Swiss_tony Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Playing well, looking for a goal and so pearson decides on the remaining two subs in a mustr win game. fair enough. but we score. why didn't he cancel the substitutions and reassess the situation??? was he obliged to go through with them by the rules?? brighton were terriifed of schlupp but he brought him off, don't understand that one. nugent was working hard and on a yellow, i can understand that, and whilst wood is a good replacement, kane is absolutely shocking. so we played the last 15 mins with an innneffective strike force, a right back who had been done for pace over and over by lua lua, and no subs should something have gone wrong, to remedy the situation. i would've cancelled the subs and replaced moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend_in_blue Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 No comment. If I say something the "pro Pearson brigade" will be on my case! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmilner Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 your right , only 99% tho , nuge has been shit for many a game , like today ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 If you try hard enough you can blame Pearson for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acooling08 Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Schlupp was knackered and after a great first half, was being carried a little in the later stages. Nugent was on a booking. By bringing on 2 fresh strikers the idea surely would be to have two fresh players to get the ball up front and hold it. They didn't do badly either. Although I would have done something to help Moore, and would have made the subs seperately to waste more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ealingfox Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Still would have brought Wood on for Schlupp but once the goal went in I'd have told Kane to sit back down, I have to admit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KFS Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Wood for Schlupp was the right move. Knockaert should've come on, not Kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Schlupp was knackered and after a great first half, was being carried a little in the later stages. Nugent was on a booking. By bringing on 2 fresh strikers the idea surely would be to have two fresh players to get the ball up front and hold it. They didn't do badly either. Although I would have done something to help Moore, and would have made the subs seperately to waste more time. The adrenalin boost of scoring would have given Schlupp and Nugent the perfect boost and I'm quite sure they'd have been up for the last 15 minutes after finally securing the vital breakthrough. But no, Pearson didn't even stop to see the reaction and how the goal might have changed energy levels. It made no sense at all to me. Why change something that's working if you don't have to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 6 April 2013 Author Share Posted 6 April 2013 If you try hard enough you can blame Pearson for anything. apparently you can do that just as well with other posters. you attack the OP without making a case, very lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 6 April 2013 Author Share Posted 6 April 2013 Schlupp was knackered and after a great first half, was being carried a little in the later stages. Nugent was on a booking. By bringing on 2 fresh strikers the idea surely would be to have two fresh players to get the ball up front and hold it. They didn't do badly either. Although I would have done something to help Moore, and would have made the subs seperately to waste more time. but why use up your last two subs when winning? stupid in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1984summer Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 did we not draw away against a top six team today? glass half full and all that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acooling08 Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 but why use up your last two subs when winning? stupid in my book. Wastes time and adds fresh legs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADK Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Pearson dosn't know how to use subs properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 apparently you can do that just as well with other posters. you attack the OP without making a case, very lazy. So if Pearson hadn't made those subs and the score was still 1-1 you wouldn't have blamed Pearson for not bringing on a sub? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 Wastes time and adds fresh legs... Not convinced of any merit in the first reason and the fresh legs won't necessarily do what's required. Seventy-five minutes today suggested we were doing exactly that. It's another example of our lack of ruthlessness really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheUltimateWinner Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 did we not draw away against a top six team today? glass half full and all that! And equally did we not just push the tally up to 1 win in 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanSP Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 It's so easy to hate Pearson right now, isn't it? Why can't people just get behind him for once?! We just got a good result against a team we were virtually doomed to lose against given recent form. But no - Pearson must have drilled in to the players how important this game was and it certainly showed full on throughout the match. We were playing some very neat stuff and actually got the basics right for once. I see no-one mentions the fact that RDL was on to bring support to Moore? So to the OP: just cos the last 2 subs weren't brought on to provide more support, he was clearly hoping RDL would provide enough cover for Moore because he'd seen that Lua Lua was dominating him. And if you see who was meant to block Lua Lua's shot, it wasn't Moore... Anyway, the Kane sub criticism I can understand - attacking wise he was fine but didn't do enough to get back