|
Post by march4 on Apr 11, 2009 20:47:13 GMT
Neither Tonge or Cresswell is good enough.
So you are the manager and your star striker is injured and has to be replaced.
Do you a) replace him with a second rate striker and try to keep the shape of your team b) replace him with a second rate left sided player and switch everyone one around to accommodate him
Not an easy decision, or is it?
|
|
|
Post by Trouserdog on Apr 11, 2009 20:49:58 GMT
Neither Tonge or Cresswell is good enough. So you are the manager and your star striker is injured and has to be replaced. Do you a) replace him with a second rate striker and try to keep the shape of your team b) replace him with a second rate left sided player and switch everyone one around to accommodate him Not an easy decision, or is it? The question is, did he HAVE to be subbed, or was Beattie fit enough to continue? Even if he was only 70% and able to stroll through the last 20 mins, that'd still be beter than Cresswell.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 11, 2009 20:53:12 GMT
Beattie kept on asking to come off. He was indicating that blood was seeping into his eye.
He was patched up twice and TP pushed him back on. A real shame, because had he been fit and healthy for the full game, I think we would have scored a second goal.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2009 20:58:51 GMT
Personally I thought it was our innability to get to grips with their substitution that cost us ?
|
|
|
Post by Staying up for Grandadstokey on Apr 11, 2009 21:01:11 GMT
I don't think the substitutions had anything to do with us not winning, more a mixture of bad luck/ poor finishing that cost us , personally I could not see Newcastle scoring but they did so from one of the very few chances they created.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 11, 2009 21:02:29 GMT
What other options did Pulis have?
Beattie had to come off, but Cresswell didn't have to come on.
Cresswell didn't offer us anything offensively and he didn't help to counter the introduction of Gutierrez in midfield.
At the end of the day he was a neither here nor there substitution.
In the absence of Camara as an option it would have been far better to go 4-5-1 bringing Pugh into the midfield.
Later bringing on Tonge to replace Ethers.
Having said all that, the game should have been wrapped up within 60 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 11, 2009 21:06:39 GMT
His first contribution summed him up...a ball into the corner for him to chase, and the opportunity to quickly lay the ball off to Lawrence for us to keep possession. But no, Cressy decides to try and turn the full-back with a move so telegraphed that he might as well have written the defender a letter explaining what he was going to do. The speed with which he turned was so slow that the full-back would not only have had time to read Cresswell's message whilst smoking a pipe and enjoying a cup of Horlicks, but he'd have had time to pen a hand-written reply himself, outlining how he was going to win the ball off him. more elequently than I said it ;D
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Apr 11, 2009 21:09:29 GMT
Neither Tonge or Cresswell is good enough. So you are the manager and your star striker is injured and has to be replaced. Do you a) replace him with a second rate striker and try to keep the shape of your team b) replace him with a second rate left sided player and switch everyone one around to accommodate him Not an easy decision, or is it? there were other options, Delap has played up front before (showed his worth with the goal against Chelsea) Pugh could have come on into centre mid, he'splayed excellent there before, this cresswell sub is TP's achilles heel, and could have cost us, fortunatley we look like stumbling over the finishing line soon, rather than trotting across it.
|
|
|
Post by edouardlapaglie on Apr 11, 2009 22:05:30 GMT
Pulis out, Curbs in, you know it makes sense, or as the wise man once said don't be dicks
I can only conclude that the punchline must be 'yes but for gods sake, put the cat out first' or maybes 'i don't even have any windows, volvo for sale'
Pulis out, where would we be without idiots, i know i'd be in the canaries, if you know what i mean missus
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 11, 2009 22:36:15 GMT
It looks like one or two want to switch everyone around. There is nothing like square pegs in round holes My heart dropped when I knew Cressers was coming on, but I still can't see a sensible alternative.
|
|
|
Post by craig1974 on Apr 11, 2009 22:46:25 GMT
Yeah we certainly did the subs to early and i do think it cost us as we were in total control, then before the goal we defended so deep again !! .. Our defence before then was brilliant. Faye was rock solid as always and Shawcross won nearly everything.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Apr 11, 2009 22:49:45 GMT
Craig, Beattie kept asking to come off. Twice he came to the dugouts for TP to push him back out again. He indicated that blood was running into his eye.
The substitutions (ours and theirs) clearly altered the flow of the game.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 11, 2009 23:22:46 GMT
Craig, Beattie kept asking to come off. Twice he came to the dugouts for TP to push him back out again. He indicated that blood was running into his eye. The substitutions (ours and theirs) clearly altered the flow of the game. March I agree with you Beattie needed to come off - no doubt. And yes Newcastle's substitutions were good ones, Gutierrez gave them a completely different option. So taking into account that Beattie had to come off and taking into account that we didn't have an alternative offensive option on the bench don't you think it would have been better to have brought on an orthodox midfielder to try and stifle their improving midfield rather than to have brought on the 'isn't going to achieve anything at all' Richard Cresswell?
|
|
|
Post by bunnyscfc on Apr 11, 2009 23:29:31 GMT
craig has it spot on.
