Everyone seems to have an opinion on this... so did Butcher do much wrong at half time. Would you have made changes?

Everyone seems to have an opinion on this... so did Butcher do much wrong at half time. Would you have made changes?

kept pushing for a third and THEN sit back knowing that they are defenetly not commin back from that

So good was the first half performance, i would have requested more of the same in the second half. Wouldnt have changed a thing. The game was pretty much won.

I don't think he did anything wrong at half time. What he did wrong was waiting til 89.30 to make subs when he could have used fresh legs 20 minutes before that.

i would of told the team to keep on attacking, attack is the best form of defence. Dundee do not cope well when teams attack them however when teams sit back then they can and will punish them as shown on sunday.

No subs until 70th minute or so to freshen legs but keep on attacking

I don't think he did anything wrong at half time. What he did wrong was waiting til 89.30 to make subs when he could have used fresh legs 20 minutes before that.

Cant argue with that one - according the Scottish Sun Butcher states that his half time talk was all about being solid and aware that Dundee would be going hell fer leather from the off. IMHO Jocky Scott got it rite and started playing it wide - especially to Griffiths who had poor Rosscoe on toast and he really got their midfield harrassing which they were not doing in the first half.

We are realyy going to sleep defensively and it is costing us - as Glebeict remarked that surpises me - we really need a solid, pacy central defender in the New Year.

Half time came at the most inconvenient time and unfortunately it allowed the tempo to drop from us.

Would have said keep up the attacking play but i would have got the full-backs to stay back as their 1st goal came from Golly missing a chance and not having the legs to get back.

Jocky's players started to use the width of the park and Hart, Harkins and Griffiths exploited it leaving Tokers and what used to be Stuart Golabek standing.

What would I have done?

Stressed to the players that Dee will come out like terriers and whatever effort went into the first half, by us, had to be maintained and increased in the first part of the second half to combat their early agression.

Ten minutes into the second half the changes by JS would be evident and tactics amended to suit.

Fatigue due to the heavier conditions to be monitored and subs used accordingly.

Result 4-1 ICT and my prediticion would be up!!

Some people seem to be having trouble with the OP's question which was very specific about what you would have done at HALF TIME. Any other points on who people thought played well, didn't play well or what happened after the whilst blew for the re-start should be in the matchday thread.

Back on topic......

Having witnessed what we did in the first half then I wouldn't have expected to see any changes at HT and Butchers talk should have been something along the lines of "We're doing well, but the first 45 is in the past. We have to go out there and win the second half, we need to step out with the view that the score is 0-0 and the job is still to be done".

Also, he should have known that Dundee would change things and he should have told players to be prepared for that and Grant should have had instructions to keep an eye on the bench for direction on what we should do depending on the changes faced.

I have no reason to doubt Butcher followed this kind of approach, and do not think it was the HT talk that was responsible for what happened in the second 45 yesterday.

I don't buy into the arguments that say we should have gone out all guns blazing or we should have sat back for the first 10 minutes.....you have to see what you're facing before you can make those decisions, and as we'd been tearing them a new one in the first half it's impossible to predict such a huge swing in the run of play, even if we had done nothing differently.

We can only speculate as to what happened and what was said at HT...but whatever it was and whatever we think it should have been, it's not what lost us the game.

Reiterate that attack is the best form of defense.

I'd have told them to go out and counter the Dundee attack by attacking non stop. It would even have crossed my mind to make a change at half time - putting another striker on.

Edited November 23, 200916 yr by Renegade

I've removed all the posts not related to the OP's question and merged them into the matchday thread.

What I would have done different at half time is get to the refreshment stand a wee bit quicker. Then I would have got my bovril before second half kicked off instead of having to go back to my seat empty handed for fear of missing Caleys third goal. Should have stayed in the queue!

I agree with all these who suggest there shouldn't have been any changes in our approach to the second half, and that we should have continued to take the game to them, and let them worry about us.

What I certainly wouldn't have done was take off one of our two best players a few minutes into the second half - replacing him with one who was completely innefectual.

