one of the worst substitutions

[Pogleswoody]

It was the most cowardly tactical change I've ever seen from an Argyle manager.

5-4-1 at home against Shrewsbury. Pathetic.

League leaders Shrewsbury who literally had six times as many points as us?

You make it sound like WE were top and they were bottom.

Doesn't matter!! They were on the rack and one more turn of the screw would have ripped them apart. We let them off, they jumped off the rack and kicked us up the 'arris!!

That win could have changed our season and some people's opinion of DA, he chose to not change our season. Why?? :think:

 

[HC Green]

Maybe I should just avoid all Argyle message boards full stop at the moment. I expect it 'elsewhere' but virtually every thread here too just seems to be looking for any and every way to cast absolutely anything as negative, as a stick to beat someone with.

I've tried to bite my lip on this one (or should that be bite my fingers as i'm typing :think: ) but I can't. I appreciate the irony as i'm occasionally accused of being *MR* Righteous Indignation myself, but some of the posts on this thread are simply ridiculously high horsed, so high the riders must surely struggle to even see the ground beneath them.

At any club, at any level, a perfectly legitimate option when going ahead and having a lead to defend, ESPECIALLY when it's top v bottom is to park the bus. Bringing on a defender for an attacker is just part of that. It wasn't a massively left field decision, it is perfectly normal for any manager to do such a thing if circumstances dictate.

To read some of the astonished words typed on this thread though you'd think we'd substituted the goalkeeper for a second left winger or something. It's as if the concept of defending what you've got is now somehow alien to some posters.

It didn't work, clearly. But who is to say that by NOT making that decision Shrewsbury wouldn't have come at us just as strongly and got two or more for want of that extra body in defence?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but when the general underlying mood music of the pitchfork wielding mob right now is to look for fault first and consider objectivity and practicality later never, you're only ever going to find fault.

I can tell you several FAR worse substitutions...

Any and every time Paul 'kin Mariner brought on Kenny 'kin Cooper for a late cameo impression of an especially immobile Ent from Lond of the Rings.

Every time Mick Jones brought on either of the dwarfs Padi Wilson or Earl Jean and then 'went long' to chase a game :facepalm:

Every time Tony Pulis brought on Anthony Pulis last knockings when we were winning just so sonny-boy could pick up a win bonus (same nepotism but at least 'Oooh Ahh Sturrock Junior' coming on to hold the ball in the corner had a legitimate tactical point).

They were all diabolical, nonsensical substitutions that defeated the object of trying to get something from a game. Yesterday was just a legitimate and widely used tactical option that didn't happen to work, more often than not it would've.

Get a ferkin grip guys, the Green Army is losing the plot at the moment. It's like everyone has collectively decided that if something paints the manager, or a player, or the board, or the club in a bad light then 'game on'. Common sense, logic and objectivity can take a flying jump.

As a collective, we must surely be better than this. This mentality at the moment is awful.

Never mind the bollox, we got a point against the league leaders that not one of us thought we would. THAT'S a positive, let's take it and move on.

Were you at the game? Did you not see the shift in momentum the substitution created? Adams made a bad decision that almost certainly cost us the win, and as we have only won once in the league this season I can understand why so many have an opinion on it.

The momentum shifted the minute we scored, the substitution wasn’t made for a further 10 minutes when because of the constant pressure Argyle were under was quite understandable, I would have taken Grant off but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[philmeboots]

Maybe I should just avoid all Argyle message boards full stop at the moment. I expect it 'elsewhere' but virtually every thread here too just seems to be looking for any and every way to cast absolutely anything as negative, as a stick to beat someone with.

I've tried to bite my lip on this one (or should that be bite my fingers as i'm typing :think: ) but I can't. I appreciate the irony as i'm occasionally accused of being *MR* Righteous Indignation myself, but some of the posts on this thread are simply ridiculously high horsed, so high the riders must surely struggle to even see the ground beneath them.

At any club, at any level, a perfectly legitimate option when going ahead and having a lead to defend, ESPECIALLY when it's top v bottom is to park the bus. Bringing on a defender for an attacker is just part of that. It wasn't a massively left field decision, it is perfectly normal for any manager to do such a thing if circumstances dictate.

To read some of the astonished words typed on this thread though you'd think we'd substituted the goalkeeper for a second left winger or something. It's as if the concept of defending what you've got is now somehow alien to some posters.

It didn't work, clearly. But who is to say that by NOT making that decision Shrewsbury wouldn't have come at us just as strongly and got two or more for want of that extra body in defence?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but when the general underlying mood music of the pitchfork wielding mob right now is to look for fault first and consider objectivity and practicality later never, you're only ever going to find fault.

I can tell you several FAR worse substitutions...

Any and every time Paul 'kin Mariner brought on Kenny 'kin Cooper for a late cameo impression of an especially immobile Ent from Lond of the Rings.