Never mind the subs, we suddenly retreated so deep it was untrue for the last 15 minutes. When Carroll came on they were always going to play long and play off scraps. They didn't get behind us all game, so why so deep?
|
|
|
Post by anarchicalan on Apr 12, 2009 0:10:18 GMT
Pulis tried to keep what we had, at that point a 1-0 lead, instead of attacking. This sums him up and has been said so often on here. Once Cresswell came on, it was a holding game, which we lost.
They were given - ONCE AGAIN - masses of room to work in and invited on because we reverted to 8-1-1, defending at the edge of the box.
It's really damaging because it's yet another 2 points thrown away.
I don't think it will relegate us, but if we keep backing off and allowing very average teams to dominate us like they did in the last 30 minutes, we're in for a very rough ride that is, frankly, unnecessary because we have the capability (when allowed by the manager) to be fairly comfortable in most games.
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Apr 12, 2009 6:55:36 GMT
Shearer had clearly taken a leaf from the Pulis away day manual - pack the centre of the field with combative players to keep it at 0-0, concede early goal, look incapable of scoring for the first 60 minutes, lull opposition into false sense of security, throw on some attack minded options late on to get something from the game.
The tactic actually worked fairly well, and was undoubtedly helped by our substitutions, enforced or not.
I'm sure this has been mentioned elsewhere but on around 60 minutes Pulis was clearly heard on the TV shouting "Glen sit, 4-4-2, get (?) James (to sit deep)". It was almost the exact moment Newcastle began the fight back. I can understand how Pulis thought this would work - Newcastle were never going to score in a million years and it looked an relatively simple task to see the game out. Big risk though, and bit him on the arse.
|
|
|
Post by andylgr on Apr 12, 2009 7:00:35 GMT
Bringing Cresswell on was a bad decision, who (even more than normal) looked out of his depth and sitting back will always invite pressure and the ball to put in to the box.
Maybe Camara should have come on with Fuller to give their defence something to think about?
Plus the guy with the long hair who came on for them made a big difference to their team.
The simple fact is we didnt put away our chances and we were made to pay for it. Yet they hardly had a sniff at our goal all game.
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Apr 12, 2009 8:04:16 GMT
Maybe Camara should have come on with Fuller to give their defence something to think about? Camara was injured mate. Picked something up in training last week.
|
|
|
Post by slangking on Apr 12, 2009 8:15:36 GMT
Strange, haven't seen much of you lately conservative? Last comments on a game January 31st? All over here like a rash when we have the slightest setback and slagging off Pulis as usual, goes missing during the good periods. Pathetic. Pulis tried to keep what we had, at that point a 1-0 lead, instead of attacking. This sums him up and has been said so often on here. Once Cresswell came on, it was a holding game, which we lost. They were given - ONCE AGAIN - masses of room to work in and invited on because we reverted to 8-1-1, defending at the edge of the box. It's really damaging because it's yet another 2 points thrown away. I don't think it will relegate us, but if we keep backing off and allowing very average teams to dominate us like they did in the last 30 minutes, we're in for a very rough ride that is, frankly, unnecessary because we have the capability (when allowed by the manager) to be fairly comfortable in most games.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 12, 2009 9:37:04 GMT
Saying that we sat deep is perhaps a little unfair from what I have seen of the game as I had to go to a wedding yesterday.
I have just watched a replay of the 90 minutes and I would say the reason for the draw was pretty obvious.
We dominated the game until the substitutions were made. Now that is not because Cresswell and Pugh did anything particularly wrong, but our substitutes weakened us whereas the introduction of Gutierez strengthened them and gave them a foothold in the game.
We have done amazingly well recently and I like the 11 that we started with, but it is obvious that we are still someway away from truly establishing ourselves as a premier league team/squad.
We need some depth to us which means that when we make substitutions, at the very least we maintain our strength and ideally improve us.
It takes time though, possibly 3 seasons at this level but we are well on our way.
|
|
|
Post by 606Stokie on Apr 12, 2009 9:38:08 GMT
Can also agree on subs but Sitting to deep as well but its a point id have taken before KO
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Apr 12, 2009 9:54:50 GMT
Craig, Beattie kept asking to come off. Twice he came to the dugouts for TP to push him back out again. He indicated that blood was running into his eye. The substitutions (ours and theirs) clearly altered the flow of the game. March I agree with you Beattie needed to come off - no doubt. And yes Newcastle's substitutions were good ones, Gutierrez gave them a completely different option. So taking into account that Beattie had to come off and taking into account that we didn't have an alternative offensive option on the bench don't you think it would have been better to have brought on an orthodox midfielder to try and stifle their improving midfield rather than to have brought on the 'isn't going to achieve anything at all' Richard Cresswell? Couldn't agree more.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Apr 12, 2009 10:22:40 GMT
The "problem" with bringing on Cresswell (even when it is the right decision) is as much psychological as anything and unfortunately it seems to affect both the fans and the players.