What bugs me about that switch was that he did the exact same thing against Partick Thistle in this competition at Partick, when he took Sanchez off early in the second half, which completely changed the pattern of the whole game - We led, and had controlled the first half very comfortably, but let PT back in the second half, who equalised, and were unlucky not to win in extra time - Esson saved our bacon in the penalty shoot out.

It appears to me that TB never seems to learn anything from his mistakes.

I agree with all these who suggest there shouldn't have been any changes in our approach to the second half, and that we should have continued to take the game to them, and let them worry about us.

What I certainly wouldn't have done was take off one of our two best players a few minutes into the second half - replacing him with one who was completely innefectual.

What bugs me about that switch was that he did the exact same thing against Partick Thistle in this competition at Partick, when he took Sanchez off early in the second half, which completely changed the pattern of the whole game - We led, and had controlled the first half very comfortably, but let PT back in the second half, who equalised, and were unlucky not to win in extra time - Esson saved our bacon in the penalty shoot out.

It appears to me that TB never seems to learn anything from his mistakes.

That change had to be made. Dundee had just equalised and were rampant at that point. Dundee had changed from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 and it was clearly obvious something had to be done to combat that. We needed someone in the middle trying to break things up. Thats why cox was brought on.

I wouldn't have changed a thing at half time. If butcher did say that dundee would go hell for leather at us in the 2nd half, why the hell did inverness give the ball to dundee almost straight from ko by hoofing it upfield. I would have said, more of the same from the 1st half but at the start of the second, keep the ball, dont play the long ball to avoid an early goal from dundee.

Unfortunatly, it all happened and it lead to there comeback

I would probably have done much the same. I don't think it was the Sanchez switch. It was not having a solid enough defence when a better team turned it on. If we could have brought on Mihadjuks or the like, then we could have won it. An extra defensive mid and they still over ran us. They're a good team. Sometimes you just have to take it on the chin and say 'we just don't have the players at the back'.

Attack isn't always the best form of defence. See George Burley or Berti Vogts against Craig Brown or Walter Smith. Horses for courses.

(actually, I'd have switched Proctor to sweeper and probably taken Foran off, then put on Cox in a 5-4-1 formation - Sanchez playing a bit deeper)

i would have said " can you hear that noise out there? thats Caley fans singing, can you hear them? now i want hear them singing louder , now get out there and kill this game off bcos i want to see that roof lifting with the noise they will make when the final whistle goes"

If this was Yahoo answers

Best of Answers:

i would have said " can you hear that noise out there? thats Caley fans singing, can you hear them? now i want hear them singing louder , now get out there and kill this game off bcos i want to see that roof lifting with the noise they will make when the final whistle goes"

Half time, I would have been of the "more of the same" persuasion. No point in tightening it up and killing the game for 20 mins on so (which would have been the alternative) because we don't do that sort of thing at all well. I thought it wasnae as daft as first seemed, taking sandshoes off. In the 1st half, he was pinging the ball about, but the ground was definitely getting heavier with all that rain - not great for a nippy wee guy. As for the lateness of the other substitutions, the game was gone. Whoever scored the third one first was the winner and everyone on the pitch knew that. No complaints, no criticisms, I just wish it had been us that got there first.

With loads of hindsight...and a TV replay

Golly off - Zadi on!

I would have gone to the bookies and put my all my pennies on Dundee winning 3-2 and gone home happy regardless, shallow git that I am.

John Robertson, if your reading this.....

What would YOU have done?

Pele, if you're reading this....

What would you have done?

Bruce Springsteen, if you're reading this....

What would you have done?

A better question would be 'What would you have done when Dundee made it 2-1?'.

As has been said, there wasnt alot there needing changed at HT, the players fitness shouldnt have been an issue when thinking of subs as the phsychological boost from the scoreboard wouldve had them buzzing.

At 2-1, changes had to be made instantly to kill Dundees spirits and lift our own, why our players looked surprised I still dont know, they didnt react at all, they hadnt been prepared.