Whelans leg v Jimmy Hills chin

[king_dezeeuw06]

I think both managers last night would disagree with you on that KDZ.

Maloney said his thinking was to get more attacking flair on the pitch whilst Robbins, in his interview, admitted he thought his men looked leggy and were pushed back by our changes.

It is interesting how we all view games differently, for instance I came away last night with a feeling of optimism having been buoyed by the fight back after conceding yet another soft goal. I also thought the reaction of most of the fans in the stadium at full time agreed with what I saw as they certainly gave the lads a good send off.

In my opinion I think the first half performance from Will Keane deserves mention as well. I think that is the best he has performed for the whole season.

I agree that the second half performance was not as dominant as the first but in most part that was because Robbins introduced Sheaf to midfield to close play down. Something he admitted to in his interview as he thought we were far more in control in the first half.

The soft goal, which incidentally was entirely down to Amos' hesitancy, changed the dynamics and Maloney thought he had no option but to go for it and made the attacking changes necessary. I must admit that when he did so I was stunned that he had taken Christ off and said so to those around me, but having seen the response from the players I am happy to admit my mistake. It was the right call and, in my opinion led to us getting the point we did.

My MoM was Charlie Hughes for a battling performance against one of the best centre forwards in the league and his goal line clearance that kept us in the game.

I admire the idea to get more attackers on the pitch when you are chasing a game and there was certainly options to do that but i think we took the wrong ones yesterday. We had a back 5 with no delivery on either flank and we were getting overan in midfield as you rightly said which stopped Keane and Sinnani being able to get the ball and influence the game as they did in the first half - i felt taking off one of the defenders was probably the better option - either switching to a back 4 to push another body into midfield or switching personnel (eg moving Power to right side and maybe bringing Naylor on to try and sure up the middle without losing a midfielder).

For me taking off Tiehi actually exacerbated our problems losing midfield and didn't give us much benefit - as the extra attacking players we introduced were in the same position as the as Keane and Sinnani of not having anyone behind them able to get them the ball. I also thought Tiehi was having a decent game, even if he wasn't quite as impactful in the second as he was in the first.

I felt we had too many men too deep and too many high and not enough between them to link the lines and give the attacking players the ball in areas where they could do some damage.

As you saw we all saw the game differently and at the end of the day it's one of those where whatever you do you never know how the alternative would've worked out so, it's just our own interpretations.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

I admire the idea to get more attackers on the pitch when you are chasing a game and there was certainly options to do that but i think we took the wrong ones yesterday. We had a back 5 with no delivery on either flank and we were getting overan in midfield as you rightly said which stopped Keane and Sinnani being able to get the ball and influence the game as they did in the first half - i felt taking off one of the defenders was probably the better option - either switching to a back 4 to push another body into midfield or switching personnel (eg moving Power to right side and maybe bringing Naylor on to try and sure up the middle without losing a midfielder).

For me taking off Tiehi actually exacerbated our problems losing midfield and didn't give us much benefit - as the extra attacking players we introduced were in the same position as the as Keane and Sinnani of not having anyone behind them able to get them the ball. I also thought Tiehi was having a decent game, even if he wasn't quite as impactful in the second as he was in the first.

I felt we had too many men too deep and too many high and not enough between them to link the lines and give the attacking players the ball in areas where they could do some damage.

As you saw we all saw the game differently and at the end of the day it's one of those where whatever you do you never know how the alternative would've worked out so, it's just our own interpretations.

I wonder what the reaction would have been had he taken off an attacking player and put on a defensive one.

I think we can all agree that he made a call, whether it was foolhardy or a stroke of genius is debateable, but I have no doubt that a few months ago under Leam the substitutions would not have happened as they did. Maloney seems to me to be more reactive to the play and his substitutions, although as I say may be questioned, seem to be on the whole correct in timing and in their impact.

If he had left Christ on we may have scored an equaliser, by taking him off we actually did score an equaliser. In my book that is a ploy that worked and he should be congratulated not questioned.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

I wonder what the reaction would have been had he taken off an attacking player and put on a defensive one.

I think we can all agree that he made a call, whether it was foolhardy or a stroke of genius is debateable, but I have no doubt that a few months ago under Leam the substitutions would not have happened as they did. Maloney seems to me to be more reactive to the play and his substitutions, although as I say may be questioned, seem to be on the whole correct in timing and in their impact.

