Jump to content

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, HarpurOwl said:

Apologies if this has been discussed already but the more I think about it the substitution of Paterson for Pelupessy was bonkers! - with Joey going straight into the back line leaving just Marriott up front meant that every time we cleared the ball out of defence it came straight back - if we had left Paterson on (or even substituted Rhodes for Paterson) then having 2 up front would have given us a much better chance of holding onto the ball.

 

As it was we had that nail biting final 10 minutes of last desperate tackles and amazing blocks - well done to all the team for a well deserved result but please don’t keep putting us through the agony we went through yet again yesterday.


Every time we cleared the ball it was coming straight back for 10 minutes up to that point, with 2 up front.

 

It was a substitution which added an extra body at the back and ran the clock down a bit. 
 

Imagine if he hadn’t changed it and we’d conceded a late equaliser!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought it was a good substitution at that point in the game, 91st minute and 1-0 up the idea was not to concede and we didn't.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting argument. Always determined by the end result so thankfully went our way yesterday so well done to Monk as that was a massive win.

It does seem a fairly standard tactic to bolster the defence late on when in a winning position. I've often wondered if any analysis has been done to see if this works better statistically than keeping your shape or even putting another attacker on to exploit space left as the opposition pushes for an equaliser. Similar argument to defending corners, I've always felt we'd be better leaving a few men forward so they can't commit as many players into our box (obviously depends on the stage if the game).

Personally i thing it should be determined by your teams strengths, if we had a player who was rapid and could expose opportunities when the game opens up then utilise them or if you have a defensive midfielder you had more confidence in then that's your best option. Unfortunately we didn't really have either yesterday so despite a nervy ending its 3 valuable points and I'm sure we're in for more nervy finishes as the season progresses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we don’t have many with target man attributes on the bench I don’t know what the alternative is. Can’t play Paterson every minute and expect him to play the high press. 
 

As stated in other thread I’d have loved Nuhiu on the bench to replace Paterson. Or if we had a week break I’d have preferred swapping Bannan for Joey and keeping Paterson on to try and hold it up after we hoofed it clear time after time. But we don’t have Adthe and we do have a tough midweek game. So we did what we did. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, HarpurOwl said:

Apologies if this has been discussed already but the more I think about it the substitution of Paterson for Pelupessy was bonkers! - with Joey going straight into the back line leaving just Marriott up front meant that every time we cleared the ball out of defence it came straight back - if we had left Paterson on (or even substituted Rhodes for Paterson) then having 2 up front would have given us a much better chance of holding onto the ball.

 

As it was we had that nail biting final 10 minutes of last desperate tackles and amazing blocks - well done to all the team for a well deserved result but please don’t keep putting us through the agony we went through yet again yesterday.

If you watched the 5 minutes leading up to Patterson coming off every time we cleared our lines it was come back anyway 

 

it made sense to put an extra man at back 

 

two up top was achieving nothing and we needed more behind the ball 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to Monk, he did a straight swap with Marriott for Windass. The problems started earlier resulting in the tiring Kachunga bring taken off once he had pulled something.  It was clear we needed more energy in the middle.
Bringing Fizz on was intended to give them something to worry about in the later stages with his pace but he ended up being targeted down our right hand side and was leaving us exposed..that eased somewhat when he was moved inside...where he still neshed a 1v1 on the edge of the D. It didn’t work.

Joey was the last throw to shore things up.

Fizz, not there yet IMO...not when we are under pressure...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree we need a hold up player in that situation. Paterson is the only one with some ability to do that and we have no one else if he is knocked or tired. The big lad who can’t be named for some who was released in the summer would still be useful there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully Monk has seen enough to leave Fizz up front with his pace as an outball and get Paterson to drop into the middle if similar happens again...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bigash_swfc said:

Remember when we went 4-5-1 in the past and Jeremy Helan, used to drive us forward with his direct dribbling

 

Helan wouldn't dribble out of his own half, rather play the ball 20/25 yards and use his pace to get to the ball. We could persuade Harris of the benefits of this method, he has pace to spare.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't want to watch us for the last 15 mins of any game if you have a heart condition.  

But for that amazing block by Van Aken and Hogan missing a sitter, we could have lost 2-1 and this site would be in meltdown.

Wondering why we can't throw the kitchen sink at teams when we're losing with 15 mins to go.

Good performance at Brum but we could easily have thrown it away once again. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, markg said:

It worked. 

This time yes. Previously; no. Big factor in the way we have capitulated. Like saying here you go, for the last 15 minutes we will stop going forward, drop deep and invite pressure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a feeling people were going to make threads like these when I saw Pelupessy coming on...

 

Firstly, we were already under the cosh and starting to drop deep well before he came on, which in part is probably what sparked the change in the first place. Pelupessy being brought on wasn't what caused us to start panicking at the back.

 

Secondly, we did actually end up winning the game - so, the substitution can only be judged as successful. No one knows what would have happened if the change wasn't made.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Madness? 

It was One Step Beyond for one or two players. 

I nearly had a Cardiac Arrest when Joost blocked that clear chance. 

If it had gone on it would have been a Grey Day... In Our House. 

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HarpurOwl said:

Apologies if this has been discussed already but the more I think about it the substitution of Paterson for Pelupessy was bonkers! - with Joey going straight into the back line leaving just Marriott up front meant that every time we cleared the ball out of defence it came straight back - if we had left Paterson on (or even substituted Rhodes for Paterson) then having 2 up front would have given us a much better chance of holding onto the ball.

 

As it was we had that nail biting final 10 minutes of last desperate tackles and amazing blocks - well done to all the team for a well deserved result but please don’t keep putting us through the agony we went through yet again yesterday.

What is MADNESS is the complete over reaction. Defender for a attacker what the he'll was monk doing. It's as if he was trying to keep the 3 points and at home...Madness 😀

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP raised an excellent point. Yesterday we got away with it. And I say got away with it because it’s a negative change and we ALWAYS end up under pressure, often losing points as a result. Maybe Monk should mix it up and not do the suicidal sub one time and see what happens. 
 

The only time I see that sub working is with a 2 goal lead.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, bradowl said:

Madness? 

It was One Step Beyond for one or two players. 

I nearly had a Cardiac Arrest when Joost blocked that clear chance. 

If it had gone on it would have been a Grey Day... In Our House. 

lol


Beat me to it, mate. UTO. 
 

  • Haha 1
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
×
×
  • Create New...