Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Alex Moss

Defensive substitutions changing the balance...

Recommended Posts

Just like the 5-4 loss at home to Liverpool a few months back, we''re 3-1 up and Alex Neil decides to take attacking players off and replace with defenders - just madness, we were winning for a reason but hey let''s swing it back in the oppositions favour and invite pressure on whilst taking away some of our attacking threat that has obviously worked during the game! I can''t get my head around that kind of substitution, and as has been proved again, is not the way to win a match. I really do love Alex though and think he''s overall absolutely brilliant for us but it''s just that kind of substitution that bugs me! On a more positive note, it was a valiant effort from the lads, and to be fair, 6 minutes of injury time, was that right? Really gutted but let''s be realistic, we''re 2nd going into October!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A like for like substitution would ensure that Newcastle wouldn''t be able to apply the extra pressure without fear of reprisal, it''s a substitution that may seem sensible but alters the balance in a way that is dangerously counter productive in my opinion. That said, I think Alex Neil otherwise is spot on and I''m very happy with him despite that! Wolves, onwards, let''s get on another run! OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You''re not really right about the Liverpool game Alex.

The score was 3-2 (not 3-1) before he made any substitutions.

He then brought on Jarvis for Redmond and Olsson for Hoolahan in the 70th minute. Then Jerome for Naismith in the 82nd minute.

So two like-for-like substitutions and one defensive player for an attacking one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Irrespective of 3-1 or 3-2, Hoolahan and Naismith were running riot and were very impressive from memory. So to take one off ie Hoolahan and replace with Olsson with 20 minutes remaining again changes the dynamic, it weakens our attacking threat and encourages teams to then come forward without the fear of retribution. So, respectfully Thirsty, the point I''m making I feel still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alex Neil explained that. He said we were getting caught by the ball over the top so went three at the back to counter that. That part worked but when the goals came we lost headers in front. He went on to say how we''ve lost 5 or 6 crucial headers this season and that''s too many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree Alex.  It seems the common sense thing to do is to bring on a defensive midfielder who can offer a bit of cover and fresh legs to a midfield under the cosh.  AN didn''t do that, even though he''s done it in other matches this season.  Like the Tettey sub last year, this sub - which was opposite in character to last year was just as bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lake district canary"]I agree Alex.  It seems the common sense thing to do is to bring on a defensive midfielder who can offer a bit of cover and fresh legs to a midfield under the cosh.  AN didn''t do that, even though he''s done it in other matches this season.  Like the Tettey sub last year, this sub - which was opposite in character to last year was just as bad.

[/quote]Utter ballcocks.The ball was sailing over the midfields heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="lake district canary"]I agree Alex.  It seems the common sense thing to do is to bring on a defensive midfielder who can offer a bit of cover and fresh legs to a midfield under the cosh.  AN didn''t do that, even though he''s done it in other matches this season.  Like the Tettey sub last year, this sub - which was opposite in character to last year was just as bad. [/quote]Utter ballcocks.The ball was sailing over the midfields heads.[/quote]

If the ball was being launched over the midfield''s heads then maybe extra runners in midfield might have stopped them doing it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morty,

Whilst I agree it was sailing over their heads, imo, it would be a better ploy to stop the delivery rather than encourage it even more.

There were a number of ways of doing this but essentially cut of the supply at its source, which could have meant taking Cam Jam off and putting Josh or Naismith on with the instruction to chase and harry the ball at every opportunity, they could have run themselves ragged for 15 minutes and may have even nicked it and added a fourth for us - who knows but if the oppo is stuck in their own half and under immense pressure they are far more likely to make a mistake themselves. With both the Murphs on the pitch, probably the two quickest players out there, the oppo would have had other things on their mind than delivering into our box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

Whilst I agree it was sailing over their heads, imo, it would be a better ploy to stop the delivery rather than encourage it even more.

