Has Tone ever made a tactical HT change?

[luke45]

??? I certainly can't recall one in his time with us. I thought yesterday was the ideal situation to introduce Ric at half-time, we created very little in the first-half, why continue to stick with it for another 15 minutes if it isn't working? Something needed freshening up, and I don't know why we waited till 55-60 minutes to do so. The players he introduced were probably the correct choices, but all 3 of the subs probably should've been done sooner. We've got the luxury of having game changing players on the bench now, something we haven't always had in previous seasons, and they might well have made more of a difference with more time on the field yesterday.

[AlanHansen]

Often Ric, the obvious one that springs to mind was when he came on at HT the batter Cardiff at the Brit.

[binthelplates]

Answer, in a word....... No.
In the last 2 games these 'game changing' players have done nothing at all when called upon.

[luke45]

Dec 29, 2010 9:55:43 GMT AlanHansen said:

Often Ric, the obvious one that springs to mind was when he came on at HT the batter Cardiff at the Brit.

He brought Ric on, on 51 minutes according to the match report. Splitting hairs I know ;D

www.stokecityfc.com/page/MatchReport/0,,10310~34427,00.html

[Deleted]

Yesterday pulis got shown up as a tactical dinosaur. To even contemplate a forward line of jones and walters against one of tallest centre halfs in the league was pathetic! Hangelaang must have been rubbing his hands at the line up, no fuller or tuncay to get around his feet instead well lump it up to big hangelaangs head! clever tactics that! On the radio before hand he said matty was touch and go aswell as walters as they both were carrying knocks, so why bloody risk them? i thought this was a squad game?? pathetic pulis

[jarhead]

After 10 mins his game plan was in tatters so why not drag the woeful Walters off and get Ric on as his pace,ability with the ball and goal threat as it was already a priority as the second goal went in but guess what 'lets flog a dead horse' but then change it after nearly an hr but then play braindead tactics of smash it to both Ric and Jones only for that 6ft7 centre-back just to head away.....well fuckin done!!!

[harryburrows]

i dont think its tactical substitutions that change the course of games ,hoofball wasnt working yesterday ,the personel wasnt the problem alone.lobbing the ball out of defence into the channels didnt work !!! TP has to have a plan B,C,D when we need it .teams know all about stoke now .fulham got their tackles in early ,doubled up on our wingers closed down the space , we didnt seem able to deal with their defensive system ,they were better organized than us in every area

[roostersgonnagetya]

yes he has, in a cup game i think, he insisted fuller and tuncay didnt work then made a half time sub so fuller and tuncay come out for the second half.

[jbstokie]

Are you forgetting that we have the best 2nd half record in the league? Often his team talk is enough

[paddyfromhanley]

sadly, i must agree with a great number of the people on this thread.
our tone was very unaware of what was going on around him yesterday.

poor form shown not only by a number of players yesterday, but by the manager as well.

[jarhead]

A VERY BAD DAY ALL ROUND AND MORE SO FROM THE MANAGER WHO MUST OF HAD HIS GLASSES FROSTED!!!

If Hangelannd keeps heading our aimless Hoofs away then i know lets try Er....the same again then again then again then again then again then if THAT did not work try it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Davef]

Dec 29, 2010 9:57:28 GMT binthelplates said:

Answer, in a word....... No.
In the last 2 games these 'game changing' players have done nothing at all when called upon.

The idea of introducing 'game changing players' or impact subs is that they can take advantage of games that are open and stretched. TP has already said that Fuller likes that stage of the game.

You can't expect individual players to consistently turn games around like yesterday when you're 2-0 down against decent, organised Premier League defenders.

The game plan when Fuller is on the bench is obviously to keep things tight and then bring him on to try and win the game. However, some people have this stupid idea in their heads that, because he's managed it a couple of times before, Fuller is the player to dig us out of holes we've created like yesterday and it's perfectly acceptable to have him on the bench at all times.

[fromafar07]

more importantly, has he ever changed tactics at half time using the same players ??
no, he hasnt

[thestatusquo]

I think he once decided to have coffee instead of tea at half time.

