One team makes tactical subs

[lake district canary 4,531]

Imo the manager should tell one or two players at half time they will be subbed at some point in the second half and to give it everything for say twenty minutes then come off, thus maximising the physical aspects of the game.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Its up to the individual but I wouldn't use the word proud. We did OK and no complaints apart from the continuing misuse of subs.

We looked to have a decent attitude in getting back behind the ball and kept their time in our box to a minimum. But it was at the cost of sacrificing our attacking intentions. Poor old Pukki didn't have any support against two top class CB's.

I would have hoped we might have got forward a bit more. We still lost and the hopes of survival take another bloody nose. We have played well at times this season and it is nice to have it acknowledged but it doesn't win you games.

And watching it on SKY makes me almost glad we may not be in the EPL next season.

Liverpool moaning they needed the winter break as they were tired and lo and behold tonight Carragher, why do they have an ex Liverpool captain as co commentator?, saying he had to play players because they needed game time after the week off! BAH

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

34 minutes ago, Making Plans said:

Maybe to try and win the game. 

We might have had our best period before Liverpool scored, although that is debatable, but during that period we never really looked like creating any good chances

We were looking more like winning the game at that point than at any point previous or at any point afterwards. 

[East Rider 548]

36 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Staggering how some people seem to watch the game with their eyes firmly shut. We had by far our best period of the game  for the ten minutes before Liverpool scored. We weren't   looking tired at that point and for the first time in the game we weren't looking under pressure. Why would we have wanted to bring on a sub at that point?  

Agreed with this.

I was looking at our performance and could not see who should be replaced. Although they had the lions share of possession we were generally okay and any change may have caused us problems. However, once we conceded we had to make a change

 

 

[Well b back 3,190]

Op I am sure if we had rested Mane, Furmhino and co and Farke had them at his disposal then he to would have panicked at 75 minutes and brought on his main striker. 
You criticise Farke every week and told us before last season if we did not sack Farke we would be relegated ?. If we are in the Championship next year with the same or a similar squad our options on the bench will be enormous to change the game. 
Personally I have faith in Farke.

[vos 155]

We had absorbed a massive amount of pressure and the defence remained fairly solid. But apart from Cantwell and Tettey the rest of the attacking players were struggling. I am sure most managers would have introduced subs after 60 mins. However it was clear that Farke's theory was that we were not losing - so stick with it. Some fresh legs were clearly needed. I hope I am being fair minded, but I thought Rupp and Duda made little contribution. The latter seems short of pace and energy. I would accept that the two subs when eventually introduced did not exactly impress, but eight mins or so leaves little time to get sorted and make an impact. That kind of timescale is really only suited by bringing on a big guy up front and hopes he gets something on to a cross etc.

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

It was a decent performance but we hardly looked threatening or had any prolonged period of possession or caused Liverpool many problems, as you would expect. Obviously Mane was going to come on at some point so it was hardly a tactical genius, nor was Buendia. Mane arguably changed the game and Emi was frankly, dreadful. Drmic I thought looked lively. 

Liverpool were very ordinary I thought and we could have snuck a point, but we look every inch a relegated team.

 

[Kanadyan Kanary 121]

Trouble he's done it consistently before, so why would we expect anything less?  These are the subs for the last 10 games and the ones with asterisk are where we conceded a goal (and the minute we conceded it).  I guess if you are on the bench, don't expect more than about 20 minutes, unless someone gets injured:

• * (81) Nor v Wolves 1-2 - Three subs at 86 mins
• * (62)Aston Villa v Nor (1-0) - Three subs at 76 mins
• Nor v Spurs (2-2) Subs at 69, 75 and 86
• Preston v Nor (Cup) (4-0) subs at 68, 82 and 87
• Nor v Cry Pal (1-1) Subs at 78, 83 and 90
• Man U v Nor (4-0) Two subs 65 (3-0 down) and one at 80
• Nor v Bournemouth (1-0) subs at 78, 84 and 90
• * (80) Spurs v Nor (1-2) subs at 82, 86 and 90
• Burnley v Nor (Cup) 82, 85 and 88
• Newcastle v Nor (0-0) 67, 86 and 89

[Nuff Said 5,088]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Well the substitutions were made and were frankly not any good. How Vrancic can't get on the pitch I don't know. 

