Jake Hesketh

IU

LFF - firstly, are you a politician? Both of your replies to me cast a cloud on me personally; this is classic tactics of trying to make out am arguing for the sake of arguing - rather than focus on the points. Then You refer to it as a fantasy, without actually taking on an answer to one of my points. A true sign that you have no real answer..... and guess what, you haven't answered any of my points. You have simply said "everyone else says it, I must be right" - what an excellent and logic stance in a debate.

You have failed to answer my question and so maybe I should politically answer that must be because you don't have an answer. Let's try it again..... When is a good time to make a substitution?

As for players running on and giving instructions, of course I have seen that... Not Hesketh though, he just came on. So he just took on Tadic's responsibilities. Are to going to suggest that the other players stopped doing their jobs while awaiting instruction from the subs? No, didn't think so.

To take your continued stance to the audience of "look FLT is just being argumentative because that is what he does, so no need to answer him," I am debating this because I have conviction in my belief that there is not a reason in the modern game to not make a substitution at any point, UNLESS, you are making lots of tactical changes. It is simply one player taking the previous players responsibilities. As for all the pundits and fans not agreeing with me, that must be proof my belief is wrong eh? Nonsense. Perhaps they believe the world is flat.

I'll say it again clearly so you have no doubt of my point. I believe that with all the detail given to players in the modern game, a player can be brought on at any time to immediately take on the player he has replaced and their responsibilities. Players are prepared so well today that they can go on and pick up that role immediately. They are fresh and focused and have the very first instruction fresh in their minds for the next event, e,g, "mark no. 6 from this free kick". The only time that can possibly give a consideration it he he is going on to change some of the organisation of the team.

Now rather than simply cast dispersions about me, or saying everyone thinks the same as you, so you must be right, why don't you present an alternative reasoned view. That's how a debate works and I alwaysnhad you down as someone who respectfully did that.

 

This forum has got a lot more interesting since we lost a few games, little bit of tension and a bit more fire in its belly, no longer the massive love in we've had for the last few months.

With regard to the substitution debate, Saints were a team defending well so why would you make a change against a team that hadn't caused you a problem all night when they have a set piece that could lead to a goal, for me it was a crazy time to do it and there has to be a chance that it affected the players mentally whether it was reorganising or even if they just switched off thinking **** it Tadic has gone off. I want to make it clear i neither agree or disagree with anything anyone says on here i am just posting my view and in my opinion it was a bad time to make the sub.

 

I didn't mean to make it personal, although you do have a bit of a history of having these protracted debates ( a dog with a bone comes to mind!). Anyway, I think the red wine helped fuel my 'debate'. However the problem with a debate such as this is that each side just goes away and strengthens their own argument based on what the other person just said. This is a recognised philosophical theory (Popper). As such, it is impossible to have any kind of conclusion if one or both sided gets intrenched and 'believes' what they are saying rather than understanding it as the truth.

Hence, I'd given up trying to debate sensibly as I have already said when I would make a substitution in a previous reply. I didn't think it needed repeating. But, to summarise, I would make it when something needed changing. I've already made almost the exact same argument that saintkitch makes above. So I can only repeat that our defence was coping well and that was not the time to make the substitution.

If they had scored from the free kick or if they had failed to score from the free kick, that would have been the time to make the substitution.

To be fair, whilst me and others have stated why we think it wasn't a good time to make the substitution, you haven't really stated why it was.

I am now politely bowing out as i know that nothing I can say will change your opinion. But your opinion is a valid one. You need to get it out there so that all the managers making substitutions based on a fallacy can start making more informed decisions!

 

I have never said it was a good time. I am just saying that the timing of a substitution (as in where the ball is and why the next play is) does not/should not effect the making of a substitution. If the manager wants to make a substitution for tactical/injury/fitness/whatever reason, then make the substitution. The players are professional and can cope.

For the record, if I have a history of being like a dog with a bone, then I am proud I'll always passionately cover a point and you should also have seen that if someone counters my view with a reasoned point, I have been able to say "fair enough, I see that point" however if they don't offer a reasoned explanation, then they'll never be able to change my mind.

I am not one to just say "oh ok" if I don't think a reasoned debate has been offered. I think that's what a debate is about.

Good job I was on the Orange juice and soda water last night!

I'll read back to see when you think a good time to make a change is as I didn't see that.

 

I just want to add here that I enjoy the debating part of the forum and have no problem with people questioning my view. I do however think that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to come back and re-iterate a point or er-question a point if they feel there has been no clarity or closure. Too often people take humbridge when people like me do this.

Debating is healthy. Debating about football is one of the reasons I think we all love the game. No good us all being the same.

 

I think I took debating a bit far on Tuesday.

 

We've had a couple of great debates going on since the Man U game, and as FLT and SaintKitch say they are what this forum is all about. Robust, articulate, and full of passion and intelligent opinions, but without getting personal (mostly). And Tom, you didn't go too far. Even though FLT and I disagreed with you, you fought your corner passionately with resorting to any personal attacks or debating tricks, and I hope we didn't either. As FLT says, we are all different and hold different opinions about all sorts of things, and none of us is necessarily "right" (except maybe Tom about the laws of the game ).

On the substitution timing, I must confess I was in the Lff camp about this, but FLT has made me think. The substitution had to be made, as Tadić was obviously knackered (even though at the time I thought it was Mané who was going off). Did the timing contribute to the goal being scored? No, not at all, on this occasion. So I guess I have moved from a position of "never make a substitution when defending a set piece" to one of "sometimes it doesn't matter, and sometimes it's a good thing, but sometimes it's definitely not a good idea". On Monday, I don't think it made any difference.

 

I am in the half way camp. Only make a substitution when the opposition are in a dangerous position if the sub will improve your position...as I suggested a 7 foot experienced player. Hesketh didn't qualify on either count. However, I don't expect a manager to get everything right.

 

I got slated for saying I would have substituted Wanyama in the Spurs game, because, at the time he was our best player. My reasoning then was that we were losing and not creating chances so taking off a defensive midfielder and bringing on someone more creative would have been a sensible and timely move.

However, I don't think I convinced a single person.

The debate we are having is a tad daft though. You're not actually saying that in this case it was a good idea to make the substitution just that in general defending a free kick shouldn't stop a substitution being made. And I'm saying that I don't think the actual substitution made any difference to the goal being scored but that generally it is not a good idea to make a substitution when defending a free kick.

Quite a lot of hot air considering we actually agree about the specific situation that caused the debate in the first place!

 

I was debating the use and validity of the phrase, not the event on Monday.

Even funnier if we are debating different things!

Gotta love the Internet

 

Ps. There is always grey and a lot of grey, between black and white.

 

50 shades at least.

 

Foreplay is banned

 

This table top managing is a piece of cake, if you get it wrong it doesn't matter an iota.