Poll Manager Poll

[simo]

You're right in that what you can't necessarily do is say you scored or conceded a goal for one single reason. A goal might be the result of 10 different things: the manager's tactics, a substitution, a player's decision, an individual mistake, the opposition's quality, a deflection, a refereeing decision, etc.

That's why I think there's a bit of a post-hoc fallacy in the obsession with substitutions. If a manager makes a sub and we concede 10 minutes later, that doesn't automatically mean the sub caused us to concede. The fact that it happened afterwards isn't evidence that it was the cause. And the same applies when a sub is made and we score shortly afterwards. We don't necessarily say "brilliant substitution!" simply because the goal came after it.

What we can say is factually the substitutes were made and we went from a winning to a losing position.

We can also say subjectively that the team looked materially weaker after the substitutions.

We can also say subjectively that this isn’t the first time it’s happened, far from it.

Acknowledging that subjective opinions are exactly what they say they are - subjective - we can say factually that our results since January have been fucking dreadful.

 

[JK]

What we can say is factually the substitutes were made and we went from a winning to a losing position.

We can also say subjectively that the team looked materially weaker after the substitutions.

We can also say subjectively that this isn’t the first time it’s happened, far from it.

Acknowledging that subjective opinions are exactly what they say they are - subjective - we can say factually that our results since January have been fucking dreadful.

When this is compared to an opposition manager making changes or tactical tweaks is is startling.

This has been a pattern as long as he has been here, it isnt just a case of replacing tired legs, he starts moving players about and putting sqaure pegs in round holes.

He says in his interview that "those up stairs asked how the hell did you lose that" well it was bloody obvious.

 

[JK]

When this is compared to an opposition manager making changes or tactical tweaks is is startling.

This has been a pattern as long as he has been here, it isnt just a case of replacing tired legs, he starts moving players about and putting sqaure pegs in round holes.

He says in his interview that "those up stairs asked how the hell did you lose that" well it was bloody obvious.

Go on the @Doyler instead of the laughing response why not reply with a constructive, balanced, factual post to prove me wrong.

Then again that isn't your style, a patronising & vague smart arse reply will just have to do.

 

[Doyler]

Go on the @Doyler instead of the laughing response why not reply with a constructive, balanced, factual post to prove me wrong.

Then again that isn't your style, a patronising & vague smart arse reply will just have to do.

Why don't you show off your expertise to talk us through the exact tactical tweaks that Watford made which we supposedly couldn't deal with? Or is it yet more outcome-driven guff which you only seem to post with the benefit of hindsight?

 

[proton]

Go on the @Doyler instead of the laughing response why not reply with a constructive, balanced, factual post to prove me wrong.

Then again that isn't your style, a patronising & vague smart arse reply will just have to do.

Completely wasting your time JK, just accept you're part of "the mass" and know your place.

 

[JK]

Why don't you show off your expertise to talk us through the exact tactical tweaks that Watford made which we supposedly couldn't deal with? Or is it yet more outcome-driven guff which you only seem to post with the benefit of hindsight?

Fair enough, you asked for the tactical changes, so here they are.

The irony is that Heckingbottom's starting plan worked. We were comfortably the better side in the first half.

Then Watford changed the game.

At half-time Dionisi made three attacking substitutions, bringing on Maamma, Bravo and Mavididi. On 61 minutes he added Zemura.

From there:

62: Maamma attacks Vukcevic, who fouls him and is booked.
64: Zemura gets forward and wins a free-kick.
67: Bravo wins another attacking free-kick, Gibson booked.
69: Maamma, now switched to the left, beats his man and crosses for Kayembe to equalise.
74: Zemura crosses for another Kayembe chance.
76: Bravo attacks from the other side and crosses for Doumbia to score the winner.

That's the tactical change.

Watford introduced pace and width, started switching the point of attack and suddenly our wing-backs and outside centre-backs were being dragged into fouls and one-v-ones. Both goals came directly from half-time substitutes.

What was Heckingbottom's answer?

Burgzorg and Mills on 66, although Vukcevic was struggling physically, then Erabi and Gibbs at 75. A minute later Bravo creates the winner. Small arrives at 82 when we're already losing.

And this isn't some isolated bit of "hindsight".

These are just what come to mind.

Hull: Hirakawa comes on and almost immediately creates McBurnie's goal.

Watford at Deepdale: Baah comes on at half-time and Watford turn 1-0 down into 2-1 up. To be fair, Heckingbottom then gets one right himself, with Osmajic coming on and equalising.

Blackburn: Ohashi comes on after 68 minutes and scores the 95th-minute winner.

