[Football] Did we miss a trick on Saturday?

[The Gem]

Kept my opinion until now so that 1 1/2 days have elapsed since the disappointment of Saturday.

I have watched the full 90 minutes 3 times now, once at the stadium on Saturday, and believe it or not twice yesterday. Having now watched it 3 times, I firmly believe we really missed a fantastic opportunity to turn the screws on City, during the last 25/20 minutes.

OK, they may have been under par, or we may actually have made them under par, who knows.

I would like to think that I do have a good knowledge of football tactics, as those who know me, will know that through the teams I have managed.

So, I got to thinking last night, did the Manager miss a trick with the changes made during the game? And what would I have done it differently.

3 substitutions made:
Murray Substituted for Andone at 66'
Jahanbakhsh Substituted for Izquierdo at 70'
Bissouma Substituted for Locadia at 82'

2 like for like changes in the space of 4 minutes, and the most attacking central midfielder for a forward. So, we went from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2 for 8 minutes.

We're the best changes made at the best times to give us the best chance of getting a goal back? IMHO no.

So here is what I would have done.
Based on how well we played for the first 20 minutes of the 2nd half I would have done the following:

Montoya Substituted for Burn at 60'
The formation would have then changed, from a 4-5-1 to a 3-5-2. I would have put Duffy up front with Murray and played Burn in the centre of a defensive 3, with Dunk on the Right. The reason I would have put Duffy up front is because he would be my next substitution.

After giving the back 3 10 minutes to settle into the new formation I would have done the next change.
Duffy Substituted for Andone at 70'
Now I still have my 3 across the back, and a very quick forward to run beyond Murray, winning headers.

5 minutes later my last throw on the dice.
Stephens Substituted for Locadia at 75'

I would not have taken my most attacking midfielder off at any stage.

I would have changed the formation again to a 3-4-3 with Bissouma at the top of a midfield diamond 4. Now I have Murray down the middle with Andone and Locadia either side. I hear you say what about the wingers getting tired, to reduce their energy, and to use a coined phrase in football, I would now have reverted to hoof ball up to the front 3, meaning the wingers do not see so much of the ball thus doing less work.

Bissouma would now be playing right behind the front 3.

All hind-site I know, but I just thought with 20 left, why didn't we throw the kitchen sink at City. Alright we might of conceded another couple of goals, but at least we would have had a real go. All of our attacking players should of been on the pitch at the same time for me.

I would of told my players as soon Monday/Tuesday what my tactics were, and I might have even used some of the tactics against Chelsea.

All about opinions.

Would you have done anything different?

 

[Return of the Rev]

It was an opportunity yes.

 

[Exile]

Management by hindsight is the easiest thing in the world.

I would have put £50,000 on a 1-0 / Jesus scorecast.

 

[Northern_Gull]

I'd have to agree, but hind-sight is a wonderful thing

 

[The Gem]

Management by hindsight is the easiest thing in the world.

I would have put £50,000 on a 1-0 / Jesus scorecast.

I get that, so you thought the changes that were made were the best ones to get something from the game?

 

[blue-shifted]

Generally speaking, I'd like us to be a little less like for like when we're chasing a game and be more prepared to risk conceding further goals to get back into a game ....... And I've got a nagging doubt that we we're not playing a formation which gets the best out of our players ...... However logically I'd have to admit that if I had miraculously been handed the reins at the start of the season, we'd probably be below Huddersfield

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

They were CH changes. They were predictable and, unsurprisingly, they didn't lead to a change in the scoreline. The only slightly unpredictable thing about them was that they came a few minutes earlier than normal.

I imagine our fans will be split after the weekend. Those who were just grateful to be there and those that feel it was a massive opportunity missed. Those that fall into the former camp will think CH tried to change it and those that fall into the latter camp will think he didn't do enough to disrupt their rhythm.

Ultimately, we lost the game (and the build up to this game has led to some awful recent performances that put our Premier League status at risk). We need to put this game behind us and focus on trying to score goals again so that we can get enough points to stay up.

 

[Exile]

I get that, so you thought the changes that were made were the best ones to get something from the game?

I think they were realistic.

Murray and Alireza were both pretty much spent when they came off, so keeping them on would have had little merit.

That only leaves the third sub of Locadia for one of the CMs. Of the three, Bissouma is the one who struggles the most with stamina (unsurprising as he does charge about, whilst he is on). Hughton is conservative - we all know that. He was never going to go for the Holloway tactic of putting six strikers on, and just hope for the best.

The third sub is the only one I might have done different - go 3 at the back, and get one more in the mix. Had we managed to nick an equalizer, however, the XI Hughton had on at 90 minutes would have been far better balanced than the one you are suggesting we should have finished with. Yours would probably had lost 5-1 in ET!

 

[Nixonator]

I get that, so you thought the changes that were made were the best ones to get something from the game?

Locadia should have come on for a CB/FB, about the only thing I would have changed at the time.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Management by hindsight is the easiest thing in the world.

I would have put £50,000 on a 1-0 / Jesus scorecast.

As you so rfightly say, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Quite frankly though, as I see it, even if we had managed an equaliser, (say had Murray got to the ball before Laporte and turned it into the net), all that would probably have done, is push City into another gear, and they would have got another goal or two before the end.

