The Keogh sub??

voyeur said:
I haven't seen the game but it sounds like we switched to a back 3 and pushed Gabriel and husband forward to support Bowler and Anderson, so not necessarily a defensive move?

Critch started with nothing and built a promotion side on a minimal budget that has now established itself in the Championship. He's done that by making us hard to break down primarily, out if necessity, we lack the quality going forward to be a very offensive side. But we do have a go. 18 shots to Rovers 10 at Ewood isn't negative in my book. He just has to be a bit pragmatic with the resources he has.
Click to expand...
Considering we had two good chances to score after this sub, I hesitate to think it was negative. I'll wait until I watch it on TTV tomorrow.
 
No. You’re all wrong. It was the result of an unfortunate and badly timed cough by Neil C in the direction of the Fourth Official.

Fourth Official: “Which sub is coming on?”

Neil C: “Keooggh!” 😤
 
Allowed the full backs to get forward without as much defensive concerns. Not negative as some think. Also we had Keshi and Bowler buzzing around.
 
1950`spoolfan said:
I`ve just listened to Critchley`s fairly long post match interview. There was much reference to the team`s character and team spirit but no direct reference to any of the substitutions certainly not the replacement of Lavery with Keogh..
Click to expand...
You need to listen again…
 
I understand the reasoning behind it, ie to go to wing backs but what I can't recall is Husband pushing up that much. Did even Gabriel? So yeah logic to it but we still took a striker off who plays down the middle.
 
Philbfctrois said:
I take it you didn't go to the match?
Click to expand...
I said I didn't in my post. Which has 24 likes including people who did go. I've seen 90% of Critch's games in charge at least. I know what he does and I understand the reasons why, 99% of the time. He's a very talented coach who knows what he is doing. Whereas you are a fan who criticised Holloway and now Critchley, two of the best coaches we've had at the club in my lifetime, both achieving success on vastly lower budgets than their opponents. Rather than moaning from the sidelines and claiming to know better.
 
voyeur said:
I said I didn't in my post. Which has 24 likes including people who did go. I've seen 90% of Critch's games in charge at least. I know what he does and I understand the reasons why, 99% of the time. He's a very talented coach who knows what he is doing. Whereas you are a fan who criticised Holloway and now Critchley, two of the best coaches we've had at the club in my lifetime, both achieving success on vastly lower budgets than their opponents. Rather than moaning from the sidelines and claiming to know better.
Click to expand...
That may be true but following football is all about having opinions some maybe right some not but it would be a dull game if we couldn`t share and debate them which is pretty much what AVFTT is about.

Even Critchley who undeniably has done well, is not infallible, and I think many but not all would say that he generally has a fairly safety first approach which some agree with and some think a more positive attacking approach could produce more attractive football with maybe more wins sprinkled with a few more defeats too but 3 points plus 0 points with a probability of more goals is better and more exciting than 1 plus 1 points as Olly always seemed to favour when he was here and didn`t we just love that.

It takes all sorts but let`s try to be tolerant of most other opinions unless they are just beyond credible which does not apply to any on this thread..
 
Last edited:
1950`spoolfan said:
That may be true but following football is all about having opinions some maybe right some not but it would be a dull game if we couldn`t share and debate them which is pretty much what AVFTT is about.

Even Critchley who undeniably has done well, is not infallible, and generally I think many but not all would say that he generally has a fairly safety first approach which some agree with and some think a more positive attacking approach could produce more attractive football with maybe more wins sprinkled with a few more defeats too but 3 points plus 0 points with a probability of more goals is better and more exciting than 1 plus 1 points as Olly always seemed to favour when he was here and didn`t we just love that.

It takes all sorts but let`s try to be tolerant of most other opinions unless they are just beyond credible which does not apply to any on this thread..
Click to expand...
Can I ask whether you have watched yesterday’s game at all ?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Can I ask whether you have watched yesterday’s game at all ?
Click to expand...
No as you no doubt are suspecting I have only seen the highlights of yesterday`s game but if you have read my previous post it is abundantly clear that it relates not to any one game including yesterday`s indeed not even just this season though certainly more so but also the overall approach apparent over the last couple of years.
 
Philbfctrois said:
Of course it was a defensive move

The game was there for the taking and he gave up the chance of a win to settle for a draw

Unbelievably negative again from the manager

1 point from 3 games isn't good enough
Click to expand...
I don't think he wanted the gamble. Off the back of 2 dreadful performances he wanted to get 'back on track'. He saw it as more important to stick with 1pt rather than risk 0, just to settle the ship.

