Subs

[the bristol nest 0]

Managers have to make the tactical calls during a game. It''s one of the main attributes that differentiates a good tactitian from an average one.

Whilst CH has developed a good squad during his tenure and often pick the right team imo, he seems to damage our performances with his substituations.

Yesterday was just one of many this season. The press have picked up on this with a damning stat about scoring and assists.

This is the area that has shown least progress imo and is one of the main arguments against us reaching our potential.

Thoughts?

[morty 0]

[quote user="the bristol nest"]Managers have to make the tactical calls during a game. It''s one of the main attributes that differentiates a good tactitian from an average one.

Whilst CH has developed a good squad during his tenure and often pick the right team imo, he seems to damage our performances with his substituations.

Yesterday was just one of many this season. The press have picked up on this with a damning stat about scoring and assists.

This is the area that has shown least progress imo and is one of the main arguments against us reaching our potential.

Thoughts?[/quote]Our squad really isnt that good, to be honest.I feel that Hughton will always start with our strongest team, and its rare we have someone on the bench who is stronger than someone who has already started.And if you''re talking about the Hoolahan sub then I think it was the right decision at the time, and it was only Stoke going down to 10 and putting every man behind the ball, that made the decision look bad, in retrospect.Hoolahan had a decent game, but he looked tired just before he was taken off.

[mrs miggins 0]

I thought his substitutions were fine, unlike at the west spam game where he took off redmond.

Yesterday, for me he should have started with hooper, although tactically you can see why RVW started, the fact is that he''s in poor form. Wes played ok so when we scored, the obvious sub was Howson because he can put a tackle in as well as go box to box, as well as having more muscle in the middle against a physical, dirty stoke team, so thats fine.

Although Elmander did fine when he came on with Hooper, I would have like to have seen Hooper and Ricky play with each other because they can work the slow defenders that stoke have instead of the ariel threat of Elmander, who is ineffective most of the time in the air, let alone against stoke.

Redmond was looking a bit tired, but is a threat and has the capability of producing a bit of magic with his quick feet, and snodgrass was not really involved too much for the last 15 minutes, so would have brought Pilks on for one of them.

But it wasn''t the subs that lost us that game, it was Bassong''s kick in the penalty box.

[Hoolahans Left Foot 0]

Hughton has no plan B. His plan A is pretty appalling too. He has no idea how to change a game in our favour and seems obsessed with holding on to what we''ve got instead of pushing on for more. His use of substitutions are some of the worst I''ve ever seen from a top-flight manager.

[morty 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]I thought his substitutions were fine, unlike at the west spam game where he took off redmond.

Yesterday, for me he should have started with hooper, although tactically you can see why RVW started, the fact is that he''s in poor form. Wes played ok so when we scored, the obvious sub was Howson because he can put a tackle in as well as go box to box, as well as having more muscle in the middle against a physical, dirty stoke team, so thats fine.

Although Elmander did fine when he came on with Hooper, I would have like to have seen Hooper and Ricky play with each other because they can work the slow defenders that stoke have instead of the ariel threat of Elmander, who is ineffective most of the time in the air, let alone against stoke.

Redmond was looking a bit tired, but is a threat and has the capability of producing a bit of magic with his quick feet, and snodgrass was not really involved too much for the last 15 minutes, so would have brought Pilks on for one of them.

But it wasn''t the subs that lost us that game, it was Bassong''s kick in the penalty box.[/quote]I agree re Redmond, and assuming there was a good reason Pilks wasn''t used, as he seemed like the obvious replacement.Yeah, Elmander was tidy enough.But lets face it, as soon as Stoke went down to ten, there was only going to be one outcome.

[Gingerpele 0]

I think Hoolahan should have come off earlier. Or Howson on for Johnson/Tettey at HT.

Hoolahan played a nice ball to Snoddy, a couple one twos with him, but other than that he just slowed down things as much as Snoddy normally does. Never tried to play the ball through for RVW.

But then Howson looked well off the pace. Hooper never really got an opportunity to do anything. Elmander was actually the best sub yesterday as he managed to get wide a couple times and got a cross or two in.

But it is very worrying we haven''t had a game changer this season.

I only partially agree with Morty that we don''t have a particularly good squad. We should have game changers on the bench, we''ve been limited by injuries, but its quite worrying when ever someone like Hooper, RVW, Hoolahan, Howson, Pilks, Redmond has been on the bench they haven''t been able to come on and do anything productive.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]I think Hoolahan should have come off earlier. Or Howson on for Johnson/Tettey at HT.

Hoolahan played a nice ball to Snoddy, a couple one twos with him, but other than that he just slowed down things as much as Snoddy normally does. Never tried to play the ball through for RVW.

But then Howson looked well off the pace. Hooper never really got an opportunity to do anything. Elmander was actually the best sub yesterday as he managed to get wide a couple times and got a cross or two in.

But it is very worrying we haven''t had a game changer this season.

I only partially agree with Morty that we don''t have a particularly good squad. We should have game changers on the bench, we''ve been limited by injuries, but its quite worrying when ever someone like Hooper, RVW, Hoolahan, Howson, Pilks, Redmond has been on the bench they haven''t been able to come on and do anything productive.

