Substitutes

[CANARYKING 634]

Can someone explain to me me how you change a two nil down game with a change in the 91 st minute

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,776]

The substitution in the 91st minute irrelevant. But what I don't understand is why he didn't bring on Roberts earlier when it was clear that we needed to try something different to find a way through Burnley's stubborn rearguard. A quicker player who likes to run at the defence may have given the attack another dimension.

[Boris 56]

joke sub and this frustrate even more Roberts who badly need game time !

His face was pain to watch after come in 91 min...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

5 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

That's actually a very good observation.

This mirrors the ridiculous late substitutions at an evening game last season (not sure which won but we winning comfortably) when Rhodes and Leitner came on in the 89th minute! They were not for injuries. I sit in the middle of the Jarrold Stand and had a great view of the reaction of both players at the end. Rhodes walked straight off (which was very unusual) and Leitner held out both arms outstretched as if to say............' what the hell was he point in that'!!!!   

Perhaps we have a contractual obligation to use Roberts certain number of times and bringing him on for 2 minutes in a lost game is a way to meet those obligations. 

I heard he was shocking at Crawley so perhaps he's just not at the stage where we think he can impact games? 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

So what if Krul had broken down and we'd used all our subs?

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

 

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

 But what I don't understand is why he didn't bring on Roberts earlier when it was clear that we needed to try something different to find a way through Burnley's stubborn rearguard. A quicker player who likes to run at the defence may have given the attack another dimension.

Roberts maybe skilful, but by Premier League standards he certainly isn't quick. 

[Making Plans 936]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So what if Krul had broken down and we'd used all our subs?

That is the risk you take but when you are two down & going nowhere it's probably a risk worth taking.

Besides unless we had got back to 2-2, which never looked likely, playing with 10 men wouldn't have mattered.

As for Roberts, you have to question why he is here. If you are not going to try him when were hit by numerous injuries, 2 down, playing poorly and heading for certain defeat, then when are you going to use him?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

5 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

That is the risk you take but when you are two down & going nowhere it's probably a risk worth taking.

Besides unless we had got back to 2-2, which never looked likely, playing with 10 men wouldn't have mattered.

As for Roberts, you have to question why he is here. If you are not going to try him when were hit by numerous injuries, 2 down, playing poorly and heading for certain defeat, then when are you going to use him?

It's a risk worth taking if the keeper's fit but Krul didn't think he could return for the second half. We'd already lost Tettey to injury. We also don't know how many others are playing with knocks through necessity.

[Gordon Bennett 780]

You have to wonder about Roberts, obviously not impressing the manager in training. I’m sure if DF believed that he could influence the game he’d have brought him on much earlier. 

[Capt. Pants 4,194]

I could understand that if Roberts was one of our own then it may be sensible to nurture him into the team, but being a loanee is does seem a bit of a strange one, and raises the question of why the hell he is here. 

But Farke is not one for non injury based substitutions and the starting 11 is expected to play the 90 regardless of the score.

Hopefully he will have more faith in Onel as a game changer when he is fit.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,154]

In our last away game at West Ham we ended up playing the last quarter of an hour with effectively 10 men, because Trybull was injured a minute after we'd made our last substitution. Trybull was then ruled out for 6 weeks. Exactly the same thing happened in the away game at Ipswich last season. It seems pretty obvious why Farke is being cautious with substitutes at the moment given our terrible injury list. We lost this game in the first 15 minutes as Farke said afterwards - nothing to do with substitutes, the lack of them, or the timing of them. 

[hampton canary 24]

Late substitutions, zonal marking, failure to leave any players on the halfway line for corners and free kicks are the way Farke likes to play, and this is unlikely to change. I would like to see us bring on a substitute with 20 mins to go especially if the outfield players are not threatening to score. If we leave Buendia and Pukki on the halfway line, at least for corners, this would mean the opposition would leave at least 2 back which might give our defenders a chance to pick up any runners; not to mention having an outlet if we clear the ball. This would also confuse our opponents who know we always bring 10 men back for corners and free  kicks.

[Yellowhammer 86]

Crazy not to use subs earlier ,to use one in 91st min is something you do when winning and want to waste time .

[splendidrush 698]

2 hours ago, Yellowhammer said:

Crazy not to use subs earlier ,to use one in 91st min is something you do when winning and want to waste time .

We lost, it happens, get over it. You seem to be on a Crusade tonight, tone it down. 😶

[CDMullins 436]

McGovern carried out a fairly rigorous warm up at one point, meaning there must have been doubt around Timmy.

Considering we'd already made one change, we had to keep one up our sleeve in case Tim needed to come off;

Leaving one;

And somehow, despite never kicking a ball for us, Patrick Roberts is now the second coming.