Dean Wilkins and Subs

[Rookie]

agree with theatre of trees, elder was going to come on but then Revell got more into the game and we began to look like scoring which we did. Feel sorry for Elder but thats the way the game goes, do think he deserves a longer run out than the usual 5 or so

 

[Theatre of Trees]

Ok, so why did he then not come on after 77 minutes when Huddersfield equalised? We were back to square one, so if, as you say, he wanted to bring him on after 70, surely he should have been STRAIGHT on after a goal on 77? As it was, he came on after about 88. I just found it a bit embarrassing that the majority of the crowd behind Wilkins were shouting at him to make the change, even after the goals had gone in, and still he stood there doing nothing. I accept a lot of your reasoning is correct re the period when the goal went in, but that only excuses him for 3 minutes.

Possibly a couple of reasons I can think of; either to see if the equaliser would galvanise the team into coming back or perhaps he feared that sending Elder on would just make us hoof the ball forward to him and wanted us to play it through the team. But then we were hoofing it anyway which suggests a little panic in the team had set in.

 

[Frutos]

I think both Hart and Elder should have been brought on a good 15 mins before they actually were, and as for what the point of leaving 1 or 2 minutes between the subs was, God only knows.

 

[Buzzer]

Why the hell does it take so long for him to make a sub? It's embarrassing! It was obvious to the majority of the crowd today that Elder, fresh from a goal last week, should have been on with at least 15-20 minutes to go. Preferably for Revell, who was rubbish. So, what does Wilkins do? He waits until 3 minutes from time, and puts HART on upfront for Revell. Ok, not the perfect sub, but still at least there is logic there even if it is too late. But then, a minute later, Elder comes on and Hart moves position after a minute on the pitch! I invite anyone to offer any sensible explanation as to why Wilkins a) waits so late EVERY week, and b) put Hart on and then moved him a minute later. I like Wilkins, but 'decision making' is definitely an area he needs to look at!

SPOT ON. I wouldn't change a word of that.

All the Mums and Dads in the Family Stand around me were thinking exactly the same.

 

[Del Boy]

Why did Martot come off when he was playing really well? Cox should of made way today.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

He's a f***ing joke - It shouldn't take TEN minutes after conceding to decide what to do. And even then it was far too late.

Part of the reason Hart got sent off (not that i'm defending him) was probably down to annoyance with Wilkins - 40 seconds after coming on up front, Wilkins changed his mind and moved him. Hart held his hands in the air and shouted something at wilkins along the lines of "what the f*ck".

If the players haven't got a clue what he's doing then there's no hope for the man. Indecision - Not an attribute a manager can afford

 

[bhadeb]

With regards to the subs i sit behind the dug out - it looked to me as if they were going to sub, then we scored and that is when they changed the game plan - Hudderfield then went onto score and they needed to change it - which is what they did - now sometimes in the past the 4th officials have stopped them making the subs when they want to - maybe that is why it was done one at a time and subs donw when there were !!

 

[goldstone]

Why did Martot come off when he was playing really well? Cox should of made way today.

Exactly. Martot was having a very good game (for the first time), Cox was having an average game (as usual), and he takes Martot off!

 

[Scotty Mac]

Exactly. Martot was having a very good game (for the first time), Cox was having an average game (as usual), and he takes Martot off!

another racist manager - this time against the french

 

[BigGully]

Why the hell does it take so long for him to make a sub? It's embarrassing! It was obvious to the majority of the crowd today that Elder, fresh from a goal last week, should have been on with at least 15-20 minutes to go. Preferably for Revell, who was rubbish. So, what does Wilkins do? He waits until 3 minutes from time, and puts HART on upfront for Revell. Ok, not the perfect sub, but still at least there is logic there even if it is too late. But then, a minute later, Elder comes on and Hart moves position after a minute on the pitch! I invite anyone to offer any sensible explanation as to why Wilkins a) waits so late EVERY week, and b) put Hart on and then moved him a minute later. I like Wilkins, but 'decision making' is definitely an area he needs to look at!

Always felt Wilkins has been quite willing to make substitutions.

Today I think Revell was having a bad time and it looked like Elder was going to replace him, but then Revell had a decent self made effort and then we had a series of corner and some decent passages of play.

The dynamics of the game changed just as an earlier substitution was goin to be made.

So it seems that he stuck with it until the game became messy again and that when the subs were made with so little time to go.

I am aslo a big fan of Wilkins and one thing that I am confident in is that he will always have a thought process to any decision.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Always felt Wilkins has been quite willing to make substitutions.

You must be watching a different Dean Wilkins to me

 

[BigGully]

You must be watching a different Dean Wilkins to me

Yeah going then expalin.

I have been quite surprised how readily that he will make substitutions, so I am a little surprised at the views on here.

