Jump to content

Hudds Chairman: ‘Carlos cost SWFC the Premier League’


Recommended Posts

Guest T Hardy
55 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 Dean Hoyle, the chairman of Huddersfield when we played them in the playoff semi-final says he thinks Carlos cost Sheffield Wednesday promotion to the Premier League
 

“Sheffield Wednesday, what a tough day that was, especially when Fletcher scored. Hillsborough was absolutely rocking.

 

“We scored the equaliser through Nahki Wells. I actually think in that game, the Sheffield Wednesday manager lost them that game.

 

“He came to the John Smith’s, and he went for a nil-nil draw, and he shouldn’t have because we were at our most fragile at home with the way we attacked. That’s my view.

 

“I think he missed an opportunity. I think if he’d gone for us at Huddersfield, they probably had better players than us at the time with Forestieri, Fletcher, Bannan, some great players, I think they probably would’ve beaten us in that semi-final.

 

“But it was risk averse, and it back-fired, and I still believe that. And then we went on to Wembley, which just all came together.”


I think we should have been more positive in that first leg for sure.

 

In that second leg we were just completely crippled by injuries - like Brighton were the season before that we were able to take advantage of.

 

I don’t buy this nonsense that Carlos “bottled” the tie. Yes, should have been more positive at Huddersfield. But nobody can tell me that having 2 players go off injured, along with Pudil, Hutch and Forestieri been totally crippled wasn’t the biggest factor in us not winning the game at Hillsborough. I still find that most people who accuse Carlos of bottling it don’t know that Fletcher went off injured - they believe it was a tactical decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

The tactic was fine. It was the pathetic soft equaliser that screwed us. Never seen a precious lead squandered so cheaply. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest T Hardy
49 minutes ago, vulva said:

He might want to get his facts straight. Tom Lees scored the goal for Huddersfield. And they won the playoffs without scoring a goal, so they can hardly take the moral high ground on positive football. 


And promoted on a negative goal difference. A complete myth that they were a good exciting side. Their 3 wins in 60 premier league games or whatever the stat is shows that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

He just set up the way he had in practically every other game that season. Why would he change, when it had been such a successful tactic, in taking us to a 4th place finish? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but imagine if he had switched tactics, and we went on to lose 3 nil? Everyone would be saying, why switch tactics, when those tactics had taken us so far. It was annoying, because I think we could have gone all the way with a little more adventure, but I can see why he thought, more of the same should do it

 

I disagree. I enjoyed the majority of Carlos' time as manager and agree that although appearing less flamboyant, the tactics we adopted in his second season were more effective.

I don't think he set up the same way for that semi-final at all though. We had won 1-0 on our previous two visits, allowing them to dominate possession but we still created chances, won corners, had some attacking intent. In the 1st leg of the semi-final I think we had 2 or 3 shots in total, all off target from outside the penalty box and we barely had a touch of the ball in the area. 

Even in the 2nd leg we seemed to sit back more than usual, some of that was blamed on Wallace getting an early injury but I think that is an easy excuse. After Fletcher scored then went off injured soon after we certainly tried to sit on the lead which didn't help the atmosphere and gave Huddersfield hope.

 

I think Carlos was good overall, for all our increased spending we were not a top 6 team in terms of budget in any season, but I do feel he got the approach wrong for both games of the semi-final and it ultimately cost us a great chance that season. From what I have seen of Braga and their results over the past couple of seasons, they don't appear cautious even in big games, maybe it was a harsh lesson learned for him? 

 

Some blame him for where we are now, which is ridiculous. Even if we had have been promoted it is no guarantee things would have been fine. Look where Hull are now having beaten us at Wembley, Huddersfield had a season in the sun after that semi-final progression but have hardly taken it forward since then. The problems with us rest with salaries and failure to refresh the team with timely sales ultimately costing us a points deduction and leaving us with nowhere to go in the transfer market in numerous transfer windows. Managers may be at fault for their involvement in some transfers and deciding how to strengthen the team but they do not control the budget or manager the purse strings.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 Dean Hoyle, the chairman of Huddersfield when we played them in the playoff semi-final says he thinks Carlos cost Sheffield Wednesday promotion to the Premier League
 

“Sheffield Wednesday, what a tough day that was, especially when Fletcher scored. Hillsborough was absolutely rocking.

 

“We scored the equaliser through Nahki Wells. I actually think in that game, the Sheffield Wednesday manager lost them that game.