Wolves: Armstrong and Doyle both come on at 67. Armstrong scores four minutes later and Doyle is then involved in their third.

Charlton: Alli comes on at half-time and assists the only goal 11 minutes later. Our first changes aren't until 70.

Then last night, three half-time substitutions and two of them directly create the comeback goals.

That's my point. I'm not claiming every defeat is caused by substitutions or that Heckingbottom never gets one right.
I'm saying there is a clear, repeated pattern of opposition managers changing games against us while our response is too slow or ineffective.

So if the argument is that Heckingbottom is some sort of tactical mastermind, rather than laughing at those questioning him, show me the evidence.

Because last night certainly isn't it.?

 

[Doyler]

Fair enough, you asked for the tactical changes, so here they are.

The irony is that Heckingbottom's starting plan worked. We were comfortably the better side in the first half.

Then Watford changed the game.

At half-time Dionisi made three attacking substitutions, bringing on Maamma, Bravo and Mavididi. On 61 minutes he added Zemura.

From there:

62: Maamma attacks Vukcevic, who fouls him and is booked.
64: Zemura gets forward and wins a free-kick.
67: Bravo wins another attacking free-kick, Gibson booked.
69: Maamma, now switched to the left, beats his man and crosses for Kayembe to equalise.
74: Zemura crosses for another Kayembe chance.
76: Bravo attacks from the other side and crosses for Doumbia to score the winner.

That's the tactical change.

Watford changed from playing with a #6 to playing with a #10. We dealt with this very well, until their shambles of a first goal, for which Devine should be credited with the assist. They made like-for-like subs, bringing on faster, better players. They are better players, so would have an impact. Them having an impact on the game does not mean PH 'got it wrong'. This is a championship game, against a team with quality attacking players. After such a poor first half, they were always going to come out and play more direct, which they did.

Watford introduced pace and width, started switching the point of attack and suddenly our wing-backs and outside centre-backs were being dragged into fouls and one-v-ones. Both goals came directly from half-time substitutes.

Our defenders were all defending 1v1 in the first half too, successfully. They brought on better players, including Maama who was running Vuk ragged, hence why we moved Offiah (our best 1v1 defender by some distance) over to the left. After that, Maama did very little on that side. You would still expect Clarke to defend better against him for the goal.

Blackburn: Ohashi comes on after 68 minutes and scores the 95th-minute winner.

The smallest player having a free header in the box isn't an example of a substitution changing the complexion of the game. Because that's an assumption that a player who was subbed off couldn't have done that. If Ohashi came on as part of a tactical overhaul and completely mugged us off, you'd have a point.

Wolves: Armstrong and Doyle both come on at 67. Armstrong scores four minutes later and Doyle is then involved in their third.

Armstrong with premier league experience and 80+ goals at this level is always more likely to have an impact off the bench than someone like Burgzorg, Erabi, or George Gryba. You're not comparing like for like because every player is different. That's a squad issue.

Then last night, three half-time substitutions and two of them directly create the comeback goals.

But that's because they're good players. Very talented attackers. You can't compare the impact substitutes have on games when the players you're comparing are of different levels.

 

[Realistic]

Fair enough, you asked for the tactical changes, so here they are.

The irony is that Heckingbottom's starting plan worked. We were comfortably the better side in the first half.

Then Watford changed the game.

At half-time Dionisi made three attacking substitutions, bringing on Maamma, Bravo and Mavididi. On 61 minutes he added Zemura.

From there:

62: Maamma attacks Vukcevic, who fouls him and is booked.
64: Zemura gets forward and wins a free-kick.
67: Bravo wins another attacking free-kick, Gibson booked.
69: Maamma, now switched to the left, beats his man and crosses for Kayembe to equalise.
74: Zemura crosses for another Kayembe chance.
76: Bravo attacks from the other side and crosses for Doumbia to score the winner.

That's the tactical change.

Watford introduced pace and width, started switching the point of attack and suddenly our wing-backs and outside centre-backs were being dragged into fouls and one-v-ones. Both goals came directly from half-time substitutes.

What was Heckingbottom's answer?

Burgzorg and Mills on 66, although Vukcevic was struggling physically, then Erabi and Gibbs at 75. A minute later Bravo creates the winner. Small arrives at 82 when we're already losing.

And this isn't some isolated bit of "hindsight".

These are just what come to mind.

Hull: Hirakawa comes on and almost immediately creates McBurnie's goal.

Watford at Deepdale: Baah comes on at half-time and Watford turn 1-0 down into 2-1 up. To be fair, Heckingbottom then gets one right himself, with Osmajic coming on and equalising.

