Yes, he saw that at 1:1 we were over-committing to attack in at attempt to win the game and were laying ourselves open to loss by counter-attack. I'm afraid it didn't need a Special One to see that; indeed I imagine you would have done the same in his shoes chippy, having looked over your shoulder and seen the Hazards and Willians on the bench behind you.
of course he didn't implement the 'mystical' plan b!!! you've just illustrated my point perfectly! he didn't have a plan b - he had to take ashley cole off as he was injured and decided to go for the win rather than hang on for a draw by sticking three at the back and putting hazard on. we were pushing for the winner, leaving ourselves a bit open. it worked so he looks like a tactical genius (although it helps being able to bring on £62m worth of talent) but had we got the winner, as looked likely at the time, he'd have been lambasted for a crazy tactical switch. it was as much luck as it was judgement and i'm afraid almost all subs are.
Good analogy Warky. Especially since it is working. Sheer genius! (For God's sake don't start on politics; football is surely proving bad enough.)
This is where the issue of patronising arises, Supers - you may well snigger about narrowly defined concepts which are easy to misconstrue, but that doesn't make them any less true. "Plan B" is a looser concept than you are suggesting. It is not about necessarily deciding before the game how the manager is going to change it, it's about understanding that there are options and using them if necessary. The "improvisation" you're suggesting is merely an interpretation of how the match is panning out, it doesn't alter the fact that when a manager brings a player on, the role of that player (or each of the roles if that player provides more than one option) is almost certainly going to have been pre-rehearsed. Take Hoolahan - he was brought on to play in a specific position against Arsenal, one that he knows but creates a very different team shape to the one we were playing, it's not as if he never played that position before nor has the team ever been in that formation, is it? That, I'm afraid, is pre-planned, whether you snigger or not. I wholeheartedly agree with Mourinho's comments, but I should point out he's talking about a fundamentally different thing - he's saying that he can't be sure plan B will work. No, it is not empty. It is there to help simplify the concept of changing the shape with the options on the bench without having to go through the full explanation and nit-picking here. So yes, it is a tactical switch, precisely. The important thing to highlight is that it is not black and white - the meaning of having "no plan b" is bringing on substitutions who play in exactly the same way - like-for-like substitutions, if you will. The question is where the manager is on that scale - I would argue that Lambert was at the extreme. The fact is there are plenty of managers who will make substitutions without changing the shape - sometimes this is sensible. This is not a criticism of Hughton and has nothing to do with him. As he has commendably demonstrated several times this season, he is extremely willing to try a plan b and has several dangerous options on the bench, they just have not always paid off (I would highlight Redmond against Southampton and Hooper against Watford). Plan B, and the lack thereof, is a meaningful concept (usually in the form of teams who are struggling to find suitable substitutions, due to injuries, lack of funds or transfer activity), but I accept that it is just not applicable here.
Why is that incorrect? Just because it doesn't subscribe to your definition of a plan B, which appears non-existent, doesn't mean it's not correct. I don't believe for a minute that the team haven't trained with Fer moved further forward and Elmander in his place. If they haven't, then I'm with those who suggest we need an attacking coach. All the formations we have used I suspect that our team has trained in.
I bet the long winter evenings must just fly by with that kind of banter within the "football community"
So let me get this straight - you are saying that: (1) our team does not train in various formations depending on particular combinations of individuals - they have one formation, that everyone trains in (2) when Hughton makes a substitution, that player is usually in the same role as the previous player, but it's up to the player what they make of it (3) on the occasion where a player is brought on to change the shape, they will be unfamiliar with that position and this is a hopeful attempt to change the game with something outside of the norm (4) "those involved in football" laugh at the idea that teams should train in different formations depending on the style and positioning of the personnel in the formation at any one time Well if that's the case, and you truly are speaking with and in depth knowledge of the club and how our training works, HUGHTON OUT. I'd like an AVB type who properly analyses the game, prepares for different scenarios and doesn't assume that "one size fits all". That's what Mourinho brought to the game - a careful eye for detail. One size does not fit all - we should be preparing formations and training to accommodate different players in their best possible positions. We should have flexibility and variety in our formations when our plan A (which is a good one) is clearly not working - this will allow us to change shape without communication and understanding going awry. It's these little margins that make the difference. A prominent local businessman once told my brother that the Club was the worst run and most antiquated business he'd ever come across. I think we can all agree the former is no longer the case, but if we are still using antiquated training with one formation, I think we are in trouble. You can make patronising remarks about your superior knowledge all you like, but I don't believe for a minute the above is true.
What Canary Rob has said is kind of what I was getting at. But also it is an inference that CH has a plan, a plan A, if you will. That plan is all to obvious to the opposition. See last season, a relatively successful formula was developed culminating in a 10 game unbeaten run. We were found out and he couldn't/wouldn't change it, between games, rarely even with subs at all_ leave alone early or with noticeable effect. Then look at the game vs Cardiff, they made changes to counter our assendency and CH could again not tip the balance back with a tactical switch, so yes plan b is a figurative term for you pedants. But he rarely has one of any great effect. I agree the football is getting better, he's being more positive, but the results aren't, and the goals still ain't coming, so I will continue to be concerned by our managers seeming limitations, at least until he is removed or figures outs way to counter them! Bah!
I would like to offer an alternative for the managerial post should/when CH get the shove. Our resident football genius Superman should walk into the job for his knowledge is final & the law !
OR we could all give our support and get behind the current manager because he knows more about managing a professional football club than all of us put together
I don't really understand the logic behind all the whining, each match we are getting better but the negativity is increasing. Hows that work?
OR we could sack him and bring in another manager who still knows more about managing a football club than all of us put together. Doesn't make Hughton the right one pyjamas.
Think we'll give him till christmas time minimum, for what it's worth I think we'll turn it around and have a mediocre season. It's always worrying in this situation as a fan, but if it was another team we'd all as rational football followers see this situation as not end of the world as we do as a fan. We just need some morale boosting results to fill the team with confidence, perhaps the 2 manchester games are coming at the right time after all.
Ok then, if our game under CH is so predictable, tell me what exactly our game always is and what other teams can do to counteract it so easily? I don't know what CH's plan A is and I watch every match. I don't think anybody can predict the team's line-up, formation and substitutes. As I've said before, CH is tactically sound; his shortcomings are his lack of ability to motivate players (in my opinion) and I think removing the manager would demoralise the team as it implies they are doing badly so a change had to be made. Whatever you think of CH (I have faith in him) now is NOT the time to be changing managers.
