guest2677
|
When people say he rolled the dice or he had a go at the end of the Walsall game, is that the same thing as exercising his judgement as manager and getting it wrong?
|
|
|
|
Wolvo
|
When people say he rolled the dice or he had a go at the end of the Walsall game, is that the same thing as exercising his judgement as manager and getting it wrong?
I thought he got it spectacularly wrong. We were so on top and dominating. Then absolutely lost the plot with weird substitutions and tactical changes.
|
Pink Army!
|
|
|
guest47
|
I thought he got it spectacularly wrong. We were so on top and dominating. Then absolutely lost the plot with weird substitutions and tactical changes.
We were on top without scoring. Walsall would have been content with a point so I reckon without the subs they would have comfortably seen the game out. It turned out a draw would have given us a slim chance but only that so I’m glad he went for it despite the result. Isn’t that the attitude we prefer?
|
|
|
|
WadeyCobbler
|
If we had only lost 2-1 up at Oldham instead of 5-1, we would only need to win 3-0 on Saturday. I know that's a pointless thing to say really but it just shows how every single match is important.
|
|
|
|
guest3063
|
We were on top without scoring. Walsall would have been content with a point so I reckon without the subs they would have comfortably seen the game out. It turned out a draw would have given us a slim chance but only that so I’m glad he went for it despite the result. Isn’t that the attitude we prefer?
Yes, but some are never pleased.
|
|
|
|
BedsCobb
|
We went to Walsall to win and win only but couldn't score a goal, thats why we made substitutions that were hoped would work but failed miserably but thats football.
I would like us to set out a team on Saturday that will have some baring on next season and not the epitaph of the last one.
|
|
|
|
guest47
|
When people say he rolled the dice or he had a go at the end of the Walsall game, is that the same thing as exercising his judgement as manager and getting it wrong?
You can take a calculated risk; if it goes wrong it doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong decision at the time.
|
|
|
|
Wolvo
|
We were on top without scoring. Walsall would have been content with a point so I reckon without the subs they would have comfortably seen the game out. It turned out a draw would have given us a slim chance but only that so I’m glad he went for it despite the result. Isn’t that the attitude we prefer?
Yes and no. I felt Hoskins was ineffective and either needed replacing sooner, or support brought on sooner. Throwing Taylor, Hoskins, Long and van Veen up top meant we stopped getting the ball into the dangerous positions and ended up being picked apart. We could have gone more attacking without losing the midfield and defence.
|
Pink Army!
|
|
|
everbrite
|
If we had only lost 2-1 up at Oldham instead of 5-1, we would only need to win 3-0 on Saturday. I know that's a pointless thing to say really but it just shows how every single match is important.
The Marquis pointed that out as well.
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
Joes Sweet Left Foot
|
Not so. If we had lost 2-1 at Oldham instead of 5-1 our goal difference now would have been -31 and Oldham's -20. So it would still need a 6-0 victory to overtake Oldham on goal difference.
|
|
|
|
bri77
|
If JJ hadn't missed the penalty at Rochdale
If Long had taken one of his many chances at home to Oxford
If JJ hadn't been sent off against Shrewsbury
If Jimmy had been sacked earlier - or not appointed
If If If ................ there will be a hundred ifs about staying up, to go round in circles will drive you mad.