If he had left Christ on we may have scored an equaliser, by taking him off we actually did score an equaliser. In my book that is a ploy that worked and he should be congratulated not questioned.

I wouldn't have agreed with taking off an attacker as we needed goals.

But Tiehi's ability to win the ball and carry it forward set up a few counters in the first half - i think taking him off weakened us both attacking and defensively compared to if you would've opted to take off one of the back 5 and keep him on.

If you look at the score line alone you can say it worked, but i think if you look at how the tactic played out in the game i don't think the change actually had the desired effect. We continued to lose midfield and didn't really create much.

With the options available Tiehi off and having one less central mid didn't maximise our threat while navigating the oppositions IMO. In the same way i don't think playing Pearce at centre back where he only got one crossing opportunity was a better option than putting him on the left where he'd have had more chances to get delivery in.

Happy to agree to disagree, and i think i've largely agreed with most of Maloney's decisions tactically over his games here but last night i think there were better options than the one's he chose.

 

[Ooooooo to Be a Wiganer]

Tiehi. Is one player that can go past a man with the ball strange one taking him off.

 

[jeffs right]

If you listen to Shaun's after match comments he explained why he took Christ off and the other substitutions. He said Christ had a great first half but he needed to open the game up as a draw is no good to us now and he wanted us to go for it which is fair enough in my book

However we played well in the first half but for the majority of the second we were crap.

 

[ZAKKY]

However we played well in the first half but for the majority of the second we were crap.

Apply for the job as you obviously know better than Shaun

 

[hindleymonwafc]

I wonder what the reaction would have been had he taken off an attacking player and put on a defensive one.

I think we can all agree that he made a call, whether it was foolhardy or a stroke of genius is debateable, but I have no doubt that a few months ago under Leam the substitutions would not have happened as they did. Maloney seems to me to be more reactive to the play and his substitutions, although as I say may be questioned, seem to be on the whole correct in timing and in their impact.

If he had left Christ on we may have scored an equaliser, by taking him off we actually did score an equaliser. In my book that is a ploy that worked and he should be congratulated not questioned.

Sorry mate but can't agree...you leave your possible match winners on and take your water carriers off...that is if you are actually going for a win and not settling for a draw. Apart from the deflected goal their keeper had little to do 2nd half when ALL our creative flair had disappeared up the tunnel. I thought it a poor call.

 

[Roy Race]

I wouldn't have agreed with taking off an attacker as we needed goals.

But Tiehi's ability to win the ball and carry it forward set up a few counters in the first half - i think taking him off weakened us both attacking and defensively compared to if you would've opted to take off one of the back 5 and keep him on.

If you look at the score line alone you can say it worked, but i think if you look at how the tactic played out in the game i don't think the change actually had the desired effect. We continued to lose midfield and didn't really create much.

You say that but after the subs were made we created the sitter Keane missed, the sitter McClean missed and the goal. Thats just off the top of my head. Think there were more chances that the highlights show. Prior to that in the second half we created zero. We probably didn't "win midfield" but we didn't have to, we went more direct and just tried to get balls in the box. Needs must some times.

 

[runcornfan1978]

The header by Nyambe - out for a corner (twice) was not his fault - a defender will always play the ball out of play - unless his team mates tell him otherwise - louder voices required by team mates to ensure he gets the right info.

I thought the first one was done by Darikwa & the second from Nyambe.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

You say that but after the subs were made we created the sitter Keane missed, the sitter McClean missed and the goal. Thats just off the top of my head. Think there were more chances that the highlights show. Prior to that in the second half we created zero. We probably didn't "win midfield" but we didn't have to, we went more direct and just tried to get balls in the box. Needs must some times.

But if you are already over ran in the middle of the pitch then opt to take off someone in that area - you end up with far less of the ball and the more you have of the ball the easier it is to create pressure and chances. The first half we were first to loose balls, winning posession back and able to get the ball to the attacking mids in areas they could potentially create or shoot.

The 3 chances we created were; Lang picking up the ball deep and beating a couple of men for the cross to Keane, the instance Magennis seemed to be miles offside picking up a ball to put a cross in for McLean and the deep cross from Pearce Cov failed to clear. I don't think the change in tactics really helped in those much.

I don't think anyone is saying we didn't need to make a attacking change to cope with Coventry's second half improvements. But if you want to get more attackers on, for me taking off one of the back 5 and putting an extra body higher up the pitch helps both attacking wise and can help to try and challenge for the ball more effectively. But keeping the defence as is and taking off 1 of the 2 centre mids just makes it harder to get the ball to the attackers and gives the opposition more space to create chances against you.

