Twine

[Super]

1 hour ago, cotswoldred2 said:

Not quite 100% I imagine.

Didn't have to be to play 20 odd mins

[Harry]

1 hour ago, The Gasbuster said:

If only he had been on to take the free kick that Nahki “skied”.

Should have subbed him on for the free kick and then taken him off again. 
I mean, if he wasn’t fit enough for 10 minutes at the end when the game is crying out for his type; then we might as well have just used him as a Special Teams sub when we got that free kick. 

[Back of the Dolman]

As far as I’m concerned if he’s on the bench then he needs to be able to come on and contribute to the team regardless of what the state of the game is.

It’s no good if he’s alright to come on for 10 minutes if we’re 3-0 up but isn’t able to come on when we’re one down and needing to get back into the game. If he wasn’t able to do that then he shouldn’t have been on the bench.

[Loosey Boy]

Reading LM post-match comments, think we will see Sykes and Twine from the start next Saturday.

 

[Baldyman]

Manning really lost the plot today in my opinion . If Twine wasn’t fit then Leave him at home watching telly ffs !  Manning brought Cornick on for Bell when it should have been Sykes or Mdube! After about 5 mins on the left wing he then swapped him and Annis around underlining the fact that a genuine right winger should have come on on the first place . With the latter subs coming on , Cornick should have been brought back off but Manning was too scared to do it ! 

[Harry]

5 minutes ago, Baldyman said:

Manning really lost the plot today in my opinion . If Twine wasn’t fit then Leave him at home watching telly ffs !  Manning brought Cornick on for Bell when it should have been Sykes or Mdube! After about 5 mins on the left wing he then swapped him and Annis around underlining the fact that a genuine right winger should have come on on the first place . With the latter subs coming on , Cornick should have been brought back off but Manning was too scared to do it ! 

To be fair I’ve got no problem with the Cornick sub. 
It was early in the game. Sykes and Twine wouldn’t have been fit enough for that long. And Medube; as we saw, was not ready. 
No problem at all with the Cornick sub. And no problem him switching flanks either - Cornick is generally better from the right than the left so it was perhaps correct to bring Anis to the left. 
 

Bell’s injury did scupper our overall game but yes, I wasn’t sure about all the other subs in the 2nd half, and as said, if Twine was on the bench he should’ve been fit enough to do 20 minutes in the exact situation for which we signed him 

Edited February 17 by Harry

[petehinton]

Only trained twice this week says Manning, so wasn’t ready to play. 
 

An absolute waste of space on the bench, then. 
 

Wouldn’t be entirely shocked if there’s some sort of ‘stipulation’ where he has to be involved in every matchday squad when available, or we pay a fee. Especially as Burnley were supposedly pretty pissed off with him being deployed on the left, not centrally, too often which is why they wanted to terminate the loan. 

[Rob k]

5 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Only trained twice this week says Manning, so wasn’t ready to play. 
 

An absolute waste of space on the bench, then. 
 

Wouldn’t be entirely shocked if there’s some sort of ‘stipulation’ where he has to be involved in every matchday squad when available, or we pay a fee. Especially as Burnley were supposedly pretty pissed off with him being deployed on the left, not centrally, too often which is why they wanted to terminate the loan. 

But if he’s injured he’s not available. Mannings got this one wrong today one way or another in my opinion. He either shouldn’t have included him on the bench or he should have got some minutes  

[joe jordans teeth]

2 hours ago, Natchfever said:

Might there be loan conditions that City need to have him in the squad if " match fit" ?

I did think that myself but then thought we fell for that with that right Kent from Liverpool so we wouldn’t be falling for that again 

[Natchfever]

10 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

I did think that myself but then thought we fell for that with that right Kent from Liverpool so we wouldn’t be falling for that again 

Hmmm...hope so

[Kibs]

2 hours ago, Rob k said:

No, sorry but i don’t believe anybody would have criticised him for bringing Twine on, as said, these are the teams he’s here for as we can’t break them down. 

Fine. Agree to disagree, but Manning was fundamental to why we brought Twine in, so other than Twine not being fit (then then why have him on the bench?) I can’t think of any other reason, you? 

