Negative substitutes

[s6 owl]

Reach should have come off as he was a waste of time once again taking Bannan off while we were struggling to get possession was a recipe for disaster.

[schapmanowl]

They were there for the taking for the 1st ten mins in the 2nd half. Should have changed to 442 and gone for it. Nando should have come on for one of the Central Midfielders and him go up top with fletch. They wouldnt have coped.

 

The changes he did make were negative and abysmal. Bannan shouldnt come off he pulls the strings. Nuhiu couldnt even win a header last night it was crying out for the ball on the deck with bannan and nando on. Fletch did not win much either their CB were winning everything with the long ball.

 

Cant even get started with the Murphy sub, would have rather seen Kieren Lee least he pufs a shift in

[jimbo10179]

10 hours ago, upperwinngardensowl said:

Taking off a midfielder for a striker is hardly negative.

 

 

having said that I would have taken Reach (nondescript) or Hutch (tiring and booked) off before Bannan. 

Nuihu is not a striker, never has been never will be, he’s a centre forward. As someone else has said, never take Bannan, unless injured ofcourse

[DuttyTeabags]

12 hours ago, Craig enock said:

Felt monk's substitutes were poor tonight... needed forestieri on pitch to take the pressure of our defence... monk's doing a great job though ..

Agree, needed more energy in MF to hold the game, take off Bannan bring on Lee, take of Fletcher bring on Nuhiu (Joao would have been better option), take off Harris bring on Forest. 

 

We win. 

[Ian]

3 minutes ago, jimbo10179 said:

Nuihu is not a striker, never has been never will be, he’s a centre forward. As someone else has said, never take Bannan, unless injured ofcourse

He’s as much of a striker as he is a centre forward.....of all the debates on Nuhiu this one has to be the most pointless

[jimbo10179]

6 minutes ago, Ian said:

He’s as much of a striker as he is a centre forward.....of all the debates on Nuhiu this one has to be the most pointless

Really? You obviously don’t understand football, I wasn’t starting a Nuihu debate either. Just for the record I’m a Nuhiu fan

Edited October 19, 2019 by jimbo10179

[gurujuan]

I think the main point centres around Monk’s assertion that we stopped playing the football that served us so well for the first hour. Were those substitutions ever likely to help us regain control? Cardiff were bound to have a spell at some point, but maybe we could have ridden it out and then reasserted our own game The substitutes seemed more designed to match Cardiff at their own game To be fair, Monk gets things right most of the time, but this time, I’m not sure it was the right decision

Edited October 19, 2019 by gurujuan

[Ian]

2 minutes ago, jimbo10179 said:

Really? You obviously don’t understand football, I wasn’t starting a Nuihu debate either. Just for the record I’m a Nuihu fan

Why do I clearly not understand football......if I said Bannan was as much of a keeper as he was a Physio would that help you?

[kilnhurstowl]

Maybe Harris was getting tired so being Murphy on who should have been motivated to play well with his bro being on pitch. Also bring the big man on to hold up the play and get us further up field . Could see us getting pegged back before those changes were made. 

[gurujuan]

Just now, kilnhurstowl said:

Maybe Harris was getting tired so being Murphy on who should have been motivated to play well with his bro being on pitch. Also bring the big man on to hold up the play and get us further up field . Could see us getting pegged back before those changes were made. 

Yes, you can’t legislate for Murphy’s substandard performance. That substitution was the one that might have made sense, had Murphy shown the slightest bit of interest,. Maybe Nuhiu for Fletcher then? Plus, if we had to take Bannan off, but wanted to still control the tempo, then Lee was the obvious switch

[jimbo10179]

I don’t understand what you’re getting at with Bannan. A centre forward surely is a a big, strong, target man, holds the ball up to link up other players around him scores goals, a striker poaches in and around the box, quick, skilful, expected to be top scorer in a team like a Robbie Fowler, Micheal Owen etc?

In my opinion two very different kind of players albeit playing in the same area of the pitch. 

[dorian gray]

11 hours ago, Nut said:

So far hes a very negative manager but I do think he'll do well for us. 

he hasn't exactly got a balanced squad has he?

[McRightSide]

The problem with the change is that we were struggling to get hold of the ball and retain it.

 

The change just meant that we gave up even trying to retain is and just bashed it long

[the monk]

11 hours ago, slinger208b said:

 

Why the confused face @Lawrie’s Left Peg?

 

Spelled out;

 

Maybe players are being rested as they can't be replaced...

So replace them in this game ?

Doesn't this game count , are the other games more important ?

[Ash77]

Agree with majority, midfield lost it 2nd half and we needed more energy, possession and threat

 

Wanted reach (who seems a manager favourite) off for ff, their lb is poor and we could have exploited that.

