No.33 your time is up....

[Southend Elvis]

Tilly only ever subbed players with a couple of mins to go, it seems recently that when we make subs it effects the team badly, so I'm not sure it's working

 

[mrsblue]

Do you not accept that a striker will always be subbed so we were always going to make a change?

If so do you think Reid should have been used instead?

Im sure when his loan comes to an end we will evaluate whether we want him, the fact he has been dropped to the bench wouldnt indicate we would be desperate to extend it though.

You seem to be reading into everything to fit into your theory. If we dont extend it you will no doubt say oh but he was playing and we obviously didnt want him so we must have been forced to, well that makes no sense as if we really dont want him here we would send him back now.

Why must a forward always be subbed?
The team on the back of 4 straight defeats needed to see it out against a poor Bury,Phil in his wisdom sent on a inexperience youngster who has never scored at this level,I think it's one of these 3 ,Phil rates him so highly,Phil is forced to play him or Phil is a terrible manager.

 

[Jam_Man]

Tilly only ever subbed players with a couple of mins to go, it seems recently that when we make subs it effects the team badly, so I'm not sure it's working

Indeed he did, and got slated for that.

Again, did the substition affect the team badly, or is there any remote chance that Coker getting sent off may have had more of an impact resulting in forwards having to drop deeper?

 

[Jam_Man]

Why must a forward always be subbed?
The team on the back of 4 straight defeats needed to see it out against a poor Bury,Phil in his wisdom sent on a inexperience youngster who has never scored at this level,I think it's one of these 3 ,Phil rates him so highly,Phil is forced to play him or Phil is a terrible manager.

Ask all the managers that do it. Maybe he thought Freddy was tired and wanted to add fresh legs into the equation.

Out of the 3 options Id say the being forced to play him certainly comes bottom...

 

[mrsblue]

Ask all the managers that do it. Maybe he thought Freddy was tired and wanted to add fresh legs into the equation.

Out of the 3 options Id say the being forced to play him certainly comes bottom...

Phil blames those conceding silly free kicks,Begs the question why send on a kid then?

 

[Jam_Man]

Phil blames those conceding silly free kicks,Begs the question why send on a kid then?

Because he cant see into the future and know Coker was going to get sent off and for Woodrow to have to be tracking back to the spot where Coker would have been.

Am I a genius or is this not all really really really blindingly obvious? Or am I not so blinded by this theory and looking for a scapegoat I can see it more clearly?

 

[mrsblue]

Because he cant see into the future and know Coker was going to get sent off and for Woodrow to have to be tracking back to the spot where Coker would have been.

Am I a genius or is this not all really really really blindingly obvious? Or am I not so blinded by this theory and looking for a scapegoat I can see it more clearly?

Most managers would send on untried youngsters when the game is safe,But with 20 left and a narrow lead ALL managers have to try and think of every scenario,Coker had already been cautioned so was walking a tightrope,Besides Phil should have instructed Woody at the very least to stay up top and def not drop back so he can become the out ball.

 

[Jam_Man]

Most managers would send on untried youngsters when the game is safe,But with 20 left and a narrow lead ALL managers have to try and think of every scenario,Coker had already been cautioned so was walking a tightrope,Besides Phil should have instructed Woody at the very least to stay up top and def not drop back so he can become the out ball.

When you have 10 men and defending a 1 goal lead with minutes to go you do not instruct your strikers to stay up front, you normally ask one of them to drop back and play 4-4-1 and help maintain the lead. To be honest what you would normally do is take one striker off and replace him with a midfielder, but as the sending off was so late didnt get a chance.

I would certainly expect strikers to be dropping deeper to help out .

 

[londonblue]

Does this now put the ridiculous notion to bed?

Of course it doesn't. People are never going to believe it because they've invested so much energy arguing otherwise.

Wait and see boys, if Fred gets dropped.... the argument still stands. Only if the Kid doesn't come on at all will i believe there's nothing in the deal.. Managers always tell us the truth when their judgement is called into question?

As I said on Friday the debate on this will continue. Whether he started or was benched.

I'm just pointing out, these agreements happen, which some of you disagree with. I won't mention it again cause it winds some people up:winking:

I told you so...

 

[mrsblue]

When you have 10 men and defending a 1 goal lead with minutes to go you do not instruct your strikers to stay up front, you ask one of them to drop back and play 4-4-1 and help maintain the lead.

I would certainly expect strikers to be dropping deeper to help out .

Of course,

I think Corr was still on and no doubt was tiring so he should of dropped back leaving a fresh Woody as the out ball.It's not rocket science.

