They bring on Drogba. We bring on Crouch!

[There's always next year]

Granted Defoe was not that impressive, but as soon as we made that switch,our game went from stretching their back four to playing a replacement who has a annoying habit of making aimless flicks to the opposition.

I like and rate Redknapp, but bringing on Crouch, when we we 1-0 up and spaces behind them would have opened up as they started to chase the game, just baffled me.

 

[StartingPrice]

We started with Defoe, they started with Kalou.

Yeah, we all know we need to freshen the striking options up in January:-|

 

[Jimmypearce7]

What are you moaning about Crouch for? He won everything. Shame VDV was not there for the knock downs, doesn't even occur to any of the rest of the team to get on the end of them.
Great Defoe Pav combination for the goal but apart from that it was the forwards which were the weak part of the team. Defoe was easily snuffed out and Pav half hearted.

 

[Damian99]

I like and rate Redknapp, but bringing on Crouch, when we we 1-0 up and spaces behind them would have opened up as they started to chase the game, just baffled me.

What baffled you?? the timing of the sub?? or the sub itself?? I mean who did you want him to bring on in place of Defoe, Joe Jordan? (mind would he have been any worse?)

 

[scat1620]

What are you moaning about Crouch for? He won everything. Shame VDV was not there for the knock downs, doesn't even occur to any of the rest of the team to get on the end of them.
Great Defoe Pav combination for the goal but apart from that it was the forwards which were the weak part of the team. Defoe was easily snuffed out and Pav half hearted.

Agreed. Crouch's overall play was at least as good as both Pav and Defoe's today, IMO.

Still could improve on all of them, mind - and I think it's essential we do in January if we want to be playing Champions League football next year.

 

[jurgen]

You hate Crouch, we get it...

 

[StartingPrice]

Sorry, I thought it was just a general anti-Crouch moan, and so didn't take it very seriously as the Big Fella was fine when he came on. I didn't realise you actually wanted the timing of the substitution explained to you.

Okay, at the time of the substitution Chelsea was on the front foot, but the only time they looked really dangerous was with the aerial threat, and more particularly the aerial threat from set-pieces. Not only is Crouch adept at dropping deep, linking up play and starting rapid attacks down the flanks (which looked like our best source of goals at the time, as they were dominating possession), but he also provides and additional defensive capability for defending high balls, and more particularly set-pieces.

Simple really. Whether you agree with it or not is a matter of subjective choice, but the timing was fairly obvious, I would have thought.

 

[AngerManagement]

Crouch put in a good shift when he came on.

We lost a bit of bite upfront yes, I mean we seemed to tire but generally we were looking comfortable until Drogba scored (maybe we did sit a bit deep and surrender possession) but they were no more dangrous than us even if they did have more shots and possession and we could have easily gone clear on more than one occasions.

I don't think Crouch is the problem per say, he is part of it in as far as he like all of our strikers do not meet the level of the players behind him but I do think he gets something of a raw deal seeing as despite his lack of goals and goal threat his work rate and assist ability does mean he has something to offer (at least until we have something better)

Robbie Keane on the other hand looks like a punch drunk version of his former self well out of his depth at the top level now like Muhammed Ali against Larry Holmes. I think if Villa seriously want to throw anything above £5m for him we should say thanks for all you have done Mr Keane and bite their hands off.

 

[beats1]

What are you moaning about Crouch for? He won everything. Shame VDV was not there for the knock downs, doesn't even occur to any of the rest of the team to get on the end of them.
Great Defoe Pav combination for the goal but apart from that it was the forwards which were the weak part of the team. Defoe was easily snuffed out and Pav half hearted.

I disagree the midfield was not linking up with the strikers, I feel Redknapp needs to rotate a bit because looks tired and you can't blame him, he has played everything game this season, give the lad a rest he has earned it

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Defoe and Pav proved yet again that they are are our worst 'partnership', literally apart what ended up as a goal they weren't within 30m of each other at any time.