 

Also 95min was a big ask of luongo when he looks 75% fit, so lee on for him

 

Dave for fletch maybe too, crazy to take a midfielder off for him let alone the only proper footballer on the pitch

 

So far 6/10 for monk, he seems safe and steady but so far has lacked positive and creative solutions to get at least a draw at hull, and take advantage of a poor cardiff performance by holding them off for a few more minutes with better use of subs.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Ash77

[Guest The Horse]

Now the red mist has cleared in the light of the day after, I can see what Monk was trying to do but think he fell into a trap.

Warnock must've been laughing what's left of his eyebrows off when Bannan was subbed.

At that point and with the ref giving them a tail wind, I thought we were going to lose. Even before the equaliser.

The mess up was a combo of lack of mental strength, guile and quite frankly, brains from the players and Monk trying to match up Cardiff at their own game.

We needed the players who could pick up the loose balls out of defence and play it out. Not knock it aimlessly up and out. Or lose it again as soon as you get possession.

Like the days when Bannan, Lee, Forestieri, Hooper and Nuhiu (yes, Nuhiu who is actually a very intelligent footballer) used to connect and knock it around almost telepathically.

Cathartic ranting over.

There was a lot of positives for 55 minutes but then we beat ourselves more than anything Cardiff did.

Hopefully lessons learned.

[slinger208b]

44 minutes ago, the monk said:

So replace them in this game ?

Doesn't this game count , are the other games more important ?

They were winning with most of the game played...

[Owls2k]

12 hours ago, upperwinngardensowl said:

Taking off a midfielder for a striker is hardly negative.

 

 

having said that I would have taken Reach (nondescript) or Hutch (tiring and booked) off before Bannan. 

 

I agree in the cold light of day a striker for a midfielder is positive, it also made sense to get another person with height on the pitch.

 

Whilst I agree taking Bannan off looks odd as we want to get the ball down and keep it, the fact is we weren't doing that with him on the pitch anyway so it seemed Monk was resigned to the fact we had to try and see it out.

[Owls2k]

22 minutes ago, The Horse said:

Now the red mist has cleared in the light of the day after, I can see what Monk was trying to do but think he fell into a trap.

Warnock must've been laughing what's left of his eyebrows off when Bannan was subbed.

At that point and with the ref giving them a tail wind, I thought we were going to lose. Even before the equaliser.

The mess up was a combo of lack of mental strength, guile and quite frankly, brains from the players and Monk trying to match up Cardiff at their own game.

We needed the players who could pick up the loose balls out of defence and play it out. Not knock it aimlessly up and out. Or lose it again as soon as you get possession.

Like the days when Bannan, Lee, Forestieri, Hooper and Nuhiu (yes, Nuhiu who is actually a very intelligent footballer) used to connect and knock it around almost telepathically.

Cathartic ranting over.

There was a lot of positives for 55 minutes but then we beat ourselves more than anything Cardiff did.

Hopefully lessons learned.

Definitely lessons learned and plenty of positives. 

 

I don't particularly think Monk fell into any trap as such, he was just resigned to the fact that the game was going a certain way and felt he couldn't change that, so instead he tried to see it out with extra height on the pitch. Which if we're honest he would have done if it wasn't down to a poor decision (free kick), awful positioning from the goalie (Dawson stood way too far to the left) and then another poor decision (offside) all within 2 minutes.

 

You've got to remember that when Bannan on the pitch after 50 minutes we didn't string any passes together then either, so when he went off we actually didn't lose any of his positive play, because in reality that had already gone.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I can completely understand his decisions, as simplistic as they were. Although I can't help thinking that throwing on Forestieri would've given them a huge concern heading towards their goal that would have come in very handy. 

[gurujuan]

16 minutes ago, Owls2k said:

Definitely lessons learned and plenty of positives. 

 

I don't particularly think Monk fell into any trap as such, he was just resigned to the fact that the game was going a certain way and felt he couldn't change that, so instead he tried to see it out with extra height on the pitch. Which if we're honest he would have done if it wasn't down to a poor decision (free kick), awful positioning from the goalie (Dawson stood way too far to the left) and then another poor decision (offside) all within 2 minutes.

 

You've got to remember that when Bannan on the pitch after 50 minutes we didn't string any passes together then either, so when he went off we actually didn't lose any of his positive play, because in reality that had already gone.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I can completely understand his decisions, as simplistic as they were. Although I can't help thinking that throwing on Forestieri would've given them a huge concern heading towards their goal that would have come in very handy. 

Maybe you’ve hit the nail on the head there! My opinion was, that his substitutions contradicted what he said he wanted us to do  Maybe, as you suggest, he had given up on that idea, and was just trying to see the game out