Was it just me, or did I hear some boos when Gamble was taken off for Humphreys?

Are people really that dim that they can't understand the perfectly good reasoning behind such a substitution?

There are some proper rarfs kicking about that's for sure!

yep there were plenty in the Town End. Its pathetic isn't it.

Its ridiculous.

Since Gamble has come to us, he's ran the show in almost every game. It makes sense to take him off when we are coasting to victory against what were a poor side. If he'd have got injured, we'd be humped!

I think people should shelve their grievances and concentrate on supporting the boys on the pitch so we can achieve safety.

Some clothead near us in the Millhouse Terrace decided to remind everyone that there's a gaping chasm between his ears by going on a 3 minute expletive fuelled rant, directed at C.T. after the substitution.
It was obvious to just about everyone else around that he was either taking the opportunity to rest him or carrying a slight knock. As C.T confirmed after the game it was both.

I thought the fans were saying booerns

Why would any supporter boo, or even consider booing !!

Disgarceful, ban the lot of them I say !!

I have no problem with people booing stuff that warrants it.

It was out of order imo.

Anyone who booed is a rarf imo.

HTH
TTFN

Id hardly say we "were coasting to victory" at that point, Southend were not bad going forward and had some excellent chances. It could have gone tits up but thankfully it never. If he had aknock then fair enough but the best idea would have been to take Gamble off for Brown and put Brown right wing and Jones into the middle (which is his position!!) but of course that would mean no appearence for Humphreys so isnt allowed.

The people with the ironic applause for Boyd coming off were a disgrace.

I didnt think Boyd played very well today but a lot seem to disagree. I see no reason to boo him like as he did at least seem to put in the effort today.

He supplied the first two didnt he? More than good enough imo and his hold up play and touch were very good.

Jones had already been took off hadn't he

Yeah but if he wanted to give Brown minutes and Gamble a rest then he could have simply tooK Gamble off for Brown before he did any subs and solved the problem in 1 substitution instead of 2?

Again, it's funny how we see things differently. I wasn't concerned at all that they would score. I know they missed a few chances and hit the post, but I thought we were comfortable more or less throughout (barring a 15 minute spell in the first half when we kept giving the ball back to them)

It seemed to be one of them games where we didn't actually play that well but come away winning comfortably.

Regarding Humphreys, I don't see the issue. I'm the first one to complain when he starts as I feel we have better options and we play better without him in the starting line-up. We weren't chasing the game, Gamble needed to come off. Where's the problem.

If I was one of the players, i'd be wondering what the team had to do to get the fans on our side. I found all of the booing today completely unnecessary. I reckon there's some doils who just want us to get relegated so they can say I told you so!

Jones was complaining of feeling sick after a knock to the head according to Turner, so both subs needed making, whether Humphries was the only option is another matter

I stand in the town end and although I couldn't see any reason in the Gamble substitution I can honestly say I didn't hear what would be called excessive booing

thats because you were too busy making your mouth go over the substitution

Same here, didin't here ANY booing, however if i was stood in the North West corner ( where most of our 'BEST' fans stand) I would have probably heartd loads of negative comments about Ritchie Humphries before he even got on the field of play.
Jones had a knock to the head, Boyd had covered more grass than he has all season, Rowell has NEVER played well for the 1st team (despite being awsesome for the ressies) whats the problem. Some numpty near us also telling the lads that they were shocking whenever within earshot despite coasting at 2-nil up was also brilliant to hear as well , 'some' Pools fans are just the 'best' in the world are'nt they ?

there was definitely derison of the gamble substitution. the reason being it is so predictable. fair enough give gamble a rest, but why not someone more adventurous, like Rowell or god forbid Fredriksen... some reckon we were coasting - Soouthend certainly weren't up to much - so why not be more adventurous? still, it was a good win.

In giving Gamble a rest, CT needed to replace him with someone who could take his holding midfield position, & out of the subs those options were Humps, McSweeney or Haslam. The solution was obvious.

Rowell or Freddy may have been more adventurous choices, but as they weren't on the bench, that wasn't going to happen

According to Mickey Barron, Joe Gamble had been ill, vomitting during the week and as a result was probably not as fit as usual to see out the game.

HTH

We will never know if young players are good enough unless they are tried. Hopefully we can win 3 or 4 games in a row to fire us up the table and then some of the younger members of the squad can feature.

It's a fair point, but I don't think a holding midfielder was vital at that point. particularly when they were down to 10. Just tell Sweeney or someone to sit back and conserve his energy. It's not as if Ritchie did any holding anyway.

The point is when a game is won it's worth bringing on players who might influence the game, creative players, those who might not normally get on. It seems Ritchie just has to turn up and he's on the pitch at some point, it shouldn't be like that.

Gamble was substituted 13 mins before Southend were reduced to 10 men!

Just shows you how much "supporters" pay attention.

Okay, we couldn't have anticipated that they'd go down to 10, and we'd made all our subs by the time their man was sent off (I was paying attention), but my point still stands, the decision to bring Ritchie on was predictable, and the fella keeps making appearances despite offering nothing on the pitch. We certainly played worse after he came on, didn't we? Southend had about 3 decent chances in that period - more than they'd had over the previous 70 minutes. Just saying if we're going to bring on someone ineffective, it may as well be someone with a future at the club rather than merely a past.

Southend were piling forward for the last twenty minutes, so the odd chance or two was bound to appear. I think, sadly, that Ritchie is just a bit too much off the pace for this league now.
If I was looking for someone to come on for Gamble just to sit in front of the back four I would give Haslam a chance. He has played that role at Wednesday and didn't do a bad job and he can tackle or get a foot in..........whereas Ritchie can't.
Nobody goes on forever and RH has been a good servant but it would really be sad if he came in for ridicule after his service to the club.
I remember years ago when Kenny Johnson dropped back to right half because he had lost the yard of pace that he had. It wasn't a good move and I was wishing for him to retire gracefully cos he was one of my schoolboy heroes.
I think Ritchie either gets another job at the club, like Mickey Barron did, or he joins a club a bit lower in the hierarchy. I don't want him to be a figure of ridicule or even hate.

You are spot on. The thing to remember is that Ritchie is a footballer and if he's asked to play, he'll play to the best of the ability. I have the utmost respect for Humphreys. No-one was booing him (as someone on the Bunker foolishly suggested), they were booing Turner and his choice of substitution. If people start to resent Ritchie, Turner will be responsible, for continuing to pick him. I didn't boo, but I can see why people might - we are simply supporters and want to see the best 11 on the pitch. It's worrying that we've brought in several new signings who are now stuck in the reserves while one player is continuing to make 1st team appearances despite some very poor displays.