Had he made an adventurous sub, we might have lost, won or draw- the same for the sub he made. Percentages played I suppose.

In the grand scheme 3 points don't matter, but trying to get some stability and momentum going forward into the close season are what's needed.
 
No I don`t think he believes much in the theory of taking a risk to achieve a potential reward not just yesterday but overall.
 
1950`spoolfan said:
No as you no doubt are suspecting I have only seen the highlights of yesterday`s game but if you have read my previous post it is abundantly clear that it relates not to any one game including yesterday`s indeed not even just this season though certainly more so but also the overall approach apparent over the last couple of years.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t trying to be funny, I just got that general impression. As you say, you’ve spoken more in general terms and you obviously didn’t relate to Critch’s comments in the post match.

In the passage of play leading up to the substitution, Mowbray had made a substitution and changed their set up to match up with our 442 …. Critch then decided to maintain the pressure, by going 3 at the back.

I’d tend to agree he has adopted a fairly cautious approach this season. He’s also been pretty clear on how he would go about exposing other sides weaknesses and players have been well drilled and stuck to a plan… He’s definitely not an overly-defensive manager by any stretch of the imagination, but at the same time he’s not a silly risk taker either…IMO he strikes the right balance.

As for yesterday, he was pressing for the win and reacting to Blackburn trying to get on top by matching up with us.
 
Not read the comment above but after watching his interview I understand why he made that sub, that I questioned at the time.
That’s why he’s our manager, in critch we trust 👍🏽
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Which is why he went for a tactically positive substitution as confirmed in his post match.

The fact that our fans are too thick to realise what’s going on isn’t the managers fault.
Click to expand...
Most football fans just think an attacking sub/team is always the best option, it's naïve jumpers for goalposts nonsense.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Most football fans just think an attacking sub/team is always the best option, it's naïve jumpers for goalposts nonsense.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Critch often waits for the other manager to show their hand with subs. Now, that's got it's merits but so does being the one who forces the opposition to react to you.

We went through a phase last year where we invited pressure on ourselves with defensive subs and perhaps more relevantly, I don't think it's especially naive to want to see your side try to win a game. That's why we are there. It's all very well going home and getting chufties on about how we 'nullified the half space movement' or something knowing and tactical but that is fundamentally *quite boring* in comparison to the rare but nonetheless occasional joy of a last minute winner. That's the buzz we're craving. I'm not sure that's nonsense. It's the reason we're there.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't but he knows that. He's not a prisoner or held captive by us and by and large, he gets a lot of backing.
 
Ultimately,I suppose what I'm saying is - however you dress it up, we're all football smackheads and whether you fancy yourself as being all knowing and William Burroughs philosophical about it or you just want your fix, now and don't care how you get jt we all want the same thing.
 
td53 said:
I don't know. Critch often waits for the other manager to show their hand with subs. Now, that's got it's merits but so does being the one who forces the opposition to react to you.

We went through a phase last year where we invited pressure on ourselves with defensive subs and perhaps more relevantly, I don't think it's especially naive to want to see your side try to win a game. That's why we are there. It's all very well going home and getting chufties on about how we 'nullified the half space movement' or something knowing and tactical but that is fundamentally *quite boring* in comparison to the rare but nonetheless occasional joy of a last minute winner. That's the buzz we're craving. I'm not sure that's nonsense. It's the reason we're there.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't but he knows that. He's not a prisoner or held captive by us and by and large, he gets a lot of backing.
Click to expand...
It's nonsense because an attacking sub (i.e. defender instead of forward) doesn't necessarily get you that last minute winner and there's bugger all point in surrendering possession or shape just to lump a striker on, it's almost like people forget that there's an opposition.

Why would a manager throw all of the tactics in to the bin in the hope that they can suddenly become Roy of the Rovers? I can't remember even Holloway doing it

For 40 years I've been hearing fans whinging in the stands that they've brought a defender on when not winning, it's just so tedious a go to complaint, how many times does 'going for it' actually get you the winner?
 
Last edited:
td53 said:
I don't know. Critch often waits for the other manager to show their hand with subs. Now, that's got it's merits but so does being the one who forces the opposition to react to you.

We went through a phase last year where we invited pressure on ourselves with defensive subs and perhaps more relevantly, I don't think it's especially naive to want to see your side try to win a game. That's why we are there. It's all very well going home and getting chufties on about how we 'nullified the half space movement' or something knowing and tactical but that is fundamentally *quite boring* in comparison to the rare but nonetheless occasional joy of a last minute winner. That's the buzz we're craving. I'm not sure that's nonsense. It's the reason we're there.