Obviously we will never know for sure, but City seemed to be playing well withing themselves, and despite us pushing them with everything we had, they still managed to stay in frontg reasonably comfortably. I don't think any changes we may have made during the game would have altered the result.

Yes it was a brave rearguard action by every one of our players, but let's face it, the best team won on the day.

 

[Nixonator]

As you so rfightly say, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Quite frankly though, as I see it, even if we had managed an equaliser, (say had Murray got to the ball before Laporte and turned it into the net), all that would probably have done, is push City into another gear, and they would have got another goal or two before the end.

Obviously we will never know for sure, but City seemed to be playing well withing themselves, and despite us pushing them with everything we had, they still managed to stay in frontg reasonably comfortably. I don't think any changes we may have made during the game would have altered the result.

Yes it was a brave rearguard action by every one of our players, but let's face it, the best team won on the day.

With respect, think you have been listening to too many pundits.

We had them rattled, and they were definitely going through the gears trying to see the game off in the 2nd half. We matched them.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I've just watched the BBC coverage of the second half and hearing Jenas, Linekar and Shearer literally laugh at how we played was infuriating

Saying how frustrating it must be to play up front for us... Saying that we missed an opportunity because City were so poor?

It might not have made for a very good game to watch for the neutral, but we had to contain City if we wanted anything out of that game. And, for 90 minutes, we did it brilliantly and lost by just one goal.

Hughton got his tactics spot on IMO. We came out in that second half and did everything we could, but we were never going to commit 10 men forward otherwise we'd have lost 5-0. Our team just aren't on the same level as City, it's as simple as that.

But we did what we could and if we'd have had just one slightly better ball into the box (Montoya and Knockaert FFS!) or, if Solly March had been playing, I think we'd have got our goal and the game could have gone either way.

We did almost everything right. We're just not good enough.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

With respect, think you have been listening to too many pundits.

We had them rattled, and they were definitely going through the gears trying to see the game off in the 2nd half. We matched them.

I was there watching the game, not listening to the pundits.

 

[Napper]

not sure missed a trick.

We did ok . Had a genuine moment where we could of scored and a shot at the keeper. City had a good few chances.

We did better than expected and I don't think we could of done a lot more. City had another gear if they needed it. They were fairly comfortable and managing the game

 

[Ninja Elephant]

There are some elements of the OP, [MENTION=12474]The Gem[/MENTION], which I find absolutely mental. I get the logic of it all, and I really think we should have tried something different to get into the game rather than the minor change of Locadia playing off Andone with 2 central midfielders in behind. But Duffy up front for 10 minutes, and then subbed? Why on earth would you sacrifice a goal threat at all set pieces in favour of keeping Bernardo on?! The idea of Dunk, Duffy and Burn as three across the back isn't bad at all but I think sacrificing Montoya would have been a waste, there's a right wing back in there for sure, and I think Bernardo would probably be fine playing that role on the left. I know it wouldn't have appeased many of the vocals in our end but Burn for Knockaert/Jahanbakhsh would have made a bit more sense if you wanted to go 3-5-2 with the full backs as wing backs and then the survivor of the wingers (Knockaert was never going off...) playing off Murray up front with Stephens sitting the deepest of the midfield 3.

I think our players are versatile enough to cope with such a change in shape and considering the status quo isn't working, we should do whatever we want and mix it up. Ultimately though, we didn't roll over lay down and I enjoyed the game from in my chair. You'd have to be living on an island to think that we should be matching them man for man, but I think that when Locadia was warming up, Hughton was saying, I'm going to hold you back and throw you to make in impact late on. It was the beginning of the end, ultimately, but I don't think it'll be 36 years before we get to try again.

 

[Stat Brother]

I've rationalised Saturday as:-

'The Albion are good enough to stop City having a field day.
But not good enough to stop City AND impose themselves on the game'.

 

[The Gem]

There are some elements of the OP, [MENTION=12474]The Gem[/MENTION], which I find absolutely mental.

You are not alone

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

One thing tactically which did make me rage was Hughton not letting Ryan come up for that free kick at the end.

Little things like that say a lot about how he thinks. With one minute left he's still more worried about City winning 2-0 then risking Maty Ryan causing a bit of chaos in the box. That annoyed me.

 

[Triggaaar]

The third sub is the only one I might have done different - go 3 at the back, and get one more in the mix. Had we managed to nick an equalizer, however, the XI Hughton had on at 90 minutes would have been far better balanced than the one you are suggesting we should have finished with. Yours would probably had lost 5-1 in ET!

Remember we could have made a 4th sub if we got to ET.

 

[Triggaaar]

As you so rfightly say, hindsight is a wonderful thing. Quite frankly though, as I see it, even if we had managed an equaliser, (say had Murray got to the ball before Laporte and turned it into the net), all that would probably have done, is push City into another gear, and they would have got another goal or two before the end.

Obviously we will never know for sure, but City seemed to be playing well withing themselves, and despite us pushing them with everything we had, they still managed to stay in frontg reasonably comfortably. I don't think any changes we may have made during the game would have altered the result.

Yes it was a brave rearguard action by every one of our players, but let's face it, the best team won on the day.

This.

With respect, think you have been listening to too many pundits.

We had them rattled, and they were definitely going through the gears trying to see the game off in the 2nd half. We matched them.

And this.

Oh god, I don't know.