Substitutions too late or not .

[Curtains]

30 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Is this based on the result or the performance? 

If replayed, 9 times out of 10 we win that game (ok maybe 8 with Collins' and Dobbin's finishing). Seems a bit of a lazy summary considering how the game played out in real time. "worked ok" - we absolutely battered them. 

 

Like Fleetwood , Shrewsbury etc 

[Mr Tibbs]

11 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Goals win games .

Jimmy Greaves  chipped goalkeepers when 1 on 1 and made it look easy .

We don’t score enough goals 

Nice comparison to Collo there. 

 

[Mr Tibbs]

3 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Like Fleetwood , Shrewsbury etc 

Two games where I completely agree about subs. 

This game - not a chance IMO. Complete dominance. 

[Curtains]

13 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Two games where I completely agree about subs. 

This game - not a chance IMO. Complete dominance. 

Of course it was complete dominance except for 10 minutes when they scored as the guy got down the flank past NML

Collins scoring and not hitting post and NML scoring 1 on 1s .

Unfortunately football is all about ifs and buts. 
 

Sibley scores 2 against Oxford and then is out after one half against Fleetwood.

I would give the lad a chance earlier in games and not on 80 minutes down the middle .

I have criticized Sibley for his record on bookings but he’s sorted that out to his credit and I’m confident he can win games for us now if given a run with either McGoldrick or Collins .

My point is 80 minutes is ridiculous time to bring the lad on. 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Curtains

[Mr Tibbs]

31 minutes ago, Curtains said:

Of course it was complete dominance except for 10 minutes when they scored as the guy got down the flank past NML

Collins scoring and not hitting post and NML scoring 1 on 1s .

Unfortunately football is all about ifs and buts. 
 

Sibley scores 2 against Oxford and then is out after one half against Fleetwood.

I would give the lad a chance earlier in games and not on 80 minutes down the middle .

I have criticized Sibley for his record on bookings but he’s sorted that out to his credit and I’m confident he can win games for us now if given a run with either McGoldrick or Collins .

My point is 80 minutes is ridiculous time to bring the lad on. 

I would like to see more of Sibley for sure but it wasn't why we lost this game. All the subs that came on almost either scored or created the winner. White corner for Knights free header, Birds ball for Didzys back post sitter and Dobbins chance 10 yards out... game should have been won.

If this was a Sibley thread I wouldn't be far off agreeing - but you've called out all the subs he made (who had 29 mins!) and a formation that "worked ok" in one of the most one sided games I've seen in ages - I just can't agree with any of that for this game. A lazy narrative that has been valid for some games, just not this one iMO. 

[Curtains]

4 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

I would like to see more of Sibley for sure but it wasn't why we lost this game. All the subs that came on almost either scored or created the winner. White corner for Knights free header, Birds ball for Didzys back post sitter and Dobbins chance 10 yards out... game should have been won.

If this was a Sibley thread I wouldn't be far off agreeing - but you've called out all the subs he made (who had 29 mins!) and a formation that "worked ok" in one of the most one sided games I've seen in ages - I just can't agree with any of that for this game. A lazy narrative that has been valid for some games, just not this one iMO. 

I never mentioned lazy anywhere in any of my posts on this subject.

All the players tried their best but it wasn’t enough .

For what my opinion is worth I think Warne will take us to the playoffs despite Saturdays result as Posh still have Ipswich and Barnsley to play .

Warne is our manager and has a 4 year contract.

I will back Warne  

[Curtains]

20 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

I would like to see more of Sibley for sure but it wasn't why we lost this game. All the subs that came on almost either scored or created the winner. White corner for Knights free header, Birds ball for Didzys back post sitter and Dobbins chance 10 yards out... game should have been won.

If this was a Sibley thread I wouldn't be far off agreeing - but you've called out all the subs he made (who had 29 mins!) and a formation that "worked ok" in one of the most one sided games I've seen in ages - I just can't agree with any of that for this game. A lazy narrative that has been valid for some games, just not this one iMO. 

I haven’t called out the subs .

I am asking the question are the substitutions too late in games when a reaction is needed .

Warne is the manager and is his own man .

I don’t think Hourihane  was happy at being substituted and was playing well .

Tactically were Warnes substitutions right on the day .

 

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Curtains

[Mr Tibbs]

1 hour ago, Curtains said:

I never mentioned lazy anywhere in any of my posts on this subject.

All the players tried their best but it wasn’t enough .

For what my opinion is worth I think Warne will take us to the playoffs despite Saturdays result as Posh still have Ipswich and Barnsley to play .

Warne is our manager and has a 4 year contract.

I will back Warne  

Lazy narrative as in the subs/timings are a problem, when in this game in particular, they weren't IMO - far from it. 

We're in the same boat with the rest of the post. 

53 minutes ago, Curtains said:

I haven’t called out the subs .