There were a number of ways of doing this but essentially cut of the supply at its source, which could have meant taking Cam Jam off and putting Josh or Naismith on with the instruction to chase and harry the ball at every opportunity, they could have run themselves ragged for 15 minutes and may have even nicked it and added a fourth for us - who knows but if the oppo is stuck in their own half and under immense pressure they are far more likely to make a mistake themselves. With both the Murphs on the pitch, probably the two quickest players out there, the oppo would have had other things on their mind than delivering into our box.[/quote]All easy after the fact, isn''t it? If defenders had just done their jobs properly tonight, we could have been having a very different conversation.The players on the pitch were their own worst enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t get me wrong, I can see the thinking in such a substitution, but something like Josh for Jacob I think would have worked brilliantly, and perhaps wouldn''t have sent out a message to the Newcastle players that they were free to apply that extra 10% or whatever that could make the vital difference, I also think that decision was badly timed in stopping our 12th man ie Newcastle fans from losing their sh1t, they were on the brink, instead it gave them hope!. All ifs and buts of course, and I''m probably not explaining my point very eloquently or clearly, but we''re Norwich City and are better than setting up to try and park the bus, I have immense faith in our lads to see out a game just by playing as we were!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You take off your most dangerous player and replace him with a defender you are sending a message to both the opposition and your own team - you ain''t planning on scoring again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

Whilst I agree it was sailing over their heads, imo, it would be a better ploy to stop the delivery rather than encourage it even more.

There were a number of ways of doing this but essentially cut of the supply at its source, which could have meant taking Cam Jam off and putting Josh or Naismith on with the instruction to chase and harry the ball at every opportunity, they could have run themselves ragged for 15 minutes and may have even nicked it and added a fourth for us - who knows but if the oppo is stuck in their own half and under immense pressure they are far more likely to make a mistake themselves. With both the Murphs on the pitch, probably the two quickest players out there, the oppo would have had other things on their mind than delivering into our box.[/quote]
I agree with this Ray. I''m not saying it''s the way I would have gone but it''s certainly an option when considered beside what Alex neil had to say. 
What I can''t go with is all the hot air about putting on another defender so they all got in eachothers way. Three at the back is a clear tactic but maybe the midfield were sitting too deep in front. Wasn''t there but did the midfield carry on playing as if we hadn''t changed formation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morty,

Just as easy at the time but I accept we will never know what the impact would have been, personally I would have attempted to cut of the source, doesn''t make me right, doesn''t make me wrong, just makes me different.

Furthermore, I could just as easily argue that the manager could have done his job properly tonight, perhaps he was his own worst enemy?

Bottom line is we will never know, but if you are being bombarded by wasps, rather than try and bat away each wasp perhaps get rid of the nest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ray"]Morty,

Just as easy at the time but I accept we will never know what the impact would have been, personally I would have attempted to cut of the source, doesn''t make me right, doesn''t make me wrong, just makes me different.

Furthermore, I could just as easily argue that the manager could have done his job properly tonight, perhaps he was his own worst enemy?

Bottom line is we will never know, but if you are being bombarded by wasps, rather than try and bat away each wasp perhaps get rid of the nest.[/quote]You don''t like Alex Neil, do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty,

It appeared to me to be the football version of rope a dope, the only problem being we are not the Ali of the football world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would seem so Ray. But to be fair to AN the change did nullify the ball over the top. It''s all ifs and buts but we could have just as easily conceded through that avenue if he hadn''t made the change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morty,

As a person, I''m predominantly neutral about him, however I do not like some of his methods and traits, you are correct there.

Imo he is not, not learning, he is stubborn, which of course inhibits his ability to learn. Doesn''t make either of us bad people and we may well enjoy sharing a pint but we could end up at odds when it comes to discussing team management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty,

It may well have done but it gave up ground elsewhere. Whilst Churchill had methods of intercepting V1''s and V2''s, his main method of defence was to attack the launch sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ray"]Nutty,

It may well have done but it gave up ground elsewhere. Whilst Churchill had methods of intercepting V1''s and V2''s, his main method of defence was to attack the launch sites.[/quote]With all due respect Ray, what a load of frigging claptrap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morty,

It was an analogy to make a point, the fact Churchill did what he did is not claptrap, that is history and accepted tactics of war, perhaps you would explain why you think you believe the history books to be claptrap. Now contrary to some on here, I do not believe an away victory for NCFC to be in the category of winning the war but a great deal can be learned from such battles and applied to winning football matches.

Address the cause not the symptom and things get a whole lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×