15 minutes ago, Remodez said:

I mean, yeah?  

It's never optimal to use 1 or 2 subs from 5 but if you are winning games then no one is going to complain. 

If the best possible team was playing then there is no real argument about not using as many subs as possible, it's not like the more you sub the better.

I wish that it was that simple, you take out Enzo and put in Casadei and you win the match because of it, would be great.

8 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

If the best possible team was playing then there is no real argument about not using as many subs as possible, it's not like the more you sub the better.

I wish that it was that simple, you take out Enzo and put in Casadei and you win the match because of it, would be great.

If the best possible team is not playing well at all then you would be foolish not to change things up. At the very least fresh legs would help.

Had we been trying to hold onto a 1 nil win I would be more understanding but they had already scored and were all over us in the second half. A change had to be made. Whether more subs would have given us the win isn't really the point, it's the lack of effort to attempt something that's worrying. 

Edited December 28, 20241 yr by Remodez

1 hour ago, Remodez said:

If the best possible team is not playing well at all then you would be foolish not to change things up. At the very least fresh legs would help.

Had we been trying to hold onto a 1 nil win I would be more understanding but they had already scored and were all over us in the second half. A change had to be made. Whether more subs would have given us the win isn't really the point, it's the lack of effort to attempt something that's worrying. 

Only after the battle everyone wants to be the general.

Just because we didn't make 5 subs it doesn't mean that no instructions were given during the match, it was a hard match  and making subs for the sake of optics isn't really a good move, the players selected had to do better.

I wouldn't have taken off Palmer for J.Felix either, nor would I have put in Casadei for Enzo or Disasi for Colwill, if that's what you're suggesting it's still no guarantee that our gameplan could have been significantly more different than how it actually was.

I'm not worried, Maresca is doing a good job to make the squad more consistent. 

On 26/12/2024 at 17:43, Argo said:

First time I've been pissed at him (even the borderline forefit in the cup I somewhat understood as if we went through we'd have had to play the next round and Europe in the same midweek).

What on this earth did he say at halftime? And worse, he didn't react once Fulham started controlling.

Really poor from Meresca - he costs us the 3 points. Even in the first half, after Palmer's goal, had a feeling Fulham would nick it. We looked lethargic whereas Fulham got stronger and stronger as the game went on - helped of course by a proactive coach who made changes whilst Maresca watched on thinking one change was all that was needed. Not sure what game he was watching.

The reality of top flight football management is that you will get put under the microscope for every decision, and if it goes wrong, you will get pulled up. If you keep doing the same thing and it doesn’t work the fans will turn, and eventually you lose your job.

He has now had half a season - and whilst we may be ahead of where we thought we would be in the standings, Maresca continues to make a lot of mistakes, over and over again.

Too many players are not integrated into the first team squad. He keeps selecting Jackson, despite him consistently not being good enough (still only 1 genuinely good performance this season - against West Ham). He keeps playing Gusto - one of our best players last year - out of position. He is wasting Chuks, Casadei and Guiu. He is driving Nkunku out of the club. 
 

All these things - in isolation - can be forgiven. They can all be forgiven when combined if the results keep coming in…. But things (fans, players, atmosphere, board) will turn quickly if he keeps up these baffling decisions, and the wheels come off the results. 
 

 

23 minutes ago, Nibs said:

Really poor from Meresca - he costs us the 3 points. Even in the first half, after Palmer's goal, had a feeling Fulham would nick it. We looked lethargic whereas Fulham got stronger and stronger as the game went on - helped of course by a proactive coach who made changes whilst Maresca watched on thinking one change was all that was needed. Not sure what game he was watching.

Are we sure he was watching and not reading his latest book purchase, "the art of football management", by Mauricio Pochettino?

2 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Are we sure he was watching and not reading his latest book purchase, "the art of football management", by Mauricio Pochettino?

He may as well have joined Noni and his family for a nice Boxing Day feast for what impact he had on the Fulham game.

It's laughable (and inexcusable) how a club with a squad like ours, can play badly in a game and ultimately lose that game and yet only make one sub. For me that is worse than losing a game more heavily but at least trying to change the outcome.

26 minutes ago, Nibs said:

He may as well have joined Noni and his family for a nice Boxing Day feast for what impact he had on the Fulham game.

It's laughable (and inexcusable) how a club with a squad like ours, can play badly in a game and ultimately lose that game and yet only make one sub. For me that is worse than losing a game more heavily but at least trying to change the outcome.

All this talk about subs yet nobody can actually say who should have been subbed on.

Empty talk, we had very limited options on the bench.

30 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

All this talk about subs yet nobody can actually say who should have been subbed on.

Empty talk, we had very limited options on the bench.

Game management was a bigger issue against Fulham. 

At no point did Maresca address Fulham's left hand side tormenting Gusto/Neto that entire 2nd half. 

2 hours ago, Gol15 said:

Only after the battle everyone wants to be the general.

