Page 1 of 2
Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:24 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
Just walked home pondering what we could have done there different.
The subs absolutely killed the game. Especially sticking the angry side show Bob on the right wing. He’s never a right winger. I’m in two minds if he’s a footballer or just someone who likes to give stupid free kicks away.
Not too disappointed with the result as we were by far the stronger team in shocking conditions . But we lack a creative spark (benson esc) to trouble teams coming off the bench. Fleming isn’t a striker. Completely disjointed after a really good 60-70 mins on top.
Another 2 points dropped in my eyes but we keep moving forward .
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:27 pm
by BurnleyFC
They did - Hannibal was awful and Flemming put more effort in berating the pitch invader than he did trying to play football - but I was happy with a point given the worsening conditions in the second half. First half we created lots of decent chances.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:28 pm
by ElectroClaret
The poor final balls from several players cost us the game, opting to shoot rather than pass to a teammate in a better position.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:29 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
ElectroClaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:28 pm
The poor final balls from several players cost us the game, opting to shoot rather than pass to a teammate in a better position.
That also. But we were way on top most of the game there. More positives than negatives.
Why don’t our strikers play on the shoulder either?? Winds me up. 2 or 3 times we would have been in if someone gambled
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:37 pm
by Goliath
No surprise that we lost all initiative when we took our only striker off along with our only creative threat (although he was injured)
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:39 pm
by Dark Cloud
Parker is usually pretty good with his substitutions, but today he was way off it. They definitely took away our momentum.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:43 pm
by randomclaret2
I mentioned it on the Hannibal thread, but Parker's options to change things up creatively wouldnt half be improved if he had Foster, Redmond, Tresor, Benson and Ramsey available...
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:43 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
Just imagine a nippy striker who plays on the shoulder in those conditions.
need to find one in the window to push for promotion.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:44 pm
by Vegas Claret
Taking Sarmiento off was an awful decision and it looked like he told Parker exactly that. Brilliant first hall, crap second.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:44 pm
by dermotdermot
Totally agree.Terrible substitutions. Lucky to get a point.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:48 pm
by Ampth7
Somewhat lucky to get a point in the end because they had some real chances second half as we seemed to lose our way and intensity.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:50 pm
by Stayingup
Vegas Claret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:44 pm
Taking Sarmiento off was an awful decision and it looked like he told Parker exactly that. Brilliant first hall, crap second.
Unless he was injured yes taking off our best player Sarmiento seemed a ludicrous decision.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:51 pm
by xxmunkyennuixx
They were running through the centre of our midfield on the counter. Luca was being thick with the ball in our own half. We were playing ourselves into trouble. The subs were largely pragmatic. Laurent was called right. He was decent. Jay's legs had gone so no choice but Flemming. Blame our owners for that ****. Pires created when coming on and bizarrely Doak was less involved. The issue then lies with Hannibal who is always playing out of position. He's a centre midfielder. I would have been tempted to swap Browny wide and sit Hannibal in CM.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:55 pm
by Vegas Claret
Stayingup wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:50 pm
Unless he was injured yes taking off our best player Sarmiento seemed a ludicrous decision.
I thought he might have been but the conversation between the two of them and Sarmiento throwing his arms about looked like he agreed with everyone in the crowd. Dreadful decision, they couldn't live with him.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:58 pm
by mybloodisclaret
Sarmiento was definitely injured. Limped for the last 5 mins he was on. Redmond would have been an ideal replacement if / when fit.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:59 pm
by Vegas Claret
mybloodisclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:58 pm
Sarmiento was definitely injured. Limped for the last 5 mins he was on. Redmond would have been an ideal replacement if / when fit.
He deffo got a kick but his reaction didn't match that, weird one - agree totally about Redmond though
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:03 pm
by warksclaret
Disagree though I may have considered Koleosho coming off first and Sarmiento going in his place. Jay did nothing and should have been off at Half time. Egan got injured and Laurent added some stability. Koleosho was giving the ball away too much. Having said that Pires played well
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:03 pm
by Sheedyclaret
blatherwickstattoos wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:43 pm
Just imagine a nippy striker who plays on the shoulder in those conditions.
need to find one in the window to push for promotion.
