Hughton today ?

[Acker79]

He didn't have a lot of attacking options. Wilson was already on the pitch, Kaz has been off the boil since his return, Skalak is still getting up to speed so those two would be big risks that recent form has showed wouldn't pay off.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Hughton had a choice... What were those choices?

- Go offensive - Bring on Kaz or Skalak, who aren't exactly great defenders. This would be massively risky against a side who've scored for fun in this division.
- Go 4-5-1, bring on Sidwell and see out the last 5 minutes like we've done in other games.
- Bring on Greer and go with 3 centre backs in an untested (match-wise anyway) formation.

I can totally understand why Hughton would take that second option. But I think he should have expected the aerial bombardment from Burnley (after all, it had been happening for 85 minutes previous) and I thought he might have expected to have to bring on Greer to win those headers. I thought that might be our trump card actually. Greer getting minutes during the international break, coming on and suring things up.

We can't be mad at Hughton for playing the percentages really. He's made the obvious substitutions all year and we're 3rd in the league! But sometimes... just sometimes, I'd like him to be a little more creative in his thinking.

 

[chaileyjem]

Not the first time this season we've been in front and he has taken the striker(s) off and packed the midfield. Not a good idea; it has cost us before and it will continue to until he wises up that sitting on a lead just doesn't work.

When has this cost us before ?
I've rather boringly gone through his substitutions this season and i'm struggling to find evidence this is the case.
He normally plays 4-4-2 so doesn't pack the midfield and he normally replaces like with like in terms of strikers in terms of substitutions which often results in us winning the game. (see Hemed v MK Dons or Charlton, See Zamora v Bristol City, or Leeds)
And when he does bring on a midfielder (Ince, Crofts, JFC, Sidwell) it works. (See JFC's pass against Fulham, or the 13 times we've closed out victories at home this season after going ahead - ie: every single time this season until Saturday)
Show me the data.

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

When has this cost us before ?
I've rather boringly gone through his substitutions this season and i'm struggling to find evidence this is the case.
He normally plays 4-4-2 so doesn't pack the midfield and he normally replaces like with like in terms of strikers in terms of substitutions which often results in us winning the game. (see Hemed v MK Dons or Charlton, See Zamora v Bristol City, or Leeds)
And when he does bring on a midfielder (Ince, Crofts, JFC, Sidwell) it works. (See JFC's pass against Fulham, or the 13 times we've closed out victories at home this season after going ahead - ie: every single time this season until Saturday)
Show me the data.

But for a crap penalty it nearly cost us at MK, I have no data to demonstrate this.

 

[chaileyjem]

But for a crap penalty it nearly cost us at MK, I have no data to demonstrate this.

Not sure the subs or particularly Sidwell brought on the last minute drama against MK Dons.
- Without bringing Hemed on we wouldn't have been 2-0 up.
- Hemed *should* have made it 3-0 with that sitter
-Skalak already had a booking so bringing on Sidwell might have prevented him being sent off given how erratic he was being
- Lua Lua replacing Wilson nearly took us over the line if we'd put our chances away.
- Liam Rosenior conceded the corner that led to the penalty.
- we finished the game with 4-3-3 against 10 men. Hardly sitting back.
- we conceded the penalty when Sidwell was on the pitch but not their goal. He came on when were we 2-1 up.

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

Not sure the subs or particularly Sidwell brought on the last minute drama against MK Dons.
- Without bringing Hemed on we wouldn't have been 2-0 up.
- Hemed *should* have made it 3-0 with that sitter
-Skalak already had a booking so bringing on Sidwell might have prevented him being sent off given how erratic he was being
- Lua Lua replacing Wilson nearly took us over the line if we'd put our chances away.
- Liam Rosenior conceded the corner that led to the penalty.
- we finished the game with 4-3-3 against 10 men. Hardly sitting back.
- we conceded the penalty when Sidwell was on the pitch but not their goal. He came on when were we 2-1 up.

We took off 3 attacking players and replaced them with two attacking players and Sidwell, spin it however you like but that is a defensive minded move.

 

[chaileyjem]

We took off 3 attacking players and replaced them with two attacking players and Sidwell, spin it however you like but that is a defensive minded move.

So. Whats wrong with that ? We were defending a 2-1 lead and its against 10 men. We still had 11 v 10 with Lua Lua , Hemed and Murphy on the pitch.

The implication is presumably bringing Sidwell on , and that alone, nearly cost us the win and specifically a penalty which he had nothing to do with. How ? (given all the other factors / incidents / tactics / decisions in the match that put us 2-0 up in the first place and should have put us 3-1 up)

 

[cooliobhafc]

So. Whats wrong with that ? We were defending a 2-1 lead and its against 10 men. We still had 11 v 10 with Lua Lua , Hemed and Murphy on the pitch.

The implication is presumably bringing Sidwell on , and that alone, nearly cost us the win and specifically a penalty which he had nothing to do with. How ? (given all the other factors / incidents / tactics / decisions in the match that put us 2-0 up in the first place and should have put us 3-1 up)

I think people are looking at the games like at QPR, when leading, following a couple of substitutions, we caved in and lost 2 points, yes you can say that there are games where we have done this, we have held on but there have been a few strange changes when we were in the ascendency that has cost us a few times.

 

[darkwolf666]

I think people are looking at the games like at QPR, when leading, following a couple of substitutions, we caved in and lost 2 points, yes you can say that there are games where we have done this, we have held on but there have been a few strange changes when we were in the ascendency that has cost us a few times.

Sorry, dropping points at QPR was largely down to a rush of blood to the head by Mr Dunk!

 

[chaileyjem]

I think people are looking at the games like at QPR, when leading, following a couple of substitutions, we caved in and lost 2 points, yes you can say that there are games where we have done this, we have held on but there have been a few strange changes when we were in the ascendency that has cost us a few times.

Why the substitutions when there's all manner of any other reasons
How about because Dunk got sent off ?
Charlie Austin was on fire and had anyway put them back at 2-1 before any substitutions.
Poor defending from set pieces ?
Greer shouldn't have given away the corner ?

 

[Nixonator]

Wasn't Ince brought on for Wilson to kill the game off at Derby? Just saying for sake of argument.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Wasn't Ince brought on for Wilson to kill the game off at Derby? Just saying for sake of argument.

When people were blaming Hughton at the weekend, I said we'd done a lot of midfielder for striker substitutions when leading late on and that was the only time I can remember us conceding. And, to be fair, it was an error from Ince that led to the goal, not defending too deep. It has worked a lot this season (anyone with any sense can't include QPR as we were down to 10 men) and it didn't work this time. Hughton managed a great performance from the team on Saturday and got most of his tactics spot on. It is very harsh to criticise him.

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

So. Whats wrong with that ? We were defending a 2-1 lead and its against 10 men. We still had 11 v 10 with Lua Lua , Hemed and Murphy on the pitch.

The implication is presumably bringing Sidwell on , and that alone, nearly cost us the win and specifically a penalty which he had nothing to do with. How ? (given all the other factors / incidents / tactics / decisions in the match that put us 2-0 up in the first place and should have put us 3-1 up)

You asked 'when has going defensive cost us before', and asked for examples of us going defensive, I pointed out how close we were to coming unstuck against MK, you said we made attacking subs, I pointed out that one of those subs was defensive. You now say 'so what, what's wrong with defending a lead'. Have a bit of consistency please Jem

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

Wasn't Ince brought on for Wilson to kill the game off at Derby? Just saying for sake of argument.

Yes, though I'm sure Jem will have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.