|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 9, 2020 9:46:31 GMT
Not so in my opinion, some managers don't believe it's their job to explain their rationale to either the fans or the media...... I think at one time or another, these days at least, most will give some kind of reasoning at some point. I accept your point that he had his reasons which he's outlined. My point is that it's ok to question that. There shouldn't have to be a compulsion to defend the manager at all costs after every game, not least one that dredges up existential 'what ifs'. And I never denied the point that its ok to question the manager, of course it is, I'm sure he questions his own decision making after every game. It's also true say that whatever your alternative suggestion may have been, there is absolutely no way of knowing if the outcome would have been better, the same or worse.....
|
|
|
Post by potterpaul on Dec 9, 2020 9:59:32 GMT
There were two better options that made way more sense. He did and that’s the third from four he’s missed. So I’ll ask again, why’s he taking a penalty? Ince and Verlinden aren’t options. One is plain and simple dog shit and the other is a lightweight kid coming back from injury. Neither were serious options to come on. He’s an experienced international footballer (Vokes) and he’s let us down badly. Not just the pen but also his general performance. He didn't need to use Ince or Verlinden. I agree that using either of these in a straight swap for Campbell was the easiest and most effective sub. The other was to bring on TOB and move Brown to right side and Powell up front. Apparently everyone but MON knew the outcome of using the lump of turd option
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 9, 2020 10:22:20 GMT
I think at one time or another, these days at least, most will give some kind of reasoning at some point. I accept your point that he had his reasons which he's outlined. My point is that it's ok to question that. There shouldn't have to be a compulsion to defend the manager at all costs after every game, not least one that dredges up existential 'what ifs'. And I never denied the point that its ok to question the manager, of course it is, I'm sure he questions his own decision making after every game. It's also true say that whatever your alternative suggestion may have been, there is absolutely no way of knowing if the outcome would have been better, the same or worse..... Again though, that's true of most opinions on this board after every game, should we just not put forward those opinions, or heavily caveat them? If, say, Rowett or Jones had done it, would you and I be having this same discussion?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 9, 2020 10:49:14 GMT
And I never denied the point that its ok to question the manager, of course it is, I'm sure he questions his own decision making after every game. It's also true say that whatever your alternative suggestion may have been, there is absolutely no way of knowing if the outcome would have been better, the same or worse..... Again though, that's true of most opinions on this board after every game, should we just not put forward those opinions, or heavily caveat them? If, say, Rowett or Jones had done it, would you and I be having this same discussion? No one is heavily caveating anything now. Someone posts, someone else responds, they engage in debate or they go their separate ways and the thread continues until it comes to its natural end (or gets locked by admin because of abuse ) We no doubt would be having similar conversations, the difference with Jones though (by his own admission) his thinking became muddled, he tinkered with formations and personnel to try and chase results and it all became desperate. O'Neill is calm and clear in his thinking (at least he absolutely gives that impression) and whether you agree with his individual decisions there appears to be a strategy. And there's enough empirical and statistically evidence to show that one got his decisions wrong the majority of the time, and the other has got most of them right to date.......