He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't but he knows that. He's not a prisoner or held captive by us and by and large, he gets a lot of backing.
Click to expand...
That’s all fine, but in this case it wasn’t a defensive substitution.

His choices were:

to replace like for like (Jerry for Lavery), where the only real benefit was fresh legs and wouldn’t have countered the Blackburn change.

To bring on another attack minded player and leave us out of balance at the back.

Or to do what he did
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
It's nonsense because an attacking sub (i.e. defender instead of forward) doesn't necessarily get you that last minute winner and there's bugger all point in surrendering possession just to lump a striker on.
Click to expand...
In general terms, keeping players in attacking positions is a more aggressive move. It's not unremitting stupidity to see bringing a centre back on for a striker as probably 'defensive'

We took more control of one area of the pitch but conceded bodies in another and thus gave them freedom to remove one centre half.

We can argue all day and all night about the possible impact of different subs but what we can't deny is that Critchley reacted to Mowbray and not vice versa. Which is usually the case.

We saw against (One team, I can't remember who... Luton?) at Bloomfield (maybe it wasn't Luton, I think it was a bigger team) the value of overloading the attack against a weary side. We were better, they chucked on loads of attackers and got goals late on because they overran us.

Calling fans wanting to attack nonsense is just playing into the whole "let's all be strategists and pretend football is a deep and meaningful thing" thing (says tosser who writes a blog and goes on a podcast)
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That’s all fine, but in this case it wasn’t a defensive substitution.

His choices were:

to replace like for like (Jerry for Lavery), where the only real benefit was fresh legs and wouldn’t have countered the Blackburn change.

To bring on another attack minded player and leave us out of balance at the back.

Or to do what he did
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my point in part. He's not very proactive.

I appear to be Phil all of a sudden.

I don't disagree with that change. What I disagree with is the notion that somehow we all magically know it was 'right'

Connelly shoots late. Keeper parries it. Jerry of Lavery would have had it. Equally of course, we might not have had possession to make the shot.

It's all a none argument!
 
td53 said:
In general terms, keeping players in attacking positions is a more aggressive move. It's not unremitting stupidity to see bringing a centre back on for a striker as probably 'defensive'

We took more control of one area of the pitch but conceded bodies in another and thus gave them freedom to remove one centre half.

We can argue all day and all night about the possible impact of different subs but what we can't deny is that Critchley reacted to Mowbray and not vice versa. Which is usually the case.

We saw against (One team, I can't remember who... Luton?) at Bloomfield (maybe it wasn't Luton, I think it was a bigger team) the value of overloading the attack against a weary side. We were better, they chucked on loads of attackers and got goals late on because they overran us.

Calling fans wanting to attack nonsense is just playing into the whole "let's all be strategists and pretend football is a deep and meaningful thing" thing (says tosser who writes a blog and goes on a podcast)
Click to expand...
Nah, 'let's all be strategists' is the same as 'lump it up to the big man', it's all a bit bollocks and fans have no idea what's happened in training that week, who's got a knock, who's not up for it, who is etc etc...

I could never be arsed with tactical analysis, some are and that's fine and I enjoy reading it, but it's all second hand nonsense really.
 
td53 said:
Yeah, that's my point in part. He's not very proactive.

I appear to be Phil all of a sudden.

I don't disagree with that change. What I disagree with is the notion that somehow we all magically know it was 'right'

Connelly shoots late. Keeper parries it. Jerry of Lavery would have had it. Equally of course, we might not have had possession to make the shot.

It's all a none argument!
Click to expand...
Well we very likely wouldn’t have had the space to make the shot, due to us not having the extra man in midfield. Either way, it doesn’t make it a negative substitution…. The intent behind the decision was positive and not to sit on the draw.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Nah, 'let's all be strategists' is the same as 'lump it up to the big man', it's all a bit bollocks and fans have no idea what's happened in training that week, who's got a knock, who's not up for it, who is etc etc...

I could never be arsed with tactical analysis, some are and that's fine and I enjoy reading it, but it's all second hand nonsense really.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

We went to a more counter attacking style is probably the way to leave it unless @BFC_BFC_BFC is in the mood for a full page disagreement about very little. 🤣
 
td53 said:
Fair enough.

