Ffs

[Canary Rob]

Absolutely, hence why I highlighted it. Of course people are quite correct to support their team through good times and bad, so to suggest they are in any way responsible for our current painful, slow, turgid descent into obscurity is risible

It makes you realise just how thoughtful and insightful the majority of contributors to this forum are though, doesn't it

My bad, I didn't read your post! You do clearly say you are pasting a quote.

Next time can you please put quotation marks round it so you don't get lambasted?

 

[Walsh.i.am]

My bad, I didn't read your post! You do clearly say you are pasting a quote.

Next time can you please put quotation marks round it so you don't get lambasted?

I've got broad shoulders, dude.

 

[robbieBB]

Sorry Robbie, but this is way too simplistic.

I accept that some of the more frothy-mouthed have deliberately ignored Ruddy's error in their delight at Hughton-bashing, but the truth is that a goal-keeping error was increasingly likely given Hughton's changes.

As soon as Redmond came off I knew the game was going to deteriorate. His pace had frightened the West Ham defence and pushed them deeper, giving us space to play actually quite a nice passing game. Taking him off released a pressure valve which allowed West Ham to compress us, making some sort of error much more likely as we had less time on the ball.

Taking off Elmander for Hooper exacerbated this problem yet further - Hooper's not lightening, but he's no slouch, especially compared to the West Ham defenders. He certainly gassed them on one occasion. Whereas Elmander couldn't outpace me.

Snodgrass was the obvious option to replace with Pilkington given his performance in the match and his inability to play on the counter. If that had occurred, I actually think Elmander coming on would have been a reasonable substitution because it would have given us a good two-man option of speed and target man to take pressure off. As it was, the substitutions were an unmitigated disaster and, while you can't legislate for Ruddy making a mistake, massively increased the risk that he would.

I don't think it's so clear that these particular substitutions were responsible for the increased pressure. Allardyce is in the SAF mould; with the game level, his teams up the pressure late in the game at home, so I think it (the pressure, not the goal) would have come whatever CH did. As I said in my earlier post, I think the Hooper and Tettey subs are to do with their fitness (the same changes being made around the same time in other games). Re. Pilkington for Redmond, you assume Redmond would have been able to maintain his performance level for the rest of the game, not just in attack but also tracking back. Maybe, maybe not, but no more than "maybe"!

 

[Walsh.i.am]

There'd be plenty more "FFS" muttered if Palace, Sunderland, Stoke and Fulham all get something out of their games this evening

 

[Canary Rob]

I don't think it's so clear that these particular substitutions were responsible for the increased pressure. Allardyce is in the SAF mould; with the game level, his teams up the pressure late in the game at home, so I think it (the pressure, not the goal) would have come whatever CH did. As I said in my earlier post, I think the Hooper and Tettey subs are to do with their fitness (the same changes being made around the same time in other games). Re. Pilkington for Redmond, you assume Redmond would have been able to maintain his performance level for the rest of the game, not just in attack but also tracking back. Maybe, maybe not, but no more than "maybe"!

Yes - which is exactly why, had Redmond stayed on, Elmander was a reasonable substitution and the same goes, in the circumstances, for Tettey. Redmond relieved pressure because his pace pushed West Ham back.

I accept that I can't know for certain that Redmond's fitness could have kept up right to the very end, but he's young, he's a professional footballer and so he really should be capable of it. I've not got his heart monitor hooked up to my phone, but just looking at him he hardly looked exhausted when he came off. In any event, there is proof enough in that West Ham pushed up the pitch immediately after Redmond went off, so even if his fitness was in question, his presence was making the difference. If there were concerns about his ability to help defend, he should have been pushed up front where he could take a little breather and keep bothering the defence.

I'm not sure I understand how you can defend this with anything other than "we don't know". Which isn't helpful and is basically the same as saying "no point discussing". Well, there is point discussing, because what happened didn't work. And there is proof enough to suggest that taking Redmond off for Pilkington was a big mistake, and it wasn't Pilks' fault.

