Shrimpsvoices

Now that the dust has settled and hindsight is wonderful would it have been a good move for us to take off Jevons at half-time and put on another midfielder , probably Stanners for his energy and swamp midfield with 5 to stop them running through us at will. This would have left Paul Mullin upfield on his own to hold the ball up until runners arrived.

We would probably have won the match 3-1 and the snipers on here would have castigated Sammy for being negative but we would have had 2 more points !

You mention snipers....then you snipe

Anyone on here who goes to the games is entitled to an opinion, but thats all it is, an opinion, if my mum had balls, she would be my dad

Ifs and buts are wonderful but I can't help feeling you're clutchingo at straws. The simple fact is Sammy messed up big time on Friday and no amount of discussion about what he should have done will change that.

marky wrote:Ifs and buts are wonderful but I can't help feeling you're clutchingo at straws. The simple fact is Sammy messed up big time on Friday and no amount of discussion about what he should have done will change that.

I just hope that everybody involved has learnt something from the game; especially Sammy who has to look at how he uses his substitues. Keith Hill got it spot on at half time. I'd like to think had the score been 0-3 to Rochdale at H/T that we would have reacted in such a positive manner.

Trying to make sense of it all....

I said after their first goal that was the time to put Hunter or Stanners on (I'd have taken Drummy off then - as I think Vinny has said in another thread, we were needing someone to hassle their midfilders a bit more as we were getting over-run). Drummy had had a good first half, contributing to our attacks but when we saw how they were lining up in the second half, we needed someone busier and more 'all-action' in there.

I also said I could see Duffy coming on as well just to give us more energy and occupy their midfield a bit more (probably for Craney who was looking a bit leg-weary, he was all over the park in the first half).

But hindsight's wonderful. The thing was they HAD to change things, it was forced on them. It worked - and good for them, but it might not have done.

We didn't have to change anything at half time, we were well on top and knew they would have to come out attacking and that would give us options to get another.

We had a side that had gone 3-0 up and looked capable of scoring more, so I wouldn't have taken Jevons off any sooner and, personally, I wouldn't have gone to playing Mullin on his own up front.
But I would have put Gary on sooner.

Some tough games coming up, as we always knew, and the pressure on everyone could grow if we don't get a few unexpectedly positive results.

I felt sorry for Twissy being left out of the starting line-up but liked the partnership that Mullin and Jevons started and can't argue with the selection now. Twissy looked good as well when he came on.

Maybe Sammy will look at the side, energy levels etc and make changes automatically in future - giving certain players a set amount of time on the pitch, to be replaced by fresh legs, whatever the state of the game score-wise.

shrimper wrote:Trying to make sense of it all....

I said after their first goal that was the time to put Hunter or Stanners on (I'd have taken Drummy off then - as I think Vinny has said in another thread, we were needing someone to hassle their midfilders a bit more as we were getting over-run). Drummy had had a good first half, contributing to our attacks but when we saw how they were lining up in the second half, we needed someone busier and more 'all-action' in there.

I also said I could see Duffy coming on as well just to give us more energy and occupy their midfield a bit more (probably for Craney who was looking a bit leg-weary, he was all over the park in the first half).

But hindsight's wonderful. The thing was they HAD to change things, it was forced on them. It worked - and good for them, but it might not have done.

We didn't have to change anything at half time, we were well on top and knew they would have to come out attacking and that would give us options to get another.

We had a side that had gone 3-0 up and looked capable of scoring more, so I wouldn't have taken Jevons off any sooner and, personally, I wouldn't have gone to playing Mullin on his own up front.
But I would have put Gary on sooner.

Some tough games coming up, as we always knew, and the pressure on everyone could grow if we don't get a few unexpectedly positive results.

I felt sorry for Twissy being left out of the starting line-up but liked the partnership that Mullin and Jevons started and can't argue with the selection now. Twissy looked good as well when he came on.

Maybe Sammy will look at the side, energy levels etc and make changes automatically in future - giving certain players a set amount of time on the pitch, to be replaced by fresh legs, whatever the state of the game score-wise.

Spot on. Bringing Garry on when he did, and on the right of midfield, was suicide. I think he wanted to give Moss more protection in light of Rochdale's changes and, in that sense, removing Craney was a good decision because he doesn't get too involved in a defensive capacity. However, we had two players on the bench in Duffy and Wainwright capable of playing in Craney's role and, particularly in Wainwright's case, offering better defensive cover than Craney.

Hunter was needed in the middle of the park (much earlier than he was introduced) and, when he finally did come on, this left Stewart Drummond clearly as bemused as the rest of us. First, he seemed to walk over to the bench expecting to be the one who'd make way for Hunter and then, once he’d ascertained Craney was to be subbed instead, he began to head to the right hand side himself, fully expecting Hunter to be tucked in a central midfield role. It was a completely mental decision by Sammy and one that ultimately cost us, I think. He must take sole responsibility.

It does bring forward another interesting issue though: Sammy’s substitutions. In my view, he has never maximised his options from the bench as well as he ought to. For years, he would make just one substitution on or around 85 minutes giving the substitute little chance to make any impact. Newby and O’Carroll were famous victims of this policy, of course. More so, however, the issue is more important this season than previously. We now have a huge squad at our disposal now with various types of player to cover most eventualities. Given that we are now allowed to name seven substitutes, I think Sammy needs to re-appraise his attitude towards the substitutes bench if we are to fully utilise it.

I'll temper anything I said, though, again with the 'hindsight is wonderful' phrase.

As it happened, it may have been better if he had..... etc.

But he has hundreds of decisions to make every week, every match and he's not done a lot wrong so far (IMO).

I think you're right, though, and he may begin to look at his substitutions differently now we have seven to choose from.

He's seen how certain players - Craney and Jevons mainly - perform over a full 90 minutes. He knows what players like Hunter, Stanners, Twissy, Wayne, Duffy and Wainwright can do when they're brought on.

Now he's had a chance to properly assess all that - and with Friday sure to be on his mind for a long time - maybe he'll show a different attitude towards subs.

shrimper wrote:I said after their first goal that was the time to put Hunter or Stanners on (I'd have taken Drummy off then - as I think Vinny has said in another thread, we were needing someone to hassle their midfilders a bit more as we were getting over-run). Drummy had had a good first half, contributing to our attacks but when we saw how they were lining up in the second half, we needed someone busier and more 'all-action' in there.

I said the same in another thread and virtually everyone I've spoken to (probably 20 people) said exactly the same thing - take Drummy off and put Garry Hunter on. Everybody wanted him on from the hassling players perspective but not out wide right.

There is the chance of course that having 7 subs will make his selection even more difficult. As for the bench on Friday, still can't understand why McStay wasn't on it.

Sammy's very loyal to his charges but maybe the time has come when his loyalty is being 'used' by those players.

Aye - I can't remember why I thought the '7' was material to the point I was trying to make??

What I was getting at was that, instead of sticking with the same eleven until using a sub as a 'reaction' when you've spotted something that needs doing (and it may be too late then), perhaps he'll look at the strength of his squad and decide BEFORE the game that he's going to give, for example, Craney and Jevons (or Drummy) 65 minutes then, whatever's happening, bring on fresh legs.

I know it would have been a 'reaction' to what Rochdale did on Friday (trying to stop their midfield runners), but it might not be a bad ploy to use quite regularly anyway to try to avoid getting into that position again. We've got real strength on the bench and it may be that taking the initiative like this could work well.

Probably always need to save one sub until later on in case of injury, though.

Twiss played well getting into lots of space but Jevons finishing is ace and let's face it, Twiss has a great long shot but his finishin is crap!!

Just spoke to Sammy and he said it was a very tough decision but that's what he has to do, make tough decisions. Still sees plenty of opportunity for Twissy though and agrees he's played very well this season.

shrimper wrote:Just spoke to Sammy and he said it was a very tough decision but that's what he has to do, make tough decisions. Still sees plenty of opportunity for Twissy though and agrees he's played very well this season.

did you do a video interview with Sammy Glen ?

it would be re-assuring to hear Sammy's views on the current situation.

I think Sammy missed a huge trick in the Carlisle game by not fielding a full strength team and getting a morale boosting win. Every time we get a mention on Radio Lancs it is along the lines of "Morecambe are trying for their first win in 8 games" etc etc. It really is a monkey on our back.

Apart from wins against Kendal and Southport we havent won a first team game since April.

Heysham_Shrimp wrote:

shrimper wrote:Just spoke to Sammy and he said it was a very tough decision but that's what he has to do, make tough decisions. Still sees plenty of opportunity for Twissy though and agrees he's played very well this season.

did you do a video interview with Sammy Glen ?

it would be re-assuring to hear Sammy's views on the current situation.

I think Sammy missed a huge trick in the Carlisle game by not fielding a full strength team and getting a morale boosting win. Every time we get a mention on Radio Lancs it is along the lines of "Morecambe are trying for their first win in 8 games" etc etc. It really is a monkey on our back.

Apart from wins against Kendal and Southport we havent won a first team game since April.

Trying to get a video chat sorted later this week (we've had a few staff reductions in recent months so it's not as easy as it was last season).

You could tell Sammy was annoyed at what happened on Friday but still believes we have the players to do well this season - even in our next few games which he knows look very tough on paper.

he makes the point that we've played two very good teams in Chesterfield and Rochdale but not looked any worse than either of them - neither has beaten us. We could have won at Chesterfield and should have done against Rochdale.

Not glossing over the problems from Friday - which everyone knows about and knows we have to sort out and quickly - but says there's enough good signs for him to be confident we can do that.