[/quote]I agree with the point re injuries, I think, fully fit our squad can hold its own in this division (with maybe a few additions)

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="the bristol nest"]The press have picked up on this with a

damning stat about scoring and assists.[/quote]

 

That certainly is a damning stat. But I''d like to know how damning. What''s

the record of the managers of the clubs around us?

 

I remember the equally damning stat about how long it was since we''d won a

game after falling behind. Then we beat West Ham after trailing and now only 9

PL clubs have won more games than our one and 5 have still to win a games this

season after falling behind. I''m not saying the subs stat is like that but I

don''t know where to find the stats to compare.

 

[the bristol nest 0]

After an hour or so on the pitch, was Wes really that tired?

[morty 0]

[quote user="the bristol nest"]After an hour or so on the pitch, was Wes really that tired?[/quote]I thought he had a decent game, but I do think he was less effective in the second half.

[im spartacus canary 0]

good idea make them pay subs and make them take the goals down after the match while we are at it [:)]

[Jim Smith 2,610]

I agree entirely about the subs. Our pathetic little manager does not learn. Not only that but we went into full on keep it tight and hold what we have mode after we scored thus inviting them to have the ball in our half.

When you only ever have a one goal lead then defensive mistakes will cost you. When Villa scored against us last week they seized the momentum and hit us with a deadly salvo. We ease off when we score.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Morty

"But lets face it, as soon as Stoke went down to ten, there was only going to be one outcome."

Says it all !!!!!!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Brienne"]Morty

"But lets face it, as soon as Stoke went down to ten, there was only going to be one outcome."

Says it all !!!!!![/quote]What does it say?Pretend I''m interested.

[can u sit down please 0]

Here you go nige.... Sir Chris

[Mr Jenkins 0]

A truly outstanding record ..........of failure.

I dont like to say clueless, but you have to!

[morty 0]

[quote user="Brienne"]A truly outstanding record ..........of failure.

I dont like to say clueless, but you have to![/quote]What did your username used to be?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Here you go nige.... Sir Chris

[/quote]

 

Ta!

 

Lambert[:O]

 

 

[lake district canary 4,830]

Once again, the media and stats geeks are missing the point.  

We struggle to score full stop.   The subs not scoring is a symptom of the whole team not scoring - in other words its part of a bigger issue, not one on its own.   Solve the scoring issue in the team and you will sort the scoring issue out in the subs.  Its not rocket science.    Once the team/squad is fully functional in the goal scoring department, this issue will disappear, because it the is the team, or matchday squad, that score the goals - or should score the goals.   Singling out a sub stat as being a big problem on its own is wrong imo.   It is part of the bigger picture and is one that will sort itself out as scoring becomes less of a problem psychologically for the whole team.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Its beyond belief!

[can u sit down please 0]

Anything for you nige

[Guest]

Jim, I used to think you were a decent poster, but why the need for all the personal insults towards Hughton?

What confuses me is that if yourself and so many others have felt this hatred towards the manager for such a long time, why has no-one got off their backside and protested as has happened in the recent past with managers like Worthington?

For what it''s worth I do think Hughton plays the percentages too much and can be overly cautious, but our lack of goals comes from lack of quality in forward play. I read somewhere recently that we have only converted 9% or so of our chances, the lowest conversion rate in the division.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Anything for you nige[/quote]

 

I knew I could rely on you[Y]

 

We''ve heard plenty about Hughton but why do you think Lambert has so much trouble getting subs to have an impact?

 

 

[the bristol nest 0]

I realise that there is more to our predicament but if Wes wanted to leave in order to play more often, do you think that 90 minutes of football should be beyond him?

I think not. I believe that CH took him off in order to play more defensively.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Apparantly he was looking tired just before, just before ha ha Hughton took him off. Total Bolllocks of course, he took him off for the reason you state.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="the bristol nest"]I realise that there is more to our predicament but if Wes wanted to leave in order to play more often, do you think that 90 minutes of football should be beyond him?

I think not. I believe that CH took him off in order to play more defensively.[/quote]

 

If Wes wanted to leave in order to play more football I''ll be amazed. This Roy of the Rovers stuff is all very endearing but when it comes down to it players leave for other reasons.

 

As for being tired. The player that looked most affected to me was young Redmond. Three games in a week will affect players. I know many people think it doesn''t but I''m afraid it does. There''s far too much evidence now with results often affected in the domestic leagues all over Europe after CL and EL midweek games. For some of our players, including Wes, it was the third game in six days.

 

 

[the bristol nest 0]

That is a fair point. It was his third game in a week. I suppose that my reaction to the change was in response to the previous games.

[morty 0]

[quote user="the bristol nest"]I realise that there is more to our predicament but if Wes wanted to leave in order to play more often, do you think that 90 minutes of football should be beyond him?

I think not. I believe that CH took him off in order to play more defensively.[/quote]Some from column A, some from column B.But he did look to fade in the second half.