 

[robbieBB]

..... I'm not sure I understand how you can defend this with anything other than "we don't know". Which isn't helpful and is basically the same as saying "no point discussing". Well, there is point discussing, because what happened didn't work. And there is proof enough to suggest that taking Redmond off for Pilkington was a big mistake, and it wasn't Pilks' fault.

Of course there is a point in discussing it; but not in trying to paint it so black and white.

 

[Canary Rob]

Of course there is a point in discussing it; but not in trying to paint it so black and white.

I'm not painting it in black and white.

I'm painting Redmond's substitution in a very dark shade of grey.


What are the facts?
(1) Redmond was playing well
(2) with Redmond on the pitch, the West Ham defence was pushed back
(3) as soon as Redmond came off, West Ham pressed forward
(4) Redmond showed no obvious signs of over-exertion
(5) virtually all commentary I have read, including the West Ham fans on kumb.com, were surprised that Redmond was taken off
(6) Redmond might not have been able to maintain his performance levels, despite being a young, professional footballer

I'm sorry Robbie, but I'm failing to see how your argument is anything other than a deliberate denial of the evidence before your based on the spurious assumption that Redmond "maybe" wouldn't have been able to maintain his performance level. All you have from the above is (6), and I actually could put a lot more evidence down. You're practising evidential nihilism and (6) works against you as much as it does for you, so the only evidence we really have is that the game turned on this substitution.

I mean you really are clutching at straws here.

 

[johnnywarksmoustache]

I was at your game last night with a couple of my West Ham supporting mates and I have to say that it was 90 odd minutes of my life that I shall never get back! The football was pretty dire from both teams in fairness and although you guys pretty much bossed the game, you never looked like scoring!

You were on top up until Hughton made those disasterous substitutions! Just what the hell he was thinking I have no bloomin idea but that guy seriously needs the sack and sharpish! West Ham immediately gained the impetous and punished you accordingly. Elmander is useless, not even a championship player!

The Norwich players looked up for it but towards the end you could see that they were completely demoralised and bewildered. You know I actually felt a wee bit sorry for the Norwich supporters towards the end!

This is not an attempt to WUM believe me but if any of you saw that game last night you will be extremely worried because Hughton clearly does not have a clue!

On a brighter note at least we may get 2 old farm derbies next season!

 

[robbieBB]

What are the facts?
(1) Redmond was playing well
(2) with Redmond on the pitch, the West Ham defence was pushed back
(3) as soon as Redmond came off, West Ham pressed forward
(4) Redmond showed no obvious signs of over-exertion
(5) virtually all commentary I have read, including the West Ham fans on kumb.com, were surprised that Redmond was taken off
(6) Redmond might not have been able to maintain his performance levels, despite being a young, professional footballer ....

Redmond HAD BEEN playing well BUT he was progressively less effective as the second half wore on. If you look at his dashboard for the match there is a pretty marked change in his play in the second half compared to the first, and overall he actually doesn't feature that high in terms of player performance. His outstanding stat is 3 chances created, 2 of which were in the first half. Looking at the stats I would say you see a player tiring and contributing less and less to the game. In the entire game he only made 10 passes in the attacking third (only 4 in the second half), and only 3 crosses in the second half (none successful).

I've not got full access to the OPTA stats right now, but based on a quick earlier look at them you are IMO exaggerating Redmond's actual influence on the game and the opposition. You may have seen no obvious signs of him tiring but, as often, I think you'll find the stats tell another story.

 

[johnnywarksmoustache]

For once in my life I actually agree with Rob's assessment!

The turning point without doubt was when Redmond was taken off! We were all pretty surprised by this and just couoldnt work out why your best offensive player was being taken off!

