Not happy with Result tonight

[Captain Sensible]

I was happy with the performance up until 80minutes. Taking off Baldock and bringing on Stephens did exactly the same thing again. Wolves start bypassing the midfield with long balls and Murray comes back to help the defence with the aerial defending and so Wolves push their back four forward and we drop deep. I would have swapped Murphy for Baldock and kept the same shape. The way the side is set up, that substitution just invites pressure.

 

[chaileyjem]

He seems to be getting into a position to be the successor to Stephens when he goes in January for about £2m.

Regardless of whether players leave or go, it shows that it was the right strategy to have 4-5 first choice midfielders for this position and bringing in Norwood, Sidwell has made sense.
A 46 game Champ season, Sat-Tue-Sat-Tue needs squad depth. We missed that last season several times in certain positions didn't we BG ?

 

[Sheebo]

I'm templated to call you a flounce with that rather precious reply, but I won't. Or did I just do that? Anyway, only thing inaccurate is calling my choice of title inaccurate. I'm enTITLEd to my feeling, it's not for inferior perspectives like yours to tell me otherwise. And you don't see the number of likes nor those in agreement but then I guess that sucks your argument so I don't blame you for missing these. Ow, and to be extra controversial I will disagree with your use of 'excellent'...because it wasn't. Dare I suggest it was more of an 'alright' result, not as delirious with joy as 'excellent' implies...by beating Wolves 1 nil...only just...in October...

Didn't read past the first sentance after the bell-endery of it - but thanks for the reply

 

[Bold Seagull]

I was happy with the performance up until 80minutes. Taking off Baldock and bringing on Stephens did exactly the same thing again. Wolves start bypassing the midfield with long balls and Murray comes back to help the defence with the aerial defending and so Wolves push their back four forward and we drop deep. I would have swapped Murphy for Baldock and kept the same shape. The way the side is set up, that substitution just invites pressure.

We were already under pressure when Stephens came on 83rd min. Baldock gets through an incredible amount of work covering Knockeart, and he looked spent going into the final stages, with both him and Murray struggling to hold the ball up. If anything Stephens steadied us for 5mins after he came keeping the ball better than in the previous 5mins.

Poco came on on 90mins for Knockeart who I also felt ran himself into the ground - we already had conceded the first or second of those run of corners at that point.

Hughton saved us 2 points last night with the changes he made. That pressure came not because of the shape or changes, we just ran out of steam and struggled to find space as they pressed and took big risks. Having Goldson, Stephens and Poco in for those corners kept the clean sheet. A fine rearguard it was too.

 

[biddles911]

I think a lot of that was more through luck than judgement. And it wasn't just high aimless balls either. The ball was constantly fizzing across our box, and we had a few pinball sessions as well which fortunately didn't quite fall for them. Our complete lack of an outlet meant they could push right up on us, force us deep, and (crucially) KEEP us there. We had no opportunities to break out, to get up there end, make for the corners or run the clock down. It was all hands to the pump, and it just kept coming back.

We just about got away with it last night, but its already cost us once, and if we persist with seeing games out like that when we have a slender lead, its inevitably going to cost us again.

Absolutely agree with this. Their crossing was excellent and we were very lucky not to concede in the last few minutes.

Surely we can spare at least one man up the pitch who can hold it up rather than just having it ping straight back to us?

What about AK; oh hold on he was taken off too. Am sure he could have lasted another five minutes.....!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fleet]

Norwood had a fine game

His best for us by a distance. Sidwell was outstanding.

 

[BensGrandad]

We were already under pressure when Stephens came on 83rd min. Baldock gets through an incredible amount of work covering Knockeart, and he looked spent going into the final stages, with both him and Murray struggling to hold the ball up. If anything Stephens steadied us for 5mins after he came keeping the ball better than in the previous 5mins.

Poco came on on 90mins for Knockeart who I also felt ran himself into the ground - we already had conceded the first or second of those run of corners at that point.

Hughton saved us 2 points last night with the changes he made. That pressure came not because of the shape or changes, we just ran out of steam and struggled to find space as they pressed and took big risks. Having Goldson, Stephens and Poco in for those corners kept the clean sheet. A fine rearguard it was too.

I think that you have missed the point that when SB went off Murray was isolated with nobody to give the ball to so the obvious move was either Manu or Murphy to replace SB to keep the pressure on their back four and stop them getting the ball forward and then put Stephens on to replace Skalak and make the midfield more solid. This would have allowed the defence to get the ball forward to Murray and him to push it on to the corners to kill the game. We will not get away with the tactics used on many future occasions.

