Tue 20th May 21:00 Wesley College -v- Templeogue Astros

LeixlipRed

Pretty sickening last night. Still pissed off this morning. Des, I'll have to sit out Friday. A little niggly injury is annoying me. Wont be here next Tuesday (holidays, woo ) so the two weeks rest will get rid of it hopefully.

Savman

Not sure what to make of that. We didn't do enough to win it, but it would have been a hard fought, and thoroughly deserved draw. It took a mistake for them to score and we can actually take more positive from that than negative. IMHO we learned more about ourselves last night than we did in any of those 6 goal drubbings a few weeks ago.

We now know that we dropped points against Full Irish (1-1 D) and especially Roys Rovers (0-3 L). We also lost to SS Rovers who are second and it's probably gonna be between them and Templeogue Astros that wins it outright, both teams currently level on points.

The Full Irish have actually gone ahead of use by 1pt but even though we've lost 3 games, those 3 games were against the Top 3 which is no coincidence.

Chin up!

BKtje

I think our mid field looked tired in the second half. I know Des doesn't want to weaken the team by throwing us unproven lads on but i really think you should consider using your subs more. We can give the better players a quick breather and while we may (or may not) be as good technically we can however use that 5 minutes to run them ragged and try to force mistakes by using our extra energy and possibly tire them out more for when the better players come back on.

It really is amazing what a 5 minute breather can do for a player, can be out of breathe and sluggish before his rest and be revitalised afterwards. It will also mean the fringe players will get a short run out and keep us happy. We have a large squad, let's use it to our advantage to keep the energy levels up all around the pitch for the entire game.

I'm not complaining btw just my observations and speaking from experience in other sports.

LeixlipRed

We've been over this last season when Darren brought it up. In a tight game you cannot make changes in vital positions. It simply does not work. Up front or on the wings maybe. Also, we changed formation while the ball was in play. That sort of thing has to stop happening. When we have possesion in dead play is the time to do those things. The goal was my mistake but I felt we were coping well with 3-5-2 and the changes confused things.

Idu

Well you either trust the players in your squad or you dont Martin. The midfield was nowhere in the latter part of the second half as they were all out on their feet which is understandable after the work they put in. This tiredness led to the sloppy passing, which led to our defence being under constant pressure which ultimately led to the goal. It's a testament to the lads at the back(and the work of the midfielders) that they never looked like scoring but you cant allow a team to constantly attack you and expect to hold out every time

LeixlipRed

I'm not giving out about making substitutions. Just not this 5 mins off/take a break lark. That just doesn't work.

FrankGrimes

I think Sav summed it up pretty well there – bottom line is they are a better all-round team than us (closer if we had a full squad to choose from) and we were far from our best when in possession all of us giving away too many cheap balls, but we still gave them a very tight game and with few chances for either team a draw wouldn’t have been a robbery. We defended very well but our weakness was when we had the ball. Their defenders cleared the ball decisively and long every time whereas we had too many mi****s, for me that (and the fact they had 2 excellent nippy central midfielders great on the ball) made the difference in where the pressure was focused. The 2nd balls from our clearances gave them plenty to feed off and they used it well. That’s a marginal difference and they had it easier against every other team they’ve played this season I’d say. So like Sav said, more positives than negatives – if were our usual selves on the ball we’d have hurt them.

Anyone watching from the sidelines surely had to notice that them getting on top in midfield in the last quarter that you’re referencing coincided with us going from 3 to 2 in central midfield and much as he’s great on the ball Gav is no central midfielder on the positional side of things? Personally I’d have left 3 in there as we were coping reasonably well with what was their strongest position up to the change (i.e. the 3 great runs the 5 had were all in the final 10 minutes), but I can appreciate that we were chasing the game by then so Des threw on an extra attacker to get it back.

I don’t agree with making substitutions in those circumstances just to give lads a run as I think it’s undeniable that we have been finishing games not as strong as we’re starting them and that’s partly down to a fitness issue, partly down to becoming disjointed as a team due to changes (that’s independent to any individual – too many changes disrupt the team regardless of who it is) so I can see what Des’ thinking is there. However, I’m actually all for pulling lads off for a 5 minute breather to get them back fresh to finish strong. Sounds easy on here but how would a lad actually react to being thrown on only to be pulled off again 5 minutes later? If that’s not an issue I think it would work but not sure.

LeixlipRed

For me it's a no go at the back. Rather leave someone who's tired and knows who they have to mark then throw on someone cold who's no idea who's playing where, etc. For me, the changes in formation unsettled us.

