Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jb

Last Night's Tactical Changes

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, Ricardo, it appears the `armchair critics` do seem to know a bit more than Chris Hughton - when it comes to substitutions. That''s the problem!

Taking off a very mobile striker for an immobile one who sat deep simply relieved any pressure on the West Ham defence.

When you, alongside that tactical blunder, take off the only player with any genuine pace it killed our attacking instinct and let West Ham into the game.

I think it was on Sky Sports News - maybe Le Tissier - was literally bewildered when the substitutions were made - speechless. As was I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jb"]

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

[/quote]

Jb which half do you think we should of reverted to, out of interest??? 100% agree tho. Totally bizarre. As usual tho a few came and pointed out why it was the correct substitutions (apparently). Was it unexpected??? Not really nothing comes as a shock now after the last 19 months really!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hughtons P45.2"][quote user="jb"]

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

[/quote]

Jb which half do you think we should of reverted to, out of interest??? 100% agree tho. Totally bizarre. As usual tho a few came and pointed out why it was the correct substitutions (apparently). Was it unexpected??? Not really nothing comes as a shock now after the last 19 months really![/quote]

Good post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="hogesar"]Unfortunately, Ricardo, it appears the `armchair critics` do seem to know a bit more than Chris Hughton - when it comes to substitutions. That''s the problem!

Taking off a very mobile striker for an immobile one who sat deep simply relieved any pressure on the West Ham defence.

When you, alongside that tactical blunder, take off the only player with any genuine pace it killed our attacking instinct and let West Ham into the game.

I think it was on Sky Sports News - maybe Le Tissier - was literally bewildered when the substitutions were made - speechless. As was I.[/quote]

 

Maybe because Le Tis was following the game on a monitor so didn''t see what Rusty was seeing. Or maybe Rusty was talking bollox. Whatever, I wouldn''t have made the substitution but the reasoning behind it was tactically positive. In the end even professionals in the game disagree let alone fans.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why thankyou Nutty Nigel, what a compliment when coming from such a pink''un superstar like yourself. Are you trying to beat Monty in the race to a million pink''un superstar posts (in which the players have to write the least amount of letters and never talk about the subject named in the thread title). Well its looking close for you both :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hughtons P45.2"]Why thankyou Nutty Nigel, what a compliment when coming from such a pink''un superstar like yourself. Are you trying to beat Monty in the race to a million pink''un superstar posts (in which the players have to write the least amount of letters and never talk about the subject named in the thread title). Well its looking close for you both :)[/quote]

That''s better ;)

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...