Every time Mick Jones brought on either of the dwarfs Padi Wilson or Earl Jean and then 'went long' to chase a game :facepalm:

Every time Tony Pulis brought on Anthony Pulis last knockings when we were winning just so sonny-boy could pick up a win bonus (same nepotism but at least 'Oooh Ahh Sturrock Junior' coming on to hold the ball in the corner had a legitimate tactical point).

They were all diabolical, nonsensical substitutions that defeated the object of trying to get something from a game. Yesterday was just a legitimate and widely used tactical option that didn't happen to work, more often than not it would've.

Get a ferkin grip guys, the Green Army is losing the plot at the moment. It's like everyone has collectively decided that if something paints the manager, or a player, or the board, or the club in a bad light then 'game on'. Common sense, logic and objectivity can take a flying jump.

As a collective, we must surely be better than this. This mentality at the moment is awful.

Never mind the bollox, we got a point against the league leaders that not one of us thought we would. THAT'S a positive, let's take it and move on.

Omg i’m getting worried now if I’m starting to agree with X Isle. Spot on! The substitution was absolutely sensible, even though it didn’t fully work. Shrewsbury didn’t really threaten in the last 20 and what was wrong was that the central defenders allowed Whalley too much space on the edge of the area on one occasion. Not a tactical error but a defensive one and I still think that Letheren should have got to a placed shot from that far out. As for playing two up front against the league leaders who’s main strength was to keep the ball would have just surrendered midfield and without the ball neither striker would have seen it! Give Adams a break, I couldn’t believe I heard boos at the end of the match.

 

[philmeboots]

Maybe I should just avoid all Argyle message boards full stop at the moment. I expect it 'elsewhere' but virtually every thread here too just seems to be looking for any and every way to cast absolutely anything as negative, as a stick to beat someone with.

I've tried to bite my lip on this one (or should that be bite my fingers as i'm typing :think: ) but I can't. I appreciate the irony as i'm occasionally accused of being *MR* Righteous Indignation myself, but some of the posts on this thread are simply ridiculously high horsed, so high the riders must surely struggle to even see the ground beneath them.

At any club, at any level, a perfectly legitimate option when going ahead and having a lead to defend, ESPECIALLY when it's top v bottom is to park the bus. Bringing on a defender for an attacker is just part of that. It wasn't a massively left field decision, it is perfectly normal for any manager to do such a thing if circumstances dictate.

To read some of the astonished words typed on this thread though you'd think we'd substituted the goalkeeper for a second left winger or something. It's as if the concept of defending what you've got is now somehow alien to some posters.

It didn't work, clearly. But who is to say that by NOT making that decision Shrewsbury wouldn't have come at us just as strongly and got two or more for want of that extra body in defence?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but when the general underlying mood music of the pitchfork wielding mob right now is to look for fault first and consider objectivity and practicality later never, you're only ever going to find fault.

I can tell you several FAR worse substitutions...

Any and every time Paul 'kin Mariner brought on Kenny 'kin Cooper for a late cameo impression of an especially immobile Ent from Lond of the Rings.

Every time Mick Jones brought on either of the dwarfs Padi Wilson or Earl Jean and then 'went long' to chase a game :facepalm:

Every time Tony Pulis brought on Anthony Pulis last knockings when we were winning just so sonny-boy could pick up a win bonus (same nepotism but at least 'Oooh Ahh Sturrock Junior' coming on to hold the ball in the corner had a legitimate tactical point).

They were all diabolical, nonsensical substitutions that defeated the object of trying to get something from a game. Yesterday was just a legitimate and widely used tactical option that didn't happen to work, more often than not it would've.

Get a ferkin grip guys, the Green Army is losing the plot at the moment. It's like everyone has collectively decided that if something paints the manager, or a player, or the board, or the club in a bad light then 'game on'. Common sense, logic and objectivity can take a flying jump.

As a collective, we must surely be better than this. This mentality at the moment is awful.

Never mind the bollox, we got a point against the league leaders that not one of us thought we would. THAT'S a positive, let's take it and move on.

My comment wasn’t borne out of ‘hindsight’. As soon as I saw the subs board go up I was saying to anyone that wanted to listen ‘wtf is he doing!??’ Many of those around me agreed. How do so many people that professional managers/coaches sneer at because they aren’t in the game, know that what he did was suicidal in terms of losing the game when the ‘professionals’ couldn’t see it. For me, yesterday’s monumental flock up seriously brings into question his suitability for the job in League one.

How many times have you seen Mourinho do exactly the same thing. I’ve even seen him do it at the start of a game! Any number of other Premiership managers have parked the bus many times. We did it against Liverpool and Adams was even praised for it.

 

[skynet]

Oh dear. Too many people have lost the plot. Perhaps a look at the league table would show what a tactical genius Adams obviously is.

 

[philmeboots]

Fortunately no one is judged after around a quarter of the season. In the same way as the team who’s winning after 20 minutes of the first half isn’t declared the winner. If only football was only as simplistic as a tactical genius being the only ingredient in the mix!

 

[X Isle]

Oh dear. Too many people have lost the plot. Perhaps a look at the league table would show what a tactical genius dunce* Adams obviously is.