Savman

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. You're gonna put together a starting 11, leave them on the pitch for 40-50mins and just as they are getting to grips with the players they are marking, you're gonna reef them off and put someone new on? This would indicate that fresh legs is more important to Boardeaux than experienced legs.

There was a period in the 2nd half when it seemed like we were up against it, but you can't go a whole season long playing good teams but all the while keeping it at your own tempo.

They clearly upped the tempo in the 2nd half and we got stretched, no doubt, but we weren't crumbling either, it was just pressure.

thelepo

I was talking about the 5 minute break thing with Colm and Eoin after the game and it made sense at the time, but thinking about it now, it doesn't make all that much sense.

Fitness was part of our problem, and pushing yourself to do more on the pitch is going to help you get fitter for the next week and so on.
I don't have much pace and the fitness has dipped, most likely because the other league I played in has finished.

I'm not the best analyser of games and I can't put my finger on the teams weaknesses, but personally there was a lack of compsosure, positioning and pace. I'll just have to work on that. I left a lot more comfortable at left back.

Lepo

Idu

Savman wrote: »

So, let me see if I understand this correctly. You're gonna put together a starting 11, leave them on the pitch for 40-50mins and just as they are getting to grips with the players they are marking, you're gonna reef them off and put someone new on?

That doesn't make any sense.Whats the point of having a squad then? 5 minute "breather" subs is a bad idea but making changes is part of football and it needed to be changed the other night and in fairness to Des he tried to stem their dominance in the middle by switching to 4-5-1 and trying to crowd the middle as they were getting on top. Just because they got a lucky goal doesnt mean that making the change was the wrong move

Savman

janets_on_clubs wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense.Whats the point of having a squad then? 5 minute "breather" subs is a bad idea but making changes is part of football and it needed to be changed the other night and in fairness to Des he tried to stem their dominance in the middle by switching to 4-5-1 and trying to crowd the middle as they were getting on top. Just because they got a lucky goal doesnt mean that making the change was the wrong move

With all due respect bud, the last time this exact issue came up it was raised by someone who was struggling to get into the team. A bit of a coincidence no? You're always gonna have the bench itching to get on thinking "I can make a difference" and you'll always have the players on the pitch thinking "just let us sort it out". The manager has to make his own decisions, which I think did and generally does.

See although you can argue for the "breather" changes, the flipside is that we didn't concede until we changed something, so that pretty much ends this entire discussion in relation to this particular match anyway. I'm sure there'll be other games when it will swing the other way but raising the point just after we were narrowly beaten by the league leaders (and most likely eventual winners) does nothing to support your case tbh.

When we were winning by 5 and 6 goals, sweeping changes were made IIRC.

Idu

Savman wrote: »

With all due respect bud, the last time this exact issue came up it was raised by someone who was struggling to get into the team. A bit of a coincidence no? You're always gonna have the bench itching to get on thinking "I can make a difference" and you'll always have the players on the pitch thinking "just let us sort it out". The manager has to make his own decisions, which I think did and generally does.

See although you can argue for the "breather" changes, the flipside is that we didn't concede until we changed something, so that pretty much ends this entire discussion in relation to this particular match anyway. I'm sure there'll be other games when it will swing the other way but raising the point just after we were narrowly beaten by the league leaders (and most likely eventual winners) does nothing to support your case tbh.

When we were winning by 5 and 6 goals, sweeping changes were made IIRC.

And with all due respect to you I wasnt the person who raised the issue.But since you mention it I have to say I find your post incredibly condecending to imply that just because I didnt start is the only reason I've posted advocating changes. Everyone on the line could see that something needed to be done in the second half on Tuesday as they were all over us. Wether it was moving players around, subs or a tactical switch that's Des' decision and I'm not going to second guess him here. I believe he did what he felt was needed in the situation. But to pass off the idea of making changes just because we were unlucky to lose the game isnt productive. And to pass it off just because they happen to be the league leaders and possible winners is just a cop out

Savman

janets_on_clubs wrote: »

And with all due respect to you I wasnt the person who raised the issue.But since you mention it I have to say I find your post incredibly condecending to imply that just because I didnt start is the only reason I've posted advocating changes. Everyone on the line could see that something needed to be done in the second half on Tuesday as they were all over us. Wether it was moving players around, subs or a tactical switch that's Des' decision and I'm not going to second guess him here. I believe he did what he felt was needed in the situation. But to pass off the idea of making changes just because we were unlucky to lose the game isnt productive. And to pass it off just because they happen to be the league leaders and possible winners is just a cop out

It's only condescending if you view it that way. And I'm sorry but it is second guessing the gyaffa by suggesting "everyone on the line could see something needed to be done". I don't speak on his or anyone's behalf, so don't take my view as one that represents everyone, we're all big boys here.