and help out the defence when needed. But I can also understand why Pearson brought him on - Nugent was gradually becoming ineffective as the 2nd half went on and was also on a booking. And Schlupp, as effective as he was as the match wore on, he was also tiring. Pearson clearly brought Wood and Kane on to provide some support going forward. Fresh legs and some impetus up front to perhaps get a second and put the game to bed. You have to remember that bringing defenders on invites pressure on to us. Maybe Wellens would have been the better sub? Who knows. What I do know is that there's no way Pearson can get the blame for today. The players played their hearts out and actually looked like wanting to win - the last time that happened was against Cardiff. It's way to easy for people to pin the blame on Pearson and where it would have been fair to do so in recent games, definitely not today. Such heavy criticism of him is unwarranted. Pearson did good today. The players did great. Let's take this as a point forward going in to Friday. Times like this we need to get behind the team and not keep blaming players or managers!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 6 April 2013 Author Share Posted 6 April 2013 So if Pearson hadn't made those subs and the score was still 1-1 you wouldn't have blamed Pearson for not bringing on a sub? why make up a hypothetical situation that didn't happen, and then tell me how i would've behaved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Cash Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 We were winning - Brighton were naturally going to have more of the ball - we would need to apply pressure when they had the ball - Pearson replaces pace forwards with immobile lumps - we conceed - Pearson is a goon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 why make up a hypothetical situation that didn't happen, and then tell me how i would've behaved. Unless we had won, in which case you wouldn't be here, you were always going to blame Pearson one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 6 April 2013 Author Share Posted 6 April 2013 It's so easy to hate Pearson right now, isn't it? Why can't people just get behind him for once?! We just got a good result against a team we were virtually doomed to lose against given recent form. But no - Pearson must have drilled in to the players how important this game was and it certainly showed full on throughout the match. We were playing some very neat stuff and actually got the basics right for once. I see no-one mentions the fact that RDL was on to bring support to Moore? So to the OP: just cos the last 2 subs weren't brought on to provide more support, he was clearly hoping RDL would provide enough cover for Moore because he'd seen that Lua Lua was dominating him. And if you see who was meant to block Lua Lua's shot, it wasn't Moore... Anyway, the Kane sub criticism I can understand - attacking wise he was fine but didn't do enough to get back and help out the defence when needed. But I can also understand why Pearson brought him on - Nugent was gradually becoming ineffective as the 2nd half went on and was also on a booking. And Schlupp, as effective as he was as the match wore on, he was also tiring. Pearson clearly brought Wood and Kane on to provide some support going forward. Fresh legs and some impetus up front to perhaps get a second and put the game to bed. You have to remember that bringing defenders on invites pressure on to us. Maybe Wellens would have been the better sub? Who knows. What I do know is that there's no way Pearson can get the blame for today. The players played their hearts out and actually looked like wanting to win - the last time that happened was against Cardiff. It's way to easy for people to pin the blame on Pearson and where it would have been fair to do so in recent games, definitely not today. Such heavy criticism of him is unwarranted. Pearson did good today. The players did great. Let's take this as a point forward going in to Friday. Times like this we need to get behind the team and not keep blaming players or managers!! you may have missed the part in my post where i said we were playing well and i could understand his desire to win the game, by bringing on 2 forwards. the critiscism is why he continued with the subs AFTER we scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crisp monster Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 As soon as we scored I said cancel substitutions Think we lost 2 points today A good performance though but we should have been out of sight by half time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 6 April 2013 Author Share Posted 6 April 2013 Unless we had won, in which case you wouldn't be here, you were always going to blame Pearson one way or another. and you were always going to criticize the OP for just being anti pearson rather than discussing the facts (especially the first line that said we were playing well and he could undertand the subs at 0-0). is that irony or hypocrisy, can't make up my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corky Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 If Pearson brought on defenders people would accuse him of being too negative (as we've seen before). He brought on two strikers. That, to me, is not a defensive move. He didn't sit back on the lead with his subs. This just smacks of slating Pearson for anything. Blame the fact we didn't put our chances away from the players he originally picked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmilner Posted 6 April 2013 Share Posted 6 April 2013 pearson fkt up putting on kane , i understand nuge (booking after 15 seconds , twat !) and did absolutely nothing productive ! yes top 6 team , so you protect your lead ffs ! playing away not being in form , not scoring , and conceding a late goal again .when do we learn then ? you protect it ! bringing on wood/kane did that did it ? pearson totally fkt up today with his subs , lua lua wasted moore today , anyone with an iota of footy knowledge saw he needed to come off . stop sucking up to something thats not there . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.