P3te Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Forgive me while I weep but running around a football pitch for an hour or so (and even then he would spend plenty of time walking) should not, no I'll go as far as to say will not, tire out a fit Premier League footballer in his 20's. To suggest otherwise is really being naive to the extreme. These players have the best fitness and medical attention that a PL club can buy and they are kept at the peak of physical fitness (unless injured of course) so I cannot agree with you even slightly. The guy is only back though. If the manager thought he was tired do you not think that the right decision is to take him off? That's all I'm asking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Now you are contradicting yourself within the same post. It's not a contradiction it's an "exception to the rule." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted January 20, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 20, 2013 Forgive me while I weep but running around a football pitch for an hour or so (and even then he would spend plenty of time walking) should not, no I'll go as far as to say will not, tire out a fit Premier League footballer in his 20's. Yet most PL managers appear to disagree with you. I suspect they are probably more likely right. It's not a contradiction it's an "exception to the rule." Ah the old exception to the rule to suit your argument. I see. When you said 'never ever' and highlighted it in bold text I assumed you actually meant never ever, not never ever apart from when it doesn't match my argument as in those cases I will change my mind entirely in order to try and still be right and show the manager was wrong. My mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) Forgive me while I weep but running around a football pitch for an hour or so (and even then he would spend plenty of time walking) should not, no I'll go as far as to say will not, tire out a fit Premier League footballer in his 20's. To suggest otherwise is really being naive to the extreme. These players have the best fitness and medical attention that a PL club can buy and they are kept at the peak of physical fitness (unless injured of course) so I cannot agree with you even slightly. It could if he wasn't 100% match fit to start off with. He was starting to fade out the game and the ball wasn't sticking up front. Taking him off made sense and his replacement should have and another day probably would have scored the third. If he had would we all be talking about Lamberts great substitution? Some how I doubt it. Edited January 20, 2013 by Amo69 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Yet most PL managers appear to disagree with you. I suspect they are probably more likely right. Ah the old exception to the rule to suit your argument. I see. When you said 'never ever' and highlighted it in bold text I assumed you actually meant never ever, not never ever apart from when it doesn't match my argument as in those cases I will change my mind entirely in order to try and still be right and show the manager was wrong. My mistake. Never ever in the particular circumstance I listed under "1." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 What do you think went through his mind when he took him off? Do you reckon it was one of the two things I suggested, or do you reckon it was "I'll take Charlie off now so that we can fall apart and throw away points"? Imagine how **** we'd be if N'Zogbia got injured and was out for another two months. There is definite sense in what he did, shame some just want to go crazy about anything and everything without thinking about what they're saying first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 It could if he wasn't 100% match fit to start off with. He was starting to fade out the game and the ball wasn't sticking up front. Taking him off made sense and his replacement should have and another day probably would have scored the third. If he had would we all be talking about Lamberts great substitution? Some how I doubt it. What is 100% Match Fit? How many games do you have to play to achieve this standard? N'Zogbia was not looking any more tired than anyone else (in my opinion of course) and the reason the ball wasn't 'sticking up front' is because the whole team pattern changed for the worse and not because N'Zogbia was tired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roadoftrinity Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Why was it such a misake to take off N'Zogbia? He was brilliant in the first half but 2nd half his main contribution was giving the ball away before the first goal. He was taken off after 67 minutes after we had been under the kosh for most the 2nd half. As for Bannan coming on, shame Herd was injured as think he would have been more suited to how the game was going. Shows how badly we need a new midfielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Imagine how **** we'd be if N'Zogbia got injured and was out for another two months. There is definite sense in what he did, shame some just want to go crazy about anything and everything without thinking about what they're saying first Imagine how **** we would be if Benteke got injured! What is your point? Any player can get injured at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I've not seen your posts before Con but the very few I've seen make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even your signature makes no sense. "I would weaken defensively to make stronger offensively I would never ever weaken the team defensively to make stronger offensively It's not a contradiction it's an "exception to the rule." Seems, if translated to mean: "I only like the colour red. I like all other colours except red. I like red when I don't like all the other colours." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 What is 100% Match Fit? How many games do you have to play to achieve this standard? N'Zogbia was not looking any more tired than anyone else (in my opinion of course) and the reason the ball wasn't 'sticking up front' is because the whole team pattern changed for the worse and not because N'Zogbia was tired. I didn't think he was in the game to be honest and wasn't surprised by the change. We will never know if it was or wasn't the right thing to do but at least he is available for the Bradford game. If possible I'd suggest you watch highlights of second half again. You'll see Nzog giving the ball away on more than one occasion by just running in to a group of defenders. He looked tired to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Meanwhile Gabby has scored a goal that will give him a free pass to get game time and do nothing for months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If possible I'd suggest you watch highlights of second half again. You'll see Nzog giving the ball away on more than one occasion by just running in to a group of defenders. He looked tired to me. He tends to do that anyway whether tired or not. That is one of his faults I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaForever1970 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If Zog has a blinder on Tuesday then the discussion is over, as thats why he was removed to be fresh for Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Imagine how **** we would be if Benteke got injured! What is your point? Any player can get injured at any time. It is what Lambert said: He has just come back from a long injury and you have to look after him. The logic is it is risky to push a player too much if they have just come back from injury and it is better to take them off sometimes. We DO have a lot of games coming up - not just the bradford game but important league games - and an injured N'Zogbia, pushed when he is fresh back from injury will not be much use. That is why Lambert said he took him off. To me, I find it impossible to argue with that logic. If N'Zogbia was fit to continue there is not a person on the planet who would have taken him off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Con Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 I've not seen your posts before Con but the very few I've seen make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even your signature makes no sense. "I would weaken defensively to make stronger offensively I would never ever weaken the team defensively to make stronger offensively It's not a contradiction it's an "exception to the rule." Seems, if translated to mean: "I only like the colour red. I like all other colours except red. I like red when I don't like all the other colours." I don't understand how you can be confused. Read the whole lot. I'm saying I want attacking football but I recognise there are circumstances that call for defensive football. I list six circumstances that can apply in a football match, 5/6 I would use offensive tactics 1/6 I would use defensive tactics. Is what I'm saying any clearer? Yes, I want our team to play attacking football to win matches. But I do recognise different circumstances call for different tactics. We were 1 - 2 up away from home from two counter-attacking goals and had just gone a goal down at the start of the second half. In this situation do you weaken your side defensively to make it stronger offensively? I would not. I would weaken defensively to make stronger offensively 1. at home in starting line up when we have the advantage of the crowd 2. always against weaker teams 3. when the score is a draw so that we can push for the win 4. when we need to chase the game because we are behind. 5. when we are 2 goals or more up, not many minutes remaining, and we want to rest players/give subs a run out I would never ever weaken the team defensively to make stronger offensively 1. Against a team that had just got a goal back against us while we are still winning by 1 goal. This is what Lambert just did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If Zog has a blinder on Tuesday then the discussion is over, as thats why he was removed to be fresh for Tuesday. This discussion should never have bloody started let alone last this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 We would not have given up any goals if he would have just kept Nzog on, except the one we gave up with him on the pitch. We would have had more possession if he did not take Nzog off, except that we were being dominated for the 20 minutes he played in the 2nd half. We would have had a better chance at a counter attack goal if he kept Nzog on, except we did not crest any chances in the 20 minutes he played in the 2nd half. It is very convenient Nzog would have been the savior of the last 25 minutes when he had not made much of a difference in the 20 minutes he had already played in the second half. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacbuddies Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 We would not have given up any goals if he would have just kept Nzog on, except the one we gave up with him on the pitch. We would have had more possession if he did not take Nzog off, except that we were being dominated for the 20 minutes he played in the 2nd half. We would have had a better chance at a counter attack goal if he kept Nzog on, except we did not crest any chances in the 20 minutes he played in the 2nd half. It is very convenient Nzog would have been the savior of the last 25 minutes when he had not made much of a difference in the 20 minutes he had already played in the second half. Is English not your first language or are you using Google Translate? Just asking, no offence intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Is English not your first language or are you using Google Translate? Just asking, no offence intended. Ha if you didnt intend to offend you wouldn't have asked the question. The post made perfect sense and you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts