Dean Wilkins and Subs

[dougdeep]

Isn't hindsight wonderful?

 

[NMH]

Well the changed should have been made before we even went in front, equally a like for like change when it was obvious Revell was playing poorly wouldn't have made any difference to the balance of the team.

Or, alternatively, it would have.

See? No foundation for either theory.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Well the changed should have been made before we even went in front, equally a like for like change when it was obvious Revell was playing poorly wouldn't have made any difference to the balance of the team.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Da Man Clay]

Or, alternatively, it would have.

See? No foundation for either theory.

Pointless arguing to be honest, most people could see Revell needed to be substituted. Wilkins can clearly do no wrong in your eyes.

 

[BensGrandad]

Perhaps I was watchinga different game but in the fiorst half I thought that Reid and Thompson operated down the middle and for most of the time Cox and Martot were on the left. WTF was Cox suppossed to be doing he should have been attacking their left back as he was the weak link in the defence on the ground. Either that or leave him on the left and bring Martot over.

Sorry buit I thinkl that Wilkins and especially White and Chapman are very inept tactically.

Kevin Blackwell s not working!!!

 

[NMH]

You people are great - geniuses at calling Wilkins wrong after he doesn't make a decision (based on good sense), and even brilliant at tactical decisions that should have been made BEFORE we go ahead and SCORE!!

What are the chances, if he'd put Elder on earlier, that you would have EVER said "ooh, great decision, excellent idea, too bad it didn't come off like it should have done".

Honestly, I don't love ridiculing what people say on here, as everyone's entitled to an opinion - but I just can't make my mind BOGGLE like some of you lot

 

[Da Man Clay]

What are the chances, if he'd put Elder on earlier, that you would have EVER said "ooh, great decision, excellent idea, too bad it didn't come off like it should have done".

Yes I would have done, because it was blatant that the change needed to be made. If Wilkins had the bottle to change it earlier we may well have won the game (equally we may not have done) but im sure Elder would have been dame well more useful than Revell was.

 

[NMH]

Pointless arguing to be honest, most people could see Revell needed to be substituted. Wilkins can clearly do no wrong in your eyes.

Most people eh? In your halucinations, did you hand 'everyone' a questionaire after the game, and find out that 'everyone' agreed with YOU?

Well if I'd known THAT, I would NEVER have raised my opinion against those odds!

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA !!

You just get better and better. Thanks.

 

[BensGrandad]

2 more points thrown away thank you Wilkins White and Chapman

 

[NMH]

Yes I would have done, because it was blatant that the change needed to be made. If Wilkins had the bottle to change it earlier we may well have won the game (equally we may not have done) but im sure Elder would have been dame well more useful than Revell was.

You are cut out to be a league manager. Please collect your coaching badge from the nurse on duty, and you may wear it to your next session with the assessors.
You can wear it over your bib.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

So, you would have predicted that our lads would suddenly have folded, and conceded an equalizer - so you would have put ELDER on to balance the team (at a time when we REALLY needed to DEFEND)

There's absolutely no way you have any case against Wilkins here, none whatsoever.

You really are determined to sidestep FACTS and IGNORE what i'm saying, aren't you? You muppet.

I do NOT think a change should have been made between the 74th minute (WHEN WE SCORED) and the 77th minute (WHEN THEY SCORED).

At nil-nil with about half an hour to go, sub(s) should have been made in my OPINION - our bright start to the first half faded, Huddersfield were growin in confidence, Revell was doing bugger all, and Cox was effective as a chocolate teapot. However, we scored from the corner, completely out of the blue. THEN, we didn't need a sub.

At ONE ALL however, Elder and/or Hart should have come on - i.e in the 77th minute. Revell by this point was knackered AND hopeless...Martot (probably our best player) had faded, and Cox was contributing nothing, other than showing off some shocking ball control on the edge of the box, wasting perfectly good shooting opportunities. At that point, as the home side against a team significantly weaker than us, we should have ATTEMPTED to win the game. As soon as they scored, we should have thrown on attackers. Elder for Revell, Hart for Cox or Martot. That, to me, was blindingly obvious. 13 minutes - JUST ABOUT enough time for a sub to make an impact.

Yet it took Wilkins another NINE minutes before deciding to bring Hart on, and a further TWO minutes before bringing Elder on. This was FAR TOO LATE to make a difference - Huddersfield had possession for virtually the last 5 minutes, and the subs proved pointless.



In short then, Wilkins was too slow to make subs, and when he did, they were far too late. That, is my case against Wilkins

 

[NMH]

FACTS include the FACT that HTFC had not seriously threatened our goal, and that we had threatened theirs, and that they had to resort to desperate tackles and last-ditch measures ....until WE scored against them with that team on the pitch.

I'm sorry, but I have NO DOUBT that if he'd put Elder on, and LOST the game - it would be exactly that, that you would be criticizing, as stupid tactics. No doubt whatsoever.

 

[BensGrandad]

The problem was that after they scored there was only ever going to be 1 winner and that was not us.

 

[BigGully]

You really are determined to sidestep FACTS and IGNORE what i'm saying, aren't you? You muppet.

I do NOT think a change should have been made between the 74th minute (WHEN WE SCORED) and the 77th minute (WHEN THEY SCORED).

At nil-nil with about half an hour to go, sub(s) should have been made in my OPINION - our bright start to the first half faded, Huddersfield were growin in confidence, Revell was doing bugger all, and Cox was effective as a chocolate teapot. However, we scored from the corner, completely out of the blue. THEN, we didn't need a sub.

