James McCarthy

[Dithering Dougie]

haha

ranty rant.

I love these posts stating opinion like BIG SOLID FACTS

He's got a point though.

Martinez isn't infallible, that team selection certainly did us no favours and left us far to open to counter attacks as well as having no control going forward. McCarthy may well have a slight injury but there where other options open to him other than playing such an unbalanced line up that's so radically different to the shape of the team that's been so successful for the last 7-8 games.

An admission that he's made a mistake wouldn't do any harm really.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

If Martinez didn't want to risk him, that's fine - but in that instance, drop him from the squad and do it properly. As it stands, he did risk him anyway, he played the game, so he got it wrong by not doing so from the start.

Rubbish.
he only came off the bench because we were struggling. If we were winning McCarthy would have had the night off.
At the beginning of the night the gamble was should he risk a more severe injury that would perhaps keep him out of the run in. Before the match, it was decided that it he'd me of more use in the big games than risking it. Probably a correct shout.

by the second half when the game was going against us the gamble was will there still be much point to those big games if we don't win this one. It was decided that plan A wasn't working and it was now worth risking the greater injury throwing everything in for the three points.

The problem was the team couldn't function without him being there. With the people on the pitch that shouldn't have been the case, but it certainly underlines how important McCarthy is to this team, what we lose when he doesn't play and how much we need specialised, adequate cover in this position.

 

[Tubey]

Rubbish.
he only came off the bench because we were struggling. If we were winning McCarthy would have had the night off.
At the beginning of the night the gamble was should he risk a more severe injury that would perhaps keep him out of the run in. Before the match, it was decided that it he'd me of more use in the big games than risking it. Probably a correct shout.

by the second half when the game was going against us the gamble will there still be much point to those big games if we don't win this one. It was decided that plan A wasn't working and it was now worth risking the greater injury throwing everything in for the three points.

The problem was the team couldn't function without him being there. With the people on the pitch that shouldn't have been the case, but it certainly underlines how important McCarthy is to this team, what we lose when he doesn't play and how much we need specialised, adequate cover in this position.

So it was reactive rather than proactive - which is against everything Martinez usually is.

It doesn't matter whether he came on just because we were struggling or not, he was fit enough to play so should have done so from the start to give us the best possible chance of picking up three points. You talk of "Plan A" not working - that's not the case, as he didn't start with Plan A, he started with Plan B, which is an error when Plan A was actually available to him.

You beat the opposition in front of you, not think about the one next week, unless it's a meaningless cup game or something. This was a critical game, and the result alone shows that Martinez made a mistake with his selection.

If McCarthy had have been injured, you'd just throw your arms up and say it's the luck of the draw, nothing could have been done, but by putting him on the bench and actually playing him eventually then it's basically shouting that the manager took a calculated risk on his team selection, and got it wrong.

 

[neil999]

got it wrong but trying to win, i can forgive that

 

[georgie]

I think it's difficult to criticise Martinez too much for this one. We controlled the vast majority of the game and scored twice. The goals came from poor defending by our back four which was unchanged.

But for me, one of the few positives coming from last night is how good Barkley and McCarthy looked next to each other. As a few other posters have said, I think that's the future of our midfield, regardless of whether Barry stays (although of course I'd want him to, and ideally to have him and Gibson challenging the two for places). Barkley looks like a no 8 not a no 10, and he needs a player like McCarthy who's got the legs to cover whatever spaces he leaves when he bombs forward in order to shine, imo.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

So it was reactive rather than proactive - which is against everything Martinez usually is.

Please... you expect a manager to ignore the score an what's happening on the pitch?
it wasn't working, he tried to improve it.

It doesn't matter whether he came on just because we were struggling or not, he was fit enough to play so should have done so from the start to give us the best possible chance of picking up three points. You talk of "Plan A" not working - that's not the case, as he didn't start with Plan A, he started with Plan B, which is an error when Plan A was actually available to him.

Yet again no.
Plan A was the team/formation Roberto went into the match with. That team should have done better than what it did and you do have to give Palace some credit. As I've said twice now. it wasn't worth the risk of aggravating an injury to play him from the start. It was worth the risk later in the game when we we're desperate.