Did you not see the Man U game? I don’t like to criticise players but in that game he was slow, error prone and not aware enough. Yes, sometimes he has been very influential but it will depend on the opposition and what side of the bed he’s got out of.

[Keith Scott 243]

40 minutes ago, vos said:

We had absorbed a massive amount of pressure and the defence remained fairly solid. But apart from Cantwell and Tettey the rest of the attacking players were struggling. I am sure most managers would have introduced subs after 60 mins. However it was clear that Farke's theory was that we were not losing - so stick with it. Some fresh legs were clearly needed. I hope I am being fair minded, but I thought Rupp and Duda made little contribution. The latter seems short of pace and energy. I would accept that the two subs when eventually introduced did not exactly impress, but eight mins or so leaves little time to get sorted and make an impact. That kind of timescale is really only suited by bringing on a big guy up front and hopes he gets something on to a cross etc.

As pointed out, unless we are losing Farke doesn't make subs. And if we don't lose, or put in a 'brave' effort Farke sticks with the same 11 every time. So you can guarantee the anonymous Duda and Rupp will start the next game. Any manager worth his salt would have given Buendia more than 5 minutes today. Farke is a weak, reactive manager. An excellent coach he may be, but an excellent manager he will never be. Farke cost us again today. 

Anyway, enjoy your the rest of your weekend. Keith Scott. 

[Nuff Said 5,088]

2 hours ago, Samwam27 said:

Spurs and now liverpool have ahown subs change games into winning situations. Doesnt always work but we never give ours a proper run at the game

Putting Mane on is not an option for us. It’s different when the alternative is Drmic.

[Well b back 3,190]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Imo the manager should tell one or two players at half time they will be subbed at some point in the second half and to give it everything for say twenty minutes then come off, thus maximising the physical aspects of the game.

Do you feel there were players that didn’t give everything today ? I think this squad whatever their ability give everything for 90 minutes not just 20 minutes in the second half.

[Well b back 3,190]

11 minutes ago, Keith Scott said:

As pointed out, unless we are losing Farke doesn't make subs. And if we don't lose, or put in a 'brave' effort Farke sticks with the same 11 every time. So you can guarantee the anonymous Duda and Rupp will start the next game. Any manager worth his salt would have given Buendia more than 5 minutes today. Farke is a weak, reactive manager. An excellent coach he may be, but an excellent manager he will never be. Farke cost us again today. 

Anyway, enjoy your the rest of your weekend. Keith Scott. 

See your manager Lambert has recently become ( on stats ) your worst manager ever. You would give your right arm to have Farke and Webber do to your club what they have done to ours.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

10 minutes ago, Kanadyan Kanary said:

Trouble he's done it consistently before, so why would we expect anything less?  These are the subs for the last 10 games and the ones with asterisk are where we conceded a goal (and the minute we conceded it).  I guess if you are on the bench, don't expect more than about 20 minutes, unless someone gets injured:

• * (81) Nor v Wolves 1-2 - Three subs at 86 mins
• * (62)Aston Villa v Nor (1-0) - Three subs at 76 mins
• Nor v Spurs (2-2) Subs at 69, 75 and 86
• Preston v Nor (Cup) (4-0) subs at 68, 82 and 87
• Nor v Cry Pal (1-1) Subs at 78, 83 and 90
• Man U v Nor (4-0) Two subs 65 (3-0 down) and one at 80
• Nor v Bournemouth (1-0) subs at 78, 84 and 90
• * (80) Spurs v Nor (1-2) subs at 82, 86 and 90
• Burnley v Nor (Cup) 82, 85 and 88
• Newcastle v Nor (0-0) 67, 86 and 89

Wow - just wow. So you include the time of goals conceded (in brackets) when we concede a goal before  the substitution, but you somehow don't manage to include the time of goals conceded after  we have made substitutions. It's almost as if you're butchering the facts and the truth to try and support your specious argument. 