*edited for conspicuous sarcasm.

And by extension one look at last season's L2 table at this time would show what a tactical dunce Tisdale was?

I am not an Adams apologist, I didn't want him and have struggled to warm to him, but I will only criticise where criticism is justified, whoever it is and irrespective of background circumstances. Here it is not justified and the background landscape is influencing judgements.

That belies poor judgement in my book. Go looking for faults, actively wanting to see faults, you'll find faults. Keep an objective level head and you'll see the clear difference between actual faults and correct decisions that just didn't come off.

PS - Phil, don't worry about it, everyone comes round to my way of thinking eventually :wink:

 

[Steve Evans]

Oh dear. Too many people have lost the plot. Perhaps a look at the league table would show what a tactical genius dunce* Adams obviously is.

*edited for conspicuous sarcasm.

And by extension one look at last season's L2 table at this time would show what a tactical dunce Tisdale was?

I am not an Adams apologist, I didn't want him and have struggled to warm to him, but I will only criticise where criticism is justified, whoever it is and irrespective of background circumstances. Here it is not justified and the background landscape is influencing judgements.

That belies poor judgement in my book. Go looking for faults, actively wanting to see faults, you'll find faults. Keep an objective level head and you'll see the clear difference between actual faults and correct decisions that just didn't come off.

PS - Phil, don't worry about it, everyone comes round to my way of thinking eventually :wink:

what manager would you bring in please x-isle?

 

[philmeboots]

Oh dear. Too many people have lost the plot. Perhaps a look at the league table would show what a tactical genius dunce* Adams obviously is.

*edited for conspicuous sarcasm.

And by extension one look at last season's L2 table at this time would show what a tactical dunce Tisdale was?

I am not an Adams apologist, I didn't want him and have struggled to warm to him, but I will only criticise where criticism is justified, whoever it is and irrespective of background circumstances. Here it is not justified and the background landscape is influencing judgements.

That belies poor judgement in my book. Go looking for faults, actively wanting to see faults, you'll find faults. Keep an objective level head and you'll see the clear difference between actual faults and correct decisions that just didn't come off.

PS - Phil, don't worry about it, everyone comes round to my way of thinking eventually :wink:

Thought you’d come around to mine!

 

[skynet]

I can't believe anybody is backing Adams over the tactics or substitution yesterday but hey football is all about opinions and everyone has one. All to be respected and debated- even if we disagree. That is what makes pasoti such a compelling read.

 

[philmeboots]

My criticism would be that I wouldn’t have played Fletcher up front on his own. I would have played Blissett. If you’re going to play him though, short chips short of the strikers not head high is the better ball or in the channels. Also our midfielders just don’t find space off the ball. Toums was a breath of fresh air with that and hopefully his strengths will rub off on others.

 

[skynet]

My criticism would be that I wouldn’t have played Fletcher up front on his own. I would have played Blissett. If you’re going to play him though, short chips short of the strikers not head high is the better ball or in the channels. Also our midfielders just don’t find space off the ball. Toums was a breath of fresh air with that and hopefully his strengths will rub off on others.

I totally agree with that.

 

[Presto]

from the moment he took off the brilliant fletcher shrewsbury moved upfield and i agree with swendies the equaliser was inevitable.

Cannot possibly agree that Fletcher was brilliant. The real problem was playing a small physically weak player up front alone. By all means play him in a two up front formation but on nis own he is too easily brushed aside by strong defenders and wins nothing in the air. He was not brilliant and never will be in the current 1 up front philosophy

 

[Knibbsworth]

I can't believe anybody is backing Adams over the tactics or substitution yesterday but hey football is all about opinions and everyone has one. All to be respected and debated- even if we disagree. That is what makes pasoti such a compelling read.

Taking off an 18 year old who was tired, replacing him with a 6' 3" speedster, and bringing our player of the season to shore up the back - really isn't a crazy idea on paper. The theory made sense.

Argyle saw out many a single goal margin last season doing exactly the same.

We had chances, we should have scored more, and we conceded because the closest defender stood off instead of closing the danger. Edwards did exactly the same at Walsall away and let Oztumer pick his spot from distance. It's something we need to look at rather than our hesitant to commit, stand off defending.

It's easy to criticise the manager. If Shrewsbury's substitute striker had scored after a formation change, you can bet your bottom dollar Adams would have been castigated by the same faces for not reacting tactically.

 

[briangreen]

from the moment he took off the brilliant fletcher shrewsbury moved upfield and i agree with swendies the equaliser was inevitable.

Cannot possibly agree that Fletcher was brilliant. The real problem was playing a small physically weak player up front alone. By all means play him in a two up front formation but on nis own he is too easily brushed aside by strong defenders and wins nothing in the air. He was not brilliant and never will be in the current 1 up front philosophy

We're you actually there, because the general consensus was he caused them all kinds of problems? I think we all agree that he has the potential to score a hat-full if played in a 2, but let's not take it away from a decent performance.