They bring on Drogba. We bring on Crouch!

[There's always next year]

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.

I have to disagree with you on the view that bringing Crouch on allowed us to release the pressure. It actually created the opposite, as Crouch couldn't hold up a candle to the wind and his lack of movement allowed their back four to push on and pile on more pressure on our over worked midfield.

 

[FromTheLane]

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.

I agree with you on this one, Sandro would have made much more sense. I guess that the thinking behind Crouch was that it would give us an 'out' ball and someone to hit but it certainly didn't work and handed the initiative back to Chelsea; we need to learn to control the ball in midfield and slow the tempo down when we are a goal up.

 

[SpurSince57]

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.

Are you suggesting that Defoe provided any threat at all after that shot he put wide? Or that Pavyluchenko was a great deal better?

I'd have taken off the pair of them and put on Crouch and Sandro, but I'm not the manager.

 

[Mr Pink]

I agree with you on this one, Sandro would have made much more sense. I guess that the thinking behind Crouch was that it would give us an 'out' ball and someone to hit but it certainly didn't work and handed the initiative back to Chelsea; we need to learn to control the ball in midfield and slow the tempo down when we are a goal up.

Bringing Crouch on was an attempt to get the ball to stick up top without it coming back and back again. It was the right move but I would of brought him on for Pav as opposed to Defoe. My guess would be that Harry kept Pav on becuase he had scored and was feeling confident - might be wrong but thats what I think.

Chelsea were really dominating in this period and Harry had to do something, it was the right move - but he brought off the wrong forward IMO. Defoe's threat to get in behind and ability to combine with Crouch might just of paid off - but possibly Defoe was feeling the effects of a fast paced game.

Sometimes you have to give credit to the opposition too, in midfield they were very strong with the power of Essien and Terry pushed up a lot during the game.

I think it was the right move, just would of brought off Pav instead as he was getting knocked off the ball too easily in the second half and Defoe's pace in behind was lost.

But ultimately we didn't make the most out of some fabulous positions we found ourselves in. We looked more dangerous than Chelsea venturing forward, depsite their periods of domination, but we lacked that killer ball.

 

[paddy30]

Defoe was shit lads lets be honest about it

 

[gibbs131]

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.

I mentioned yesterday Defoe hardly ever plays a full 90 mins. Keep up.

He gets pulled almost every match.

It was a negative move. A very, ironic, negative move. So much for HR's "I will always attack" speech a few days ago.

Crouch was brought on for his running and set piece defending. Not us trying to put the game to bed.

 

[gibbs131]

Are you suggesting that Defoe provided any threat at all after that shot he put wide? Or that Pavyluchenko was a great deal better?

I'd have taken off the pair of them and put on Crouch and Sandro, but I'm not the manager.

Hysterical statement by Mr sits on fence.

You stick your neck out hours after the game has finished? No wonder you ignore my pleas for you to predict anything that goes down BEFORE or in this case while it happens.

It's worse than people making predictions and getting things wrong. Because nothing you claim can be proven to be wrong.

I am ole Gibbsy

You are very ole Mr Retrospect.

 

[stevenqoz]

The problem with a strikeforce of Crouch and Pav is that the opposition defence is able to push further up the field because they know that we have no one who can get goalside and hurt them. So it was today. Defoe worked very hard today and while the ball didn't fall for him Chelsea were fearful of his mobility. Crouch ought to have come on for Pav and then maybe Keane for Defoe ten from time. That said Harry has generlly made the right calls and we were down to bear bones today.

 

[Hoddle_Ledge]

We had 1 shot on target all game. That's not gonna win you 3 points with our defence.

 

[badajozjim]

Defoe did really well considering he was asked to drop into midfield and link the play, Harry knew they would double on bale soBale pulled Ferrera with him and defoe exploited the space behind the right-back which lead to the goal, when crouch came on we couldn't do this until keane caME ON AND EASED THE PRESSURE OF OUR MIDFIELD AS THEY WERE SITTING DEEP.

