@Canary Rob With respect Rob, I did not say people were committing the fallacy of attributing a cause and effect relation purely because of the coincidence and temporal relations involved. I said there were two "events" which people were saying were causally connected and asking whether that is correct. You are indeed offering reasons for thinking so, in terms of Redmond's particular attributes (in particular pace). I'm just not convinced. If one event causes the other, the second would not have occurred if the first had not occurred. So you are saying that had Redmond NOT been substituted, WH would NOT have put us under the pressure that they did. That might be true, but you haven't satisfied me that it is.
Robbie - for the last time, it is not about the pressure we were put under per se, it was about the effect that it had on West Ham's formation and the commensurate resulting pressure. I.e. West Ham were able to move further up the pitch because the threat of his pace allowed them to put even more pressure on. Yes, they would have pressurised anyway, I've already agreed with that, but that's missing the point - if they had put pressure on while Redmond was on the pitch, they would have made themselves very vulnerable to counterattacks. I already said this months ago and with my "releasing a pressure valve" metaphor above. Redmon gives us space and allows us to release that pressure, I've never said that West Ham wouldn't have tried to pressurise, I said simply that they wouldn't have been able to without it being more risky. In other words, by taking off Redmond, Hughton increased the pressure on us further than it would have been (and possibly lost us the opportunity to counter-attack against a desperate West Ham). The evidence being in West Ham's formation. But this is ridiculous Robbie, because I have already said all this and am now having to repeat myself
Oh and the fact that as is being widely commented, that West Ham were doubling up on Redmond even to the point he went off, shows the space he creates for us, even if his effectiveness with the ball at his feet is highly questionable
The substitutions gave WH an immediate psychological advantage, we gave them an open invitation to come and attack us, it showed weakness and upset the solidity of the team with only minutes to play, a self inflicted KO which on their first attack we couldnt get up from. CH just cannot be any other way no matter what, he always seems to slips back into this conservative frame of mind.... We would not have been any worse off than the final result if we had attacked them right to the final whistle, probably wouldnt have lost and might have even won. last night game is a classic example of why attack is the best form of defense. Its a shame really and i like CH but yesterday was madness from a management point of view, if i had made any subs it would have only been to bring on Pilks that would have been it and IMO im not sure why Snodgrass started, he huffs and puffs a lot but im not really sure what he offers over and above Redmond and Pilks, as other have said hes highly predictable. The forced team changes due to injury saw us win some games in Nov\Dec, the problem seems to be when we have a full team to pick from the favourites always get picked and our form drops.... or am i over analyzing it? I think if our manager had been with any other club he'd have got his P45 by now, im hoping that we can still see this through without relegation but its looking doubtful now. We all seem to be clinging at hope and that others will lose..