|
|
|
|
DrillingCobbler
|
My opinion on the Walsall subs is as follows: 1. I felt that we should have made a change around the hour mark, swapping Hoskins for Long. The game had started to drift around 10 minutes into the 2nd half and continued to drift until the 75th minute. I was discussing this with my mate at the time so not looking back and using hindsight. 2. The 'issue' for me was who he took off. HOWEVER. Someone on this site (sorry, cannot remember who) put that by taking Crooks off was logical (not factoring in hamstring 'issues') because for the last period of the game we were going to go long so wide players would have been 'taken out of the equation' so to speak. That I found interesting and re-iterated to me how subjective football is! McWilliams though I cannot buy into the point he'd been booked. And I defended JFH stoutly when he took McWilliams off for the very reason quite recently. The difference for me this time round is that McWilliams was unlikely to be sent off, he was in control etc. Don't get that one Im afraid! 3. Taylor moving up top. No issues at all. Made sense given our predicament or potential predicament by only gaining 1 point. 4. Van Veen. Id never have brought him on, he wouldn't have been on the bench for starters! But I do 'get' again that football is subjective but Id rather have seen Constantine re-emerge from retirement for that last 10 minutes! But me being objective I will put that down as a difference in opinion on a player, nothing more nothing less. I was peeved at the time and tweeted so accordingly. But a few hours later Id come to the conclusion that Id rather have a manager who does go gung ho at times instead of one who is the opposite, i.e., Page, JED and JFH. Even Wilder was afraid to send the keeper up 4 minutes into 4 minutes of time added on when we were losing…THAT is by far my greatest bugbear in football! Because if I was a manager Id be sending the keeper up top in the last 2 minutes of time added on even at throw ins! I totally believe that you'd end up with more points over a 46 game season that you would without doing so and that would make up for the sh1t goal difference you'd end up with! Fergie was the only top flight manager who used to do it regularly that I can recall and he's not a bad act to follow! And that was just from corners or free kicks. Id be a footballing pioneer, the keeper would join the attack full on!
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 12:34:31 pm by DrillingCobbler »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
|
|
|
guest1269
|
We were on top without scoring. Walsall would have been content with a point so I reckon without the subs they would have comfortably seen the game out. It turned out a draw would have given us a slim chance but only that so I’m glad he went for it despite the result. Isn’t that the attitude we prefer?
100% - we can all be wise after the event and offer an opinion - my 4 pennyworth is I didn't understand the McWilliams thing - some players get booked (JJOT for example) and you are holding your breath for the rest of the game - McWilliams on the other hand used his brain, was still very effective but without taking risks - my comments are more of a testimony to him rather than against DA. .....but back to the point DA made a decision to win the game which if it had come off would have given us a better chance of staying up - it didn't work and even if we go down on goal difference I still support him as the manager making that decision.
|
|
|
|
Wolvo
|
My opinion on the Walsall subs is as follows:
1. I felt that we should have made a change around the hour mark, swapping Hoskins for Long. The game had started to drift around 10 minutes into the 2nd half and continued to drift until the 75th minute. I was discussing this with my mate at the time so not looking back and using hindsight. 2. The 'issue' for me was who he took off. HOWEVER. Someone on this site (sorry, cannot remember who) put that by taking Crooks off was logical (not factoring in hamstring 'issues') because for the last period of the game we were going to go long so wide players would have been 'taken out of the equation' so to speak. That I found interesting and re-iterated to me how subjective football is! McWilliams though I cannot buy into the point he'd been booked. And I defended JFH stoutly when he took McWilliams off for the very reason quite recently. The difference for me this time round is that McWilliams was unlikely to be sent off, he was in control etc. Don't get that one Im afraid! 3. Taylor moving up top. No issues at all. Made sense given our predicament or potential predicament by only gaining 1 point. 4. Van Veen. Id never have brought him on, he wouldn't have been on the bench for starters! But I do 'get' again that football is subjective but Id rather have seen Constantine re-emerge from retirement for that last 10 minutes! But me being objective I will put that down as a difference in opinion on a player, nothing more nothing less.
Word for word agree with this. But I was also of the belief that a draw would have been acceptable at the time the substitutions were made as well (I understand I'm in the minority here). If JJ hadn't missed the penalty at Rochdale
If Long had taken one of his many chances at home to Oxford
If JJ hadn't been sent off against Shrewsbury
If Jimmy had been sacked earlier - or not appointed
If If If ................ there will be a hundred ifs about staying up, to go round in circles will drive you mad.
Mad to think we'd be 4 points better off if O'Toole scored that penalty and stayed on the pitch to see out a classic win vs The Shrews I'll still name my first born after him though.
|
Pink Army!
|
|
|
bri77
|
Great now I've completely depressed myself with this
|
|
|
|
guest2677
|
You can take a calculated risk; if it goes wrong it doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong decision at the time.
