wigan v city official match thread

[10.Goater_Legend]

A proactive change is one that changes the flow of the game. Making the first move. Wenger did it in our game by bringing Rosicky on after 55 minutes. Within 30 seconds he had a shot at goal. Rosicky was the one that contributed to Arseheads getting back in the match. The sub wasn't made because a player was injured. It was a tactical change.

NQDP talks about us lacking any cutting edge in the middle of the park. Bringing on Ireland for Gazbaz would have delivered that edge. Not because Gazbaz was injured or having a mare, but to change the flow of the match.

That is what a world class manager does. When Leslie does this his jigsaw will be complete. At the moment he only makes changes when players are knackered, injured or as a result of what the opposition have done. He is reactive.

Sorry matey, I'm not buying it AT ALL.

While arsenal had some attacks on our goal towards the end of the first half, they were losing one nil to us and the game was not clearly in their favour. This continued into the sceond half, so Wenger made the change to try to give creation in a different area by bringing on Rosicky for Denilson. This was because they were losing and not gaining enough momentum in the game. REACTIVE.

Arsenal then equalised and largley due to the reactive change Wenger had made. Rosicky assists Van Persie and its one all in the 62nd minute. The game now looks to be swinging in Arsenal's favour, so just over ten minutes later, in the 73rd minute, Hughes REACTS by bringing on Petrov. Ireland looked tired and could even have been injured, but hughes changed the attack by moving Bellamy into a more central position and he scored a minute later. The game then swung in our favour and Wenger REACTED by bringing on Eduardo and Eboue three minutes later, but this time it didn't work out and Ade scored.

The momentum was with City, and of course there was the Ade goal, so there was no need to make a change and a central Bellamy was able to track back in the middle and give the ball for SWP to score our fourth. although Rosicky did score and there was a flurry here and there, by scoring four we had effectively ended their hopes.

Wenger reacted well when city looked in control - Denilson was ineffective. Hughes then reacted well when the game swung in Arsenal's favour - Ireland looked ineffective. Both teams shape changed and troubled the opposition to help swing the game back, but Hughes won on the day.

Wenger was no more 'pro-active' than Hughes was. If something's broke, someone needs to react and it needs to be fixed.

A substitution/formation change will always be a reaction to something.

That's the whole point.

Top post Dub.

[blackburnblue]

Some of the comments on here are just ridiculous. All some people can do is run down our players still it seems.

We've just got 2 away draws at places where Chelsea have just lost. Furthermore I got the feeling we were going to win until we got down to 10. We have a home game in hand and a decent run of fixtures coming up.

No one will find it easy at Wigan now Martinez has got the hang of it.

So start preparing your attacks on our players now for the Fulham game.

totally agree pal. Who wouldn't have settled for the position we are in now at the start of the season?

[Ted Hughes]

I find it amazing how people know that world class managers are one's who do exactly what they think they would do therefore indicating an ability to read minds. The ability to predict alternative timelines where this course of action inevitably ends in a successful outcome is also something to admire. It appears that if the manager only had the football knowledge & nous shown by these people we would actually win just about every game. Unfortunately we have to put up with Hughes. Gutted.

[blackburnblue]

I find it amazing how people know that world class managers are one's who do exactly what they think they would do therefore indicating an ability to read minds. The ability to predict alternative timelines where this course of action inevitably ends in a successful outcome is also something to admire. It appears that if the manager only had the football knowledge & nous shown by these people we would actually win just about every game. Unfortunately we have to put up with Hughes. Gutted.

could be worse mate,we could have the spanish waiter at the helm!!!

[Beefymcfc]

I find it amazing how people know that world class managers are one's who do exactly what they think they would do therefore indicating an ability to read minds. The ability to predict alternative timelines where this course of action inevitably ends in a successful outcome is also something to admire. It appears that if the manager only had the football knowledge & nous shown by these people we would actually win just about every game. Unfortunately we have to put up with Hughes. Gutted.

I think you're right mate, Hughes is always reading my mind and that's why we've done so well ;-)

[Im_Spartacus]

A proactive change is one that changes the flow of the game. Making the first move. Wenger did it in our game by bringing Rosicky on after 55 minutes. Within 30 seconds he had a shot at goal. Rosicky was the one that contributed to Arseheads getting back in the match. The sub wasn't made because a player was injured. It was a tactical change.

NQDP talks about us lacking any cutting edge in the middle of the park. Bringing on Ireland for Gazbaz would have delivered that edge. Not because Gazbaz was injured or having a mare, but to change the flow of the match.

