| Mick Mcarthy............... 09:30 - Oct 22 with 2204 views | jeffro |
Speaking to a mate yesterday regarding Mick Mcarthy
Now dont worry, he is not lined up to be our next manager, but one game last season stands out for me.
Wolves at Home, relegation battle, Cisse sent off on around 30 mins if I remember.
What does Mcarthy do????
He brings on another forward in Kevin Doyle..
Up till then we had totally dominted the game 11 vs 11, soon as we went down to 10, Mcarthy realised our 2 banks of 4 had to be penetrated to change the game.
So by bringing on another forward, our 4 at the back became 5, midfield went to 3, which left O'Hara the space to dictate the game.
Now I know our subs were almost forced upon Hughes, a fact that seems to be lost on a lot of our expert fans...
Nelsen had travelled across the world and back to play and is 35, Traore we all knew would only do 70 mins which i would agree with Hughes, we need him for the future.
But the Final sub should have been a striker for Park.. Thus making Everton have to change from there comfortable double bank of 4 which were dealing with us.
Once you bring another attacker on, it will make them worry and lose their shape.
Yes we were suspectable on the counter but , we had to go for it, 60 mins vs 10 men, i really think we could have won if Cisse or Mackie had come on to partner Bobby.
Never understand why managers dont sieze the moment in games like this. |  | | |  |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 09:35 - Oct 22 with 2166 views | imustbemad |
Zamora looked shot to me. Possibly a knock/injured. The other 2 subs were forced. Should have won it with the 11 we had on anyways. |  | | |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 09:35 - Oct 22 with 2165 views | WokingR |
Couldn't agree more.
If the game had stayed 11 v 11 then I could understand Hughes decision but there is no way that against a single forward we needed a back 4.
Throwing caution to the wind would have meant bringing on a midfielder instead of a striker so that we had numbers to deal with counter attacks.
What he did lacked any ambition at all and was aimed completely at securing a point instead of going for 3. |  | | |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 09:39 - Oct 22 with 2135 views | DesertBoot |
I agree Woking, I thought Jamie Mackie would have been ideal to bring on. His style of play is very unsettling for defenders and would have created space for others. |  |
| Wish I could be like David Watts |
| |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 09:47 - Oct 22 with 2103 views | adhoc_qpr |
Two of the subs may have been forced on him, but not who he replaced them with!
Striker for a striker and two defenders for two defenders doesn't show much vision or attacking intent.
Could easily have brought on Mackie for Traore etc and changed the formation if that was a planned change. | | | |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 09:51 - Oct 22 with 2079 views | Charlie1 |
Agree with Jeffro
I think Hughes always goes for caution though.
Need Cisse with Zam although the latter was having a stinker of a game. That said, Distin and Jag are a formidable partnership.
|  |
| |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 10:04 - Oct 22 with 2050 views | barbicanranger |
Just posted on another thread on this...to a certain extent I can see why Hughes didn't do this yesterday. If we had thrown an extra attacker on and then conceded a goal on the break to Everton due to not having sufficient midfield or defensive cover then we / he would have being staring down the barrel of a defeat at home to 10 men. If we had more points under our belts by now maybe he would have thrown more caution to the wind but ultimately he probably thought we can nick this with the formation as it is and not risking too much at the back, unfortunately that didnt happen. |  | | |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 10:14 - Oct 22 with 2003 views | jonno |
| Mick Mcarthy............... on 10:04 - Oct 22 by barbicanranger |
Just posted on another thread on this...to a certain extent I can see why Hughes didn't do this yesterday. If we had thrown an extra attacker on and then conceded a goal on the break to Everton due to not having sufficient midfield or defensive cover then we / he would have being staring down the barrel of a defeat at home to 10 men. If we had more points under our belts by now maybe he would have thrown more caution to the wind but ultimately he probably thought we can nick this with the formation as it is and not risking too much at the back, unfortunately that didnt happen. |
Agree with that. I think Hughes would have thought his job was on the line had we lost at home to ten men after being a goal up in two minutes. In our position a point at home against the fourth placed team is actually a decent result, frustrating though that may be. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
