They were defensive

I agree with your basic point that he needed to change the formation and that playing 4 in midfield was idiotic. Unfortunately another key characteristic of the Hoot school of tactics is playing 4-4-2 in inappropriate circumstances, it appears mainly to placate the fans. Weak management.

However, where the subs were defensive and typically conservative was the choice of players both off and on and the fact he still did not change the formation. We should have gone one up front and hauled that Dutch heap of sh*t off. The positive subs would have been Redmond for RVW and move Wes back to play behind Elmamder. Instead, in a game we were losing 2-0 and needed to get back into, he took off our two most creative/attacking midfielders and replaced them with two players with zero pace or creativity. His complete and utter lack of game management nous never fails to amaze.

Posted By: Jim on March 29th 2014 at 23:41:48

Message Thread

"Hughton's half time subs were defensive". Sorry, no they weren't (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:26:25
- Hughton didn't change the formation... (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:29:42
  - I know - that's why I said he partly changed it. Frankly, I think there is no case at all (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:31:38
    - Did you watch it? (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 29, 23:49:13
      - ? (n/m) (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 30, 00:01:15
    - They were defensive (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 29, 23:41:48
      - So it wasn't a 4-4-2 then? (n/m) (NCFC) - Huge Small, Mar 29, 23:51:09
      - I agree with your suggestions 100% - but the mindset behind his changes wasn't defensive (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:44:56
        
        The problem is, we fail to keep possession (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:48:00
        
        I think we could have played five in central midfield (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:49:57
        
        yes true... but BJ giving the ball away half the time didn't help. (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:52:29
      - didn't RvW set up our best chance of the game just after half time? (n/m) (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:43:16
        
        yep, a very poor return given the amount of game time he was given (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:44:48
        
        Just give it a rest. He is sh*t. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Mar 29, 23:44:08
        
        yep, why let facts get in the way? (n/m) (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:46:49
        
        he's been bloody awful... I mean, I hope he comes good, but lets not cloud reality (n/m) (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:49:27
        
        of course he has been poor in general, but why pick on him today? (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:50:58
        
        he completely failed to get involved, him and Elmander don't even link up (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:54:07
    - we have got quite a few wins with 4-4-2 (or a variant of) this season (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:35:18
      - Depends on the opponents too though. Saints and Swansea are good, bright passing sides (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:38:04
    - problem is that with Fer out (NCFC) - Mecagoenti, Mar 29, 23:32:59
      - Heh. Three's still better than two, even with Bradders around. I agree that we're missing (NCFC) - thebigfeller, Mar 29, 23:34:13
        
        we didn't even have him for 2 seasons and we did ok. (NCFC) - phrankin, Mar 29, 23:37:53

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.