[march4]

Ric should have been on after 10 mins yesterday.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2010 16:44:56 GMT march4 said:

Ric should have been on after 10 mins yesterday.

Although i agree with you, ric should never have been on the bench in the first place, for me ric should start all homes games when fit

[march4]

Dec 29, 2010 16:57:11 GMT @clyde said:

Dec 29, 2010 16:44:56 GMT march4 said:

Ric should have been on after 10 mins yesterday.

Although i agree with you, ric should never have been on the bench in the first place, for me ric should start all homes games when fit

Correct.

[mayf]

Villa away when we were 2 down at half time and playing 5-4-1,we came out 2nd half with a different formation but can't say if he brought on any subs or not.

The hairdryer treatment usually has some effect

[trigger]

All this crap about impact subs is pathetic, Pulis edges his bets on keeping it at 0-0 or even 0-1 for sixty minutes or so then rely on the other team being inferior to our fitness levels but yesterday was obvoiusly a bit to much for Pulis at 0-2 and I'm afraid to say he hadn't got a clue as to what to do other than lump it up to KJ, which was food and drink for Hangeland.
When we did manage to keep the ball away from Murphy our more forward thinking players were left isolated up front as our CM were reluctant or told not to support forward runs. We desperately need that quality player in the middle to get the ball moving in between opposing players.

[Laughing Gravy]

Dec 29, 2010 18:02:49 GMT trigger said:

All this crap about impact subs is pathetic, Pulis edges his bets on keeping it at 0-0 or even 0-1 for sixty minutes or so then rely on the other team being inferior to our fitness levels but yesterday was obvoiusly a bit to much for Pulis at 0-2 and I'm afraid to say he hadn't got a clue as to what to do other than lump it up to KJ, which was food and drink for Hangeland.
When we did manage to keep the ball away from Murphy our more forward thinking players were left isolated up front as our CM were reluctant or told not to support forward runs. We desperately need that quality player in the middle to get the ball moving in between opposing players.

Glad you're happy anyway Trig ;D

[coney08]

I think to change the way we played yesterday would have been to take Jones off. With Jones up front the obvious invitation to launch the ball up to him is still there, but it didn't happen and we lumped it for 90 minutes. If Ric had been brought on for Jones and Tuncay for Walters, there may have been less temptation to lump it to Ric's head, but playing it into the channels.

[Lesalanos]

Coventry in the championship. Newcastle this season? Just listening to a man u fan on sky moaning about utd sitting back. Looks like they're just like us

[jarhead]

What Titan said on another thread was change it to this.

Begovic

Wilko Ryan huth Collins
--------Delap or whitehead------
Penners ED Tunny Ethers
----------Jones------------

[jarhead]

...and to get in and around Ethuhu,Hangelaand who are shit on the floor but what did we do,play to there strengths!!!

Amateurish at its best

[Titan Uranus]

I cannot think of a good reason why our most potent attacking threat was left on the bench yesterday.

Our (or more particularly TP's) gameplan is based around the threat of Fuller.

The very least this stubborn dinosaur of a manager should have done is bring Fuller and Tuncay/EG on at half-time.

Shocking.

Absolutely shocking.

[Trouserdog]

Dec 29, 2010 14:12:22 GMT Davef said:

Dec 29, 2010 9:57:28 GMT binthelplates said:

Answer, in a word....... No.
In the last 2 games these 'game changing' players have done nothing at all when called upon.

The idea of introducing 'game changing players' or impact subs is that they can take advantage of games that are open and stretched. TP has already said that Fuller likes that stage of the game.

You can't expect individual players to consistently turn games around like yesterday when you're 2-0 down against decent, organised Premier League defenders.

The game plan when Fuller is on the bench is obviously to keep things tight and then bring him on to try and win the game. However, some people have this stupid idea in their heads that, because he's managed it a couple of times before, Fuller is the player to dig us out of holes we've created like yesterday and it's perfectly acceptable to have him on the bench at all times.

Not only that, but certain arseholes individuals on here will then use that "failure" to turn around a lost cause as a stick with which to beat the likes of Fuller and Tuncay, as it suits their agenda of sniping at anything or anyone who they see as not being in favour with the manager.