It's sheer arrogance to play the both of them as a strikeforce, will work some times but other times not so much.

 

[cnyy12]

Well, Drogba should have probably started in place of Anelka.

I don't think Crouch had any real role in this game. He's been very useful in Europe, where he's been an unfamiliar threat and able to match up better physically with the opposition's defenders and dropping into midfields that are already fairly well linked with the attack. He's also been very useful knocking the ball down to VdV and Defoe. Here, he was physically outmatched by Chelsea's players, had no one to knock the ball down for with no VdV and Defoe. Also, with our central midfielders sitting so deep, Defoe had done better pestering the CMs (as it appeared he was supposed to do) and making diagonal runs into the space opened up by Ferreira marking Bale deep, both crucial roles which Crouch was unable to do as well as Defoe.

Granted, we had a terrible time trying to retain possession of the ball for any period of time even before Defoe went off, but Crouch made it even worse with his inability to win the ball and/or hold it, and really just kept giving it away. According to the guardian chalkboards, he only completed 5 of his 15 passes, with all of the completed passes heading away from goal.

If Defoe needed to come off, I would have preferred to see Sandro instead maybe with us moving to a 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 with Modric going behind Pav, or maybe even Keane come on to play behind Pav. I'm just not sure what Crouch offered in this match, especially paired with Pav.

 

[hoddle1987]

ridiculous switch. the threat of defoe's pace kept their entire defence near their 18-yard line!

crouch ran about a bit, but ffs thats not what hes paid to do. what hes paid to do is what pav done. and does.

 

[alamo]

crouch ran about a bit, but ffs thats not what hes paid to do. what hes paid to do is what pav done. and does.

Well thats settled then

 

[striebs]

Agreed. Crouch's overall play was at least as good as both Pav and Defoe's today, IMO.

Still could improve on all of them, mind - and I think it's essential we do in January if we want to be playing Champions League football next year.

Summs it up really .


We didn't have the confidence to take the game to Chelsea so let them come onto us and tried to hit them on the break .
Unfortunately we don't have the strikers for this sort of counter attacking football . Not enough pace , control and absolutely no killer instinct .

 

[bubble07]

they are double winners and were not

 

[gibbs131]

It's HR favoritism.

Obvious.

 

[tooey]

It's HR favoritism.

Obvious.

What a joke. It was a tactical change that didn't pay off. If it was favoritism then why did defoe go off? I thought he was one of harry's golden boys as well?

I can see why he did it, he wanted to try and hold up the ball more, slow the tempo. It didn't work, but at least it was an intension based on football and not on personal preferance.

 

[brett.spurs]

I think this is Harry's biggest weakness. He's great at changing the game in our favour when we're behind/drawing and looking for a goal, but it's when we're hanging onto the win/draw and everyone can see we're under the cosh and that it's just a matter of time before we concede. He either just plays pot luck in the hope the players on the pitch can withstand the pressure, or he'll make a like-for-like substitution that in no way effects the game.

Bringing on Crouch threw the game away for me, Chelsea knew there was no threat anymore so pushed up even further, penning us into our own box at times, we needed to get a hold of the ball so someone like Sandro would've been a far better choice.

 

[dvdhopeful]

Harry can only bring on what is available to him - Defoe and Pav didn't offer very much, we were under pressure, so bringing Crouch on certainly made sense. As much as people might not like it, it gave us an outlet and a chance to release some pressure.

Those making accusations about favouritism are simply WUM'ing as per usual. Did Crouch and Defoe start? No, Pav and Defoe did. Did Defoe stay on and Pav go off? No, they both went off. Just go away.

 

[EmperorKabir]

We brought on Stretch McLank because we were finding it tougher to hold the ball up in attack, the double edge to this sword meaning that Chel$kum could attack in our half as a result.

Stretchy is a good player for holding up the ball which is what we needed.

The fact that he won something like 0 or 1 out of about 20 heading attempts was not forseeable by HR... yes, we do need a wonder striker in Jan.