IMO it was counter intuitive to take Tiehe off as Aasgaard ended up trying to cover that space anyway but he isn't naturally suited to that and couldn't influence the game going forward much either. I think you'd have been as well leaving Tiehi where he was and taking off a defender which would allow Tiehi to win the ball and get it to Thelo so he could do what he's good at rather than being required to try and track back and get the ball himself which isn't something he is good at.

 

[runcornfan1978]

I think upon reflection, I'd have kept Tiehe & Caulker on, switched Power to RWB with Pearce at LWB. In other words:

Amos
Power
Nyambe. Hughes. Caulker
Pearce

Tiehe

McClean
Lang

Keane
Magennis

 

[moonay]

With no disrespect intended toward anyone ... but ...

We're a bunch of (mainly?) blokes, who (as a past-time) watch our local/favourite football team. We watch the game, and then afterwards (possibly with the benefit of hindsight) pass judgement on what we've seen. Now that's fair enough. After all, that's what you'd do if you went to watch a film, a concert, or a play in the theatre.

However, I very much doubt that in any of those scenarios, you'd walk out muttering well the editing and cinematography wasn't brilliant there, was it ... or I didn't think much of the fingering technique on the lead guitarist's solos, and why didn't they have an alto sax to supplement the tenor? ... or I think the director's staging was all wrong, and as for the casting, well, Sarah Lancashire would have played the part much better.

Meanwhile, at the football, we all know better.

Funny isn't it?

 

[You are my sunshine]

I was proud of the performance the other night, especially considering all the off field crap with the wages not being paid on time again.

I thought we were superb in the 1st half,but again our lack of a cutting edge or being clinical in those dangerous situations in the final third meant we weren't leading at HT.

At the break Cov made changes and took control of the game after HT.Their goal was really poor though from our point of view though.

Amos has to be doing better with that!The ball was floated in high and he had plenty of time to come out the short distance and either claim it,punch it to safety or at worst put the Cov player under more severe pressure for his header.

His commanding of his box and kicking are leaving a lot to be desired recently.But he did make a couple of decent saves,including the one right at the end.

After falling behind we dug in,showed a good spirit by staying in the game and then managed to get the equaliser via a bit of luck for once that i thought our overall performance deserved.

 

[SwindonLatic]

I think upon reflection, I'd have kept Tiehe & Caulker on, switched Power to RWB with Pearce at LWB. In other words:

Amos
Power
Nyambe. Hughes. Caulker
Pearce

Tiehe

McClean
Lang

Keane
Magennis

I think we need to do something about the full back positions because we’re just not getting enough out of Darikwa and Nyambe from an attacking pint of view. We need to go for it now so I think your suggestion of Pearce and Max at right back is a good one and the best we can hope for as they have the best delivery. Draws are no good we need to go for it in every game.

 

[Ooooooo to Be a Wiganer]

I think we need to do something about the full back positions because we’re just not getting enough out of Darikwa and Nyambe from an attacking pint of view. We need to go for it now so I think your suggestion of Pearce and Max at right back is a good one and the best we can hope for as they have the best delivery. Draws are no good we need to go for it in every game.

We can change the team around as much as we want we won’t score with the forwards we have. One goal all season from Lang.

 

[Roy Race]

But if you are already over ran in the middle of the pitch then opt to take off someone in that area - you end up with far less of the ball and the more you have of the ball the easier it is to create pressure and chances. The first half we were first to loose balls, winning posession back and able to get the ball to the attacking mids in areas they could potentially create or shoot.

The 3 chances we created were; Lang picking up the ball deep and beating a couple of men for the cross to Keane, the instance Magennis seemed to be miles offside picking up a ball to put a cross in for McLean and the deep cross from Pearce Cov failed to clear. I don't think the change in tactics really helped in those much.

I don't think anyone is saying we didn't need to make a attacking change to cope with Coventry's second half improvements. But if you want to get more attackers on, for me taking off one of the back 5 and putting an extra body higher up the pitch helps both attacking wise and can help to try and challenge for the ball more effectively. But keeping the defence as is and taking off 1 of the 2 centre mids just makes it harder to get the ball to the attackers and gives the opposition more space to create chances against you.

