Bringing Wickham on with seven minutes to go


Status
Not open for further replies.
They were down to 10 men :confused: even if we had an injury after the third sub, it would still have been 10 against 10.

Yes they were, with their backs to the wall and all 10 of them sitting back to defend the score, waiting for our defenders to push forward so they could try to beat us on the break (no doubt knowing that our backline is very slow paced).

Are you seriously suggesting that scoring goals is a bad thing? Then you have the perfect manager for your philosophy!

No. You need to read it again. I was saying that using up our last sub earlier would reduce our defensive options, meaning if we then went ahead we'd have to try and defend the lead with more offensive players on the field, whereas if we grabbed the goal with the exact same time on the board but having not used that last sub, we'd be able to reshuffle the pack and defend that lead better.

We were crying out for something different and mr negative goes 1 up front against 10 men. That is taking options away mate.

We were crying out for something different and MoN decided to attempt the tried and tested strategy that the squad have been playing for the last few years with reasonable amounts of success. The same tactics that we used in games we've won against the likes of Man City.

His 'different thinking' has taken us backwards.

No it hasn't. The squad is better than it was when he took over.

The crowd can see it.

"The crowd"? By that you mean just the ones you agree with, while ignoring the ones that disagree?
 
No. You need to read it again. I was saying that using up our last sub earlier would reduce our defensive options, meaning if we then went ahead we'd have to try and defend the lead with more offensive players on the field, whereas if we grabbed the goal with the exact same time on the board but having not used that last sub, we'd be able to reshuffle the pack and defend that lead better.

Logon or register to see this image



Let me get this straight, MON was going to 4-5-1 and keeping an attacking substitute off the pitch so that when we did score he could then use a sub and become defensive, defending our lead, we didn't yet have.

You want to see a doctor mate.

:confused:
 
It might be to you, but I can see what MoN was doing.

We only had 1 substitution left. If we'd grabbed a goal while still playing 4-5-1, we could've brought on a defensive player to defend that lead until the end.

With Wickham on earlier, going 2-1 up would've meant we'd have a long time to have to sit and defend that lead with fewer defensive players on the pitch than necessary.

MoN's decision to wait gave us options. He's a clever man.

But therein lies the problem. If you're the only clever man at an idiot's convention, they'll all think the clever one is stupid for thinking differently to the crowd.

What's that well-known story story about the king, his people, and the well that makes you mad if you drink from it?

I think this absolutely outer-space post proves more than anything that there are people who cannot think objectively regarding Martin O'Neill and never will be able to. Because he finished sixth, I guess? As said before, when a manager is in some way answerable to the fans, this is a very dangerous line of thought.
 
Just to clarify - this is the same Connor Wickham that's done about the square root of fuck all whilst he's been at the club, yes?
 
Just to clarify - this is the same Connor Wickham that's done about the square root of fuck all whilst he's been at the club, yes?

:roll:

Is that the same 19 year old Connor Wickham who has played and scored for the England U21 national side ??
 
Just to clarify - this is the same Connor Wickham that's done about the square root of fuck all whilst he's been at the club, yes?

It's the one who won the World Cup whilst on loan iirc.
 
Let me get this straight, MON was going to 4-5-1 and keeping an attacking substitute off the pitch so that when we did score he could then use a sub and become defensive, defending our lead, we didn't yet have.

You want to see a doctor mate.

:confused:

OK, once more for those at the back, those who are hard of hearing, and those with only a single digit IQ who are acting all high and mighty.

The last few years we've been playing 4-5-1 pretty much constantly. Our players are used to playing like this, more than any other formation. We've beaten teams far bigger than us using this formation.

We're not yet used to playing 4-4-2 because we've only been playing that way for a few games. 4-4-2 is essentially and experiment for us at the moment, whereas 4-5-1 is our usual default tactic.

4-4-2 and 4-5-1 have different pros and cons, they each allow you to try different things while both are also restricted in different ways.