[Back of the Dolman]

3 minutes ago, Kibs said:

Fine. Agree to disagree, but Manning was fundamental to why we brought Twine in, so other than Twine not being fit (then then why have him on the bench?) I can’t think of any other reason, you? 

So are you saying he didn’t bring him on because he wasn’t fit enough to come on ?

[Kibs]

3 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

So are you saying he didn’t bring him on because he wasn’t fit enough to come on ?

No. 

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, Kibs said:

No. 

So I’m struggling to see why he wasn’t used today

[Kibs]

27 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

So I’m struggling to see why he wasn’t used today

See my earlier post. Personally, I’d have used him, but given how we have performed in the last two games, and given our recent injury history, I can accept why he may have decided not to use him. 

[Back of the Dolman]

Just now, Kibs said:

See my earlier post. Personally, I’d have used him, but given how we have performed in the last two games, and given our recent injury history, I can accept why he may have decided not to use him. 

Yes I saw that, but if LM believed he was the best option to get us back into that game then sentiment over previous performances has to take a back seat and put on the best player for that situation.

Tanner should never have been dropped if it was about how we’ve played over the last two matches and Mebude came on for a few minutes when the points were already secure against Southampton.

That certainly didn’t justify him being given game time over Twine.

[richyy66]

Seriously, the game is crying out for some creativity to unlock a stubborn team. Cant quite see why anyone with a football brain would bring on an untried 19 year old with barely any match experience and not a 5 Million pound championship winning player is beyond me. If he was not fit then he wouldn't be on the bench. Manning's decision making today shows his lack of experience in Management.

[Kibs]

13 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

Yes I saw that, but if LM believed he was the best option to get us back into that game then sentiment over previous performances has to take a back seat and put on the best player for that situation.

Tanner should never have been dropped if it was about how we’ve played over the last two matches and Mebude came on for a few minutes when the points were already secure against Southampton.

That certainly didn’t justify him being given game time over Twine.

Do you have access to Tanners recovery data then?

Fair play, feel free to share. 

Clearly, he’s rotating players based on data, and also trying to keep a squad happy….a new problem. 

Not saying he got it right, just saying he’s made the decision, in his mind, which is correct based on the information he has available - which by the way, we don’t have access to and so are assuming/guessing. 

[Dolman_Stand]

3 hours ago, Loosey Boy said:

Reading LM post-match comments, think we will see Sykes and Twine from the start next Saturday.

 

Won't be a hard decision to drop more than a few next weekend, need to see a reaction at Hillsborough as today was beyond awful

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, Kibs said:

Do you have access to Tanners recovery data then?

Fair play, feel free to share. 

Clearly, he’s rotating players based on data, and also trying to keep a squad happy….a new problem. 

Not saying he got it right, just saying he’s made the decision, in his mind, which is correct based on the information he has available - which by the way, we don’t have access to and so are assuming/guessing. 

I’d counter that with do you have access to those records.

neither of us do so that can’t really be used as an argument for that decision.

Unless there has been an interview where Manning has confirmed that’s the reason for the change.

If Twine is in the bench then I would assume LM has data that shows he’s fit to play some part.

The substitutions seemed pre planned and like for like and we needed something different.

I don’t think I’m the only one today who thinks Twine should of been used and I wouldn’t have criticised LM for using him.

[Kibs]

4 minutes ago, Back of the Dolman said:

I’d counter that with do you have access to those records.

neither of us do so that can’t really be used as an argument for that decision.

Unless there has been an interview where Manning has confirmed that’s the reason for the change.

If Twine is in the bench then I would assume LM has data that shows he’s fit to play some part.

The substitutions seemed pre planned and like for like and we needed something different.

I don’t think I’m the only one today who thinks Twine should of been used and I wouldn’t have criticised LM for using him.

Of course I don’t, but I’m assuming Manning does….which is a pretty logical assumption isn’t it? 

I’ve already said it’s not the way I’d have gone. 

We don’t know 10% of what Manning does, and there are some things you have to trust that he has made a decision in his mind, which is right based on the information he has available.

For me, this is one of those. Sorry if you disagree. 

Edited February 17 by Kibs

[Lrrr]

5 hours ago, RollsRoyce said:

So you think it is normal in top-level football to put an unfit player on the bench or to worry about them getting injured if they played, say even 10 minutes? Seriously? In a game we are losing, where we need to get a win, he plays no part. Astonishing. 