And then what get relegated again shudder at the thought of this team in the premier league
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:04 pm
by beddie
The conditions didn’t help but to be honest I thought we got lucky, second half they had three really good chances and should have scored at least two of them. In the short time he was on the pitch Latte Lath looks exactly what we’re short of.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:05 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
Sheedyclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:03 pm
And then what get relegated again shudder at the thought of this team in the premier league
Facts hahaha.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:12 pm
by jlup1980
Should have been Laurent for Sarmiento if he was crocked. Hannibal was the wrong choice.
Similarly, it should have been Hountondji for Jay. Flemming isn't striker and doesn't look close to the level required.
Pires should have come on for Koleosho as well, IMO. There was no need to change the CB's over. Just try Pires on the LW for 10 minutes, see what happens. He produced more from full back in his cameo than Luca did from the wing all night!
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:14 pm
by Georgiaclaret
Absolutely agree with previous posters. Surely Sarmiento had to stay on the pitch. Koleosho was the one to make way. Sarmiento out wide, Flemming, Jay, and Anthony. One of Cullen/Brownhill for Laurent. Just can’t believe Scott didn’t see it like we do.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:18 pm
by boatshed bill
How did the subs manage to cost s a game? We didn't lose it.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:19 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
boatshed bill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:18 pm
How did the subs manage to cost s a game? We didn't lose it.
Cost us the win * edit
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:21 pm
by boatshed bill
Draw was a fair result. Simple as that.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:24 pm
by Burnleyareback2
That was the best did we have played at home this season and we were the better team.
The best I have seen us play this season.
Take and move on.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:26 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
boatshed bill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:21 pm
Draw was a fair result. Simple as that.
I agree but think with a little bit more creativity off the bench they were there for the taking.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:27 pm
by Hbclaret007
Georgiaclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:14 pm
Absolutely agree with previous posters. Surely Sarmiento had to stay on the pitch. Koleosho was the one to make way. Sarmiento out wide, Flemming, Jay, and Anthony. One of Cullen/Brownhill for Laurent. Just can’t believe Scott didn’t see it like we do.
That's why we are all managers and he isn't.
Oh wait a minute
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:29 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
Hbclaret007 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:27 pm
That's why we are all managers and he isn't.
Oh wait a minute
Can’t fault him so far this season really with the hand he’s been dealt and the injuries… but to put hanibal on the right wing was a mistake. No getting away from that
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:29 pm
by DCWat
The use of Hannibal, before tonight, baffles me. Tonight was just bizarre, moving him out to the wing. For me, he must be played further back. He’s reasonably technical, but doesn't seem to me to have the nouse for a more advanced midfield role.
If Sarmiento was injured, it left Parker with a bit of a quandary. If he wasn’t and it was a tactical change, it was a mistake.
Koleosho was on one of his properly frustrating to watch evenings. Only once did he go on the outside of their winger (second half, won a corner). In the first half, he was constantly coming inside and running into trouble - so frustrating when there’s acres of grass for him to run into, if he goes on the outside.
He had to be hooked after that period in the second half when he was defending and gave them the ball back four times in quick succession, instead of taking a safer option.
All in all, we will hopefully look back on this as a good point earned.
Must admit, I was surprised to see Worrall and Ekdal on the bench and no Redmond (unless he’s had a bit of a setback)?
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:36 pm
by claretspice
Unless Sarmiento was injured taking him off was an odd call. He was more effective than either winger (although I thought Koleosho was more effective than Anthony tonight) and those first two changes didn't work.
Jay was ineffective but was also increasingly isolated as the weather pinned us back. The reluctance to use Flemming in his preferred number 10 role is curious - given conditions, his physicality would have seemed we suited in that role to conditions and I thought bringing him on to play that role with Jay, with Sarmiento replacing either winger, would've been worth 15 minutes.
In fairness, the second set of changes did improve us although Hannibal is clearly not a right winger.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:37 pm
by ClaretPete001
After half time, the game began to runaway from us Boro had several good chances and and he had to make substitutions.
We ended the game more strongly than they did but if you miss so many chances you aren't going to win games. So, many players are snatching at shots in the final third and choosing the wrong options when others are free in the box it's hard to blame anyone but the players.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:38 pm
by claretspice
DCWat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:29 pm
The use of Hannibal, before tonight, baffles me. Tonight was just bizarre, moving him out to the wing. For me, he must be played further back. He’s reasonably technical, but doesn't seem to me to have the nouse for a more advanced midfield role.