That is what a world class manager does. When Leslie does this his jigsaw will be complete. At the moment he only makes changes when players are knackered, injured or as a result of what the opposition have done. He is reactive.

Sorry matey, I'm not buying it AT ALL.

While arsenal had some attacks on our goal towards the end of the first half, they were losing one nil to us and the game was not clearly in their favour. This continued into the sceond half, so Wenger made the change to try to give creation in a different area by bringing on Rosicky for Denilson. This was because they were losing and not gaining enough momentum in the game. REACTIVE.

Arsenal then equalised and largley due to the reactive change Wenger had made. Rosicky assists Van Persie and its one all in the 62nd minute. The game now looks to be swinging in Arsenal's favour, so just over ten minutes later, in the 73rd minute, Hughes REACTS by bringing on Petrov. Ireland looked tired and could even have been injured, but hughes changed the attack by moving Bellamy into a more central position and he scored a minute later. The game then swung in our favour and Wenger REACTED by bringing on Eduardo and Eboue three minutes later, but this time it didn't work out and Ade scored.

The momentum was with City, and of course there was the Ade goal, so there was no need to make a change and a central Bellamy was able to track back in the middle and give the ball for SWP to score our fourth. although Rosicky did score and there was a flurry here and there, by scoring four we had effectively ended their hopes.

Wenger reacted well when city looked in control - Denilson was ineffective. Hughes then reacted well when the game swung in Arsenal's favour - Ireland looked ineffective. Both teams shape changed and troubled the opposition to help swing the game back, but Hughes won on the day.

Wenger was no more 'pro-active' than Hughes was. If something's broke, someone needs to react and it needs to be fixed.

A substitution/formation change will always be a reaction to something.

That's the whole point.

I sort of agree with the points both of you are making, of course a substitution is always a reaction to something, but I think substitutions do fall into one of two categories - trying to maintain the status quo, or trying to win the game.

The Arsenal substitution Dazby is talking about is one which helped their team take the initiative and take the fight to us. Similarly, Hughes did similar with Petrov to wrestle the impetus back - I think both of those are pro-active as they are being done to take the initiative.

I think a reactive substitution would be if Hughes had for example brought someone on to combat the threat of a specific player (to maintain the status quo) - in that case Rosicky. Instead Hughes chose to bring on our own attacking threat, which countered Rosicky by putting arsenal on the back foot, which automatically restricted Rosicky's ability to get forward.

In summary, Hughes has been more adventurous with his tactics and substitutions than he was last season, and that can only be a good thing. Also at least after the latest Zabba idiocy, we didnt end up with Gelson at right back this time.

[Ted Hughes]

Some substitutions work, some don't. People who state as FACTS that they know for sure how such things would work out are bullshitting. They could be heroically right & they could be horribly wrong but pretending to know either way is bollocks.

[dazby]

I'll half bite on this Ted because I think you may be referring to my comments. On this board we have always been critical of Leslies substitutions. Always. Sunday he had an opportunity to change the flow of the match but didn't. 95% of his changes are in the last 20 minutes of the match or due to injury. He plays a very conservative game. I'd like to see him be more proactive.

For purposes of definition Dub, just so we are clear, a proactive sub is one where a player is brought on to change the tactics of the match.

A reactive sub is made due to injury, lack of fitness or as a result of the opposition making a sub.

[Ted Hughes]

I'll half bite on this Ted because I think you may be referring to my comments. On this board we have always been critical of Leslies substitutions. Always. Sunday he had an opportunity to change the flow of the match but didn't. 95% of his changes are in the last 20 minutes of the match or due to injury. He plays a very conservative game. I'd like to see him be more proactive.

For purposes of definition Dub, just so we are clear, a proactive sub is one where a player is brought on to change the tactics of the match.

A reactive sub is made due to injury, lack of fitness or as a result of the opposition making a sub.

I'm not specifically refering to you I'm refering to ALL these kind of comments about substitutions which, rather than stating what he could do, as an opinion & what COULD happen IF it works, state what he SHOULD do & what WILL happen WHEN it definitely works, with no possible downside, usually followed up with how that makes him & anyone who agrees with him deficient in football knowledge compared to the genius (s) who thought of it, as, for sure, any top manager would definitely agree with them.

I recon they'd struggle to figure out what Benitez or Mourinho would do from one second to the next & be more often than not mortified when they did it but that's just my opinion.