Blackburn: Ohashi comes on after 68 minutes and scores the 95th-minute winner.

Wolves: Armstrong and Doyle both come on at 67. Armstrong scores four minutes later and Doyle is then involved in their third.

Charlton: Alli comes on at half-time and assists the only goal 11 minutes later. Our first changes aren't until 70.

Then last night, three half-time substitutions and two of them directly create the comeback goals.

That's my point. I'm not claiming every defeat is caused by substitutions or that Heckingbottom never gets one right.
I'm saying there is a clear, repeated pattern of opposition managers changing games against us while our response is too slow or ineffective.

So if the argument is that Heckingbottom is some sort of tactical mastermind, rather than laughing at those questioning him, show me the evidence.

Because last night certainly isn't it.?

Very good effort that ! But I think Doyler counter attacks it nicely, personally.

 

[Walton]

Watford changed from playing with a #6 to playing with a #10. We dealt with this very well, until their shambles of a first goal, for which Devine should be credited with the assist. They made like-for-like subs, bringing on faster, better players. They are better players, so would have an impact. Them having an impact on the game does not mean PH 'got it wrong'. This is a championship game, against a team with quality attacking players. After such a poor first half, they were always going to come out and play more direct, which they did.



Our defenders were all defending 1v1 in the first half too, successfully. They brought on better players, including Maama who was running Vuk ragged, hence why we moved Offiah (our best 1v1 defender by some distance) over to the left. After that, Maama did very little on that side. You would still expect Clarke to defend better against him for the goal.



The smallest player having a free header in the box isn't an example of a substitution changing the complexion of the game. Because that's an assumption that a player who was subbed off couldn't have done that. If Ohashi came on as part of a tactical overhaul and completely mugged us off, you'd have a point.



Armstrong with premier league experience and 80+ goals at this level is always more likely to have an impact off the bench than someone like Burgzorg, Erabi, or George Gryba. You're not comparing like for like because every player is different. That's a squad issue.



But that's because they're good players. Very talented attackers. You can't compare the impact substitutes have on games when the players you're comparing are of different levels.

So are you saying that their manager is much better than ours as he was the one who spotted how to make the changes to improve their chances.
Our manager is sub standard as when he tried to compensate he just made things worse.

Our players are sub standard to Watford's anyway.
Which would mean they are sub standard to most other clubs because we haven't won over many other teams anyway.

Which leaves me thinking that you feel that Heckingbottom has no input on recruitment, planning or tactics, or he is shite at them all.

Or, you are just making excuses for someone who has had two years to put a team together.

Or you are just looking for an argument. ?

 

[Realistic]

Or you are just looking for an argument. ?

No, that's me.

 

[JK]

Watford changed from playing with a #6 to playing with a #10. We dealt with this very well, until their shambles of a first goal, for which Devine should be credited with the assist. They made like-for-like subs, bringing on faster, better players. They are better players, so would have an impact. Them having an impact on the game does not mean PH 'got it wrong'. This is a championship game, against a team with quality attacking players. After such a poor first half, they were always going to come out and play more direct, which they did.



Our defenders were all defending 1v1 in the first half too, successfully. They brought on better players, including Maama who was running Vuk ragged, hence why we moved Offiah (our best 1v1 defender by some distance) over to the left. After that, Maama did very little on that side. You would still expect Clarke to defend better against him for the goal.



The smallest player having a free header in the box isn't an example of a substitution changing the complexion of the game. Because that's an assumption that a player who was subbed off couldn't have done that. If Ohashi came on as part of a tactical overhaul and completely mugged us off, you'd have a point.



Armstrong with premier league experience and 80+ goals at this level is always more likely to have an impact off the bench than someone like Burgzorg, Erabi, or George Gryba. You're not comparing like for like because every player is different. That's a squad issue.



But that's because they're good players. Very talented attackers. You can't compare the impact substitutes have on games when the players you're comparing are of different levels.

This is where your argument becomes impossible to challenge, because Heckingbottom apparently can't be responsible for anything.

If an opposition substitute changes the game, it's because he's a better player. If we don't respond, it's a squad issue. If they score, it's an individual defensive mistake. If the opposition alters how they're playing, they were apparently "always going to".

So what exactly is our manager responsible for?

Watford weren't dealing from a position of enormous strength either. They had only eight substitutes, two of them goalkeepers, several players missing and others being managed because they weren't fully fit. Dionisi specifically discussed fitness issues around Traore, Zemura, Payero, Maamma and Bravo.