 

[Canary Rob]

Redmond HAD BEEN playing well BUT he was progressively less effective as the second half wore on. If you look at his dashboard for the match there is a pretty marked change in his play in the second half compared to the first, and overall he actually doesn't feature that high in terms of player performance. His outstanding stat is 3 chances created, 2 of which were in the first half. Looking at the stats I would say you see a player tiring and contributing less and less to the game. In the entire game he only made 10 passes in the attacking third (only 4 in the second half), and only 3 crosses in the second half (none successful).

I've not got full access to the OPTA stats right now, but based on a quick earlier look at them you are IMO exaggerating Redmond's actual influence on the game and the opposition. You may have seen no obvious signs of him tiring but, as often, I think you'll find the stats tell another story.

OK Robbie, it seems you have entirely misunderstood the point I was making.

It was Redmond's presence on the field that was keeping the West Ham deep.

I am well aware that he actually had quite a poor game - far too many shocking decisions, one of his shots was an appalling effort.

But that misses the point. His pace kept West Ham under the cosh because of the threat, not the effect. The OPTA stats don't tell you that, but given that he was only on the pitch for half of the second half, the stats you've posted hardly look like a deterioration to me. 1 chance in the second half compare to two in the first is about right and four passes in the second half looks like an improvement, but I wish you'd stop changing the subject, the stats have nothing to do with it. It was the way Redmond made West Ham play that was important. I said over a month ago that Redmond pushes teams deeper and makes us play better, and this was yet another shining example.

It also doesn't tell you any of the facts I posted above. So far all you have said is that Redmond might not have performed well. Well he also might have performed better against tiring legs with his young ones. None of that has any bearing on the fact that without him, we had no pace up front and West Ham surged forward at will, which is the fundamental point and I don't understand why you are avoiding this, or indeed what point you are trying to make.

 

[Canary Rob]

For once in my life I actually agree with Rob's assessment!

The turning point without doubt was when Redmond was taken off! We were all pretty surprised by this and just couoldnt work out why your best offensive player was being taken off!

You are such a chopper

 

[robbieBB]

For once in my life I actually agree with Rob's assessment!

The turning point without doubt was when Redmond was taken off! We were all pretty surprised by this and just couoldnt work out why your best offensive player was being taken off!

Well there we have it. I give in!

 

[robbieBB]

OK Robbie, it seems you have entirely misunderstood the point I was making.

It was Redmond's presence on the field that was keeping the West Ham deep.

I am well aware that he actually had quite a poor game - far too many shocking decisions, one of his shots was an appalling effort.

But that misses the point. His pace kept West Ham under the cosh because of the threat, not the effect. The OPTA stats don't tell you that, but given that he was only on the pitch for half of the second half, the stats you've posted hardly look like a deterioration to me. 1 chance in the second half compare to two in the first is about right and four passes in the second half looks like an improvement, but I wish you'd stop changing the subject, the stats have nothing to do with it. It was the way Redmond made West Ham play that was important. I said over a month ago that Redmond pushes teams deeper and makes us play better, and this was yet another shining example.

It also doesn't tell you any of the facts I posted above. So far all you have said is that Redmond might not have performed well. Well he also might have performed better against tiring legs with his young ones. None of that has any bearing on the fact that without him, we had no pace up front and West Ham surged forward at will, which is the fundamental point and I don't understand why you are avoiding this, or indeed what point you are trying to make.

The substitution was in the 81st minute Rob.

 

[Canary Rob]

The substitution was in the 81st minute Rob.

Yeah, but with five minutes or so of injury time, that still equates to nearly a third of the half, which even you can surely accept is too much to say that there is clear evidence of deterioration.

But, I repeat, this is irrelevant. I explained why his "OPTA" performance was irrelevant - I actually don't think he played brilliantly as I said. His OPTA stats are, if anything surprisingly good from POV.

The point is that taking him off had an effect on West Ham's style. You can't measure that with OPTA, but just about everyone watching acknowledges it other than you!

