If the result is disappointing, the substitutions must have been poor.

[Arthur]

I actually typed this for the 'Talk about knee-jerk reactions' post - only to find it locked. (Lock the thread if you feel you must, but did nose, RidgeRider et al need to be told to calm down? To me, this seems more belittling than the dispute itself. Are they not adult enough to disagree strongly? The thread was never going to descend into the trading of expletives. There's a saying: A word to the wise... is infuriating.) Anyhow, having mulled over what to do, I've eventually decided to publish. I apologise, however, that this hasn't the hallmarks of an opening post.


First and foremost, I think the accusation that FM's second-half tactics were 'to park the bus' (which even the pro-Magath contributors seem to accept) is wrong. I also think that, whatever substitutions FM had made, the Baggies would still have carved out the same (limited) number of chances (one of which would likely have resulted in a goal).

I say this because the analysis of the game here makes no concession whatsoever for the changes that West Brom made; it is as if any unwelcome change in fortunes during the match must be and can only be the consequence of Magath's poor decision-making.

(I'm of the opinion that, were we 3-0 ahead at half-time against, say, Morecombe, and then, for the second-half, our opponents were allowed to field the entire Bayern Munich 1st XI and we ended up losing 4-3, there'd be those who would ignore this completely and pour their scorn solely upon our manager's tactics and substitutions, claiming that he had 'lost' us the game; an exaggeration, of course, but it does illustrate the my point quite well.)

The critical substitutions of the match were West Brom's to make: Pepe Mel (whether knowingly or not) exploited weaknesses that seemingly pervade the squad as a whole: we neither control nor pass the ball well enough. In the second-half, the Baggies pressurised our defenders more and got tighter to our midfield players in our half of the field. To counteract this, we needed to be capable of stringing together a series of slick, accurate passes. (And the more the players tired, the more vital and yet, at the same time, difficult, this became.) Had we been able to launch a few stinging counter-attacks, Mel would have had to reconsider his team's tactics. As it was, we could typically resort only to hitting the ball upfield with the sole intention of clearing the immediate danger.

In my opinion, to argue that Magath intended us to 'park the bus' is to ignore the fact that it was forced upon us due to a combination of their changes coupled with our shortcomings; to attribute the fact that West Brom equalised owing to his substitutions is too simplistic. Maybe there were better choices, maybe not. Sometimes, no amount of effort, organisation and determination (or substitutions) can wholly compensate for just that bit of lack of ability. The Hawthorns was a case in point.

[Pluto]

Yes but Mel wouldn't have been able to exploit those shortcomings to such an extent or even make such attacking changes in the first place had Magath's substitutions been better. Parker and Hangeland off for Burn and Kvist would have given us two players who can actually keep possession rather than just squandering it back to the opposition. The reason we failed in this area as we did is partly down to Magath not making the tactical decisions which allowed West Brom to utilise the killer substitutions they made to get hem back in the game.

Long story short; I don't see your point.

[Arthur]

Mel made his changes at half-time. His interventions were 'in the first place', not Magath's. This is, perhaps, the point you don't see.

[RaySmith]

We might have lost the game if not for Magath's tactics -instead we got an away point.

[Pluto]

Mel made his changes at half-time. His interventions were 'in the first place', not Magath's. This is, perhaps, the point you don't see.

Mel made his changes at half-time. His interventions were 'in the first place', not Magath's. This is, perhaps, the point you don't see.

It doesn't mean that Magath's inaction at half time didn't allow Mel's substitutes to be effective. It's not so much that he made the wrong substitutions as it is he didn't use his capability to make substitutions effectively or at the right time. You're being too narrow minded about t he problem.

Everyone could see we were crying out for players who could keep the ball to replace those who couldn't, in order to nullify West Brom's threat. We had those players available as subtitutes. Magath didn't bring them on. West Brom continued to expose the problem. West Brom scored. Therefore Magath's ineffective use of substitutes contributed to the goal they scored.

[Arthur]

If you're claiming that you were saying, at half-time, that Magath needed to bring on substitutes right away (bearing in mind the score and that we'd had the better of the half), I take my hat off to you.

To suggest, however, that it is 'narrow-minded' of me not to think that Magath should have foreseen how events would change in the second-half is a strange accusation.

Next time you're not at a game and we take the lead, perhaps you'd be kind enough to post what changes Magath should make and when before it becomes apparent how the opposition manager is responding. I'm always keen to learn.

[Denver Fulham]

Magath's first sub was highly tactical to counter the pre-halftime and halftime subs made by WBA. By bringing on Gera and having Amalfitano play RB, they had huge threat on that flank, and Magath immediately countered by bringing on Riise. Whether you agree with it or not, fine.

The second sub was to bring on a fresh striker. It didn't have an impact, but hard to complain about the idea.

The third sub brought on a CB which moved Heitinga out of central defense, which I thought was wise since he was on a card and in constant physical tussles with Anichibe. That was a second yellow waiting to happen.

It was a bit surprising to remove Richardson and move Riether to midfield, and perhaps not to use the final sub on Kvist for Parker instead, but killing Magath for his subs seems ridiculous to me. They all had significant and understandable purpose. Because the final 20 mins went poorly and we gave up the lead (because Hangeland didn't mark a man in the position Heitinga had previously been playing), he gets stick.

