tactical substitutions, are they worth the effort

[Spanish]

the Marriott thread got me thinking.  In the majority of cases I have never seen any game changing effects from tactical substitutions, yes there are the exceptional ones but generally?

whether it is on 60 mins or later the incoming player seems to find it difficult to make an impact.  It's almost a desperate act to chuck somebody on in the hope that it makes a difference.

or is it just me?

 

[angieram]

I thought Bryson gave us extra energy on Saturday. 

[ilkleyram]

Deulofeu came on for our William yesterday. 

[Spanish]

6 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Deulofeu came on for our William yesterday. 

but how many substitutions across the leagues result in something as good as that?

[DRBee]

54 minutes ago, Spanish said:

the Marriott thread got me thinking.  In the majority of cases I have never seen any game changing effects from tactical substitutions, yes there are the exceptional ones but generally?

whether it is on 60 mins or later the incoming player seems to find it difficult to make an impact.  It's almost a desperate act to chuck somebody on in the hope that it makes a difference.

or is it just me?

 

Were you not watching in Mac 1 days?

[TigerTedd]

28 minutes ago, DRBee said:

Were you not watching in Mac 1 days?

In Mac 1 days the whole system relied on replacing the wingers at around 60 mins cos they would have knackered themselves out running up and down. You could always guarantee that two of the three subs would always be Russel and bamford, or whoever was on the wing that day. It was almost too predictable. 

[jimbobram]

1 minute ago, TigerTedd said:

In Mac 1 days the whole system relied on replacing the wingers at around 60 mins cos they would have knackered themselves out running up and down. You could always guarantee that two of the three subs would always be Russel and bamford, or whoever was on the wing that day. It was almost too predictable. 

But unstoppable 

[Sparkle]

I sometimes wonder if managers do it with 30 seconds to go to enable the player to get appearance money and keep them happy 

[Spanish]

8 minutes ago, jimbobram said:

But unstoppable 

did we get promoted?

[Spanish]

40 minutes ago, DRBee said:

Were you not watching in Mac 1 days?

nope, Ramstv did not exist?

[Parsnip]

3 minutes ago, Spanish said:

did we get promoted?

No, because of a very effective substitution scoring the winner in the play off final.

[ilkleyram]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

but how many substitutions across the leagues result in something as good as that?

I don't know. Not too many I would guess. But there's lots of reasons why a sub is made and not only tactical - injury, experience for a young player, easing a formerly injured player back in, time wasting, appearance money, wanting a player to feel involved etc - so making purely tactical substitutions is only one of many reasons a player will come on. 

And a tactical substitute could also be about damage limitation rather than winning a game. It's not a straightforward measure. 

[VulcanRam]

1 hour ago, Spanish said:

the Marriott thread got me thinking.  In the majority of cases I have never seen any game changing effects from tactical substitutions, yes there are the exceptional ones but generally?

whether it is on 60 mins or later the incoming player seems to find it difficult to make an impact.  It's almost a desperate act to chuck somebody on in the hope that it makes a difference.

or is it just me?

 

With respect, I think you're simplifying it a little. There are plenty of reasons why a manager might make a substitution on, say, 60 mins. Might be just to get some fresh legs on to give the team energy, might be to give the opposition someone/something new to think about, might be to change shape, might be because he's spotted a weakness he wants to exploit and a substitution is the best way of doing things. Sure, chucking on a striker with 5 to go because you've just gone a goal down is desperate, but a manager has to do it. And it's rare you get a situation like Watford yesterday. But generally a manager is looking to make a positive difference. No guarantee, but worth trying something new.

Take Saturday. It was a game we should have won, but equally there was a period in the second half where we were really under the cosh and fortunate not to concede and go on to lose. 

The substitutions I thought made a positive difference. Waghorn wasn't really effective second half and Bennett did a better job of getting among their centre halves, linking play and creating space for others. Look at the second goal. Bennett dropped off, brought the defender with him, which opened up a gap for Tomori to play Wilson in. That's making a big difference in my eyes. Would Waggy have done that in that situation? Maybe, maybe not.

Bryson gave us a bit more energy in the midfield area, which was critical. Holmes had done really well I thought, but Brentford had him under control. The last few mins we looked the better side and more likely to snatch it. How much of that was down to the subs and what they brought? We don't know. Would we have lost without them? We don't know. These things are small margins.

But I hope it gives an indication that it's all a little more than "a desperate act to chuck somebody on in the hope that it makes a difference".

 

[angieram]

1 minute ago, VulcanRam said:

With respect, I think you're simplifying it a little. There are plenty of reasons why a manager might make a substitution on, say, 60 mins. Might be just to get some fresh legs on to give the team energy, might be to give the opposition someone/something new to think about, might be to change shape, might be because he's spotted a weakness he wants to exploit and a substitution is the best way of doing things. Sure, chucking on a striker with 5 to go because you've just gone a goal down is desperate, but a manager has to do it. And it's rare you get a situation like Watford yesterday. But generally a manager is looking to make a positive difference. No guarantee, but worth trying something new.

Take Saturday. It was a game we should have won, but equally there was a period in the second half where we were really under the cosh and fortunate not to concede and go on to lose. 

The substitutions I thought made a positive difference. Waghorn wasn't really effective second half and Bennett did a better job of getting among their centre halves, linking play and creating space for others. Look at the second goal. Bennett dropped off, brought the defender with him, which opened up a gap for Tomori to play Wilson in. That's making a big difference in my eyes. Would Waggy have done that in that situation? Maybe, maybe not.

Bryson gave us a bit more energy in the midfield area, which was critical. Holmes had done really well I thought, but Brentford had him under control. The last few mins we looked the better side and more likely to snatch it. How much of that was down to the subs and what they brought? We don't know. Would we have lost without them? We don't know. These things are small margins.

But I hope it gives an indication that it's all a little more than "a desperate act to chuck somebody on in the hope that it makes a difference".

 

Great analysis!

[Dethorn]

David Fairclough