Just because we didn't make 5 subs it doesn't mean that no instructions were given during the match, it was a hard match  and making subs for the sake of optics isn't really a good move, the players selected had to do better.

I wouldn't have taken off Palmer for J.Felix either, nor would I have put in Casadei for Enzo or Disasi for Colwill, if that's what you're suggesting it's still no guarantee that our gameplan could have been significantly more different than how it actually was.

I'm not worried, Maresca is doing a good job to make the squad more consistent. 

Of course instructions were given but they clearly weren't working. It's not making subs for the sake of it, you need fresh legs as our players looked tired. The subs that came on for Fulham were not better than the ones who started (Not even better than the ones we had on our own bench) and yet they still changed things up. 

Who comes on for who is largely irrelevant as my point is more to do with having fresh legs. We had 4 players on the bench that have played enough professional games to do a job. You could shore things up defensively and accept the draw, maybe hope for a counter goal by taking off Sancho and putting on Casadei. The whole right side was torrid could have put on Disasi (or if you want to be brave then Acamepong), gone 3 atb in possession instead of this awful double invert system we had. If you are going to bring Nkuku on then he needs to play with Jackson not instead of, move Palmer to the right with Disasi behind to provide the protection for lack of Palmer work rate defensively. If Nkuku does replace Jackson you have the option of putting Felix in the middle. 

I'm not saying any of this would have resulted in a win but all of these and more were options available to him instead of doing nothing and accepting the inevitable.

1 hour ago, Gol15 said:

All this talk about subs yet nobody can actually say who should have been subbed on.

Empty talk, we had very limited options on the bench.

Guiu should have been brought on for sure. No guarantee he will score but he's hungry and a fox in the box. 

2 hours ago, Gol15 said:

All this talk about subs yet nobody can actually say who should have been subbed on.

Empty talk, we had very limited options on the bench.

Rubbish. Our bench wasn't as strong as it had been but there were still options to at least try and change things.

Personally, I would have subbed Jackson earlier but brought on Guiu. Gusto had a really poor game so I would have hooked him and brought on Acheampong. And Felix should have come on for either Sancho or Neto who were both tiring. It is really poor to lose a game and not use options available. If Maresca does that too often he will lose the support.

54 minutes ago, KonaKai Blue said:

Guiu should have been brought on for sure. No guarantee he will score but he's hungry and a fox in the box. 

Guiu comes on for Jacko, he presses and reads the game well, far better than Nico does. Nkunku comes on for Palmer, who has now drifted out of the game, and Nkunku is there to feed on the space Guiu makes for him.

Acheampong and Disasi replace the knackered Gusto and Neto, we switch to a back 3, with Cucu and Josh as wing backs this deals with Fulhams biggest threat.

Lastly Felix replaces Sancho. Tactically what we had was not working, got us over run and lost us the game. I don't think many blame Maresca if he tries something different to gain back control and solidify our 1 goal lead.

 

Sanchez 

 

Acheampong

Disasi

Tosin

Colwill

Cucurella

 

Caicedo

Enzo

 

Felix

Nkunku

 

Guiu

16 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Nkunku as backup is not ideal but it is fine. We are already too loaded up front. 

1 goal in 18 games off the bench isn’t “fine”.
That’s downright pitiful.

As a CF, he has an ineffective press and is being used as an outlet. It’s complete mismanagement and it’s hurting us in games where we need a goal. 

5 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

1 goal in 18 games off the bench isn’t “fine”.
That’s downright pitiful.

As a CF, he has an ineffective press and is being used as an outlet. It’s complete mismanagement and it’s hurting us in games where we need a goal. 

Not many minutes though in those "18 games".

Very hard to develop any rhythm when you're getting scraps here and there to work with (see right hand column below)

The only PL game he has started at CF he has a goal and an assist !

 

4 minutes ago, Sconnie Blue said:

1 goal in 18 games off the bench isn’t “fine”.
That’s downright pitiful.

As a CF, he has an ineffective press and is being used as an outlet. It’s complete mismanagement and it’s hurting us in games where we need a goal. 

And yet he still plays him up front for the b team. Where he has worked his way to the top of the clubs scoring charts. 

I am not saying Nkunku is the best fit - but he can play there. And if he can't, then Maresca should be blamed for selecting him and trying to shoehorn him into the role - rather than play Guiu.

Either Chris is good enough to play up front, good enough to be one of the top scorers, and therefore good enough for a run when Jackson has been so consistently poor.

Or...

Chris simply can't play the role, and therefore we need to play him elsewhere and choose Guiu up front. 

One of those things needs to happen. He cant not be good enough, and still be selected to come on and try to change the game - that would be madness. 

I doubt anyone would disagree that Maresca has badly mismanaged Nkunku.

17 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

I doubt anyone would disagree that Maresca has badly mismanaged Nkunku.