IMO it was counter intuitive to take Tiehe off as Aasgaard ended up trying to cover that space anyway but he isn't naturally suited to that and couldn't influence the game going forward much either. I think you'd have been as well leaving Tiehi where he was and taking off a defender which would allow Tiehi to win the ball and get it to Thelo so he could do what he's good at rather than being required to try and track back and get the ball himself which isn't something he is good at.

Yes but you said "we didn't really create much" but that's 2 clear cut chances and a goal. Then you've essentially tried to say those chances don't count because they weren't created as intended by the change in tactics.

I'm not saying we played better when he changed it, far from it but we did have chances so it must have worked somehow. Sometimes when you're "losing midfield" one option is to cut it out completely which we tried to do. When you're desperate to win to stay up sometimes the tactic book goes out the window and its a case of get as many forwards on as possible and get it in the box see what happens. I have no problem with that.

 

[hindleymonwafc]

Yes but you said "we didn't really create much" but that's 2 clear cut chances and a goal. Then you've essentially tried to say those chances don't count because they weren't created as intended by the change in tactics.

I'm not saying we played better when he changed it, far from it but we did have chances so it must have worked somehow. Sometimes when you're "losing midfield" one option is to cut it out completely which we tried to do. When you're desperate to win to stay up sometimes the tactic book goes out the window and its a case of get as many forwards on as possible and get it in the box see what happens. I have no problem with that.

Sorry Roy but I must have missed these clear cut chances...I remember 1 scramble but precious little else. As in contrast to the free flowing football of the 1st half. We reverted to the kick and hope in the 2nd half that got us into this shitstorm in the 1st place.

On a plus I thought Keane had his best 45 of the season but he disappeared as soon as the footballers went off.

 

[Lazysid]

With no disrespect intended toward anyone ... but ...

We're a bunch of (mainly?) blokes, who (as a past-time) watch our local/favourite football team. We watch the game, and then afterwards (possibly with the benefit of hindsight) pass judgement on what we've seen. Now that's fair enough. After all, that's what you'd do if you went to watch a film, a concert, or a play in the theatre.

However, I very much doubt that in any of those scenarios, you'd walk out muttering well the editing and cinematography wasn't brilliant there, was it ... or I didn't think much of the fingering technique on the lead guitarist's solos, and why didn't they have an alto sax to supplement the tenor? ... or I think the director's staging was all wrong, and as for the casting, well, Sarah Lancashire would have played the part much better.

Meanwhile, at the football, we all know better.

Funny isn't it?

I think your wrong again, plenty of discussions do take place about those other scenarios in other forms of communications.

Just accept that other people have a different valid view or opinion to yourself about latics.

 

[moonay]

I think your wrong again, plenty of discussions do take place about those other scenarios in other forms of communications.

Just accept that other people have a different valid view or opinion to yourself about latics.

By 'eck Sid, for some reason, I seem to be pressing your buttons at the moment.

Read again what I wrote. I acknowledged that discussions (passing judgement) would take place ... the points I was trying to make were firstly, the detailed nature of the judgement/criticism (not just "that film was shit") and then the apparent attitude that we know better than the professionals.

Of course, sometimes, we do pick up on stuff that the professionals might miss, or we (with the hindsight) might say how/why we'd have done summat differently, but let's face it ... it counts for little as we trundle back to whatever occupation puts bread on our table.

As for accepting that others have different opinions, I'm not really sure why you'd say that, ... unless of course, you're suggesting that mine isn't as valid. Sid, I reckon more than anyone on here, I've agreed to disagree when my view isn't the same as another poster ... and I don't recall ever suggesting that someone isn't entitled to their own view.

Maybe you should just accept that I'm entitled to mine.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Yes but you said "we didn't really create much" but that's 2 clear cut chances and a goal. Then you've essentially tried to say those chances don't count because they weren't created as intended by the change in tactics.

I'm not saying we played better when he changed it, far from it but we did have chances so it must have worked somehow. Sometimes when you're "losing midfield" one option is to cut it out completely which we tried to do. When you're desperate to win to stay up sometimes the tactic book goes out the window and its a case of get as many forwards on as possible and get it in the box see what happens. I have no problem with that.

I wouldn't have an issue bypassing midfield and going long either if the strikers could win a header and we were getting knock downs and flick ons, but between the 3 strikers they probably lost about 95% of headers. I think all going long did was give the ball away more and make Coventry's life easier rather than harder.

But it's a game of opinions, each to their own. Happy to agree to disagree.