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 9, 2020 11:00:20 GMT
Again though, that's true of most opinions on this board after every game, should we just not put forward those opinions, or heavily caveat them? If, say, Rowett or Jones had done it, would you and I be having this same discussion? No one is heavily caveating anything now. Someone posts, someone else responds, they engage in debate or they go their separate ways and the thread continues until it comes to its natural end (or gets locked by admin because of abuse ) We no doubt would be having similar conversations, the difference with Jones though (by his own admission) his thinking became muddled, he tinkered with formations and personnel to try and chase results and it all became desperate. O'Neill is calm and clear in his thinking (at least he absolutely gives that impression) and whether you agree with his individual decisions there appears to be a strategy. And there's enough empirical and statistically evidence to show that one got his decisions wrong the majority of the time, and the other has got most of them right to date....... Absolutely, no argument there. I just don't see quite though, why we're having this discussion, other than calmly explaining to each other our understanding of how a message board works, which we seem to agree with anyway? Is it on some level a compulsion to rush to the defence of a manager who has overall done a marvellous job, in the face of even fairly mild criticism?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 9, 2020 11:04:46 GMT
No one is heavily caveating anything now. Someone posts, someone else responds, they engage in debate or they go their separate ways and the thread continues until it comes to its natural end (or gets locked by admin because of abuse ) We no doubt would be having similar conversations, the difference with Jones though (by his own admission) his thinking became muddled, he tinkered with formations and personnel to try and chase results and it all became desperate. O'Neill is calm and clear in his thinking (at least he absolutely gives that impression) and whether you agree with his individual decisions there appears to be a strategy. And there's enough empirical and statistically evidence to show that one got his decisions wrong the majority of the time, and the other has got most of them right to date....... Absolutely, no argument there. I just don't see quite though, why we're having this discussion, other than calmly explaining to each other our understanding of how a message board works, which we seem to agree with anyway? Is it on some level a compulsion to rush to the defence of a manager who has overall done a marvellous job, in the face of even fairly mild criticism? I'm not rushing to defend him, one of my first posts stated I categorically wouldn't have brought Vokes on. But let's not kid ourselves that Tom fecking Ince or a young lad on the back of a long lay out would have guaranteed anything.......
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Dec 9, 2020 11:26:15 GMT
Absolutely, no argument there. I just don't see quite though, why we're having this discussion, other than calmly explaining to each other our understanding of how a message board works, which we seem to agree with anyway? Is it on some level a compulsion to rush to the defence of a manager who has overall done a marvellous job, in the face of even fairly mild criticism? I'm not rushing to defend him, one of my first posts stated I categorically wouldn't have brought Vokes on. But let's not kid ourselves that Tom fecking Ince or a young lad on the back of a long lay out would have guaranteed anything....... I don't think anyone's said it would've done, they've just put forward their opinions as to why it would've been a better change. With the greatest of respect, for someone comfortable with the manager being criticised you've covered a fair bit of ground on here tracking down said criticism and offering various rebuttals to it..
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 9, 2020 11:27:33 GMT
I'm not rushing to defend him, one of my first posts stated I categorically wouldn't have brought Vokes on. But let's not kid ourselves that Tom fecking Ince or a young lad on the back of a long lay out would have guaranteed anything....... I don't think anyone's said it would've done, they've just put forward their opinions as to why it would've been a better change. With the greatest of respect, for someone comfortable with the manager being criticised you've covered a fair bit of ground on here tracking down said criticism and offering various rebuttals to it.. You've been responding, I've been responding. If either of us had anything better to do we'd have stopped by now......
|
|
|
Post by dirtygary69 on Dec 9, 2020 12:36:53 GMT
I think I have sympathy for MON on this one. It went from being fairly comfortable to an inevitable shit show within 2 minutes of Vokes entering the pitch. I think missing the penalty killed us and if we hadn't got a penalty at all, I don't think what followed would have happened. As it was Vokes missed, our heads dropped and then he bought Shawcross on to try and secure a point which also backfired. We looked knackered for that last 20 minutes.
He's certainly not blameless but when it unravels that quickly, it must be hard to try and put it right, especially with the injuries we have. Just one less injury might have seen us through that. Whether that be Batth for Smith or Fletcher/Gregory for Vokes.
The worry for me now is, as I mentioned yesterday, we have an even weaker squad for the weekend. We could go from being joint top (for a bit) to outside the top 6 come Saturday evening. We just need to try and stay within a few points of the top 6 now whilst these injuries hopefully heal themselves in the next couple of weeks. It's a ridiculous league, really.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2020 3:32:04 GMT
Injuries are killing us but that should have been three points. The manger handed it to them on a plate. Poor sub, and why did Vokes take the penalty he'd only just come on, Powell for me. . A player just on doesn't make sense, thought the same. Was game over, they just weren't in it.
|
|