You gotta remember that the starting 11 has been picked and worked on throughout the week, set pieces and shape etc.

So you might find most managers might change team shape to try to improve performance rather than personel.

Of course the changes NOT made can in the imagination be the ones that are always the most successful. So we are all waxing lyrically about how Elder would of come on and smashed a winning goal. Of course we will never know so your argument can never be disproved.

 

[NMH]

It really annoys me. A few minutes after their goal went in Elder should have come on. The diamond idea is shite as well.

Wrong.

The players that were already on the pitch should have strengthened their resolve and defended a lead.

A striker? Kidding int ya?

Even a defender, having to settle or find his marker at that point in the match - bad idea.
Correct plan, and unfortunately the midfield and attacking players really should have worked even harder to cancel out and confound the determination of HT, but failed to do so.

Where do I collect my coaching badge?

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Yeah going then expalin.

I have been quite surprised how readily that he will make substitutions, so I am a little surprised at the views on here.

You gotta remember that the starting 11 has been picked and worked on throughout the week, set pieces and shape etc.

So you might find most managers might change team shape to try to improve performance rather than personel.

Of course the changes NOT made can in the imagination be the ones that are always the most successful. So we are all waxing lyrically about how Elder would of come on and smashed a winning goal. Of course we will never know so your argument can never be disproved.

It's mainly becausei n about 75% of cases, the majority of those at Withdean, he REFUSES to make a sub until we concede or are desperate late in the game.
He rarely sees a player playing poorly and takes him off. Nor does he see ways of changing the pattern of the game by making a switch.

Occasionally he does, but so often he leaves it until 5 minutes to go which, with the exception of last weekend, is far too late. You can't expect a player to make a difference with only a handful of touches.

 

[NMH]

He's a f***ing joke - It shouldn't take TEN minutes after conceding to decide what to do. And even then it was far too late.

Part of the reason Hart got sent off (not that i'm defending him) was probably down to annoyance with Wilkins - 40 seconds after coming on up front, Wilkins changed his mind and moved him. Hart held his hands in the air and shouted something at wilkins along the lines of "what the f*ck".

If the players haven't got a clue what he's doing then there's no hope for the man. Indecision - Not an attribute a manager can afford

Hart is not to blame for his sending off?

You are trying to defend the indefensible. I trust you are not a lawyer then - but even Johnny Cochran wouldn't have got Hart off. It was a needless show of testosterone that won him nothing, and perhaps interrupted his brief ascendancy to the first team again.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Hart is not to blame for his sending off?

You are trying to defend the indefensible. I trust you are not a lawyer then - but even Johnny Cochran wouldn't have got Hart off. It was a needless show of testosterone that won him nothing, and perhaps interrupted his brief ascendancy to the first team again.

No no no, (although i couldn't see the incident very well) it was a bloody stupid thing to do, and he's now probably blown his chance in the team quite spectacularly. He was an idiot.

But i think it stemmed from him being VERY pissed off - that's certainly the impression i got from when he shouted at the bench with his arms up in the air...and quite frankly, i don't blame him (for being pised off). If Elder was going to come on, he should have come on at the same time. Not only would this have given Hart an idea of what the hell he was supposed to be doing, but it would have saved precious seconds as well.

However, i can't help but thinking if Mr El-Abd had been sent off, you'd have turned into Johnny Cochran....

 

[NMH]

You must be watching a different Dean Wilkins to me

Think;- a side that has capably defended for around 80 minutes and allowed practically nothing from the opposition has scored a goal and gone into a late lead.

You start changing that team? A team that has proved defensively AND offensively capable, and you want to change them suddenly, just when they've put the stamp on it by penetrating the opposition's defence, and put a 1 on the scoresheet?

Just don't go near management, not even a school team!

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

Think;- a side that has capably defended for around 80 minutes and allowed practically nothing from the opposition has scored a goal and gone into a late lead.

You start changing that team? A team that has proved defensively AND offensively capable, and you want to change them suddenly, just when they've put the stamp on it by penetrating the opposition's defence, and put a 1 on the scoresheet?

Just don't go near management, not even a school team!

Can't help but think you've missed the important detail of them going straight up the other end and equalising....and we waited until ten minutes after that to make sub.

Also, the fact that our goal came out of the blue from a set piece - we hadn't looked like scoring until then, Revells legs had gone and Cox was producing very little

 

[Scotty Mac]

No no no, (although i couldn't see the incident very well) it was a bloody stupid thing to do, and he's now probably blown his chance in the team quite spectacularly. He was an idiot.

But i think it stemmed from him being VERY pissed off - that's certainly the impression i got from when he shouted at the bench with his arms up in the air...and quite frankly, i don't blame him (for being pised off)

forster seems to be constantly pissed off with the bench - yet he doesnt feel the need to go into reckless challenges and needlessly get himself sent off. he has no-one to blame but himself