Jake Hesketh

[fatletiss]

You're kidding, right? I know you like a good 'debate' but surely you can see this?

Its not a question of hindsight. You're asking someone to be 100% switched on the instant he comes onto the pitch. I'm not suggesting that the goal was his fault but when a sub comes on there is always an element of reorganising, otherwise what is the point.

You don't want to be reorganising when a tricky free-kick is about to be taken.

It's like an old wife's tale. It is just one of those things that people say.... if you're tha attacking team, there is a point about momentum, but not the defending team. Shouldn't been any re-organizing; he just picks up Tadic's tasks. He's not tired. His instructions are fresh in his mind... hey they probably even told him who to go on and mark .... unless it was RVP, he did his job

The ball only goes out of play for a throw-in, a goal-kick, a free kick, corner or a goal. Not much choice.

 

[RLSGM]

yeah, because that's why we conceded that goal.

no, it isn't.. but it's still an old football cliche.. i was clearly not saying that WHY we conceded.. just an old management myth of don't make a sub before defending a set piece, cheer up!

 

[Jose Fonte baby]

If you're bringing on a tall defender, fair enough. But a small midfielder makes the team not as organised - I doubt he's done much man marking along with the first team. Having said that, I don't know if it was his man who scored, but it may have nerved the others who won't know his man marking skills much.

 

[Saint Sosa]

I was at the game and you could see as soon as Hesketh came on he was wandering around the edge of the box asking what to do, which led to them giving him some instructions (stay on the edge of the box). The freekick was taken 10-15 seconds after this which gave our defence plenty of time to get set. I've not watched the game back yet but from what I saw, Forster should 100% claimed that and the fact he didn't is a big worry for me.

Are people really blaming the goal on the fact that we subbed a short attacking midfielder for another short attacking midfielder?

 

[fatletiss]

no, it isn't.. but it's still an old football cliche.. i was clearly not saying that WHY we conceded.. just an old management myth of don't make a sub before defending a set piece, cheer up!

You do realise that I don't think that's why we conceded the goal don't you?

You called it right there.... A myth... And I'm one of the happy ones; I don't need cheering up!

 

[Lff]

It is not a myth. It just doesn't make any tactical sense. Utd had been no kind of goal threat all night (apart from the first goal), defensively we were pretty well organised, so why would you want to change anything just before a free kick?

This is not about hindsight, no one is saying that Hesketh was to blame for the goal but the fact remains that people were having to think about one extra dimension that they didn't need to be thinking about at that time.

Now, if the free kick had been at the other end , then, go ahead and make the substitution. It would have given Utd as the defending team something extra to think about.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

I agree in principle...unless the person you are putting on is a 7 foot genius.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/sa...ball_to_the_Premier_League_in_a_year/?ref=mac

Article about Hesketh from Echo. Apart from the result, what a great night for the lad.

 

[Archers Road]

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that Rooney's delivery for the free kick was majestic. And in Van Persie they have a player who only needs half a chance to punish any defensive lapse. Okay, we conceded a bit of a soft goal there, but it was a brilliantly taken free kick pounced on by one of the world's great strikers.

As for who was at fault defensively, it had nothing to do with any substitution. Forster's positioning has been suspect on more than one occasion, let's be honest. But he can work on that. He proved against Arsenal that as a shot stopper he is second to none.

 

[fatletiss]

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that Rooney's delivery for the free kick was majestic. And in Van Persie they have a player who only needs half a chance to punish any defensive lapse. Okay, we conceded a bit of a soft goal there, but it was a brilliantly taken free kick pounced on by one of the world's great strikers.

As for who was at fault defensively, it had nothing to do with any substitution. Forster's positioning has been suspect on more than one occasion, let's be honest. But he can work on that. He proved against Arsenal that as a shot stopper he is second to none.

The free-kick - Absolutely Archers. People seem to have ignored that mostly.

Fraser also showed at Arsenal that he can come and command crosses, making a few catches.... again that has been forgotten.

 

[Lff]

We all seem to be ignoring the fact that Rooney's delivery for the free kick was majestic. And in Van Persie they have a player who only needs half a chance to punish any defensive lapse. Okay, we conceded a bit of a soft goal there, but it was a brilliantly taken free kick pounced on by one of the world's great strikers.

As for who was at fault defensively, it had nothing to do with any substitution. Forster's positioning has been suspect on more than one occasion, let's be honest. But he can work on that. He proved against Arsenal that as a shot stopper he is second to none.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the goal was the result of the substitution. Its just that, as a general rule, it is not a good idea to make a substitution when there is a bit of serious defending to be done.

 

[Beef]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the goal was the result of the substitution. Its just that, as a general rule, it is not a good idea to make a substitution when there is a bit of serious defending to be done.

What if it was Cork?

 

[SAINTDON13]

What if it was Cork?

I doubt the Referee would have allowed someone on crutches to play, it would have only added to the lack of concentration that the subbing did create.

 

[fatletiss]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the goal was the result of the substitution. Its just that, as a general rule, it is not a good idea to make a substitution when there is a bit of serious defending to be done.