There are several battles you can fight on Hughton's behalf Robbie (see my positivity thread for some clues), but this is not one. I felt this about the fervent "outers" earlier in the season - they were clutching at every possible item to prove that Hughton should be sacked - now you're doing the same thing. Why pick this battle when the evidence I outlined above is so clear?

 

[cardinalcanary]

Redmond was less effective in the second half because West Ham used 3 players to stop him instead of 2. He was certainly using up lots of their resources while he was on the pitch.

 

[Walsh.i.am]

Redmond was less effective in the second half because West Ham used 3 players to stop him instead of 2. He was certainly using up lots of their resources while he was on the pitch.

There seems to be only one contributor disagreeing with this statement, and with the best will in the world, even he is making a bit of a pig's ear out of his counter-argument

 

[cardinalcanary]

The other side of the coin is that when Redmond came off and Pilks came on, two of West Ham's resources were freed up to attack as Pilks was easily contained.

I would also add that it was Fer looking knackered and head dropped around the 75th minute mark so I think I'd have had him off rather than Tettey if Tettey still had the legs.

It was interesting talking to Hammer's fans after the game who said they were really impressed with Johnno for us. They reckoned he was the key to why West Ham couldn't get on the front foot for most of the match.

 

[robbieBB]

There seems to be only one contributor disagreeing with this statement, and with the best will in the world, even he is making a bit of a pig's ear out of his counter-argument

I'm appreciative of the good will. I'm quite used to being in a minority of one; it's to do with the fact that I'm prepared to challenge what others seem to regard as obvious. The facts are that (1) Redmond was taken of in the 81st minute and (2) in the latter stages of the game we came under a lot more pressure and conceded two goals. People are claiming that the former caused the latter. Obvious as it may appear to others, I'm interested in how much truth there actually is in it. I wouldn't normally consider Pilkington for Redmond in the 81st minute a substitution that reduces our threat; indeed rather the opposite. Furthermore, West Ham turning up the pressure in the final moments of a home game is not an unusual phenomenon. Did the substitution cause it or would it have happened anyway? Sometimes what looks obvious is correct, often it is not.

 

[Canary Rob]

The facts are that (1) Redmond was taken off in the 81st minute and (2) after the 81st minute of the game we came under a lot more pressure and conceded two goals.

Corrected that for you - see below for causal fallacy

People are claiming that the former caused the latter.

No, other people are assessing the evidence to suggest whether post hoc ergo propter hoc applies here.

Currently, so far in your favour of a causal fallacy is "he might not have been effective". That's it. I outlined this above so I'm not sure why I have to repeat it again.

I wouldn't normally consider Pilkington for Redmond in the 81st minute a substitution that reduces our threat; indeed rather the opposite.

Seriously, for the last time Robbie, that's not what I've been saying!! I said it reduced our pace up front and allowed West Ham to push forward with less concern!! As they pushed forward, with space in behind we need pace - Pilkington offers a very different threat. I didn't say it reduced our threat. Please stop putting words into my mouth.

Furthermore, West Ham turning up the pressure in the final moments of a home game is not an unusual phenomenon.

True - and I have not denied it. What I have said though is that Redmond's pace would have kept West Ham deeper (on the basis that they were much deeper until he went off) and would therefore have cause us to be under less pressure than we were, even if it were heightened.

AND Redmond's would have allowed us to better counter-attack as West Ham threw everything bar the kitchen sink at us - in precisely the way they got their second goal!!

Sometimes what looks obvious is correct, often it is not.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself here robbie. The truth is that what is obvious is usually correct, though sometimes it is not.


I think you're conflating two weak arguments to get a paper argument here robbie - all the evidence suggests that there is a causal link between Redmond going off and the West Ham playing style.

This has nothing to do with the obvious, the correct, or any other conspiracy theory. Contrarianism and playing Devil's Advocate is helpful, but when it's just blind and pointless it's irritating and bone-headed.