You beat the opposition in front of you, not think about the one next week, unless it's a meaningless cup game or something. This was a critical game, and the result alone shows that Martinez made a mistake with his selection.

but it was only a mistake because we lost. That team should have done better. McCarthy on the bench was insurance just in case, I bet they really didn't want him to have to play at all.

If McCarthy had have been injured, you'd just throw your arms up and say it's the luck of the draw, nothing could have been done, but by putting him on the bench and actually playing him eventually then it's basically shouting that the manager took a calculated risk on his team selection, and got it wrong.

the benefits of him playing changed during the match, so Roberto had to have him there as an option.
If we'd have been up and cruising, we wouldn't have seen him. There came a point where the benefits of protecting his injury because less than the benefits of him being no the pitch, that when he came on. Decision making is a fluid process based on many factors, why would you want Bobby to limit his options?

 

[bicycleheader]

What I don't get is having a player on the bench instead of starting the game with him in your strongest side and then withdrawing him after imposing your strongest side on the opposition from the off.

I get that players carry knocks and that's absolutely fine, but the part that makes no sense to me is why it's acceptable to carry a knock and come on for half an hour late on, yet not acceptable to simply play the first hour of football and impose a game plan instead of messing with the team shape.

If Martinez didn't want to risk him, that's fine - but in that instance, drop him from the squad and do it properly. As it stands, he did risk him anyway, he played the game, so he got it wrong by not doing so from the start. He miscalculated; as I said, it happens, it's a managerial error, but so be it. He'll learn from it I'm sure.

Risk him "if needed".

Means the manager would prefer give the player a break, but if the situation arises the player should be fine to come in and play his part.

They are not just managing games and results, they have to manage the players and their fitness too. Its all about weighing up the pros and cons, which comes back to the risk him if needed idea being a perfectly normal part of the game.

 

[bicycleheader]

He's got a point though.

Martinez isn't infallible, that team selection certainly did us no favours and left us far to open to counter attacks as well as having no control going forward. McCarthy may well have a slight injury but there where other options open to him other than playing such an unbalanced line up that's so radically different to the shape of the team that's been so successful for the last 7-8 games.

An admission that he's made a mistake wouldn't do any harm really.

The point of my post was the stating of opinion as fact.

Which you have just pretty much done with your last sentence.

Losing a game does not automatically equal incorrect lineup/tactics. So in essence neither you nor I know whether there was a mistake made and whether Bobby would even have anything to admit.

His comments were more about the way we played the game....too much urgency and not being ourselves. I´ll go with that. He deserves to be taken at his word for now I reckon.

If we have a few seasons of viable data to have a big rant about his decisions, like Moyes picking favourites, then fair enough.

 

[SpurtingLesbian]

Also.

by putting him on the bench and actually playing him eventually then it's basically shouting that the manager took a calculated risk on his team selection, and got it wrong.

The calculated risk worked. McCarthy didn't aggravate his injury.

The wider game was lost because formation/tactics/manager couldn't win with the players/effort he had at his disposal.
Yes, Roberto probably could have been more conservative in his team/formation but that way lies Moyes. Mostly this year he's manage to make it work, there's only been odd times where his resources have been been stretched too far, last night was one of those games.
The team looked tired/jaded on Saturday, last night was an extension of that. Until we get adequate cover in all positions it will continue to be the case after a long run of games, we don't have the squad to rotate properly with out some drop in performance.

 

[Tubey]

Risk him "if needed".

Means the manager would prefer give the player a break, but if the situation arises the player should be fine to come in and play his part.

They are not just managing games and results, they have to manage the players and their fitness too. Its all about weighing up the pros and cons, which comes back to the risk him if needed idea being a perfectly normal part of the game.

And he was needed from the start. The manager changed a seven game winning streak side and altered the balance dramatically when a player wasn't injured enough to merit being dropped altogether. That's a mistake, the final result proves it. He wasn't forced into the mistake as the player was fit enough to play - he made a tactical decision, probably underestimated the counter attacking strength of the opposition and, quite simply, it backfired on the night.