 

[archiewasking]

I hate all the negativity on here sometimes. Pav and Defoe carved out an excellent goal against the meanest defence in the Prem. Defoe, Lennon, Modric to name but three had strikes towards goal from the edge of the area that on another day would have been hit more cleanly and possibly nicked us a match clinching second goal. Crouch got around and tried to be awkward for them, as well as getting back on one occasion to win the ball at right back. Keane came on and put himself about, helping out the midfield with an extra body and some good short linking passes as Modders tired. And against the reigning champions, dominating possession all through the second half, with Terry and Essien getting close to their best, and a fired up Drogba coming on with a point to prove, I don't think any of our strikers deserve all the flak. It's not every week you play opposition of that calibre. Not too many moons ago, we would have folded under that kind of pressure and come away with nothing.

 

[Sauniere]

Not sure if the OP is moaning about the fact we brought on a striker or that our sub didn't really compare with Drogba?

If it's the latter, it's stating the obvious but at the end of the day you can only bring on who you've got on the bench, you can't compare Drogba to Crouch but he was one of our subs. Defoe was dropping deeper and deeper had stopped making runs, he was obviously tiring, Pav was constantly losing possession but he'd scored a good goal and was still getting into decent positions.

We don't seem to be able to defend a lead even when we do pack the midfield so he went like for like and tried to be positive. An attacking midfielder who could bring the ball out of our half may have been a better option but at the end of the day we got a point against the league chapions, with half of our first team missing and having played in the Champions League earlier in the week. I see it positively and don't get the griping when we played well considering the aforementioned.

 

[spurious1]

I'm sure that if Harry had of had Drogba on the bench he would have brought him on instead...

At that point they were totally owning us, we couldn't keep the ball for more than 30 seconds. However, their shooting wasn't much better than ours. So I guess the thinking for bringing on Crouch was 1. to defend against set-pieces, which looked like their biggest threat and 2. to try to hold the ball a little bit longer.

Didn't really work out though. I was very happy with 1 point at the end, whereas in the 1st half, I really thought we'd have all 3 + a clean sheet. Oh well.

Please a nice striker in Jan and vdV back.

 

[AngerManagement]

It's not like Drogba is normally a sub and represents the strength of their squad.

True both him and Anelka are better than all of our strikers but they are both regulars in their first team and the reality is they would usually bring on Sturridge (who is nothing to be overly envious of)

It's like if VDV were just coming back from injury and we started him off on the bench, other teams could say wow look at the quality they have on the bench, but in reality VDV is a starter, just circumstances dictating like they did for Chelsea yesterday.

 

[Gilzeanking]

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.
.

Agree with this . We were doing better in games where we went a goal down. The team would wake up and probably keep on firing to the end ....and yes I feel Harry is slow to make proactive substitutions when we are getting battered and some players seem to be tiring .

 

[Bus-Conductor]

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.

You didn't see the logic of bringing on a forward who could actually hold the ball up better and stop it constantly coming straight back.

I agree with the rest of your post, and said as much in the ratings thread, but Defoe's contribution was absolutely pathetic, he had to come off. He wasted several chances to do something meaningful just by being to weak and stupid.

 

[Dannyspur]

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.

That is blatently not true. The times he did get his head to the ball heading it to a chelsea player doesn't count as winning it, It is just the same as when player kicks the ball to an opponent. It is a misplaced pass.

I agree with you about defoe (his control was abismal) and pav, but bringing on Crouch (and Keane) looked to me like settling for a draw.

 

[There's always next year]

You didn't see the logic of bringing on a forward who could actually hold the ball up better and stop it constantly coming straight back.

I agree with the rest of your post, and said as much in the ratings thread, but Defoe's contribution was absolutely pathetic, he had to come off. He wasted several chances to do something meaningful just by being to weak and stupid.

I do see the logic of bringing on a striker that can hold up the ball. Unfortunately Crouch can't do this and will never be able to do this.

Yes, Defoe is mighty frustrating, but at least he's more than capable of creating a chance for himself. This claim can't be said about Crouch.

 

[Dannyspur]

I do see the logic of bringing on a striker that can hold up the ball. Unfortunately Crouch can't do this and will never be able to do this.

Yes, Defoe is mighty frustrating, but at least he's more than capable of creating a chance for himself. This claim can't be said about Crouch.

Well said!!!

and Defoe doesn't make that stupid tongue-out face everytime he misses a sitter!

 

[al_pacino]

WE had 15 minutes of us clearing the ball and it coming straight back at us, we needed a change to try and keep hold of the ball. It didn't work but not everything does. The bigger problem was the final ball, while we were still ahead we had chnaces to get a decent effort in but failed to do so.