Sainsbury comment re Subs.

[John F]

I would like to hear your comments on Sainsbury comments re the Subs in tonight’s game. My opinion… Disgraceful. You don’t single out players on national TV. Very disappointed with this comment from a senior player and supposedly our leader. And another thing…. Pot… Black.

 

[ryan]

This sort of stuff should probably be dealt with in the changing sheds.

 

[Spacks]

This sort of stuff should probably be dealt with in the changing sheds.

Maybe they've tried that and it hasn't worked. Do we care if Sabit Ngor is upset?
I don't to be honest. Sainsbury knows a lot more than what we do.

 

[Meerkat]

Reminded me of Mauk trashing his team in the post match interview straight after he got back. Wasn’t a good look then and isn’t now.

Sainsbury came back as the unsung hero, wrote himself out of a third of the season with his gym injury, was utterly honking when he returned and now he thinks he had the right to stand there and publicly berate the young players who came on in the last 20 mins of a 90 minute sub par game?

Right or wrong in his assessment, it’s poor form, poor leadership and a bit of pot calling kettle black,

Both he and Jacko need to do a bit of soul searching, looking in a mirror and asking the big question that all good leaders ask when it’s going to shite.. “where do I fit into this and what can I personally do better to improve it?”

 

[shipwreck]

My reading of the tea leaves and tin foil hay theory is that this was a subtle jab at the subs chosen and was actually aimed at Jacko, not the individual players.

I would have kept Theo on and hooked Fejao for Sash, who would've been fresh and raring to go down the right.

Instead we lost all stability on the left and they subsequently punished us down that side, Sains was absolutely livid after the first goal and got straight up to berate Ngor.

I think there are two camps on the Squad, I think one is behind Sash and the other is with Jacko.

 

[bikinigirl]

. interesting one - the reaction has been stronger than i anticipated

. i understand the thoughts about 'calling out' junior players publicly and that others were equally culpable for errors/goals ... but as a fan i don't mind a bit of honesty (and an individual's opinion may not necessarily reflect reality) - the comments that annoy me are the cliches after a loss when i want to see the players are hurting like we are

. the reality is Sains and Jacko haven't just watched the game on the tv with wide angles, they've been in bubble ... and in that bubble we were still in the match - until the subs were made. ours made no difference, theirs did (and it has been happening across the league)

. i'm not reading too much into it ... but that's because i have the luxury of realising we weren't/aren't good enough without having to front up to training

 

[Michael]

I would like to hear your comments on Sainsbury comments re the Subs in tonight’s game. My opinion… Disgraceful. You don’t single out players on national TV. Very disappointed with this comment from a senior player and supposedly our leader. And another thing…. Pot… Black.

Jacko backed him up. Both are 100% correct. The way we set up, the way our team is. Our subs are a huge part of it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The game did get worse after the subs came on. They didn’t actually name names. And they won’t.

Pot black? Sainsbury was our best player on the pitch lastnight and he’s only just reached match fitness.

 

[bikinigirl]

They didn’t actually name names.

. i was going to say the same, but couldn't be certain due to an unusually high number of post-game calls and texts distracting me. it was directed at a group, we've already had this season:

• the guys upfront need to stand up and take their opportunities
• individual errors have cost us at the back
• the players that i dragged have not followed instructions
• etc, etc.

. nobody has seen those as disgraceful comments leading to reading between the lines and guessing what is going on in the camp

Sainsbury was our best player on the pitch last night and he’s only just reached match fitness.

. agreed. but imagine the reaction if one of the young fellas had have been honest in their post match talkies after his first appearances. 'yeah i made a difference, got lucky, but scored the goal that put the game to bed ... but that old bloke down the back who last played in the league when i was in kindergarten - man, he was rubbish'

Jacko backed him up. Both are 100% correct. The way we set up, the way our team is. Our subs are a huge part of it.

. yes they are ... but the way we setup and play (against Sydney in particular) was a huge part of that loss too

 

[Meerkat]

Pot black? Sainsbury was our best player on the pitch lastnight and he’s only just reached match fitness.

He was absolutely stinking when he returned against who was it.. Adelaide? Culpable for a couple of goals. Don’t remember anybody publicly calling him out on it. Except the fans!

 

[Stuartmcateer]

• the guys upfront need to stand up and take their opportunities
• individual errors have cost us at the back
• the players that i dragged have not followed instructions
• etc, etc.

There's a big difference between "we need to be more clinical" or "we made some errors that lead to goals" and "the subs had a negative impact".

That's the difference between "mistakes happen" and "you cost us the game". If he had left it at the subs didn't give us the kick on we hoped - that's fine. Not every substitute wins a game off the bench every time.

Our subs had a neutral impact. They weren't any worse or better than the players they replaced. The team was poor even before any changes were made.

Just because it was 1-1 at the time doesn't mean we were in the game. We weren't putting them under any pressure. We weren't creating chances. Jeez even the one we did score was a lucky deflection from a duffed shot that was lucky to bounce to Steele the way it did.

 

[Wombat]

He was absolutely stinking when he returned against who was it.. Adelaide? Culpable for a couple of goals. Don’t remember anybody publicly calling him out on it. Except the fans!

He got hooked at half time.

 

[Ironbark]

Haven't seen what he said yet, with a whole thread devoted to it I'll have to catch up

 

[LFCMariners]

There's a big difference between "we need to be more clinical" or "we made some errors that lead to goals" and "the subs had a negative impact".

That's the difference between "mistakes happen" and "you cost us the game". If he had left it at the subs didn't give us the kick on we hoped - that's fine. Not every substitute wins a game off the bench every time.

Our subs had a neutral impact. They weren't any worse or better than the players they replaced. The team was poor even before any changes were made.

Just because it was 1-1 at the time doesn't mean we were in the game. We weren't putting them under any pressure. We weren't creating chances. Jeez even the one we did score was a lucky deflection from a duffed shot that was lucky to bounce to Steele the way it did.

They scored 5 goals, 1 for our benefit.

 

[Tim]

They scored 5 goals, 1 for our benefit.

Charity starts at home…

 

[Ironbark]

Our guys are just doing enough to keep Owen Goal on the scoresheet

 

[pjennings]

There's a big difference between "we need to be more clinical" or "we made some errors that lead to goals" and "the subs had a negative impact".

That's the difference between "mistakes happen" and "you cost us the game". If he had left it at the subs didn't give us the kick on we hoped - that's fine. Not every substitute wins a game off the bench every time.

Our subs had a neutral impact. They weren't any worse or better than the players they replaced. The team was poor even before any changes were made.

Just because it was 1-1 at the time doesn't mean we were in the game. We weren't putting them under any pressure. We weren't creating chances. Jeez even the one we did score was a lucky deflection from a duffed shot that was lucky to bounce to Steele the way it did.

I disagree with the premise of the thread. Jacko plays a particular way even if he is changing formations. To use Tony Gustavson's words in the descriptions of the Matildas he uses a starting XI and and finishing XI. Everyone should know there role (some players are able to fulfil multiple roles). However, the main premise is that the starting XI is in the game when the substitutes come on and the subs make a difference at the end or at least be a safe option to replace someone needing a rest (Tappy for Balard). Think of MDP and Barcellos,