That’s his biggest mistake so far for me the way he’s handled the Christo, it’s been downright shameful really.

The manager gets an A from me so far. He’s done an incredible job off the pitch that’s for sure.

I think many underestimate how he has in general kept everyone happy and pulling in the same direction. 
 

In many respects only qualifying for the Conference has been a massive help allowing him to give almost everyone minutes.

On the pitch it’s clear that he still has loads to learn but he is still a rookie. Lampard has more experience than him ffs but Maresca looks to have something about him. A clear vision on how his team will play.

I think we have the right man and he seems to have the full backing of the board now. 
 

We are 4 players away from having a serious crack at the title. A keeper is an absolute must. Sanchez is a very good one but is a muppet with the ball at his feet.  A CB will come in and we will almost definitely be in for Murillo I reckon. A number 9 has to come in although I think it will be someone like Delap rather than a Gykores. I’d be happy with the choice of Jackson, Delap or Guiu. Genuine competition for 3 talented players. Finally, a left back that fits the system. Easy peasy. 😂

Nkunku has to be sold. A quality player but doesn’t fit our system.
Even if he’s at it everyday in training he’s not getting starts in the league unless Palmer is injured. 
Maresca isn’t going anywhere  soon so it’s best for the club and player to allow him to move on. I’d rather solve the keeper issue for instance than have Nkunku as an option off the bench. PSR probably means we have to sell before we buy in this window so moving Nkunku makes sense.

 

 

Edited December 29, 20241 yr by 19seventyone

Just tried to watch the Ipswich pre match interview, what a pain. Multi billion pound club with a two bob conference set up.

On 28/12/2024 at 19:09, Nibs said:

Rubbish. Our bench wasn't as strong as it had been but there were still options to at least try and change things.

Personally, I would have subbed Jackson earlier but brought on Guiu. Gusto had a really poor game so I would have hooked him and brought on Acheampong. And Felix should have come on for either Sancho or Neto who were both tiring. It is really poor to lose a game and not use options available. If Maresca does that too often he will lose the support.

Guiu and Acheampong are both 18 year old. What's the point of thinking that more subs would have changed the outcome of the match if the senior players couldn't do it?

Our first and only sub was used after min 70' and after min 80' we conceded the first goal so basically Nkunku didn't do anything, the sub that was used wasn't even an academy player and it didn't impact the match in any way, in fact you could argue that it affected us negatively.

On 28/12/2024 at 19:35, Sexyfootball said:

Not many minutes though in those "18 games".

Very hard to develop any rhythm when you're getting scraps here and there to work with (see right hand column below)

The only PL game he has started at CF he has a goal and an assist !

 

Kind of like how Jose used Salah isn't it?

1 hour ago, Gol15 said:

Guiu and Acheampong are both 18 year old. What's the point of thinking that more subs would have changed the outcome of the match if the senior players couldn't do it?

Our first and only sub was used after min 70' and after min 80' we conceded the first goal so basically Nkunku didn't do anything, the sub that was used wasn't even an academy player and it didn't impact the match in any way, in fact you could argue that it affected us negatively.

Gol, you are on ship which is slowly capsizing. You really need to take some kind of action. You go to your best lifeboat but find it has a hole in it. Do you stay because it's your best lifeboat, or do you try one of the other ones that isn't as good but might not have a hole in it? 

It's a simplistic simile but it hammers home the point.

10 hours ago, just said:

Gol, you are on ship which is slowly capsizing. You really need to take some kind of action. You go to your best lifeboat but find it has a hole in it. Do you stay because it's your best lifeboat, or do you try one of the other ones that isn't as good but might not have a hole in it? 

It's a simplistic simile but it hammers home the point.

Gol would go with secret option number 3 - pray that his hero Jorgi boy flies in to part the seas, feed the hungry and save the day. In Jorgi Gol trusts…

 

10 hours ago, just said:

Gol, you are on ship which is slowly capsizing. You really need to take some kind of action. You go to your best lifeboat but find it has a hole in it. Do you stay because it's your best lifeboat, or do you try one of the other ones that isn't as good but might not have a hole in it? 

It's a simplistic simile but it hammers home the point.

It also assumes that you are sure that the first lifeboat is indeed better in the first place... it's been a good old while since I've seen the HMS Gusto have a decent day out and I'm not sure that Amempong shouldn't get the nod at the moment.

Moving away from the analogy at 1-0 it was pretty clear that we weren't going to hold them and I'm slightly ashamed to admit that I benefited from that foresight financially. Jose would have thrown on Obi One and we could have all put our feet up.

Maresca has impressed me, I'm eating a lot of humble pie right now (although I'm reserving a slice or two until he's actually won something) but while he laments the lack of game management from his players, he is actually the first guilty party of that last week. 10 minutes to go, all the traffic going one way, plug the dam midfield, tell the full backs to hold. Leave the wingers up as an outlet and bring Guehi on to run at everything.