However I've been on enough teams to know the aul sideline mentality, everything looks easier from the outside looking in. All I'm saying is you have to see the irony in that the only complaints that ever get made about changes seem to come from the line. It's more to do with a player's psychology than it is to do with the benefit of the team. And I'm no different, when I'm on the bench I only want to get on the pitch and admittedly sometimes it's not in the greater good, I just want to play. So while I can understand the mentality, it doesn't mean it's the right way to do things either.

Idu

he did make a change though. He switched the formation

Savman

I have to say, I'm hugely confused Ted.

janets_on_clubs wrote: »

he did make a change though. He switched the formation

Aye, but you yourself said this:

janets_on_clubs wrote:

Well you either trust the players in your squad or you dont Martin. The midfield was nowhere in the latter part of the second half as they were all out on their feet which is understandable after the work they put in. This tiredness led to the sloppy passing, which led to our defence being under constant pressure which ultimately led to the goal. It's a testament to the lads at the back(and the work of the midfielders) that they never looked like scoring but you cant allow a team to constantly attack you and expect to hold out every time

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the goal come after we changed formation? I'm nearly sure it did and if so, then it throws the entire argument out the window :pac:
We could just as easily suggest that we shouldn't have changed a thing, maybe its the change that disrupted us, who knows, the benefit of hindsight eh!

And someone else said this earlier (not sure of the username??):

B-K-DzR wrote:

I think our mid field looked tired in the second half. I know Des doesn't want to weaken the team by throwing us unproven lads on but i really think you should consider using your subs more.
<snip>
It will also mean the fringe players will get a short run out and keep us happy. We have a large squad, let's use it to our advantage to keep the energy levels up all around the pitch for the entire game.

Are we all in agreement that "change for improvment" is the team policy and not "change for change sake"? Of course if someone's totally bolloxed and not contributing anything, then the manager has a decision to make. But if we're gonna start pulling off tired players, we may as well take off the entire starting eleven because believe it or not, getting tired is part and parcel of the game. Building up stamina and learning how to pace one self are things that we should not overlook. I also don't remember anybody on the field putting their hand up and asking to be taken off.

I just don't like the "us and them" mentality and in my experience when your own team mates on the sideline go on and on about making changes they are pretty much making one of two possible statements:
1) I can do better than X Y or Z player on the field, or
2) I know better than the manager
Neither truly befits a team ethic tbh.

Idu

i think we have our wires crossed here. If I came across as "I should have been on instead of x,y,z" then that wasnt my intention. My original argument was and still is that making changes when deemed necessary are crucial to any game regardless of the outcome. You seem to be saying that because we made a tactical change and conceded a goal then it was obviously a failure but the change needed to be made IMO. The fact that they still scored after shouldnt undermine the fact that Des' decision to switch to 4-5-1 was the correct one. We were being over run and needed more solidity at the back to deal with that. Your arguments seem to be results based rather than standing back and actually analysing what was happening in the game

FrankGrimes

Yeh, I think there is some crossing of wires there lads, but anyone taking the time to provide input shows they want the best for the team so its welcome while it's civil and isn't going into specifics like 'I should've been picked instead of him'....and its been quite civil in my view.

I get Iain's point that the outcome is independent of and should affect the opinion of the decision (just like poker), though Sav also has some very good points there. I do think the point that it was against the best team in the league is relevant as managers are always more wary of changes in those games. Just like the Champions League final the other night - first sub was very late coming on, that reflects the importance of the game not that the manager doesn't have faith in his squad.

Just to clarify - Des made 2, not 1, changes to formation, I know as he clearly communicated them to me on the pitch: changed from 3-5-2 to 4-5-1 which I thought was an astute move and really helped as Iain pointed out. It was the change from 4-5-1 to 4-4-2 that I felt left me without an experienced partner in the middle and we got overrun in the last 10 after that. That's sitting here looking at it with the benefit of hindsight and is in no way a criticism of Des - he had a game to chase and it was in the balance, if we had scored due to that change he'd be covered in glory. That we didn't doesn't mean it was a bad call, just means it didn't come off that time.