 

[Feathers]

Phil blames those conceding silly free kicks,Begs the question why send on a kid then?

You are right Phil did blame players giving away free kicks. Note the plural. What he was annoyed about was the amount of free kicks we gave away inviting Bury to put the ball into the box. Woodrow was just one of many and he was not blaming him - in fact in his radio interview he was very specific in that he had picked experienced players who should know better.

Anyone can be an expert in hindsight but it seems ridiculous to blame the substition of Freddy on Woodrow for us conceding the goal. Freddy was hardly having a great game (if he had not missed a golden opportunity in the first half this discussion would be redundant) and to replace a striker with another striker with 20 minutes is hardly unusual.

 

[Jam_Man]

Of course,

I think Corr was still on and no doubt was tiring so he should of dropped back leaving a fresh Woody as the out ball.It's not rocket science.

So have a tiring Corr have to do even more running and chasing back.

You know the Corr who is the ideal target man to hold up the ball up front, make him come back and let the little bloke stay up front trying to win the balls on his own?

This football manager lark is tricky eh ?

 

[Feathers]

Of course,

I think Corr was still on and no doubt was tiring so he should of dropped back leaving a fresh Woody as the out ball.It's not rocket science.

After Coker was sent off a the younger, fresher Woodrow ended up playing left midfield/wing in front of Straker. Are you really suggesting a tiring Corr was a better option in this position?

 

[Jam_Man]

After Coker was sent off a the younger, fresher Woodrow ended up playing left midfield/wing in front of Straker. Are you really suggesting a tiring Corr was a better option in this position?

Wow I wasnt even there or listen to the game and managed to guess how it happened. Thats how obvious it was.

If Coker had been sent off in the 65th minute Brown wouldnt have put Woodrow on, but he wasnt so he did. Then when he got sent off the team had to readjust and Woodrow dropping back makes the most sense. Its frustrating he conceded the freekick, but Im fairly sure he wasnt the only person to concede a free kick in the game and Id even wage some of the older players did too. Even then freekicks arent a guaranteed goal from what I remember, you do get to defend them.

Still its nice to have a convenient scapegoat, a loan player who we dont want to play but have to fits the bill perfectly.

 

[mrsblue]

So have a tiring Corr have to do even more running and chasing back.

You know the Corr who is the ideal target man to hold up the ball up front, make him come back and let the little bloke stay up front trying to win the balls on his own?[/


You mean the guy who has either been dropped or injured(you choose) so has had little recent match fitness and was probably blowing out his backside thus making him zero threat to chase any loose balls or the youthful super fit Woody who would have chased and harried lost causes.

 

[mrsblue]

After Coker was sent off a the younger, fresher Woodrow ended up playing left midfield/wing in front of Straker. Are you really suggesting a tiring Corr was a better option in this position?

Who said play Corr there?,If it had been my choice he would have gone and Played in front of the CBs

 

[Jam_Man]

So have a tiring Corr have to do even more running and chasing back.

You know the Corr who is the ideal target man to hold up the ball up front, make him come back and let the little bloke stay up front trying to win the balls on his own?[/


You mean the guy who has either been dropped or injured(you choose) so has had little recent match fitness and was probably blowing out his backside thus making him zero threat to chase any loose balls or the youthful super fit Woody who would have chased and harried lost causes.

So the player blowing out his backside you want running even more chasing balls in midfield ?

And the super fit Woody who would have chased and harried lost causes and won none of them because he isnt a target man, yet could chase and closed down players in midfield?

You make it sound like moving Corr to midfield and leaving a little "inexperienced" kid as a target man is the obvious solution, when it really makes no sense whatsoever.

Who said play Corr there?,If it had been my choice he would have gone and Played in front of the CBs

That would have been an option, yet Woodrow up front on his own doesnt give you any outlet whatsoever. Corr is good at helping out at centre half but he would have been exposed to the ball being played on the floor through the middle.

 

[mrsblue]

Jam,You jumping that gun again:winking:

 

[Jam_Man]

Yet my point remains exactly the same. Woodrow isnt a target man and would win nothing up front on his own...

 

[mrsblue]

Yet my point remains exactly the same. Woodrow isnt a target man and would win nothing up front on his own...

We know he is not a target man,The facts are he is younger and probably fitter than Corr and considering he had only been on for 15 minutes would have been the better option than a tired Corr in chasing the ball,whether he actually won the ball whilst being the lone man makes little difference simply because IMO you don't want inexperienced young forwards defending their own third.