If Sarmiento was injured, it left Parker with a bit of a quandary. If he wasn’t and it was a tactical change, it was a mistake.
Koleosho was on one of his properly frustrating to watch evenings. Only once did he go on the outside of their winger (second half, won a corner). In the first half, he was constantly coming inside and running into trouble - so frustrating when there’s acres of grass for him to run into, if he goes on the outside.
He had to be hooked after that period in the second half when he was defending and gave them the ball back four times in quick succession, instead of taking a safer option.
All in all, we will hopefully look back on this as a good point earned.
Must admit, I was surprised to see Worrall and Ekdal on the bench and no Redmond (unless he’s had a bit of a setback)?
Not sure that's fair of Koleosho. They doubled up and denied him space outside and I didn't think Humphrys took defenders away from him. Anthony did have space but didn't greatly use it.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 pm
by DCWat
In the first half there were numerous times that he had huge swathes of grass to run into on the outside, he didn’t once take that option, instead coming inside and running into trouble.
If he’s doubled up on and that option isn’t available, fair enough, but when the option is available, he needs to start taking it occasionally.
It becomes too predictable and makes the full back’s job easier.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:48 pm
by claretspice
DCWat wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:46 pm
In the first half there were numerous times that he had huge swathes of grass to run into on the outside, he didn’t once take that option, instead coming inside and running into trouble.
If he’s doubled up on and that option isn’t available, fair enough, but when the option is available, he needs to start taking it occasionally.
It becomes too predictable and makes the full back’s job easier.
It's a blind alley when there's two men inviting him to go that way though, which there were, and the left back wasn't underlapping or positioning himself to draw one away. He's quick but he'd have to be an Olympic sprinter to get round the outside in that situation.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:50 pm
by Goalposts
blatherwickstattoos wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 10:24 pm
Just walked home pondering what we could have done there different.
The subs absolutely killed the game. Especially sticking the angry side show Bob on the right wing. He’s never a right winger. I’m in two minds if he’s a footballer or just someone who likes to give stupid free kicks away.
Not too disappointed with the result as we were by far the stronger team in shocking conditions . But we lack a creative spark (benson esc) to trouble teams coming off the bench. Fleming isn’t a striker. Completely disjointed after a really good 60-70 mins on top.
Another 2 points dropped in my eyes but we keep moving forward .
Utter ********
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:51 pm
by helmclaret
claretspice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:36 pm
Unless Sarmiento was injured taking him off was an odd call. He was more effective than either winger (although I thought Koleosho was more effective than Anthony tonight) and those first two changes didn't work.
Jay was ineffective but was also increasingly isolated as the weather pinned us back. The reluctance to use Flemming in his preferred number 10 role is curious - given conditions, his physicality would have seemed we suited in that role to conditions and I thought bringing him on to play that role with Jay, with Sarmiento replacing either winger, would've been worth 15 minutes.
In fairness, the second set of changes did improve us although Hannibal is clearly not a right winger.
All this talk about Flemming being a number 10. What type of number 10? He doesn’t drop into the hole and link the play. He doesn’t drop in a switch the play. He doesn’t drop in and turn.
No idea what he’s going to offer to this set up.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:54 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
Goalposts wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:50 pm
Utter ********
So you’re happy with Hannibal out wide ? Fair play mate.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:55 pm
by blatherwickstattoos
helmclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:51 pm
All this talk about Flemming being a number 10. What type of number 10? He doesn’t drop into the hole and link the play. He doesn’t drop in a switch the play. He doesn’t drop in and turn.
No idea what he’s going to offer to this set up.
Luckily he’s only on loan ( I hope)
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:03 am
by DCWat
claretspice wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:48 pm
It's a blind alley when there's two men inviting him to go that way though, which there were, and the left back wasn't underlapping or positioning himself to draw one away. He's quick but he'd have to be an Olympic sprinter to get round the outside in that situation.
I have to disagree, Spice.
There were, in the first half, occasions where he had opportunity to take the full back on the outside - unless their full back himself was on Olympic sprinter, there was no reason that he couldn’t have taken that option, when presented, rather than bringing the ball back inside to where it was congested.
