That Substitution

That’s not the point I was responding to , however yes the substitution was odd in the sense of bringing on a ring rusty defender, not the principle itself. It’s arguable both ways. Something I’m not dwelling on. Seen it all before over many many years. Onwards and upwards until next time.
We were beaten by a better side over two legs for the reason I have been stating for a few weeks and again this morning. We had no outlet on the left …it’s as simple as that.

The other main reason I believe is we were also beaten by teams playing 352 which compounded it even more.

Root and branch formation change is necessary, the only question is will MH realise it?

 

I know it is mind boggling tbh. Noon would have criticised him if he had brought on an attacker but I would question bringing Banks off at all. Yes he was tired but adrenaline would have kept him going. Also I would question his faith in our players if he can’t trust them to defend? These are his players

 

He walked away from the interview because he didn’t like one of the questions from raynor.

 

It must be hard to control yourself when you're facing the media in those circumstances. I had a lot of respect for Darren Ferguson coming out and doing a Sky interview after the Miracle of Hillsborough.

I don't think I could have done that.

 

That makes no sense. If that is remotely true he would have pulled him off at half time in extra time.

He won't admit he made the sub to try play for penalties.

 

It was Gillingham at home where he brought on Platt to try defend a 2-1 win and threw it away.

 

Nah that moment was when Smallwood had it in time and space in the 98th min and lofted some bollocks into the centre of the goal to their centre back.

The managerial moment was more like taking Linekar off in his last game and putting Smith on in the Euros Graham Taylor style.

 

So he was annoyed then, which i# what I said in the first instance.

 

This. It’s how we’ve been for years and I have no idea why.
With some managers we’ve had weak squads where I can understand damage limitation. We’re in a different position now.
It’s the play offs, a knockout match. You have to play to win, not play not to lose.
We approached the play offs in the same way we’ve approached large chunks of matches throughout the season.
1-0 or 2-1 up and we’ve tried to see the game out instead of being positive

 

Not in a million years will I buy the excuse that Banks had run out of puff. There were many players on both sides who were feeling knackered. Banks, Derbyshire and the rest of the side would have felt elated and revitalised. The extra yard they gained was knocked out of them by Banks being pulled off. It's pretty obvious Hughes had turned into 'terrified of Carlisle' mode. He had decided that penalties was our best chance. Penalties was no better than 50/50. I'd much sooner see us defeated by having a go at them, especially when we had just scored. As it turned out we limped out, defeated, afraid.
Having said all that I'm not calling for his head. He does need to learn from the experience though and put a bit more faith in the team that he's assembled.

 

His excuse sticks in the craw. He doesn't even have the resolve to stick by the decision he believed in at the time and he's tried to fabricate an excuse. I can't abide it. Banks looked disappointed to be subbed. Run out of steam? He'd just rinsed their full back! Was there any evidence whatsoever that he was flagging? Of course not! Did Hughes have to bring on a CB? Of course not. Was it a coincidence he subbed him straight after we wcored and not during half time? Of course not.

Hughes could have saved a shred of dignity by fessing up that he wanted to hold out until penalties but he didn't. He tried to fob us off to deflect from his own poor decision. He must think we were born yesterday!

 

I don't agree with that. He does say 'we got back in to a position where we could take our chances with penalties'.

MANAGER REACTION: Hughes looks to go one step further next season - YouTube

 

If he stated that we were playing for penalties then I take part of that post back. I would find it easier to take though if he didn't try to pull the wool regarding the substitution.

 

In a nutshell

 

In the BBC interview, he said he had decided to take Banks off as he was shattered and didn't change his mind after the goal.

He has explained what he was thinking, whether you agree with it or not is a different matter.

 

While yesterday was poor we really lost the tie in the first leg when we had them on the ropes and once again gave them the imitative

 

I don't believe he thought that. I think he's lying to avoid criticism. He's deflecting responsibility for his awful decision by trying to suggest he had no choice.

 

Unless you were watching a completely different game to me, we didn't have Carlisle on the ropes at all. If anything they were unlucky not to at least draw the game.