At ONE ALL however, Elder and/or Hart should have come on - i.e in the 77th minute. Revell by this point was knackered AND hopeless...Martot (probably our best player) had faded, and Cox was contributing nothing, other than showing off some shocking ball control on the edge of the box, wasting perfectly good shooting opportunities. At that point, as the home side against a team significantly weaker than us, we should have ATTEMPTED to win the game. As soon as they scored, we should have thrown on attackers. Elder for Revell, Hart for Cox or Martot. That, to me, was blindingly obvious. 13 minutes - JUST ABOUT enough time for a sub to make an impact.

Yet it took Wilkins another NINE minutes before deciding to bring Hart on, and a further TWO minutes before bringing Elder on. This was FAR TOO LATE to make a difference - Huddersfield had possession for virtually the last 5 minutes, and the subs proved pointless.



In short then, Wilkins was too slow to make subs, and when he did, they were far too late. That, is my case against Wilkins

There was a critical point that stopped an earlier substitution.

Revell was not doing great and he misplaced a pass, straight away you saw Wilkins beckon Elder to get ready.

Then the ball came just at the edge of the box and Revell did well to flick it pass a defender and have a shot, that deflected for a corner.

That started a period of decent play by Brighton, including successive corners, that moment the dynamics of the game changed for a while.

The coaching staff decided to leave it whilst we were doing well, thats a decent decision.

It became messy again and then the change was made with Hart and then Elder.

It really wasnt anymore sinister than that.

 

[Withdean Wanderer]

I'm sorry, but I have NO DOUBT that if he'd put Elder on, and LOST the game - it would be exactly that, that you would be criticizing, as stupid tactics. No doubt whatsoever.

Well, i know for a FACT that that is complete bollocks.

If Revell (crap) had come off for Elder (scored last week when he came on) earlier, and we'd lost, there'd be no complaints in this department from me - at least we'd have made an attacking change, looking to beat a poor side at home. And a change that wouldn't effect howewe defend.

We didn't, which reaked of indecision and negativity.

 

[BigGully]

Well, i know for a FACT that that is complete bollocks.

If Revell (crap) had come off for Elder (scored last week when he came on) earlier, and we'd lost, there'd be no complaints in this department from me - at least we'd have made an attacking change, looking to beat a poor side at home. And a change that wouldn't effect howewe defend.

We didn't, which reaked of indecision and negativity.

The coaching staff are not stupid.

They watch assess and decide who may or may not be of benefit to the team.

Elder has come from a lower level and has no real pedigree for the staff to trust, however they would undoubtedly watch and hope that he may bring something positive to the team.

It would seem that through day to day training and reserve games he has yet to make any real impression that might threaten the more established strikers, off the bench or otherwise.

To demand any immediate introduction of Elder if a more proven striker may not be playing particularly well, is unlikely to offer any great improvement.

 

[BensGrandad]

The coaching staff are not stupid.

They watch assess and decide who may or may not be of benefit to the team.

Elder has come from a lower level and has no real pedigree for the staff to trust, however they would undoubtedly watch and hope that he may bring something positive to the team.

It would seem that through day to day training and reserve games he has yet to make any real impression that might threaten the more established strikers, off the bench or otherwise.

To demand any immediate introduction of Elder if a more proven striker may not be playing particularly well, is unlikely to offer any great improvement.

Elder played at the same level as Revell and at a higher level than Chapman or White have managed and Wilkins prior to his promotion so from where do you get your logic.

 

[NMH]

Well, i know for a FACT that that is complete bollocks.

If Revell (crap) had come off for Elder (scored last week when he came on) earlier, and we'd lost, there'd be no complaints in this department from me - at least we'd have made an attacking change, looking to beat a poor side at home. And a change that wouldn't effect howewe defend.

We didn't, which reaked of indecision and negativity.

Revell (integral part of the spell that led to our goal) was left on, and Elder (couldn't hit a bovine backside with an instrument integral to the film Deliverance, in previous matches, apart from the one where he was on the spot to welly the spherical object from 2 yards out) didn't make the slightest impression once he was brought on (and looked as familiar with the match as Giant Haystacks was with Olympic triple-jump).

Now if you will excuse me - I must pop a few psychedelics before bedtime, to see if I can dream as lucidly as you about football management!

 

[NMH]

Elder played at the same level as Revell and at a higher level than Chapman or White have managed and Wilkins prior to his promotion so from where do you get your logic.

Er....perhaps the fact that he's been at the club for yonks, and hasn't exactly forced his way into the 1st team, nor even LOOKED REMOTELY like scoring..... that 'might' be the reason one or two ASTOUNDINGLY STUBBORN people don't SUDDENLY think he's the secret weapon and answer to all our prayers!

Still, you will think up some wild and wonderful reason or alternative angle on the facts , and I look forward to wailing with laughter at that, as well.

 

[BigGully]

Elder played at the same level as Revell and at a higher level than Chapman or White have managed and Wilkins prior to his promotion so from where do you get your logic.

Elder played at the same level as Revell: Then I would suspect that he has done more to impress Wilkins than Elder has.

As for the player having played higher than the staff might of previously managed is rather selective.

Such logic may well disqualify many of the worlds Football Managers from managing !!!

Are you saying that Wilkins and Chapman do not have the relevant knowledge and experience to assess their squad.