It’s not a blind alley if you’ve a clear run to the byline by taking on the full back. It’s a blinder alley coming inside to an area that’s more congested.
He has both the pace and the trickery to take that option more regularly than he does, and by doing so, it sows that seed of doubt into the fullbacks mind.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:24 am
by 123EasyasBFC
Can’t believe the stick Flemming is getting, he was much more affective tonight in his 30 minutes than Jay Rod, for me this game always suited Flemming up top rather than Jay
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 1:01 am
by Cirrus_Minor
I can only think that Sarmiento was injured because he was causing Middlesbrough alsorts of problems in the first half.
Not really surprised Koleosho was eventually hooked, as I said on his thread, the lad has oodles of talent but is like an uncontrolled bottle of pop, really needs a decent one-to-one coach to get his talents optimised for this level.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 5:27 am
by MG70
Sheedyclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:03 pm
And then what get relegated again shudder at the thought of this team in the premier league
That’s the spirit
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 6:12 am
by Clive 1960
Burnleyareback2 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:24 pm
That was the best did we have played at home this season and we were the better team.
The best I have seen us play this season.
Take and move on.
Think we were better in first half the way we reacted to going behind but second half they pushed on a little more and just shaded it and could have won with chances they created but fair result in awful conditions..
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 6:54 am
by Sproggy
They had 3 absolute sitters in the 2nd half. The subs were made to try and shore things up a bit but we could have been 3-1 down before any of them were made.
Happy to come away with a point, just need to win on Tuesday.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 7:19 am
by Woodleyclaret
Another 2 points lost but conditions were absolutely shite. Lauren should have started after his mom performance at Stoke.But why do we insist on playing down the left? Antony was in acres of space unmarked wide right and yet consistently ignored.A box finisher in January is an absolute must though.Again too many passes outside the box when attacking and it took a full back to show the rest how it's done. Great goal but, sorry Connor the dodgy car salesman look does nothing for you.
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:16 am
by 123EasyasBFC
helmclaret wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:51 pm
All this talk about Flemming being a number 10. What type of number 10? He doesn’t drop into the hole and link the play. He doesn’t drop in a switch the play. He doesn’t drop in and turn.
No idea what he’s going to offer to this set up.
When he came on last night Flemming should plenty of linking the play, slightly over hit pass that nearly played Laurent in, him and brownhill had a nice link up that greeted a chance.
Against stoke Flemming dropped in switched the play to Anthony who played the ball into the box that resulted in us winning a pen
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:17 am
by The Shire Claret
Just wait till our Subs also have Redmond and Benson
Tonight we didn’t have the backup to make a creative difference but SP needed to take the players off that he did cause they were either dead on their feet of injured
Having to juggle the back line and put Hannibal on the left worried me but happy with a point
3 points on Tuesday
UTC
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:18 am
by 123EasyasBFC
I can’t get behind the subs costing us the game, until the subs we were second best in the second half and Boro should have been 3-1 up. 3 then had 2 massive chances to play Anthony and brownhill in and didn’t both times, I think people are clutching for something to moan about Parker because we didn’t win
Re: Subs cost us that game
Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2024 8:47 am
by claretspice
DCWat wrote: ↑Sat Dec 07, 2024 12:03 am
I have to disagree, Spice.
There were, in the first half, occasions where he had opportunity to take the full back on the outside - unless their full back himself was on Olympic sprinter, there was no reason that he couldn’t have taken that option, when presented, rather than bringing the ball back inside to where it was congested.
It’s not a blind alley if you’ve a clear run to the byline by taking on the full back. It’s a blinder alley coming inside to an area that’s more congested.
He has both the pace and the trickery to take that option more regularly than he does, and by doing so, it sows that seed of doubt into the fullbacks mind.
Each to their own opinion. But Dijksteel is very quick, and he was dropping off slightly with Barlaser engaging Koleosho. That gave Dijksteel a head start if Koleosho went outside. He did a couple of times in the first half and he won a corner and a throw. But we didn't help him enough by dragging Barlaser away from him. In the end Koleosho tended to try coming inside because if he beat Barlaser he was running into space and towards team mates.
He didn't have a good game but he wasn't awful either.
need to find one in the window to push for promotion.