It's codswollop. These are professional sportsmen at the peak of their profession. They are able to come on at any moment. As I said previously, this belief is an old wife's tale that so many people (fans, pundits, players and managers) still like to throw out there.

I'll give you one simple scenario: a player is very tired, having worked his balls off for 70 minutes; he's knackered. The team get a free-kick against them like we did. Who do you want on the pitch to face that free kick - the fit, fresh and focused substitute or the knackered, brain not working at its best, player? What a dangerous thing to do to risk leaving that tired body and mind on to defend that kick.

There is no re-organisation needed. Have you never seen a substitute being shown flip pad images before he comes on? It is common place that they are run through their responsibilities from the player they are about to replace, before coming on. This is a multi million profession, not a park game. We don't send a sub in with a pat on the back saying, "have a good one son," he goes out there prepared.

This is one of the most over-used sayings in football.

 

[tomw24]

I don't think anyone was suggesting that the goal was the result of the substitution. Its just that, as a general rule, it is not a good idea to make a substitution when there is a bit of serious defending to be done.

Why is that? Because you've heard pundits say it? I'm with FLT here.

 

[Lff]

It's codswollop. These are professional sportsmen at the peak of their profession. They are able to come on at any moment. As I said previously, this belief is an old wife's tale that so many people (fans, pundits, players and managers) still like to throw out there.

I'll give you one simple scenario: a player is very tired, having worked his balls off for 70 minutes; he's knackered. The team get a free-kick against them like we did. Who do you want on the pitch to face that free kick - the fit, fresh and focused substitute or the knackered, brain not working at its best, player? What a dangerous thing to do to risk leaving that tired body and mind on to defend that kick.

There is no re-organisation needed. Have you never seen a substitute being shown flip pad images before he comes on? It is common place that they are run through their responsibilities from the player they are about to replace, before coming on. This is a multi million profession, not a park game. We don't send a sub in with a pat on the back saying, "have a good one son," he goes out there prepared.

This is one of the most over-used sayings in football.

Absolutely not codswollop, apart from the scenario you described. But this wasn't such a scenario.

Also, the player coming on gets the flip charts but they don't get the rest of the team over and show them. Invariably, the guy runs on and points all over the place which will give the rest of the team an extra thing to think about when they should be concentrating on the free kick.

I know that you could happily argue all day that black was white, but even you must be able to see the logic in this. There is just possibly a reason that most "fans, pundits, players and managers" think its not the thing to do.

 

[Lff]

Why is that? Because you've heard pundits say it? I'm with FLT here.

More to do with the fact that I have watched, played and coached football for 50 years and it has never seemed a sensible thing to do unless there is a necessary reason to do so. Such as the one described by FLT.

Lets have a poll

 

[SouthamptonFCroatia]

Even if the substitution had something to do with the goal, then it's manager's fault, not Hesketh's.

He showed some neat tuoches, but he's a bit weak, being so young and tender and all that. I think Reed is more ready to play on this level from what I've seen.

 

[fatletiss]

Absolutely not codswollop, apart from the scenario you described. But this wasn't such a scenario.

Also, the player coming on gets the flip charts but they don't get the rest of the team over and show them. Invariably, the guy runs on and points all over the place which will give the rest of the team an extra thing to think about when they should be concentrating on the free kick.

I know that you could happily argue all day that black was white, but even you must be able to see the logic in this. There is just possibly a reason that most "fans, pundits, players and managers" think its not the thing to do.

I will happily argue all day in this because I firmly believe there is no logic in this; none at all in the modern game. The detail and preparation is unparalleled. Come on Lff, the line about 50 years... You didn't even have subs 50 years ago to worry about it! As for the other players coming over to look at the flip pad, that's missing the pint and showing you just don't get the level of detail in he modern game. Why do the other players need to come over? They already know their job and so the only person who needs to see ye flip pads is the person coming on; he is taking on the jobs of only one player; all the other players keep the tasks they already have.

This is a simply just a classic "belief" that has no logic in the modern game. If there is logic in it, when is a good time to make the sub?

 

[Lff]

I will happily argue all day in this because I firmly believe there is no logic in this; none at all in the modern game. The detail and preparation is unparalleled. Come on Lff, the line about 50 years... You didn't even have subs 50 years ago to worry about it! As for the other players coming over to look at the flip pad, that's missing the pint and showing you just don't get the level of detail in he modern game. Why do the other players need to come over? They already know their job and so the only person who needs to see ye flip pads is the person coming on; he is taking on the jobs of only one player; all the other players keep the tasks they already have.

This is a simply just a classic "belief" that has no logic in the modern game. If there is logic in it, when is a good time to make the sub?

As I said, you would debate black is white for ever and a day. How come you are the only person out of all these pundits, fans and managers who knows the truth? Sorry, you and Tom! I have never seen even you champion such a ridiculous cause. Most of what you argue for has at least some sense behind it and I am normally broadly in support.

Have you never watched a sub coming on and pointing to all the other players about whatever change of tactics has been planned? Obviously not. Clearly, you are looking at your own version of your fantasy.

Anyway, to add a bit of reality to this ridiculous debate I have to own up that it is actually all my own fault. I failed to wear my lucky Saints socks, even though they were clean and waiting. I only noticed it today. What can I say!?