The fans: For the last few games the atmosphere and volume has been cranked up to 11 for the last 20 minutes to inspire the team to victory. Yesterday, it was like a balloon had been pricked when Cresswell appeared and you could hear the collective groan.
The players: Whether planned or not, the appearance of Cresswell seems to be the signal to draw up the covered wagons along the edge of the penalty area and man the barricades.
No matter how much Tony shouts and gesticulates to move up etc, the players seem to have a conditioned reflex that if Cresswell is on the pitch then its backs to the wall time.
It was unfortunate that we had a very poor 5 minute spell either side of the goal and failed to take note of the near miss from Carroll a few minutes before the goal.
For the last 5 minutes plus inury time I thought we had got our act back together again and could (should?) have won it at the death, which would have made this discussion academic.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on Apr 12, 2009 10:44:02 GMT
We all know Creswell can't hold a ball up in the oppostion half (nor do much else for that matter), but there wasn't much else for Pulis to do. We should have had 2 goals inside the first hour to defend.
The main reason Newcastle came back was Guttierez. We bossed the middle of the park until he came on, becuase Butt and Nolan were so poor. He's a class act and if Newcastle go down we should get a bid in, although I imagine he'll go to a club with Eurupean ambitions.
|
|
|
Post by nathan on Apr 12, 2009 10:50:27 GMT
Neither Tonge or Cresswell is good enough. So you are the manager and your star striker is injured and has to be replaced. Do you a) replace him with a second rate striker and try to keep the shape of your team b) replace him with a second rate left sided player and switch everyone one around to accommodate him Not an easy decision, or is it? More garbage. Michael Tonge has only under-performed once during all his outings this season - that being Pompey away when he was very poor. However, on other occasions he's come off the bench and played quite well, offering a decent touch and playing some decent balls. Creswell did nothing. He hasn't done anything for the whole of this season, yet Pulis persists with him. Tonge could of come on and played the link man role between the midfield and the strikers, and later move to the left wing and move Pugh inside.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Apr 12, 2009 11:02:16 GMT
The reason they scored is because we sat so deep that we were literally begging them to score. The substitutions were secondary to how we actually approached the game in the last 15 mins. I would have taken a point before the match but I can't help thinking there was a lost opportunity there yesterday!
H
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Apr 12, 2009 11:14:50 GMT
If we had to make the substitutions then fair enough. Beattie was hurt and Etherington was flagging. The net result though, as someone has already pointed out, is that our changes weakened us and Newcastle's strengthened them considerably for their late "sling it into the box" onslaught.
I can't though be too hard on TP. He sent his team out to win the game and they totally dominated for a good 70 minutes. We had MORE THAN ENOUGH chances to have had the game wrapped up.
Having failed to get the decisive second goal it was always likely that Newcastle would have a late surge and that we'd find ourselves pinned back. It happens time and again in games all over the country and is as a result of not killing off your opponents.
This was not one of those occasions when we got a lead and then just sat on it. I have been critical of TP for doing that in the past but I don't think he was really guilty of that yesterday.
If we do beat the drop this season then a big priority for us will be to release those players we don't really need and bring in new ones who will give us a greater depth to our bench.
I'm as gutted as anyone that we didn't win yesterday but I don't think we need an inquisition as to what went wrong. It was just one of those things. We were the better team but paid for our failure to kill the game off more than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by tony harrison on Apr 12, 2009 11:15:16 GMT
I would rather see Sonko come on as a covering striker than Cresswell. At least Sonko could have been challenging Carol for the header they scored.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Apr 12, 2009 11:17:26 GMT
At the risk of being told to 'fuck off up the fail' for daring to criticise Pulis, [Do I Care? Do I fuck!] but what we saw yesterday is exactly the way the man organises the game. I've lost count of the number of times he's withdrawn to defend a lead and we've thrown away countless points because of it.
However, having said that, there were reasons for the substitutions even if, IMHO, he got one wrong...Cresswell. Pugh and Kelly did nowt wrong. Cresswell, no matter how hard the lad tries, just isn't good enough and shouldn't be in the squad. That was a bad substitution. The only thing I think he could have done differently if he wanted to defend his lead was to strengthen the midfield. I would have slotted Pugh in there and left Ric up front if I was playing the 'Pulis way'.
We can argue about substitutions all day long but the reason we threw two points away is because we didn't take another one of the many chances we had and also, once 'Gypo' came on, he changed the game for them and Pulis didn't counteract that substitution. We had been sitting back ten minutes before Pulis made his subs. Having not been in the game for 60 minutes, they played well in the last 30 and I was pleased with a point at the end. Sometimes you have to give credit to your opponents. As someone has already pointed out on this thread, they did to us what we have done a couple of times this season.
I thought it was a good game and a good result, especially because of the other results. N'castle didn't gain on us and we moved a point further ahead of some of our rivals. A win next week will, I reckon, secure us our place in this league. It's certainly not a time for doom and gloom.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Apr 12, 2009 11:29:17 GMT
I don't think we need an inquisition as to what went wrong. It was just one of those things. Good job 'Castle didn't score two then!
|
|