I'll complete it for you.

• Nor v Spurs (2-2) * (83) Subs at 69, 75 and 86. 
• Nor v Cry Pal (1-1) * (85) Subs at 78, 83 and 90. 

 

 

[Norfolk Dan 308]

3 hours ago, hampton canary said:

A bit harsh but he could have taken Rukk, Duda and McLean off as far as I am concerned, they didn't really contribute anything. I feel sorry for Vrancic and Buendia as they both should have started. 

Remind me who played the defence killer pass to set up our one chance in the first half? 

[lake district canary 4,531]

11 minutes ago, Well b back said:

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Imo the manager should tell one or two players at half time they will be subbed at some point in the second half and to give it everything for say twenty minutes then come off, thus maximising the physical aspects of the game.

Do you feel there were players that didn’t give everything today ? I think this squad whatever their ability give everything for 90 minutes not just 20 minutes in the second half.

No of course not. They are all giving their all, all the time.  The point I was making was to tell one or two players they are to be subbed so they can give extra for so many minutes, knowing they don't have to last the full half.  If you are told you are only going to play twenty minutes you can expend more energy in those twenty minutes because you know you don't have to play 45.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

3 hours ago, Making Plans said:

and the other team lost

We were discussing this at the game, holding one of the best clubs teams in the world at 0-0, who do you change?, do you risk upsetting what you have been doing so well for so long? or do you stick?. A flash of brilliance undid us, unfortunately it was late into the game, it is as simple as that.

[Well b back 3,190]

LDC our team is built around everybody giving 100% 90 minutes every game. Nobody needs to be told to give everything. Surely you work your subs around the game ? How would you know who you are taking off ? Against Sheffield United that changed after 55 minutes. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

2 minutes ago, Well b back said:

LDC our team is built around everybody giving 100% 90 minutes every game. Nobody needs to be told to give everything. Surely you work your subs around the game ? How would you know who you are taking off ? Against Sheffield United that changed after 55 minutes. 

If you are told you are going to play for 20 minutes you can expend more energy than if you are going to play 45 minutes.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Just now, lake district canary said:

If you are told you are going to play for 20 minutes you can expend more energy than if you are going to play 45 minutes.

I would be interested in knowing how Daniel Farke can look into the future and know at half time who he is going to take off. Lets say he decides that he is going to replace Duda, but Duda then has a storming 20 minutes and is bossing the game, meanwhile somebody who was not earmarked for being subbed off gets injured 5 minutes into the second half, what then?........

[Well b back 3,190]

8 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

If you are told you are going to play for 20 minutes you can expend more energy than if you are going to play 45 minutes.

Lol Teemu it’s your turn to be subbed today. Doesn’t matter if we go one down Drmic is coming on and you are coming off.

This is professional football not under 10’s. If a player really cannot give everything and use every last bit of energy over 90 minutes then he really should not be playing at this level. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

7 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

I would be interested in knowing how Daniel Farke can look into the future and know at half time who he is going to take off. Lets say he decides that he is going to replace Duda, but Duda then has a storming 20 minutes and is bossing the game, meanwhile somebody who was not earmarked for being subbed off gets injured 5 minutes into the second half, what then?........

It's not that difficult to work out. If a player is injured then you adjust your plans, but if you send on a player telling him he will have twenty minutes and then be subbed, so he plays out of his skin and if he has followed instructions he will be done physically after those twenty minutes - if he has had a stormer in that twenty minutes, then that was the point of it. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

8 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Lol Teemu it’s your turn to be subbed today. Doesn’t matter if we go one down Drmic is coming on and you are coming off.

