Eddie Howe

[Geogaddi]

Madness some of the comments in here , if we took off Isak for Dummett or Hall then conceded, the same people would be complaining at Eddie for taking off a striker for a defender and inviting more pressure .

[r0cafella]

I don’t think it madness and asking for players who can barely move to subbed isn’t outrageous. Doesn’t mean the outcome would have changed but generally when hanging out you make subs to disrupt the opposition and to enhance solidity. 

[Lush Vlad]

It’s not really madness. To suggest that maybe, we could have brought on a player or two to disrupt the game or get someone on the pitch that could break into a jog. Isak was totally spent and Gordon could have gone up top to make a nuisance of himself. 

Haven’t really seen anyone suggesting that he’s made some catastrophic error in not doing so or criticising him. More that they’re questioning could the disruption or fresh legs have changed anything. Arguments for and against. Sometimes in the same post. Can see both sides of it.
 

Fans are always going to review what could have been done differently after a result. I’m sure Howe does the same win, lose or draw.  
 

Hard to legislate for the incompetence from the officials at the end, of course and I guess this discussion has come about because of that more than anything.  

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by Lush Vlad

[The Butcher]

Would've brought on Dummett as we were camped in our box. 

 

Probably Hall as well.

 

Can see why he didn't mind.

[Geordie Ahmed]

I can understand why he didn't want to change the defence/midfield as they were no doubt in the zone and each had their defensive duties to not interfere with one another

 

Isak was running on empty, at the time I did feel having Parkinson on to just run along the pitch would have made sense. Not like Isak was seeing the ball and when he did he would just give it away (iirc he gave it away just before Dembele put that cross in)

[Scoot]

If we hadn't have been shafted by the officials, no-one would be talking about whether Howe should or shouldn't have fetched on any subs.

[Tisd09]

1 minute ago, Scoot said:

If we hadn't have been shafted by the officials, no-one would be talking about whether Howe should or shouldn't have fetched on any subs.

 Agreed, hindsight is a wonderful thing, Hall or Dummett on for Isak and Gordon furthers forward 'could' have been a better option than what we had, Isak had nothing left in the end, that being said, if we did make that change and we conceded Howe probably would have taken criticism off some.

[Wilson]

6 hours ago, andycap said:

Would've hoyed hall on for gordon or isak and just played 5-5-0 for the last ten minutes. 

 

 

 

 

It's a ridiculously tough choice, we were defending like fucking heroes and you don't really want to change the dynamic. 

 

I'm not sure it needed the change, aye they were tired but they would have held on but for a ridiculous decision imo. 

[Cf]

42 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

If he makes a sub last night it is an absolute punt of the most finger-in-the-air variety. Don't blame him at all for sticking with the players who'd held out for 94 minutes (i.e. the entire game in any other season).

 

Yeah that was my thinking too even though Isak could barely move.

 

Maybe put Dummet in for him as an extra man back there but what does that do to our shape?

 

He was just in a no-win situation with the state of our bench.

[Monters]

6 minutes ago, Wilson said:

 

It's a ridiculously tough choice, we were defending like fucking heroes and you don't really want to change the dynamic. 

 

I'm not sure it needed the change, aye they were tired but they would have held on but for a ridiculous decision imo. 

Probably would have found another 5 minutes of injury time per sub too!
Don't feel any aspect of the club needs criticizing for last night... as someone said earlier with a full squad we would expect to be more competitive but first half I thought we shaded it and second half exhaustion, nerves and ultimately the ref killed us

[STM]

I'd have taken Isak off for Hall and moved Gordon up front.

 

But in reality, fuck knows if it would have made a difference.

 

I absolutely adore this manager.

[Wilson]

6 minutes ago, STM said:

I'd have taken Isak off for Hall and moved Gordon up front.

 

But in reality, fuck knows if it would have made a difference.

 

I absolutely adore this manager.

 

I said exactly the same during the game as Isak was a wasted man but at the same time, I'd have been scared to mess with the system that was working

[pubteam]

Eddie simply had no options last night, you can't bring a kid in who has barely trained with the first team, the subs were clearly just to cover injuries. Eddie has also said in the past past he doesn't like making replacements when defending a 1 goal lead as it can upset the balance.

[TBG]

Shares the same birthday as my dog. 