I am asking the question are the substitutions too late in games when a reaction is needed .

Warne is the manager and is his own man .

I don’t think Hourihane  was happy at being substituted and was playing well .

Tactically were Warnes substitutions right on the day .

There was an obvious reaction so that's where I'm missing the whole point really and goes back to my original question. Do we jump on the sub bandwagon every time we don't win regardless of what we see in the performance? We all watched the same game and saw those subs (where 3 of the 4 had almost a third of a football match worth of minutes) carve out those chances so I'm a bit bemused. 

[Curtains]

17 minutes ago, Mr Tibbs said:

Lazy narrative as in the subs/timings are a problem, when in this game in particular, they weren't IMO - far from it. 

We're in the same boat with the rest of the post. 

There was an obvious reaction so that's where I'm missing the whole point really and goes back to my original question. Do we jump on the sub bandwagon every time we don't win regardless of what we see in the performance? We all watched the same game and saw those subs (where 3 of the 4 had almost a third of a football match worth of minutes) carve out those chances so I'm a bit bemused. 

Fair enough mate I see your point now .

I think it’s all about which players the manager likes to start games with and how we finish games .

We seem to struggle in the 2nd half of games and I personally think substitutions could be earlier .

 

Maybe it’s a fallacy and I’m not looking at it from Warnes point of view 

I agree with the point about subs bandwagon and yes the subs carved out chances but we didn’t score from them because we needed to flood the box with goal scorers  which we don’t have if you don’t use Sibley and don’t replace Osula 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Curtains
Altered and added

[Sparkle]

11 hours ago, Curtains said:

I haven’t called out the subs .

I am asking the question are the substitutions too late in games when a reaction is needed .

Warne is the manager and is his own man .

I don’t think Hourihane  was happy at being substituted and was playing well .

Tactically were Warnes substitutions right on the day .

 

 

 

 

Does it matter who are the subs and how many are used - this season they have made very little positive impact in my opinion. Yes a few times but not many in the league.

try to think of many games in terms of scoring goals and creating them - Port Vale away - Dobbin, Barkhauzen scored a goal at Accrington, off the top of my hat I can’t remember any others having an impact.

[Premier ram]

14 hours ago, Curtains said:

Fair enough mate I see your point now .

I think it’s all about which players the manager likes to start games with and how we finish games .

We seem to struggle in the 2nd half of games and I personally think substitutions could be earlier .

 

Maybe it’s a fallacy and I’m not looking at it from Warnes point of view 

I agree with the point about subs bandwagon and yes the subs carved out chances but we didn’t score from them because we needed to flood the box with goal scorers  which we don’t have if you don’t use Sibley and don’t replace Osula 

correct me if im wrong but Warne did try to replace Osula , the guy he had lined up decided he wanted more money and went elsewhere , this is where our club is being held back

[Curtains]

49 minutes ago, Premier ram said:

correct me if im wrong but Warne did try to replace Osula , the guy he had lined up decided he wanted more money and went elsewhere , this is where our club is being held back

I didn’t know that until yesterday.

Scoring goals is an issue for us. 
 

 

[RoyMac5]

Not to do with timing but to do with 'by rote'? Same old same old today?

[TomTom92]

On 11/04/2023 at 19:37, Kokosnuss said:

Some are simply too late, yes.

Even if they are a little late though it doesn't mean they can't still have an impact. 

For them to make an impact it often  helps if they come alongside a tweak to the tactical approach / formation, something for the opposition to think about.

Often ours don't seem to come with those sort of changes, rather they oncoming player continues in the same vein as the player they're replaces and usually, but not always, to the same result 

Whether that's simply a case of our small squad meaning the replacements don't have enough different qualities to their game for any potential tactical changes to have any real positive effect, or a case of a lack of managerial nous is a matter of opinion but I suppose we won't really know until next year.

Agreed. Warne reminds me on football manager. I can see a player needs a sub and that the match is slipping away so I bring a like for like on and hope he does something out the blue. This usually works for me but I’m aware that I’m playing a computer game.
 
All the players look goosed so at the moment it doesn’t matter who he brings on because they don’t have the energy or the tactical input to change the game our way.

[MadAmster]

IMO, Barks and NML are paying the price of not having a proper pre season. I'd prefer them to start on the bench and come on for the last 25 to 30 minutes to cause havoc. 

NML turned down a new contract at Wendy because they wanted to persist with him at wing back. Rosenior offered him a wingers's role. he jumped at the chance. Then we brought PW in and he, and Barks, were turned back to wing backs. Not their game. Not their skill set. Not what they enjoy.

I foresee both leaving in the summer and being replaced by players who can, and will, happily play the role. Unless the planned EFL review of the business plan sees some easing of the transfer restrictions we will, again have those positions filled by U22s or by 30+s. New season, same issues. Over to you EFL.