Whilst I wouldn't disagree with Munky about the positive intent, it certainly backfired. I felt we were more likely to equalise at that stage by carrying on as we were. I was high up in the North Bank, and the natives were certainly restless towards the end of the first half, and the beginning of the second. 2-0 flattered them when it came, and at 2-1 I could see us getting level. After the substitution, it was one way traffic, and I was praying for the whistle because they were running riot. Overall assessment was still so positive. I was so proud of some of our play and the remarks of the gooners around me saying we were all over them was music to my ears. Hats off to the travelling Canaries who were seated at polar opposite from me. I looked down with an almost fatherly glow as they cheered our boys on. We will definately kick on from here.
CH tried to make a bold move in bringing Tettey off for Wes and it totally back fired. As much as I hate to say it it does seem like he is slightly swayed by the fans opinion about being more attacking and taking Tettey off clearly alter the control of the game, there just wasn't enough bite in midfield. Wes for Howson would have been the better option because Howson had run his socks off and looked a bit shaken early on. Wes is a totally different player to Jonny so it wouldn't have been too like for like. Oh well, I still back Hughton to pull it out against Cardiff and the rest, our Home form was pretty imperious last season, no reason it can't continue this time around!
There are two different questions Munky: (1) whether bringing Wes on increased our chances of scoring; (2) whether bringing Wes on and removing Tettey increased our chances of losing the game rather than drawing or winning it. I have no particular view about the first. But IMO the answer to the second is definitely "Yes", it made it more likely that we would lose than draw or win. The reason I "argue the toss to the nth degree" as you put it, is that I think people often form their assessments of games, managerial decisions etc. based on the wrong sorts of consideration. When people say things like "it was a brave decision", or "it was a gamble", they are not thinking about what really matters. What sort of brave decision or gamble is it that actually serves to increase the chance of it not succeeding? If you buy 100 lottery tickets rather than just one, at least you increase your chance of winning 100-fold; you don't increase your chance of losing, though you stand to lose £100 not just £1. Anyway, I get the message. Enough is enough!