Playing 4-5-1 allows a team to be fluid in their approach, as the extra man in midfield makes it possible for players to pass the ball around and run, looking for the overlap wherever there's space, instead of mainly only having that option on the wings, like you have in a 4-4-2 formation.

On the day 4-4-2 was proving not to be working. We were failing to get the ball to the 2 forwards because our 4-man midfield couldn't get close enough. Slinging on a replacement like-for-like striker earlier in the game wouldn't have made a difference to this fact, as we'd still only have the 4-man midfield failing to get close enough to give them the ball.

4-5-1 is only a defensive formation if you decide to sit back, which is NOT what we were doing in this match. We were pressing hard, but unable to get past Norwich's 10-man defense, who were happy to play out the match for a point or wait until we pushed too many players too far forward so that their lone striker could look for the long ball break.

Now, because 4-4-2 is still in the experimental stage for our players, once it turned out not to be working, the intelligent thing to do is to go back to what we know, and what we know is 4-5-1.

As it happened, we still didn't manage to score with our preferred formation, and so, the more of the time ticked away, the less important it was to have the defensive option on the bench and more important to press for a goal, and so he brought on our only remaining attacking option on the bench, a young hungry athletic player who's playing for his career at the moment.

Both decisions were spot on. Unfortunately in life, doing the right thing isn't always enough. Sometimes you can do everything right and still not get the result you want. And that's an important life lesson, right there.

Got it now? Or will I need to express myself monosyllabically for it to make sense?

It's a quantitative example of how he's taken us backwards. I'd have thought that was rather self evident

No, it isn't.

The matter in question was the strength of the squad, not the number of points those squads managed to accrue. They're 2 different things.

Obviously they're related to an extent, but weaker squads are capable of overachieving, and stronger squads are capable of underachieving.

That's not even taking into account the fact that this year's Premiership is stronger and closer than last year's, or that Brown, Cattermole, Bardsley and Cuellar have been injured for so much of this year.

I'd have thought all that was self-evident.

I think this absolutely outer-space post proves more than anything that there are people who cannot think objectively regarding Martin O'Neill and never will be able to. Because he finished sixth, I guess? As said before, when a manager is in some way answerable to the fans, this is a very dangerous line of thought.

Tuck your cock in, lad, it's sticking out from under your hat.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they lack objectivity.

In fact I'm yet to see an objective reply that comes close to addressing any of the points I've made on this thread, just a load of baby chimpanzees beating their chests because their soup's cold.
 
When in a hole, throw around insults and keep digging, people will believe there is gold down there and jump in with you.
 
When in a hole, throw around insults and keep digging, people will believe there is gold down there and jump in with you.

I'll try and remember that the next time I'm in a hole, thanks.

This isn't a hole, it's tactics 101 at playschool, and most of the people on the thread are going to have to be held back a year before they're allowed to graduate.
 
OK, once more for those at the back, those who are hard of hearing, and those with only a single digit IQ who are acting all high and mighty.

The last few years we've been playing 4-5-1 pretty much constantly. Our players are used to playing like this, more than any other formation. We've beaten teams far bigger than us using this formation. - Last few years !! wtf are you on about and we've been beaten a lot more by lesser teams

We're not yet used to playing 4-4-2 because we've only been playing that way for a few games. 4-4-2 is essentially and experiment for us at the moment, whereas 4-5-1 is our usual default tactic. - These players have been raised playing 4-4-2 since they were kids man !!

4-4-2 and 4-5-1 have different pros and cons, they each allow you to try different things while both are also restricted in different ways.

Playing 4-5-1 allows a team to be fluid in their approach, - Do you even watch our games !! as the extra man in midfield makes it possible for players to pass the ball around and run, looking for the overlap wherever there's space, instead of mainly only having that option on the wings, like you have in a 4-4-2 formation.

