PDA

View Full Version : why take deek off?



marleyhib
05-05-2010, 09:06 PM
I'm no football manager but I thought - "that's a mistake" when Yogi took deek off tonight.

It was obvious attack was our best form of defence and that deek was right up for it.

After he went off we went to pieces.

He should have taken Smith off and put McBride in goals FFS

Only Hibs

PeterboroHibee
05-05-2010, 09:08 PM
Really couldnt understand that. Motherwell were having to go for it, there was def more goals in the game, he just invited all the pressure on to us, and its clear, and has been from some time that are defence is woeful.

If he had all 3 of them up front, it gives us an outlet for the balls being punted up the pitch. Awful decision, I know you dont expect Smith to do what he did but even still.

HIBERNIAN-0762
05-05-2010, 09:09 PM
Only coco the clown will know that, personal issue probably but for me Miller should have been hooked as he looked ****ed after an hour and was giving the ball away too easily, why didn't he bring on Galbraith to stretch them a bit, oops sorry sensible tactics alert!

Winston Ingram
05-05-2010, 09:09 PM
we were 4 goals up when he took him off!!

Steve20
05-05-2010, 09:10 PM
Because he is a clown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hibbybob
05-05-2010, 09:16 PM
A defensive substitution with a 4 goal lead made sense to us at the time! Had we gone gung ho and lost 4 goals he'd still be getting slaughtered! The players have got to take responsibility for what happened tonight!

cabbage07
05-05-2010, 09:18 PM
A defensive substitution with a 4 goal lead made sense to us at the time! Had we gone gung ho and lost 4 goals he'd still be getting slaughtered! The players have got to take responsibility for what happened tonight!


Is that right what was the score when they took deek off?

JimBHibees
05-05-2010, 09:22 PM
A defensive substitution with a 4 goal lead made sense to us at the time! Had we gone gung ho and lost 4 goals he'd still be getting slaughtered! The players have got to take responsibility for what happened tonight!

Agree with that, think it was 6-3 though.

PeterboroHibee
05-05-2010, 09:24 PM
The problem was, with it so open, there was going to be more goals. Taking McBride off, was inviting the pressure onto us, which Motherwell were more than happy to do.

I accept that you dont see us losing 3 or 4 goals (whatever it was), but I just think we could have maybe managed to get one or two more goals to get the win.

hibbybob
05-05-2010, 09:25 PM
Agree with that, think it was 6-3 though.

Yip - it was 6-3 ..... and even more reason for trying to close the door at the back!

I'm not saying Yogi is blameless for what happened but some of the abuse on this site is ridiculous and very easy to dish out in hind sight!

matty_f
05-05-2010, 09:26 PM
A defensive substitution with a 4 goal lead made sense to us at the time! Had we gone gung ho and lost 4 goals he'd still be getting slaughtered! The players have got to take responsibility for what happened tonight!

Spot on.

Brings on Galbraith for Deek at Celtc, gets panned for not making a defensive sub.

Makes a defensive sub tonight, gets panned anyway.


We drew because the side has ****** all bottle about them, it wasn't anything to do with the subs.

Tyler Durden
05-05-2010, 09:29 PM
Yip - it was 6-3 ..... and even more reason for trying to close the door at the back!

I'm not saying Yogi is blameless for what happened but some of the abuse on this site is ridiculous and very easy to dish out in hind sight!

Hindsight is 20/20 but it did seem pretty clear at the time IMO, that taking off Deek in particular was a bad move. Stokes or Nish first for me.

The lack of aggression and general ability to defend and stop shots/crosses is just unbelievable though. And maybe most importnatly the goalkeeping

Bad Martini
05-05-2010, 09:29 PM
Why take deek off? Fuuck knows...maybe yogi in his universe seen it as a masterstroke...then we'll bring on mcbride who done **** all....then we'll take off our other top scorer and bring on ANOTHER forward when a ****ing defender would do.

Just at the end I seen yogi shouting at deek on the bench....

Then after the game lots of ****ing big smiles from yogi.

What the **** ! Yogi tak yer skill in ****ing up a perfectly good win and **** OFF.....sick of yer ****ing excuses and all yer pish.

End ****ing off

marleyhib
05-05-2010, 09:33 PM
Spot on.

Brings on Galbraith for Deek at Celtc, gets panned for not making a defensive sub.

Makes a defensive sub tonight, gets panned anyway.


We drew because the side has ****** all bottle about them, it wasn't anything to do with the subs.

Not arguing that we lost because of lack of bottle - of which we have none, just thought deek was playing well and we looked like scoring more. Bottom line Smith had an absolute howler - I dunno if he had a head knock or is just a complete donkey, but I can't see him playing for us again

davym7062
05-05-2010, 09:38 PM
A defensive substitution with a 4 goal lead made sense to us at the time! Had we gone gung ho and lost 4 goals he'd still be getting slaughtered! The players have got to take responsibility for what happened tonight!

:agree::agree:

davym7062
05-05-2010, 09:40 PM
Hindsight is 20/20 but it did seem pretty clear at the time IMO, that taking off Deek in particular was a bad move. Stokes or Nish first for me.
The lack of aggression and general ability to defend and stop shots/crosses is just unbelievable though. And maybe most importnatly the goalkeeping

who had scored 5 goals between them. the sub was a good call its not yogis fault the defence is gutless

Tyler Durden
05-05-2010, 09:49 PM
who had scored 5 goals between them. the sub was a good call its not yogis fault the defence is gutless

Yes, 2 of which created by Riordan and he'd scored 1 himself. IMO both Stokes and Nish looked spent whilst Deek continued to cause problems and looked lively.

Also, the poor defending is ultimately Yogi's responsibility.

NORTHERNHIBBY
05-05-2010, 09:56 PM
we were 4 goals up when he took him off!!


And that let the fullbacks come up the pitch and punt in loads of crosses that we couldn't handle.

Brando7
05-05-2010, 09:58 PM
changed in game imo when he went off :grr:

defence is shi*e :grr:

Alfred E Newman
05-05-2010, 09:59 PM
The big blunder was bringing Benji on.:agree:

Capt Mainwaring
05-05-2010, 10:00 PM
who had scored 5 goals between them. the sub was a good call its not yogis fault the defence is gutless

Agree to point. I thought the Riordan substutution was fair enough to try and box out the game. It difficult to comprehend the ineptitude of the defending in this side however.

The one thing that is clear, surely, to Yogi.

He needs a Goalkeeper and a complete new back four ( on the basis that Bamba if off). Absolutely no leadership or organisation whatsoever. Not one single ounce of bottle or defensive nouse.

Clear the lot of them out.