[hovewhite]

We might of only got a point but magath would have learnt a lot as think the squad he picked is his smaller squad he is going to work with for the last eleven games.

[NogoodBoyo]

Arthur makes some very good points, but I did think that the substitutions were nowhere near as effective as were Pepe's.  In fact, they were poor (with the huge benefit of foresight, peripheral vision on my 650" HDTV and hindsight).
Nogood "we're all so wise, isit" Boyo

[Baszab]

650" screen was a larger viewing area than I had at the Hawthorns with about 10 stewards in front of me

[Whitesideup]

Yes but Mel wouldn't have been able to exploit those shortcomings to such an extent or even make such attacking changes in the first place had Magath's substitutions been better. Parker and Hangeland off for Burn and Kvist would have given us two players who can actually keep possession rather than just squandering it back to the opposition. The reason we failed in this area as we did is partly down to Magath not making the tactical decisions which allowed West Brom to utilise the killer substitutions they made to get hem back in the game.

Long story short; I don't see your point.

I really don't see why Burn is being touted as some kind of saviour over a very good centre-half. Burn's distribution is no better than Hangeland's. A couple of games and Burn is the new Bobby Moore and conversely one of the steadiest centre-halves over several years has degenerated into a match-losing villain. Nonsense.

However the truth is in the statement that our possession wasn't good enough. The intelligence of the team lies in midfield and no matter the work-rate, no matter the tackles, nothing replaces quality of footballing intelligence. That's why Murphy was so, so good. I like Sidwell, but you can only have one of him. Parker alongside does not work. I thought Kvist improved our play ..quicker to get the ball, quicker to move it, looked forward more frequently. He also works hard defensively and gets in the right space. He is also verbal in his organization of the midfield..did no one else notice his contribution against Liverpool? He alone does not necessarily make the difference ..but he's a start.   

[Admin]

We'd have lost this game under Rene'..

[yorkie]

We'd have lost this game under Rene'..

I don't think we would have lost considering how we played against man u and liverpool. But I guess we'll never know.

[DeuceBigelow]

A decent away point, I'll take it.

[Forever Fulham]

We don't handle the high press well.  We still boot it away, almost always to the opposition, as teammates won't show for the pass.  Movement off the ball is substandard.  I replayed the West Brom game again.  Parker can't break free and can't stop anyone.  He is slow. Contrast with Dejagah who was able to physically battle the defender on him, break away, and push forward. 

[yorkie]

Magath's starting line was all wrong. The team had the same failings as the old team and that was down to the reliance on the older players.  If he picked those players based on just the last week then that is worrying. He got rid of most of the backroom staff when what he should have done was kept them until the summer and then sorted it out.

End of the day, we conceded a late goal and were crap in the second half against a team who have been as poor as us. The new manager hasn't won a game yet and knowing that their confidence is not going to be high, we take off our counter attacking threat for a central defender, move the central defender (who can play as a rb and dm) and move the right back who isn't the best of defenders in to midfield to shore things up. He made a few mistakes in the game and as a human being that is expected but I don't think it is fair of the Magath fan club to attack those who are pointing out his mistakes.

And another point, the Magath fan club have made comments about giving him time, but we don't really have time on our side. Mackintosh must be praying that he keeps us up, otherwise he along with Magath may be on their way out in the summer.

[yorkie]

We don't handle the high press well.  We still boot it away, almost always to the opposition, as teammates won't show for the pass.  Movement off the ball is substandard.  I replayed the West Brom game again.  Parker can't break free and can't stop anyone.  He is slow. Contrast with Dejagah who was able to physically battle the defender on him, break away, and push forward. 

I agree, in particular about our movement of the ball. It's been like that for a while. It was very obvious against Sheff Utd.

[Lighthouse]

Take off wide pace, stick on defenders. Not sure how anybody can argue this wasn't an attempt to park the bus or in our case the old banger. We had no get out. I said that during the game and afterwards. I am happy that our manager made early changes instead of waiting as we were being overrun from the second half kick off. But they did nothing but invite more pressure.

[JDH101]

(I'm of the opinion that, were we 3-0 ahead at half-time against, say, Morecombe,

We'd never score 3 in a half.

[Arthur]

Take off wide pace, stick on defenders. Not sure how anybody can argue this wasn't an attempt to park the bus or in our case the old banger. We had no get out. I said that during the game and afterwards. I am happy that our manager made early changes instead of waiting as we were being overrun from the second half kick off. But they did nothing but invite more pressure.

Richardson for Burn (defender) (singular, not plural). As the saying goes, it's all in the timing: 70th minute (not 45th). Second-half had already been playing for 25 minutes - during which time we had failed to launch a single counter-attack. 'Parking the bus' was not a choice of Magath's, it was forced upon us. Disagree that the change resulted in us being under even greater pressure; it was, in my opinion, constant throughout the second-half. Nor is it true to say we had no 'get-out players' on the pitch after the substitution; potentially, we still had three: Dejagah, Holtby and Mitroglou.