On the day 4-4-2 was proving not to be working. We were failing to get the ball to the 2 forwards because our 4-man midfield couldn't get close enough. Slinging on a replacement like-for-like striker earlier in the game wouldn't have made a difference to this fact, - no, it's not, that's an assumption, a ridiculous one at that as we'd still only have the 4-man midfield failing to get close enough to give them the ball. - playing against 10 men since the 31st minute

4-5-1 is only a defensive formation if you decide to sit back, which is NOT what we were doing in this match. We were pressing hard, but unable to get past Norwich's 10-man defense, who were happy to play out the match for a point or wait until we pushed too many players too far forward so that their lone striker could look for the long ball break.

Now, because 4-4-2 is still in the experimental stage for our players, - lmfao once it turned out not to be working, the intelligent thing to do is to go back to what we know, and what we know is 4-5-1. - against 10 men, really? carry on Einstein.

As it happened, we still didn't manage to score with our preferred formation, - surprise, surprise and so, the more of the time ticked away, the less important it was to have the defensive option on the bench and more important to press for a goal - you reckon we should have done this from the 31st minute when they went down to 10 men and so he brought on our only remaining attacking option on the bench, a young hungry athletic player who's playing for his career at the moment - exactly

Both decisions were spot on. - no, no they weren't Unfortunately in life, doing the right thing isn't always enough. Sometimes you can do everything right and still not get the result you want. And that's an important life lesson, right there.

Got it now? Or will I need to express myself monosyllabically for it to make sense?

Son, that is the biggest pile of bollocks I have ever f***ing heard, see the red marks against your name and see me after class :lol::lol:

Logon or register to see this image
 
The matter in question was the strength of the squad, not the number of points those squads managed to accrue. They're 2 different things.

No it wasn't - you've just changed it to suit your argument. I said he's taken us backwards. No-one mentioned the squad at all, you've just introduced that. Dave H is spot on - just stop digging.[/QUOTE]

In fact I'm yet to see an objective reply that comes close to addressing any of the points I've made on this thread, just a load of baby chimpanzees beating their chests because their soup's cold.

You're not seeing anything objectively mate given that you needed 10 paragraphs to try and justify his substitutions. You even mentioned pass and move - we don't do that. Just stop and lie down.
 
It might be to you, but I can see what MoN was doing.

We only had 1 substitution left. If we'd grabbed a goal while still playing 4-5-1, we could've brought on a defensive player to defend that lead until the end.

With Wickham on earlier, going 2-1 up would've meant we'd have a long time to have to sit and defend that lead with fewer defensive players on the pitch than necessary.

MoN's decision to wait gave us options. He's a clever man.

But therein lies the problem. If you're the only clever man at an idiot's convention, they'll all think the clever one is stupid for thinking differently to the crowd.

What's that well-known story story about the king, his people, and the well that makes you mad if you drink from it?

This has to be amongst the most clueless posts ever on this forum and that takes some doing.
 
No it wasn't - you've just changed it to suit your argument. I said he's taken us backwards. No-one mentioned the squad at all, you've just introduced that. Dave H is spot on - just stop digging.

His "different thinking has taken us backwards

No, it hasn't. The squad is better than it was when he took over.

This time last year we were 8th with 39 points :confused:

Just introduced it? It was my first response to your suggestion he's taken us backwards.

Are you saying you agree with me, that MoN has improved the squad in his time here, and that it's just underachievement and a stronger league this year that have resulted in the lower league position?

You're not seeing anything objectively mate given that you needed 10 paragraphs to try and justify his substitutions. You even mentioned pass and move - we don't do that. Just stop and lie down.

You must watch the matches with blacked-out lenses in your glasses if you don't think we pass-and-move.

It took fewer paragraphs to explain his substitution tactics earlier in the thread, but then the muppets dived in because the concepts were clearly beyond their comprehension, and so I was forced to use a more verbose explanation.

I'm still yet to see an objective opposing argument to anything I've said on this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top