You can acknowledge a Martinez error and still be a fan of the guy you know! It's not a big deal, but it was pointed out before kick-off what the danger was and it was played out over the 90 minutes. It happens, but making out like it wasn't an error at all is to ignore the result, the performance and the fact the main cog of our midfield was on the bench and unused as we went two goals down.

 

[Tubey]

The calculated risk worked. McCarthy didn't aggravate his injury.

... and we lost the game. The tactical decision/risk is in respect to the game being played, not ones down the line. McCarthy could have aggravated his injury in the 30 minutes he played just as easily as in the 60 he didn't.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

The point of my post was the stating of opinion as fact.

Which you have just pretty much done with your last sentence.

Losing a game does not automatically equal incorrect lineup/tactics. So in essence neither you nor I know whether there was a mistake made and whether Bobby would even have anything to admit.

His comments were more about the way we played the game....too much urgency and not being ourselves. I´ll go with that. He deserves to be taken at his word for now I reckon.

If we have a few seasons of viable data to have a big rant about his decisions, like Moyes picking favourites, then fair enough.

I'd say it's pretty certain he got his team selection wrong last night due to the FACT we played poorly and from the off looked unbalanced, something we haven't done in the previous 7-8 games. Playing 3 wingers disrupted our normal possession based football and left us wide open to counter attacks, the facts are self evident if you watch the game back.

Martinez choose that team, no one else and he should take some responsibility, like I said he's not infallible.

 

[bicycleheader]

And he was needed from the start. The manager changed a seven game winning streak side and altered the balance dramatically when a player wasn't injured enough to merit being dropped altogether. That's a mistake, the final result proves it. He wasn't forced into the mistake as the player was fit enough to play - he made a tactical decision, probably underestimated the counter attacking strength of the opposition and, quite simply, it backfired on the night.

You can acknowledge a Martinez error and still be a fan of the guy you know! It's not a big deal, but it was pointed out before kick-off what the danger was and it was played out over the 90 minutes. It happens, but making out like it wasn't an error at all is to ignore the result, the performance and the fact the main cog of our midfield was on the bench and unused as we went two goals down.

Your missing the point again by calling it a tactical decision. Its possible it was I guess, but I would see it as a managerial decision involving managing an injury concern which is one of his many responsibilities.

Most of us would have said the team picked could have at least gotten a draw. The result doesn´t prove anything other than we lost!

Seriously.....this has always always been a part of football.

 

[Aidey9]

I think it's difficult to criticise Martinez too much for this one. We controlled the vast majority of the game and scored twice. The goals came from poor defending by our back four which was unchanged.

But for me, one of the few positives coming from last night is how good Barkley and McCarthy looked next to each other. As a few other posters have said, I think that's the future of our midfield, regardless of whether Barry stays (although of course I'd want him to, and ideally to have him and Gibson challenging the two for places). Barkley looks like a no 8 not a no 10, and he needs a player like McCarthy who's got the legs to cover whatever spaces he leaves when he bombs forward in order to shine, imo.

Naa I don't think Barkley is quite ready to play deep on a regular basis, atm I think he's far more effect further forward.

Barkley's positional sense and tracking back isn't there yet and I do think having him in there with Barry instead of McCarthy last night made us vulnerable to the counter.

For me, keep him in No. 10 role for as long as poss and later on in his career bring him further back, a la Gerrard.

 

[bicycleheader]

I'd say it's pretty certain he got his team selection wrong last night due to the FACT we played poorly and from the off looked unbalanced, something we haven't done in the previous 7-8 games. Playing 3 wingers disrupted our normal possession based football and left us wide open to counter attacks, the facts are self evident if you watch the game back.

Martinez choose that team, no one else and he should take some responsibility, like I said he's not infallible.

Starting the sentence with "id say" is opinion Dougie, so I don´t really think Bobby needs to admit a mistake that you believe was made. I don´t believe it was a mistake necessarily. Thats two opposing opinions...get it?

The whole discussion about the match is one thing. I was just pulling up a ranty post as I find them amusing when its clearly opinion but shouted out as big rafafacts.