Andranik substitution

I'd have been bemused if he'd put him on

and you lot are assuming it would have made a difference which is a bit of a leap of logic for me since he's been largely pants this season when he's appeared. (2nd half swansea apart)

 

RE: I'd have been bemused if he'd put him on

But we would have kept our shape. A shape that was obviously doing a good job. Why change it? That is the point. Andranik is not a wide player so therefore the shape had to change to bring him on. Get 3 defensive central midfielders on the pitch and we will sit back. Devaney would have kept the width in the side and maybe would have been in the vicinity of Reid when he scored.

 

Yes I AM assuming it would have made a difference to the Andranik option

As we would have had a fresh pair of legs giving us width to our attack AND defence duties when required. I have faith in Martin Devaney to shoulder those responsibilities. I assume you don't think it would have made any difference whatsoever and we would still have failed to win yet another match we were leading in.

 

That was the worst substitution he's made

terrible is not the word. We were battering them at 442, then suddenly we are protecting a 1 nil, shouted from the roof tops. Davey will be out of work in the summer and he's only himself to blame.

 

It may have made a difference

but to assume Devaney instead of Andranik would have meant we won is ludicrous.

 

In your opinion nt

 

indeed. it being as valid as yours

with or without support from elsewhere.

 

He picked the wrong sub, then took the wrong man off for the 2nd!

Hammill was coming off anyway... he was injured.</p>

Now... i'm probably Martin's biggest critic... but 12,000 Barnsley fans could see at 4-4-2 we were more than matching them. Martin is also an outlet.</p>

Then, in my opinion, he took the wrong forward off. Macken played very well today... but appeared leggy and tired after 70 minutes.</p>

Despite being a poor tacticion, you can often change a game as a manager with the right substitution... and imho Simon got it wrong twice today.
</p>

 

Do you think I need support?

Do you believe I need help from elsewhere in order to match you?

 

match me?

I didn't realise it was a competition.

 

RE: He picked the wrong sub, then took the wrong man off for the 2nd!

His substitutions often have a negative effect.

 

It appears like one to me

You are right when you claim we are both entitled to our opinions and that each are equally valid. However, the difference between us is that I would prefer to debate the issues without resorting to pouring scorn on my opponent's views and coming out with asinine remarks.

 

The difference between us is that we dont agree

I merely contend that the premise that Martin Devaney would have changed the result is an enormous leap of logic to say the least and that hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

No

You claimed a differing view to yours was ludicrous, you claimed it was also based on hindsight and a view that agreed with yours would "upset the natives". It is my opinion that such comments are asinine, unhelpful to reasoned debate and, therefore, differ from a mere conflict of views.

 

god, I ******* hope so.

 

RE: The difference between us is that we dont agree

It isn't an 'enormous leap of logic' to say that sticking to 442 would have seen the game out better than what actually happened. The only way we could effectively stay as we were was to bring Devaney on. Unless you are suggesting that you think Devaney is that bad he would have been the reason it would go wrong. For me he can do a decent job and would have put the work in to be doing some defending on that flank when it was needed. They played with width and IMO it was obvious they would be dangerous if we didn't play with width. I know we can't say it would have made a difference, and so it is hindsight, but at the time it looked obvious to me (and obviously others) so it was a poor substitution. It became a bit messy once it was made.

 

Had it been 4-4-2

before Hammill came off I'd be tempted to agree with you.

 

No

I said that to assume that if Devaney came on instead of Andranik we would have won is ludicrous. I stick by that.

And if you think thats asinine then I'm not sure you understand what the word means

The criticism of the Andranik substitution IS clearly with the benefit of Hindsght, like it or not.

Clearly a counter opinion to the accepted view has upset the natives. If I had said "agreed" instead of "you'll upset the natives" would that have made any difference?

 

RE: Had it been 4-4-2

It was 442 for the most part. Both wingers were wandering at times but we had 2 strikers.

 

RE: Had it been 4-4-2

It was 442 for the most part. Both wingers were wandering at times but we had 2 strikers.