What was the reason for the changes and sub?

[Mr Popodopolous]

Apologies if already covered but what was the reason Manning gave, if any, for in particular Pring out, Bell in, Sykes to full back etc.

Then the Sykes substitution. Watched the post match press conference or the 4 minute one and didn't really hear anything of note.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Apologies if already covered but what was the reason Manning gave, if any, for in particular Pring out, Bell in, Sykes to full back etc.

Then the Sykes substitution. Watched the post match press conference or the 4 minute one and didn't really hear anything of note.

I haven’t listened to the press conference but will take your word for not hearing anything of note.

For me this is a part of the problem with the club communication.

it’s part of the coaches job to communicate his decisions to the players and the fans why certain decisions are made, that way we can all feel better informed.

From previous interviews the club media have a lot to answer for in their bland and inept questioning. Up to a point I get the caution of not giving the opposition information that may help them, but after the game why not tell us why decisions were made?

That would go a long way to trying to understand what the coach is about.

Why was Pring left out, why were Sykes and Bell played in those particular positions, the lack of information leads to unnecessary speculation and is divisive amongst the fan base.

[Sir Geoff]

Might have been useful to explain the Sykes substitutions (yesterday and last Saturday). Particularly as yesterday's was followed by a chorus of "you don't know what you're doing," from the away end.

[Port Said Red]

6 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Apologies if already covered but what was the reason Manning gave, if any, for in particular Pring out, Bell in, Sykes to full back etc.

Then the Sykes substitution. Watched the post match press conference or the 4 minute one and didn't really hear anything of note.

I wouldn't think it was anything other than looking at our thin squad, our annoying ability to pick up injuries and the number of games coming up (6 more in 21 days). 

I don't think it made us any less effective, quite the opposite in fact. Just a shame that Tanner lost a foot race to a very quick player. I suppose it could be argued that Pring might have got closer to the guy, but he might have only got close enough to bring him down and maybe get sent off.

[GrahamC]

1 hour ago, Port Said Red said:

I wouldn't think it was anything other than looking at our thin squad, our annoying ability to pick up injuries and the number of games coming up (6 more in 21 days). 

 

Think you’re right.

We have 15 fit players seriously in contention to play & yesterday’s selection looks like a bit of squad rotation within those constraints.

Not the starting 11 I would have picked but do think Pring hasn’t been at his best so far & with Sykes that LM appears to want to limit his minutes possibly to avoid over exertion.

TGH is interesting, not impossible (unlikely) that he’s not going to take up the option in January, & use those funds elsewhere, I guess.

[bearded_red]

Frankly, if the early Sykes substitution last week and yesterday aren’t anything to do with a niggle or managing his minutes for whatever reason, then they are two of the maddest substitutions I’ve ever seen.

The bloke is by so far currently our most threatening player.

[1960maaan]

58 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

TGH is interesting, not impossible (unlikely) that he’s not going to take up the option in January, & use those funds elsewhere, I guess

This is a bit of a concern to me. Young player, has made a decent impact and can improve at what would be (IMO) a bargain . Manning may want to use whatever funds he gets on certain other targets, but to get TGH in the future would be much more expensive as I believe the loan cost was part of the deal. 

I might be worrying needlessly , but he is exactly the type of player we are apparently looking for.

[GrahamC]

28 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

This is a bit of a concern to me. Young player, has made a decent impact and can improve at what would be (IMO) a bargain . Manning may want to use whatever funds he gets on certain other targets, but to get TGH in the future would be much more expensive as I believe the loan cost was part of the deal. 

I might be worrying needlessly , but he is exactly the type of player we are apparently looking for.

I clearly don’t know what Manning is thinking but probably as part of my current feelings all round, I’m quite relaxed either way.

If he wants to spend the £1.3m balance (as you say we committed £700k for the loan) elsewhere, then so be it.

Is £2m really a “bargain” for a Championship midfielder these days?

I think TGH has done fairly well without being quite as good as some on here do (reckon the Boro goal skews it for a few) but if we look to bring in someone that Manning prefers instead then that’s life.

Edited December 10, 2023 by GrahamC

[italian dave]

My two pence worth on this - and I haven’t seen the interviews either.

He didn’t put Sykes in a RB - we played 3 at the back, so Sykes was RWB. Which makes more sense. For me, it’s whether Bell is a better option at LWB than Pring that’s more questionable.

Sykes took a knock quite early on in the game. He seemed to be struggling with it intermittently during the first half (harder to see second when he was too far away from where we were). There were a couple of times first half when we said to each other that it looked like he might have to go off.

I didn’t hear any shouts, never mind “a chorus”, of you don’t know what you’re doing. As far as I was aware, most people around me were unsurprised that he’d had to go off.

 

Edited December 10, 2023 by italian dave

[TDarwall]

I think Harry alluded to Manning in his Oxford days using 1 player to virtually cover a whole flank.  Clearly that is a herculean task, I think he's using Sykes as that on the left but probably doesn't feel he can get an effective 90 out of him in that role right now.

[Davefevs]

No reason given for Bell v Pring.

Re Sykes:

I think that is a bit of revisionism.  Headley wasn’t a threat to Tanner until later in the game.

In fact matching up as WB v WB until Sykes sub, has pretty much nullified Headley.  When subbing off Sykes we went back to a back 4, and Tanner now up against Headley, who could move into him.

[Mr Popodopolous]

We do have a thin squad due to injuries and the drawbridge being pulled this summer tbh could be that. Thanks all.

Plus didn't Sykes have a knock or something reported before the Middlesbrough game- wonder whether he has been playing through it a bit. Could say the same about Conway and Weimann at times this season.

[1960maaan]

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

I clearly don’t know what Manning is thinking but probably as part of my current feelings all round, I’m quite relaxed either way.

If he wants to spend the £1.3m balance (as you say we committed £700k for the loan) elsewhere, then so be it.

Is £2m really a “bargain” for a Championship midfielder these days?

I think TGH has done fairly well without being quite as good as some on here do (reckon the Boro goal skews it for a few) but if we look to bring in someone that Manning prefers instead then that’s life.

I agree , but I've liked what I've seen from the start and he's at an age he can improve, which is what Manning does apparently. Basically we are , or would be , getting him for £1,3m which I think is good VFM.
I also realise it's Mannings call whatever I think. 

I also question how Manning uses our most consistent threat, Sykes. 

I hope @Mr Popodopolous is right and he's protecting a knock, otherwise taking off a main attacking threat for a perceived threat as @Davefevs alluded to , is a worry , and very Lee Johnson .