 

[Eric Youngs Contact Lense]

We were already under pressure when Stephens came on 83rd min. Baldock gets through an incredible amount of work covering Knockeart, and he looked spent going into the final stages, with both him and Murray struggling to hold the ball up. If anything Stephens steadied us for 5mins after he came keeping the ball better than in the previous 5mins.

Poco came on on 90mins for Knockeart who I also felt ran himself into the ground - we already had conceded the first or second of those run of corners at that point.

Hughton saved us 2 points last night with the changes he made. That pressure came not because of the shape or changes, we just ran out of steam and struggled to find space as they pressed and took big risks. Having Goldson, Stephens and Poco in for those corners kept the clean sheet. A fine rearguard it was too.

I agree that Wolves were about to get their "time" in the game, and that pressure was building. I just don't agree that the change of shape was warranted, or that we were willing to take advantage of the risk/gaps that Wolves were going to leave as a consequence. Additionally, the change of shape allowed them to squeeze, as did leaving Murray on his own which meant that there was no concern for their back 4 about pace and felt confident to push up even more. I am delighted we won, and will bow to CH experience/expertise (That's big of me eh?). I just think we fell back very early again.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I think that you have missed the point that when SB went off Murray was isolated with nobody to give the ball to so the obvious move was either Manu or Murphy to replace SB to keep the pressure on their back four and stop them getting the ball forward and then put Stephens on to replace Skalak and make the midfield more solid. This would have allowed the defence to get the ball forward to Murray and him to push it on to the corners to kill the game. We will not get away with the tactics used on many future occasions.

No, I clearly said that in the previous 5mins to Baldock going off, we were already struggling to keep the ball, and weren't getting the ball to them as it was. As we went into the last 10mins, you could see Wolves were more than happy to go 2 on 2 at the back, so Baldock was pretty much pushed into midfield at that point anyway covering the fact they pretty much had 6 in there. We were losing that battle, so Hughton did the right thing and swapped Stephens for Baldock, which at that point was a like for like positional change.

Hughton's substitutions didn't change our play, that had already happened through Wolves taking risks. Even all that said, it was really only a succession of corners and balls in from 88 mins that really threatened. We just lacked composure with the ball if truth be told in those final moments (as per Saturday). It wasn't Hughton or the subs, it is just players taking responsibility and being brave / safe in possession.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I agree that Wolves were about to get their "time" in the game, and that pressure was building. I just don't agree that the change of shape was warranted, or that we were willing to take advantage of the risk/gaps that Wolves were going to leave as a consequence. Additionally, the change of shape allowed them to squeeze, as did leaving Murray on his own which meant that there was no concern for their back 4 about pace and felt confident to push up even more. I am delighted we won, and will bow to CH experience/expertise (That's big of me eh?). I just think we fell back very early again.

As I said to BG, I don't think the subs changed our shape, I think Baldock was already being pushed back into midfield, and we were already looking a midfield 5. I think Hughton just made that a stronger 5 bringing Stephens on rather than him making a big tactical change.

I agree we fell back early, but that was before Stephens came on in the 83rd minute.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I don't know but my first thought would be that Murray would be better at defending corners and free kicks into the box when teams get desperate

Yes - agreed.

But then we should have brought on Manu (did I really suggest that) or Murphy, and left one up as an 'out' ball or just left Skalak up. I have no objections to 4-5-1, but to go 4-6-0 and effectively play forwards vs defence in injury time isn't a great strategy, 89 points or not.

 

[Captain Sensible]

As I said to BG, I don't think the subs changed our shape, I think Baldock was already being pushed back into midfield, and we were already looking a midfield 5. I think Hughton just made that a stronger 5 bringing Stephens on rather than him making a big tactical change.

I agree we fell back early, but that was before Stephens came on in the 83rd minute.

The subs totally changed the shape. Yes Wolves we're taking more risks, we should have kept our shape and brought Murphy on for Baldock. We needed a fresh ball carrier and Murphy fits the bill. As soon as we went 1 upfront, wolves fullbacks could bomb on, Wolves then held a high line. We dropped deep with no outlets, Murray back defending too, we had no one in their half. For defending corners we didn't even have anyone up on the defenders, so they could commit more forward. Wolves weren't daft, when we went 3 in midfield they just played it long, against a better side, we would have conceded.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The subs totally changed the shape. Yes Wolves we're taking more risks, we should have kept our shape and brought Murphy on for Baldock. We needed a fresh ball carrier and Murphy fits the bill. As soon as we went 1 upfront, wolves fullbacks could bomb on, Wolves then held a high line. We dropped deep with no outlets, Murray back defending too, we had no one in their half. For defending corners we didn't even have anyone up on the defenders, so they could commit more forward. Wolves weren't daft, when we went 3 in midfield they just played it long, against a better side, we would have conceded.

So according to you we only went 1 up front from the 83rd minute due to the substitution? And until then the Wolves fullbacks weren't bombing on? Not what I saw - that ship had sailed before Hughton made the change for Stephens. As for Murphy keeping the ball and carrying it as the answer, it was him that gave the ball away cheaply on Saturday under little pressure that led to the equaliser.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yes - agreed.

But then we should have brought on Manu (did I really suggest that) or Murphy, and left one up as an 'out' ball or just left Skalak up. I have no objections to 4-5-1, but to go 4-6-0 and effectively play forwards vs defence in injury time isn't a great strategy, 89 points or not.

We didn't though really, injury time was pretty much 6 successive corners one after the other, each one cleared for the next. There was no real other play in that injury time period from Poco coming on.

 

[BensGrandad]

So according to you we only went 1 up front from the 83rd minute due to the substitution? And until then the Wolves fullbacks weren't bombing on? Not what I saw - that ship had sailed before Hughton made the change for Stephens. As for Murphy keeping the ball and carrying it as the answer, it was him that gave the ball away cheaply on Saturday under little pressure that led to the equaliser.

That was because Murphy was defending, what has been suggested is that he could have pushed further forward and had the ball pumped to him rather than defend and attack their defence.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Can't quite understand what the critics want. Ignore the Pocgnoli substitution as was a time wasting one, so we effectively had two: Goldson for Bruno, like for like because of potential injury; and Stephens for Baldock.

The alternatives were to leave Baldock on, or Manu or Murphy instead. Don't think anyone thinks Manu would have been a great option, so basically we are discussing whether Baldock should have stayed on, or Murphy replaced him rather than Stephens. Are we honestly saying that made the difference between Albion defending the Alamo, and confidently playing open attacking football?
I think posters are confounding CH's tactics with a natural tendency to defend deep to keep what you have coupled with Wolves pushing forward with more players. In other words, it is more about the team attitude than CH's tactics although I do agree with those who want at least one player staying up at corners.

 

[Captain Sensible]

So according to you we only went 1 up front from the 83rd minute due to the substitution? And until then the Wolves fullbacks weren't bombing on? Not what I saw - that ship had sailed before Hughton made the change for Stephens. As for Murphy keeping the ball and carrying it as the answer, it was him that gave the ball away cheaply on Saturday under little pressure that led to the equaliser.

Yes we went 1 up front from the substitution. Your comment on Murphy is rather pointless.

 

[Captain Sensible]

Can't quite understand what the critics want. Ignore the Pocgnoli substitution as was a time wasting one, so we effectively had two: Goldson for Bruno, like for like because of potential injury; and Stephens for Baldock.

The alternatives were to leave Baldock on, or Manu or Murphy instead. Don't think anyone thinks Manu would have been a great option, so basically we are discussing whether Baldock should have stayed on, or Murphy replaced him rather than Stephens. Are we honestly saying that made the difference between Albion defending the Alamo, and confidently playing open attacking football?
I think posters are confounding CH's tactics with a natural tendency to defend deep to keep what you have coupled with Wolves pushing forward with more players. In other words, it is more about the team attitude than CH's tactics although I do agree with those who want at least one player staying up at corners.

It seems to be the Stephens for Baldock substitution that in both games, caused us to change shape enough that we couldn't get out of our half (especially last night) and keep the ball. Flood the midfield works when you are trying to win a midfield battle if you are getting overrun late in a game but both PNE and Wolves went long ball.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

We didn't though really, injury time was pretty much 6 successive corners one after the other, each one cleared for the next. There was no real other play in that injury time period from Poco coming on.

Didn't have a choice though and that is the issue, we can clear for a throw-in or another corner. It is pointless going for the halfway line because it's coming straight back.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yes Chef]

Plus ca change...