effective, but very little Hughton has played this year has been effective, entertaining or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...