Despite that, his changes altered the game.

They went from being comprehensively second best to playing with far more pace, width and directness. Maamma switched sides, they started attacking our outside defenders much more aggressively and the players introduced by Dionisi were directly involved in both goals.

Calling those changes "like-for-like" misses the point. A substitution doesn't need to change the formation to change the game. Different pace, movement, positioning and instructions create different problems.

Of course Clarke should defend better and there was fortune involved in the equaliser. Nobody is claiming Heckingbottom personally caused individual mistakes.

The criticism is that we were controlling the game, Watford changed it and Heckingbottom couldn't change it back.

It's the same argument whenever opposition substitutions hurt us. Blackburn, Wolves, Charlton, Watford and others. Every time, apparently it's because they've got better players.

Yet when our substitutes repeatedly have little impact, that's apparently because Heckingbottom hasn't got good enough players.

You can't have it both ways.

Player quality obviously matters, but managing the players available, recognising when a game is changing and finding a response is literally part of the manager's job.

An injury-hit Watford side did that better than us last night.

That's the point. Not that Heckingbottom is responsible for every misplaced pass or missed tackle, but that once again the opposition manager affected the game more effectively than ours did.

 

[mells bells]

You can analyse all you like. That interview after the game by Heckybollox had the tone of a clueless broken man.

 

[simo]

Fundamentally, whether he’s doing well with the resources at his disposal or not (I know what I think but I’m no eminent tactico so my opinion doesn’t count for much) the FACT is that over a long period, or at least 9 months (more like 18 months in my opinion but, again, give that the weight you think it deserves) results are awful. That can’t be argued.

As it stands we are in serious danger of sinking into a swamp we stand no chance of getting out of. That is FACT.

My opinion is that Heckingbottom doesn’t have the ability to build a good enough team out of the players he has. We just aren’t seeing any signs of progress in the only columns that really matters - points.

The only significant change we can make between now and January is to change the management team.

Someone else might not do better, they may do worse. But that’s no argument to stick as we are. We’re fucked as we are. Does it matter whether we get 30 points or 20? The end result is the same.

It’s a complete no brainer.

 

[Rankine]

Jeez.

What are they waiting for!

Refresh
Refresh
Refresh.

£££££££

 

[Duncan Iceglide]

Anyone got any word on if they are even considering getting rid?

We’re in transition.

Who’s in charge of the sacking? 🤷🏼‍♂️
Will Ridsdale sack himself? 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[simo]

We’re in transition.

Who’s in charge of the sacking? 🤷🏼‍♂️
Will Ridsdale sack himself? 🤷🏼‍♂️

Seems likely such a decision would have a material impact on the business the prospective new owner intends to buy.

No way it happens without whoever in the IOM has the final sign-off on negotiations approving. This means Revitt most likely.

 

[Doyler]

This is where your argument becomes impossible to challenge, because Heckingbottom apparently can't be responsible for anything.

If an opposition substitute changes the game, it's because he's a better player. If we don't respond, it's a squad issue. If they score, it's an individual defensive mistake. If the opposition alters how they're playing, they were apparently "always going to".

So what exactly is our manager responsible for?

Watford weren't dealing from a position of enormous strength either. They had only eight substitutes, two of them goalkeepers, several players missing and others being managed because they weren't fully fit. Dionisi specifically discussed fitness issues around Traore, Zemura, Payero, Maamma and Bravo.

Despite that, his changes altered the game.

They went from being comprehensively second best to playing with far more pace, width and directness. Maamma switched sides, they started attacking our outside defenders much more aggressively and the players introduced by Dionisi were directly involved in both goals.

Calling those changes "like-for-like" misses the point. A substitution doesn't need to change the formation to change the game. Different pace, movement, positioning and instructions create different problems.

Of course Clarke should defend better and there was fortune involved in the equaliser. Nobody is claiming Heckingbottom personally caused individual mistakes.

The criticism is that we were controlling the game, Watford changed it and Heckingbottom couldn't change it back.

It's the same argument whenever opposition substitutions hurt us. Blackburn, Wolves, Charlton, Watford and others. Every time, apparently it's because they've got better players.

Yet when our substitutes repeatedly have little impact, that's apparently because Heckingbottom hasn't got good enough players.

You can't have it both ways.

Player quality obviously matters, but managing the players available, recognising when a game is changing and finding a response is literally part of the manager's job.

An injury-hit Watford side did that better than us last night.

That's the point. Not that Heckingbottom is responsible for every misplaced pass or missed tackle, but that once again the opposition manager affected the game more effectively than ours did.