[Guest reefatoon]

1 hour ago, Scoot said:

If we hadn't have been shafted by the officials, no-one would be talking about whether Howe should or shouldn't have fetched on any subs.

Aye, get bored to fuck reading all the Ron Managers expert opinions on what Howe should and shouldn’t do when we don’t win. 

[The College Dropout]

5 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Not sure I'd have made a sub tbf. We rode our luck at times but we were at a stage where the players were drilled into doing one thing for about the last 20-30 minutes, fully focused. It's sometimes hard to get thrown into that and be expected to pick up on that straight away, more likely to switch off, or close down at the wrong time, etc. Thought we were fine.

 

 

 

I don't agree. We kept conceding good chances. It's not like we consistently kept them at arms length. It took some effort but they were able to play through us as they intended. We did well to make the chances a little harder than they could have been but Barcola lad could have had a hat-trick by himself.

 

It wasn't really working. But PSG didn't look like they could capitalise on it anyway.

 

Take the result/goals out of it. We were fantastic in the first half and caused them trouble. They started well but didn't offer a lot after that. We had good spells in possession and looked a threat. The last 35 minutes of the second half, we were knackered. Couldn't string 3 passes together, kept inviting pressure and conceding shots on goal. Absolutely hanging-on.

 

The same thing happened at Wolves. except they scored much earlier and then lost the initiative. Yesterday was much more understandable than Wolves though. Wolves he had Livramento the extraordinaire sitting on the bench for 90 minutes. Yesterday he only had Hall and Hall hasn't looked convincing.

 

 

Edited November 29, 2023 by The College Dropout

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, pubteam said:

Eddie simply had no options last night, you can't bring a kid in who has barely trained with the first team, the subs were clearly just to cover injuries. Eddie has also said in the past past he doesn't like making replacements when defending a 1 goal lead as it can upset the balance.

Where has he said this?

[PauloGeordio]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Where has he said this?

He said something of that note last night re subs! 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Hall might not have even been fit to play, he was probably just there because we don’t have anyone fit who’s registered for the squad. 

[pubteam]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Where has he said this?

He said it after the west ham game in the post match interview.

[The College Dropout]

Fairs. You do have to question what he means by balance when the balance of play is firmly in the opposition's favour.

 

Like I said. If he's got the best team out there - he will stick even if the opposition is in the ascendancy for a considerable amount of time.

 

As we get more players back fit, we'll have more players he genuinely trusts. Miley, Burn, Murphy - these are all genuine options off the bench now.

[PauloGeordio]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Fairs. You do have to question what he means by balance when the balance of play is firmly in the opposition's favour.

 

Like I said. If he's got the best team out there - he will stick even if the opposition is in the ascendancy for a considerable amount of time.

 

As we get more players back fit, we'll have more players he genuinely trusts. Miley, Burn, Murphy - these are all genuine options off the bench now.

Barnes! 😉

[AyeDubbleYoo]

PSG brought on that kid on the left and he had a mare, missed loads of chances and did almost everything wrong. Subs aren’t always an easy answer. 

[Zero]

I ain’t surprised that he didn’t make any subs. He has done it before. 

[Checko]

My only disappointment yesterday about tactics/subs etc. was our complete unwillingness to try and keep the ball for a bit 2nd half. Every goal kick we just booted it straight back to them and went back into the defending drill.

 

Of course there's the argument that it gave us the best chance of winning as there was no risk of us giving the ball away in a dangerous area (on account of us refusing to have the ball), but frankly I thought they created quite a few good chances and should have scored a couple.

 

First half I thought we kept the ball well under pressure and looked good, but a consistent theme when we're struggling (eg vs Milan, Arsenal, Wolves, Bournmouth) is that when we're under the cosh & can't do the super press, we don't seem to be able or willing to just keep the ball when we get it, slow things down, get a little bit of control in the game and wrestle back momentum. If you're tired sometimes you can conserve energy by making the opponents chase you, rather than vice versa. It's probably a lot more fatiguing mentally to be defending constantly as well, always having to be switched on at any moment. Plus the opponents aren't making any chances if you have the ball.

 

That's the one consistent thing about our play that I'd like to see improved. Other than that can't fault the application, and the general organisation. Perhaps we just need a little bit more big boy mentality at times.