On the 5-minute breather thing - that should really be player-driven, if a lad puts his hand up and asks for a breather, the managers not gonna say no. So everyone should take responsibility for asking themselves if they need a breather, cos the managers not gonna do it for tactical reasons. Outside of that, any questioning specific selections etc. is second-guessing the manager so let's not go there (don't believe we have).

With such a big squad this kind of discussion is totally inevitable but it's handled in the right way so isn't an issue.

Savman

janets_on_clubs wrote: »

My original argument was and still is that making changes when deemed necessary are crucial to any game regardless of the outcome.

I think we're in agreement here. In fairness I wasn't posting stuff aimed at you personally, just based on what other fella's views on it might be (those who don't chime in) based on what I've seen/heard on nearly every other team I've played with.

Anyway, all that aside, it won't matter in a few weeks if we can't get 11 players out. If anyone remembers the game(s) directly after Chrimbo in January we were badly hit with numbers and that problem is substantially worse than having too many that some don't always get on.

BKtje

Are we all in agreement that "change for improvment" is the team policy and not "change for change sake"?

This is exactly why i brought it up, I feel that if our best 11 were a little fresher going into the finishing straight that we'd be stronger and more likely of scoring late goals or hanging onto that lead.

Of course if someone's totally bolloxed and not contributing anything, then the manager has a decision to make.

I think he has a decesion to make before that, at what point can fresh legs make a bigger impact than tired ones, even if the fresher legs may not be as technically capable. Sometimes you see managers throw on fresh legs just in an attempt to force the opposition in making a mistake due to the extra running and closing down on tired minds and bodies.

But if we're gonna start pulling off tired players, we may as well take off the entire starting eleven because believe it or not, getting tired is part and parcel of the game.

Of course it is but why not take give ourselves a possible advantage by using fresh legs?

Building up stamina and learning how to pace one self are things that we should not overlook.

Very true but sometimes pacing yourself gives the opponents the advantage as you don't close down as much/as quickly. It's a fine balance and i guess comes down to how the manager wants you to play which comes down to whether he feels he has a suitable replacement for you when you've run yourself into the ground.

I just don't like the "us and them" mentality

I don't think that's being shown here and you are right, that mentality isn't going to help the team at all. Secondly we ain't going on and on, we are just debating the merits of making more subs. The final decesion lies with Des no matter what the rest of us think his say is final.

It will also mean the fringe players will get a short run out and keep us happy.

I think that came accross differently than i had intended. What i meant was that with the inevitable(or so im told) drop in numbers that occurs to the latter end of the season wouldn't it be beneficial to both the team and these players to have a run out against the better sides as well as the bad ones. This keeps the players feeling like they are part of the team (stops the us and them attitude) and they are more likely to stick it through to the end.

I really didn't want this to sound whingey but whatever way i put it it seems to so my apologies for that.
I didn't mean to start this whole debate, it was just something i felt after watching a few games and being new here i didn't realise all this had been covered before. Still i ain't going to apologise for starting it off and i'm very surprised how defensive and unwilling to even debate it some people have been.

Anyway i think all points have been made, so unless something new comes up or i'm asked something i'll leave it at that.

Savman

I don't think anyone was defensive
I'm sure all points were taken on board. Maybe Martin sounded defensive but, er, he is a defender...heh (badumtish, thank you I'll be here all week :pac::pac:)

Anyway, I read today that now Jules will be missing for over 4 weeks, so along with Ed, Larry, Dave and a couple of others I don't think we're gonna have this problem for very long. Fresh legs is a luxury you only miss when it's not there....

BKtje

Ah it's hard to mis-read things on this internet thingy.

...and you got a chuckle outta me

homerjay2005

aint read all the thread cos there is too much there but i have only one thing to say. to those who are not happy with selection or not getting a game, your chance is going to come over the next few weeks as our squad is going to take a hit. me, dave, larry and more are going to be gone and this will free up places for those who are not happy. its up to you to take your chance when you get it. over the course of the season, it balances out and everybody bar maybe one or 2 plays the same amount of time.

now i know that martin does not agree, but im a firm believer of talking at the matches and not on here so anybody that has a grievance, do your talking when your on the pitch and prove your worth to the team.


in MY opionion, our squad is too big and i do think that making changes is not worth it at times, especially in close games. however, the value of the squad is evidient over the next month or 2 when there will be alot of lads missing and we only have 12 or 13 for games. however, that is enough for now until we get everybody back.

roll on tuesday, its my last game for a month.

BKtje

There were no grieviances, just a tactical discussion