An apologist would say that yes! There were others around me who thought the substitutions were wrong at the time, and that then also pushing Taylor up was a tactical mistake, handing the initiative to Walsall. And when you say we would only have a slim chance had we drawn, is that fair? With that, if we beat Oldham at home on Saturday, then Rochdale would need to beat Charlton to avoid relegation in our place.
|
|
|
|
guest3181
|
An apologist would say that yes! There were others around me who thought the substitutions were wrong at the time, and that then also pushing Taylor up was a tactical mistake, handing the initiative to Walsall. And when you say we would only have a slim chance had we drawn, is that fair? With that, if we beat Oldham at home on Saturday, then Rochdale would need to beat Charlton to avoid relegation in our place.
I tend to agree - although only tend...... Well maybe more agree in total than tend..... Am I really Trump? Our manager's ratonale, as he exp[lained, was that he wanted attacking/goalscoring players on the pitch. My counter to that is as follows: I rather feel a half-fit Crooks has a greater goal-threat than a half-fit Van Veen..... and is far more creative for the team. Yes, O'Toole has scored a lot of goals, but, if his engine was running on empty, how was he going to get into the box to score? And, if there is no-one to bite in midfield, how do you win the ball to get it to the myriad of attackers? As I've said on a previous heart-on-sleeve post, this is not the time to be negative. And, I am sure that this little experiment will be a one-off for our current management (whether their learning will be implemented here or elsewhere). But - and this is very important for everyone to understand - it is impossible to play all-out attacking football if you do not have possession of the ball. The biggest mistake against Walsall was not replacing McW like-for like. The only real alternatives were Poole (not in the squad), O'Toole (left up front & knackered) or Foley (left on the bench). Our other Central Midfielder, as I've also expounded on at length, is just a pretty adornment to a game. If there was someone who could tackle sat in front of the defence, it really did not matter if Taylor was sent up front for the last few minutes. In the old days of wingers, it used to be regular thing to send the Centre Half up front to try to force a result. But, in those days, the Central Midfielders were real men, and knew how to send their opposite number into orbit, whether they needed to or not....... I love you all!!!!!
|
|
|
|
guest2235
|
Word for word agree with this. But I was also of the belief that a draw would have been acceptable at the time the substitutions were made as well (I understand I'm in the minority here). Mad to think we'd be 4 points better off if O'Toole scored that penalty and stayed on the pitch to see out a classic win vs The Shrews I'll still name my first born after him though. Can everybody stop with these two letters?
|
|
|
|
guest3181
|
Can everybody stop with these two letters?
No! "IF" off...... (I was only trying to get a cheap joke, honest... No offence intended..... Please don't hit me....)
|
|
|
|
everbrite
|
An apologist would say that yes! There were others around me who thought the substitutions were wrong at the time, and that then also pushing Taylor up was a tactical mistake, handing the initiative to Walsall. And when you say we would only have a slim chance had we drawn, is that fair? With that, if we beat Oldham at home on Saturday, then Rochdale would need to beat Charlton to avoid relegation in our place.
I agree with you CJ - my immediate thoughts on the substitutions was of total surprise that both Long and vV were on; both out of form. Would have gone with just one of them probably Long. Agreed with Crooks being withdrawn as he had history with hamstring injuries. McWilliams substitution is hard to follow; JJOT was knackered and perhaps Foley seemed the natural replacement. Having weakened the midfield, DA then ordered Taylor up front. I appreciate DA's tactic dictum of must-win, but we hadn't scored and we were running on empty. At 80mins most of us, I suspect were settling for a draw. To me, DA's judgment was flawed based on pulling on both Long and vV and then McWilliams with no Foley. I don't mind risks but this was OTT.
|
|
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 21:42:31 pm by everbrite »
|
Report Spam
Logged
|
2020 Grand National S/S 3rd Place
|
|
|
|