I was addressing the specific moments which you raised, rather than using a simplistic blanket assumption for everything. Those specific moments you mention happen to back up exactly the point I make.

Are there times when we've got the tactical set up wrong? Yeah, definitely. Bolton being an example of that. Charlton (a), after their goal another example.

But to point to the Wolves game and say "look at the impact the Wolves striker had on the game compared to our sub, what are you doing Hecky!", when it's Adam Armstrong vs George Gryba, is obviously nonsensical.

You say yourself - "They went from being comprehensively second best to playing with far more pace, width and directness. Maamma switched sides [this is wrong], they started attacking our outside defenders much more aggressively and the players introduced by Dionisi were directly involved in both goals." What would you have done? These are quality players, who would have started if they were fully fit, entering the pitch. It's the championship - teams are obviously going to attack you with width and pace. Just because they attack with width and pace, it doesn't mean the manager did something wrong. He moved Offiah to the left specifically to deal with the threat of Maama. So it's not like he didn't address it.

It is in fact your argument which is like hunting a ghost, because you work on the assumption that the alternative would have forced a different outcome. I'm not even sitting here saying that the manager is a genius with his substitutions, but as I said before, there are tens of factors involved in a goal happening. To put the entire outcome down to substitutions is just lazy pseudo-analysis by people who are looking for just one thing to blame. And to be fair, at least you acknowledge the individual errors which led to the first goal in particular.

 

[JK]

I was addressing the specific moments which you raised, rather than using a simplistic blanket assumption for everything. Those specific moments you mention happen to back up exactly the point I make.

Are there times when we've got the tactical set up wrong? Yeah, definitely. Bolton being an example of that. Charlton (a), after their goal another example.

But to point to the Wolves game and say "look at the impact the Wolves striker had on the game compared to our sub, what are you doing Hecky!", when it's Adam Armstrong vs George Gryba, is obviously nonsensical.

You say yourself - "They went from being comprehensively second best to playing with far more pace, width and directness. Maamma switched sides [this is wrong], they started attacking our outside defenders much more aggressively and the players introduced by Dionisi were directly involved in both goals." What would you have done? These are quality players, who would have started if they were fully fit, entering the pitch. It's the championship - teams are obviously going to attack you with width and pace. Just because they attack with width and pace, it doesn't mean the manager did something wrong. He moved Offiah to the left specifically to deal with the threat of Maama. So it's not like he didn't address it.

It is in fact your argument which is like hunting a ghost, because you work on the assumption that the alternative would have forced a different outcome. I'm not even sitting here saying that the manager is a genius with his substitutions, but as I said before, there are tens of factors involved in a goal happening. To put the entire outcome down to substitutions is just lazy pseudo-analysis by people who are looking for just one thing to blame. And to be fair, at least you acknowledge the individual errors which led to the first goal in particular.

You’ve written a lot there to dress up a fairly simple position: whenever the opposition changes a game it’s the players, whenever we fail to change it it’s also the players.

At some point the bloke paid to manage those players has to be accountable, no matter how much pseudo-intellectual wrapping you put around avoiding that conclusion.

 

[Doyler]

You’ve written a lot there to dress up a fairly simple position: whenever the opposition changes a game it’s the players, whenever we fail to change it it’s also the players.

At some point the bloke paid to manage those players has to be accountable, no matter how much pseudo-intellectual wrapping you put around avoiding that conclusion.

Yet more lazy rhetoric which is aimed at every single manager.

The manager is held accountable, and if we continue on our current trajectory he'll lose his job. But it won't be because of substitutions, that's for sure.

Games are won and lost with lots of underlying factors at play. Blaming subs is just the easiest to run with, much like the old 'he's no Plan B' and 'he doesn't know his best team'. All impressively dumb takes to try and simplify something pretty complicated.

 

[California_PNE]

You’ve written a lot there to dress up a fairly simple position: whenever the opposition changes a game it’s the players, whenever we fail to change it it’s also the players.

At some point the bloke paid to manage those players has to be accountable, no matter how much pseudo-intellectual wrapping you put around avoiding that conclusion.

I basically agree with what @Doyler is saying, this game isolated, that we were brilliant first half, did ok start of the second but Watford properly upped it and then we couldn't cope. I am not defending the manager but I can't honestly just say it's the subs that lots it for us. Hindsight you go whiley in there and kept the right unchanged, and then tweeks the midfield and attack to get berzog and mills on at some point but other than that Watford for me stepped it up and nailed us, coupled with us missing a bag full of chances and cock ups at the back.