 

“He came to the John Smith’s, and he went for a nil-nil draw, and he shouldn’t have because we were at our most fragile at home with the way we attacked. That’s my view.

 

“I think he missed an opportunity. I think if he’d gone for us at Huddersfield, they probably had better players than us at the time with Forestieri, Fletcher, Bannan, some great players, I think they probably would’ve beaten us in that semi-final.

 

“But it was risk averse, and it back-fired, and I still believe that. And then we went on to Wembley, which just all came together.”

Yes but we finished 6th and 4th !

 

Oh and  the football that 1st season !

 

Look what he's doing with Braga ( who have been out of the top 5, 4 times in 21 years!)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. 

 

After going 1:0 up we put 11 players behind the ball against a team that failed to score in all 3 games against us that season. 

 

It was asking for trouble, inviting pressure and killing any momentu we had. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree, that away game frustrated the life out of me. It was easy to see where Huddersfield's strengths and weaknesses were and instead of exploiting them or countering the strengths, we just went into our shell. Man mark Aaron Moye and press the rest of the team - but we sat back and watched them for a whole match and then let Moye dictate the home leg after we scored. 

Carlos has proven himself at Braga, but in these games he let himself and the club down. 

Edited by Daizan10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was pleased with the 0-0, but then again I don't know a great deal about Huddersfield so I'm not sure about his specifics.

 

I think the key words there are "risk averse".  It becomes an issue when managers are focused more on not losing than they are on winning, as Carlos became, and I dare say, every manager we've had since him.

 

I don't want us to be "difficult to beat", I want us to go and try and win some games!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was ‘risk averse’ in a lot of games that 2nd season. Totally convinced himself after the play off final that we’d been ‘worked out’ 

 

As for that Semi final. Taking Fletcher off after an hour in the 2nd leg was madness. Especially considering he brought Rhodes on then tried to sit back. Amazingly it’s a nonsensical substitution we still make today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

He just set up the way he had in practically every other game that season. Why would he change, when it had been such a successful tactic, in taking us to a 4th place finish? Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but imagine if he had switched tactics, and we went on to lose 3 nil? Everyone would be saying, why switch tactics, when those tactics had taken us so far. It was annoying, because I think we could have gone all the way with a little more adventure, but I can see why he thought, more of the same should do it

What was more annoying was how we got to 4th. We’d been negative all year then away at Barnsley when they equalised in injury time (fully deserved they battered us) we dropped out of the playoffs. He then changed went back to the previous years team went more attacking and won 6 on the bounce to finish 4th.  We were the form team we have confidence we should have romped that playoff but reverting back to that tactic was appalling management 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had so many chances.  Even the 0-0 gave us a great chance at home.  And only a mediocre Reading awaited. The atmosphere was great after we scored. Unlucky own goal but we should still have won on penalties, at our end, and going first.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those saying that these were CCs tactics, I think that’s sparing him a lot of the blame 

 

We got to the final the previous year and we should have used the learning curve and those experiences 

 

The 16/17 play offs were far weaker than the previous year 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mcmigo said:

He made it about him -a criminal thing for any manager to do.  You see the same now with Allardyce in the Prem, and Pulis when he was here.  He wanted to be known as a tactical genius so set the players up that way in the semi, instead of just letting us play our own game.

 

 

He made it about him to take the pressure off the players for the final.Like all good managers will and do,protect the players let them concentrate on game..

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mrbluesky
1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

I’m not sure we winged it, it was more by design. Carlos was aggrieved that he didn’t get the players he wanted, despite millions being spent, and realised we were ill equipped to play an expansive game. 
We didn’t have the legs, so he devised a system to get the most from the players he had and trusted. It was all about controlling games. Not defensive in the way a Pulis or Allardyce might play, but about keeping the ball and creating a box in midfield that was difficult to break down. Personally I didn’t like that way of playing, and said so at the time, but what he devised was effective. Would he have played that way had the recruitment team brought in the players he wanted? I doubt it

Yeah, that's why I said "slightly", some games we really did just scrape through, we needed a c/h and wing backs, but also Wallace (again imo) needed replacing or better cover, it was glaringly obvious to all, DC when speaking about him (CC) said they were all his choices (players) whilst with us, unfortunately I don't think that tells the full story.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gurujuan said:

but we played that way all season, and garnered more points than we did in the Wembley season

 

But we were especially negative that day. It's not hindsight - a lot of us were appalled about how we played at Huddersfield, especially as we had the beating of them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...