Fatuous thing to say when there are those that do. Some of us even on here.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Did Chris Hughton do the right thing with his Walsall team selection?
- Thread starter North Stand Polls
- Start date
Fatuous thing to say when there are those that do. Some of us even on here.
BBassic
I changed this.
- Jul 28, 2011
- 13,054
Yes, he did.
After the cluster***k that was last season I don't give a single chuff about anything other than the league.
Of course keeping winning momentum is a good thing and it will be interesting to see how we fare on Saturday but, should we end up losing, it will not be because our "second string" team couldn't dispatch an in-form League 1 side. It will be down to the 11 players on the pitch at Portman Road.
After the cluster***k that was last season I don't give a single chuff about anything other than the league.
Of course keeping winning momentum is a good thing and it will be interesting to see how we fare on Saturday but, should we end up losing, it will not be because our "second string" team couldn't dispatch an in-form League 1 side. It will be down to the 11 players on the pitch at Portman Road.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
That team should have been strong enough to win last night, the team played badly which is their fault not Hughtons. Perhaps where he is to blame is not dragging COG off at half time when it was clear that he was having a stinker. It's always easier in hindsight.
I guess the result on Saturday will provide the answer.
.....who could have had their confidence boosted further by a good win at Walsall, plus the incentive of keeping their place in the first XI for the exciting visit of Chelsea.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
And why is that ? Its EXACTLY because of team selections like Hughtons last night. How can we as fans care about the League Cup, when the clubs we support quite brazenly couldn't give a monkeys.
It never used to be like this. Before money became the be-all and end-all in the game, clubs used to proper go for it in the Cup (both of them). The prospect of progressing and landing a big tie in the next round was a big deal, or used to be. But now its all about the League. League League League. The League has always been more important than the Cup, but not to THIS extent. The League has become the be-all and end-all of everything now, and the Cups are just treated as a nuisance. Play the ressies and then shrug nonchalantly when you get binned off by lower league opposition, because actively NOT going all-out to win the tie has somehow now become "the right thing to do".
Would 1983 have even happened if we'd put the reserves out out against Newcastle ?
Thoroughly depressing poll.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Exactly.
In other words, resting players last night won't have mattered a jot either way (except that we're now out of the cup).
You've defeated your own argument.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
fat old seagull
New member
I personally wouldn't criticise the team's selection, trial and error, and all that. But I would myself have bunged new strikers on immediately Walsall scored in the 63min not in the 88th. And I'd have severely berated COG for not leaving the successful status quo of penalty kicker for the match intact. If Cask had missed ok, but why change it?.....daft I call it.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Team selection also includes when to make substitutions and they were woefully late.
As for the penalties, it seemed that the team decided whoever was brought down, took the penalty, so we can't really blame the manager for that.
- Jan 3, 2012
- 17,351
Before the match started, when I saw the Argus headline about 10 changes, I was certain we would lose. That isn't hindsight. It was not a "feeling" we would lose, it was immediate resignation to the fact. I would have been very surprised to see any different result.
symyjym
Banned
It is frustrating when you know that Bournemouth fans haven't witnessed a pig awful game in the last 3 seasons in any competition. Even when they lose they do it in style.
What they take for granted week in week out, we can only hope to achieve, and winning more than two games in a row is a fantasy to us
Even when they were chasing promotion and put on their second team for cup matches, they still played the same brand of progressive, quick tempo football.
What they take for granted week in week out, we can only hope to achieve, and winning more than two games in a row is a fantasy to us
Even when they were chasing promotion and put on their second team for cup matches, they still played the same brand of progressive, quick tempo football.
Well if we lose we will know we threw away our cup place for nothing.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,262
I think Hughton made a critical mistake in going 4-5-1 with only O'Grady up front. The XI had a distinct lack of goals about it.
I would have gone again with Hemed and Baldock, looking to bring O'Grady and Ince / JFC on for those two with 25 mins to go.
It's clear once Zamora is fit he'll come in for one of those two strikers so give both of them more of a chance to show what they can do. Hemed needs more experience in English football, Baldock missed a huge chunk of last season, while O'Grady got game time on Saturday and has already had plenty of chances to show what he can't do.
Playing Devil's Advocate, if Hughton started O'Grady because he wanted him "in the shop window" then I believe that was an error. He cost us a place in the next round, and I personally believe the only use for him is as a sub for the last 20 in a match we're already winning. Either way, at least one of him and Clunge have to go.
I would have gone again with Hemed and Baldock, looking to bring O'Grady and Ince / JFC on for those two with 25 mins to go.
It's clear once Zamora is fit he'll come in for one of those two strikers so give both of them more of a chance to show what they can do. Hemed needs more experience in English football, Baldock missed a huge chunk of last season, while O'Grady got game time on Saturday and has already had plenty of chances to show what he can't do.
Playing Devil's Advocate, if Hughton started O'Grady because he wanted him "in the shop window" then I believe that was an error. He cost us a place in the next round, and I personally believe the only use for him is as a sub for the last 20 in a match we're already winning. Either way, at least one of him and Clunge have to go.
Gritt23
New member
But if we win, it's no proof that it was because some players had a night off last night.
Agreed but I know which is most likely!
I agree, Hughton is often late with his subs.Surely though they should be able to designate the best penalty taker for each match to take them if they come up. FWIW both penalties were dives anyway IMO
Read what I wrote. I didn't claim to be Mystic Meg. I wrote "Put it this way: If - for arguments sake - the team we fielded yesterday would have beaten Walsall nine times out of ten but on this occasion didn't, does that mean it was the wrong team? Is it simply wrong because we lost? Do you accept chance plays a part? Do you honestly see things as that binary?" The arguments sake bit is the important bit. Chance plays it's part in football. We were unlucky, not shit.
Talking of Mystic Meg, I didn't see all the hindsight-merchants on here complaining when the team was announced.
Gritt23
New member
And the flip side is that perhaps our new strike partnership needs game time together to build an understanding. They could both do with the confidence boost of sticking a couple away. Hemed may have scored 2 penalties last night, and no matter how they score them a forwards confidence is boosted by sticking the ball in the onion bag.
So we could lose on Saturday, and not only have we thrown away our Cup place for nothing, but maybe the missed opportunity of the win, goals for the players who will play Saturday, and the maintaining of the momentum would have contributed to the defeat.