This is professional football not under 10’s. If a player really cannot give everything and use every last bit of energy over 90 minutes then he really should not be playing at this level. 

Players are geared up to play 90 minutes, but you tell a player he is only going to play 70 minutes and he can expend more energy in that 70 minutes than if he knows he might have to last 90 minutes. It's simple physics...

Edited February 15, 2020 by lake district canary

[Nono 19]

4 hours ago, hampton canary said:

A bit harsh but he could have taken Rukk, Duda and McLean off as far as I am concerned, they didn't really contribute anything. I feel sorry for Vrancic and Buendia as they both should have started. 

McLean didn't contribute anything? 

Wtf is wrong with some of you, you have a vendetta against him.

Watch the game back. Then come back and apologise. 

You ****ing ****. 

[Nono 19]

One thing is clear. 

There are some absolute tools on this forum. 

The abuse they give the team and Farke is ridiculous. 

A sub would have changed that game? Get real you idiots. 

No losing, keep the shape, familiarity and tempo. 

Go behind, make changes. 

Farke did. 

 

You prats. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's not that difficult to work out. If a player is injured then you adjust your plans, but if you send on a player telling him he will have twenty minutes and then be subbed, so he plays out of his skin and if he has followed instructions he will be done physically after those twenty minutes - if he has had a stormer in that twenty minutes, then that was the point of it. 

By "adjust your plans" do you mean that DF shouts to one of the earmarked for substitution not to try as hard as they are now staying on?

You ignored the "bossing the game" bit, we take off a player who is bossing the game and replace him with somebody who is going to take 10 mins or so to get into the game, losing the advantage/impetus, what a great bloody strategy that is......

[Aggy 752]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Imo the manager should tell one or two players at half time they will be subbed at some point in the second half and to give it everything for say twenty minutes then come off, thus maximising the physical aspects of the game.

So what happens if he does that, by your theory one or two players then expend more energy than they would have done otherwise, and then you get two injuries? You have to sub your two injured players and the two players you told were coming off at 70 mins are now knackered because (at least by your theory) they knew they could put in more energy as they were coming off after 25 mins.

Or what if within the twenty minutes between half time and 65th minute you concede three or score three. Presumably you still make the same substitutions because, again, if you don’t you’re going to end up with one or two players who have no energy after 70 minutes.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

So what happens if he does that, by your theory one or two players then expend more energy than they would have done otherwise, and then you get two injuries? You have to sub your two injured players and the two players you told were coming off at 70 mins are now knackered because (at least by your theory) they knew they could put in more energy as they were coming off after 25 mins.

Or what if within the twenty minutes between half time and 65th minute you concede three or score three. Presumably you still make the same substitutions because, again, if you don’t you’re going to end up with one or two players who have no energy after 70 minutes.

It will be interesting to see what kind of response you get to such common sense questions..........

[Aggy 752]

Frankly, anyone who thinks you change things when you’re at 0-0 against a side who have dropped two points in 30 games or whatever ridiculous amount it is now, is either looking for a reaction or is living in a dream world.

It could take a new player five minutes to get up to speed. Against Liverpool in the 70th minute at 0-0, you can’t afford that. A sub coming in could disrupt the defensive unit that has been working together and managed to keep the opposition at bay all game so far. Against Liverpool in the 70th minute at 0-0 you can’t afford that.

We made two subs within five minutes of going a goal behind. We didn’t make any subs while drawing with the best team in the country (possibly ever based on performances over the course of One season). 

I’ll repeat - anyone moaning about the subs today is either looking for a reaction or living in a dream world.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

I’m loving the responses to LDCs post as though what he said about telling players they will be subbed at a certain time has any sort of credibility and deserves a reply. 

He posts a lot of nonsense (and some sense occasionally) but this one probably tops it for me. Hilarious