Yes its normal

[frenchred]

4 hours ago, Loosey Boy said:

Reading LM post-match comments, think we will see Sykes and Twine from the start next Saturday.

 

Ah yeah but then the bench won't be as strong and before the game that's all most were focused on!

[Sir Geoff]

14 hours ago, Harry said:

To be fair I’ve got no problem with the Cornick sub. 
It was early in the game. Sykes and Twine wouldn’t have been fit enough for that long. And Medube; as we saw, was not ready. 
No problem at all with the Cornick sub. And no problem him switching flanks either - Cornick is generally better from the right than the left so it was perhaps correct to bring Anis to the left. 
 

Bell’s injury did scupper our overall game but yes, I wasn’t sure about all the other subs in the 2nd half, and as said, if Twine was on the bench he should’ve been fit enough to do 20 minutes in the exact situation for which we signed him 

Personally thought Cornick should have been subbed circa 70 mins. Tanner to RB and Sykes Rwb. I like Cornick but he is not a Rwb and had a poor hour or so.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

Personally thought Cornick should have been subbed circa 70 mins. Tanner to RB and Sykes Rwb. I like Cornick but he is not a Rwb and had a poor hour or so.

Seen a few mentions of back 3 yesterday and WBs. Wasn’t how I saw it, maybe I missed it. Just bog standard back 4 all game for me. Advancing the FB on the side we had possession on.

 

[Back of the Dolman]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seen a few mentions of back 3 yesterday and WBs. Wasn’t how I saw it, maybe I missed it. Just bog standard back 4 all game for me. Advancing the FB on the side we had possession on.

 

My son said to me we’d gone to a back 3 but I didn’t see it.

I’ll be honest I just thought the shape was a mess yesterday.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Yes its normal

Why would you do this?

If the aim is to win the game, and you have players who are 100% fit who could be picked as substitutes why would you bench someone you have no intention of using?
 

You write as if you are close too or involved in the pro game, so I would be intrigued to read your reasoning.

[1960maaan]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seen a few mentions of back 3 yesterday and WBs. Wasn’t how I saw it, maybe I missed it. Just bog standard back 4 all game for me. Advancing the FB on the side we had possession on.

 

I was just about to type the same . Roberts and McCrorie attacking from FB and when Cornick came on for Bell it was an advanced WMF sort of role. 
I would question if Sykes wasn't fit for 70 minutes why have him on the bench, but we know it does happen.  When he came on it was odd he stayed wide left, he looked lost, took too long to switch IMO. 

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

Personally thought Cornick should have been subbed circa 70 mins. Tanner to RB and Sykes Rwb. I like Cornick but he is not a Rwb and had a poor hour or so.

I don't think he was at RWB , but I do take your point as I thought a swap with Sykes was a natural change . I thought it was subbing a Sub put Manning off , who knows , but playing Sykes at FB was a waste for the 20 minutes he was on. 

All that throwing on of subs and ending with 5 attacking players is a pet peeve of mine. I thought TC did well , moving and taking the ball at pace, but we lost structure and shape IMO and we didn't really threaten apart from TC's shot. 

Interesting point you made @Davefevs about the out ball, I'd like to have a look at the game again to see where we let them out. I they upload the full game.

[Back of the Dolman]

1 minute ago, Countryfile said:

Why would you do this?

If the aim is to win the game, and you have players who are 100% fit who could be picked as substitutes why would you bench someone you have no intention of using?
 

You write as if you are close too or involved in the pro game, so I would be intrigued to read your reasoning.

I too was  confused that it’s apparently normal.

Id be interested in knowing what benefit there is in having a player on the bench who is not fit to come on 

 

[Sir Geoff]

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seen a few mentions of back 3 yesterday and WBs. Wasn’t how I saw it, maybe I missed it. Just bog standard back 4 all game for me. Advancing the FB on the side we had possession on.

 

Looked like a lop sided back 4 with Mcrorie high, at times. Not sure what position Cornick was told to play, but it seemed right side ahead of Mcrorie. Neither played well. Should have switched to Tanner in traditional full back role with Sykes Rw imo.