We went to a more counter attacking style is probably the way to leave it unless @BFC_BFC_BFC is in the mood for a full page disagreement about very little. 🤣
Click to expand...
I can’t be arsed with that tbh.

If I’m being totally honest, I struggle with the endless bollocks that gets talked by fans as far as players and tactics is concerned.

Fact is that we’d likely never win a game under the direction of all of our armchair experts, who can’t even agree with each other, never mind Critch.

They all live a weird fantasy world where winning just relies on Critch “Only having made that one critical change” that is typically derived with the benefit of hindsight or on occasion (as many will excitedly proclaim) “I actually said he should have played Jerry up front BEFORE the kick off” and of course had Jerry played, he would have scored 6 as opposed to being as anonymous as he is when Critch plays him, but should have played Lavery instead etc etc etc…

It’s bollocks on a grand scale…. A world where middle aged men who’ve never kicked a ball in anger and who’s claim to fame is managing their kids local under 8’s side can play pretend in a magical world where every decision the manager gets wrong, you can get right…

It’s rare for me to even get involved in this kind of discussion in reality as usually I leave it to the experts (unusual for me I know), but it’s one area where I’m happy to concede I know fuck all (in relative terms)…

If we have a manager who isn’t an utter bell end, then for the most part, I’m happy to let them crack on and accept that we won’t win every game….

It’s rare for me to question the manager, I’m not really that arsed whether or not the football is overly attractive…. If we win I’m happy, draw less happy and lose I might be pissed off for an hour….

👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I can’t be arsed with that tbh.

If I’m being totally honest, I struggle with the endless bollocks that gets talked by fans as far as players and tactics is concerned.

Fact is that we’d likely never win a game under the direction of all of our armchair experts, who can’t even agree with each other, never mind Critch.

They all live a weird fantasy world that were Critch “Only to have made that one critical change” that is typically derived with the benefit of hindsight or on occasion (as many will excitedly proclaim) “I actually said he should have played Jerry up front BEFORE the kick off” and of course had Jerry played, he would have scored 6 as opposed to being as anonymous as he is when Critch plays him, but should have played Lavery instead etc etc etc…

It’s bollocks on a grand scale…. A world where middle aged men who’ve never kicked a ball in anger and who’s claim to fame is managing their kids local under 8’s side can play pretend in a magical world where every decision the manager gets wrong, you can get right…

It’s rare for me to even get involved in this kind of discussion in reality as usually I leave it to the experts (unusual for me I know), but it’s one area where I’m happy to concede I know fuck all (in relative terms)…

If we have a manager who isn’t an utter bell end, then for the most part, I’m happy to let them crack on and accept that we won’t win every game….

It’s rare for me to question the manager, I’m not really that arsed whether or not the football is overly attractive…. If we win I’m happy, draw less happy and lose I might be pissed off for an hour….

👍
Click to expand...

What if I make a point by point dissection of everything you said?

Lol.

It's all shite. (Not your post, all the analysis)

Win a game 1-0 and everything is great. The goal goes the other way and it's all horrendous etc.

The beautiful thing about football is that

A) everyone can have a view because the game is simple and accessible.
B) the game is sufficiently random that actually, often those views are pointless.
C) the analysis of supporters isnt objective. We tend to not really pay much attention to the other team cos, well, why would we? We always believe it's the decisions our team made that won/lost the game (or the ref)

In analysis of anything, trying to find meaning in a small amount of info is ridiculous. Basically, this entire season has left us with the conclusions:

A) probs need a midfielder or two
B) if only we could get Gaz a new pair of legs so he could run about as well a being a football genius.
C) not a lot else.
 
It was a negative sub and i don't care what any arm chair fan who wasn't at the game says

He make it when we were on top and pressing for a winner
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Clueless !
Click to expand...
Why because you disagree?

You didn't go to the match either so i don't understand how you can form an opinion on if we were on top or not at the stage of the substitution

Madine was dead on his feet and was struggling to either hold the ball up or press their defence

Again you wouldn't have seen this from your house

It looked to me like Critchley made the sub as he didn’t want to lose after the meek performance against Preston

It was a strange match on Saturday we started shit then got on top then just played the game out for a draw with 5 at the back

As for the earlier point about the fullbacks getting forward thats also a load of bollux, for all his qualities Husband isn't an attacking threat

Anyway i cant really be arsed with a discussion on how we played with folk who didn't see the match
 
Philbfctrois said:
Why because you disagree?

You didn't go to the match either so i don't understand how you can form an opinion on if we were on top or not at the stage of the substitution

Madine was dead on his feet and was struggling to either hold the ball up or press their defence

Again you wouldn't have seen this from your house

It looked to me like Critchley made the sub as he didn’t want to lose after the meek performance against Preston

It was a strange match on Saturday we started shit then got on top then just played the game out for a draw with 5 at the back

As for the earlier point about the fullbacks getting forward thats also a load of bollux, for all his qualities Husband isn't an attacking threat

Anyway i cant really be arsed with a discussion on how we played with folk who didn't see the match
Click to expand...
It makes no difference whatsoever whether I went to the game… In reality I had better insight into the game than you did and I wasn’t full of ale either 😂

You’ve clearly missed what was actually happening in the game and instead you’ve focused on an overly simplistic view A+B=C.

Like you I’m not really interested in a discussion… It’s pointless …

Great Result, we could have nicked it… Under your instructions we’d likely have lost 7-0😂
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It makes no difference whatsoever whether I went to the game… In reality I had better insight into the game than you did and I wasn’t full of ale either 😂

You’ve clearly missed what was actually happening in the game and instead you’ve focused on an overly simplistic view A+B=C.

Like you I’m not really interested in a discussion… It’s pointless …

Great Result, we could have nicked it… Under your instructions we’d likely have lost 7-0😂
Click to expand...
I certainly didn't miss what was happening

The manager took off an attacking threat leaving only a tired and statuesque Madine through the middle

You must have a clever version of Ceefax to get a better insight from your sofa
 
TwelveAngryMen said:
It was intended to be a positive sub undone by Hubby being knackered and Bowler getting clattered
You didn’t need to be there to see that
Click to expand...
Don't talk nonsense how do you know what it was intended to be, the fact is nobody knows for sure what he intended the mindset to be

The facts are we played the last 10 with a 5-4-1 formation with a distinct lack of numbers in their box when we got the ball wide

I know there is a massive Critchley love in on this site but surely people are allowed an opinion when they go to matches

Just like Tuesday the manager got it wrong in my opinion
 
Philbfctrois said:
I certainly didn't miss what was happening

The manager took off an attacking threat leaving only a tired and statuesque Madine through the middle

You must have a clever version of Ceefax to get a better insight from your sofa
Click to expand...
I just watched the game live on big screen TV. The added bonus of expert commentators, who’ve actually played football and understand the game, together with the benefit of replays and a sober head.

You obviously missed Blackburn change shape and start to get on top, before Critch changed it up to maintain the upper hand,

Madine gave them a torrid time throughout …. What was your proposal… Yates for Madine?

Cos that’s been oh so effective hasn’t it😂😂😂😂

Basically capitulate any aerial / phyical threat and employ the two headless chickens getting in each others way approach …. None of which deals with Blackburn’s tactical change.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I just watched the game live on big screen TV. The added bonus of expert commentators, who’ve actually played football and understand the game, together with the benefit of replays and a sober head.

You obviously missed Blackburn change shape and start to get on top, before Critch changed it up to maintain the upper hand,

Madine gave them a torrid time throughout …. What was your proposal… Yates for Madine?

Cos that’s been oh so effective hasn’t it😂😂😂😂

Basically capitulate any aerial / phyical threat and employ the two headless chickens getting in each others way approach …. None of which deals with Blackburn’s tactical change.
Click to expand...
Who were the commentary team who spoke so much sense?

As for Blackburns change of shape maybe should can be explicit with your description of if "from your armchair" to me it looked more like a personal change, keeping their 3-4-1-2 with Dack playing behind their front 2

Oh and Yates with Madine would have been my choice as it would have been during our impotent display at Preston
 
Last edited:
Philbfctrois said:
Who were the commentary team who spoke so much sense?

As for Blackburns change of shape maybe should can be explicit with your description of if "from your armchair" to me it looked more like a personal change, keeping their 3-4-1-2 with Dack playing behind their front 2

Oh and Yates with Madine would have been my choice as it would have been during our impotent display at Preston
Click to expand...
I thought Madine was knackered?😂😂😂😂
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
So basically your master plan involves a like-for-like substitution. 😂

I’m calling time on my involvement on the thread Phil….

I’m very happy with the manager, you’re not - that’s fine 👍👍
Click to expand...
Its not really a master plan

We were on top and Blackburn weren't really threatening us, bringing Keogh on just made things a bit more comfortable for their back 3

Enjoy your day
 
I've now watched the match on TTV and didn't really notice any real difference, we still created a few chances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top