Farke's use of subs (in games we are winning narrowly)

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Quick disclaimer - I am very happy with how we've been playing overall, and ecstatic with our league position of course. I love Farke and he has done fantastically well with substitutions when we have needed a winner this season.

But... I do think there is a valid debate / discussion on whether we should be making subs earlier in games where we are only edging the lead. And yes thank you I do know we won again today.

Contrary to belief on here, I'd say its absolutely and completely normal for teams to make like-for-like subs even when they're only winning narrowly. When it comes to these situations, in my opinion Farke is somewhat an outlier in his preference of sticking with the same 11 for 85 minutes +. 

It seems the forum has taken to Farke's approach too, and the view is now that ANY sub we could make is simply too risky because it might lead to the opponents scoring and us dropping two points. The argument I often see is 'well if Farke HAD made the sub and we conceded you'd still blame him so he can't win either way'. No we wouldn't FFS... unless Rupp actually came on and walloped it into his own net. Any straight swap for our attacking players would always be completely fine and normal. 

I understand that Farke is worried that a sub might change the momentum of the game, but doesn't the decision to not make a sub also affect the game? Is it any coincidence that the last two games have seen really strong opening 45 minutes and then non-event second halves where we've let the game get bitty and struggled to maintain the same levels? 

The other by-product of this approach is that we now only have 11 truly match fit and sharp players, the rest of the team have come on for limited, bitty, random minutes across the season without being allowed to build up any kind of sharpness or routine. Is it any coincidence that players like Rupp, Hernandez, Placheta, Dowell, Idah have struggled to make an impact in recent weeks? I respect that this is also partly due to the injuries, but I would expect them to be featuring a bit more by now.

So it seems to be a bit of vicious cycle, as these players are now becoming less attractive propositions from the bench due to their lack of game time... but they need game time to get match sharpness and become a proposition from the bench... 

Going into an especially tough period of 7 games in 21 days (roughly), in an especially tough season, it has never been more important to utilise our squad IMO, and I think we could potentially see this bite us on the bum in the next few games as our main 11 start to burn out and all need a rest at the same time.

Of course, completely happy to be proven wrong on this, so we will see how things pan out during this period - but at this stage it does seem a bit unusual to me given the circumstances. So again to be super clear, I absolutely love Daniel Farke and this team, but I do believe our approach to substitutions - strictly in games we are narrowly winning - could be stronger. 

*Gets down behind computer desk*

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Good post.

But how can you be proven wrong?

I often want to see a sub made and am disappointed when none is forthcoming or the sub isn't what I called for.

But I don't question Farke's ability or game management because he doesn't agree with me.

 

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

Farke made game changing substitutions earlier in the season...though they were largely described as lucky! 
 

He knows what he’s doing 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If you want to win something you need to be there with a top-class defence and this is what we deliver at the moment, with many clean sheets."

I think this might explain his tactics. Seems a change of attitude from two seasons ago.

[canarydan23 4,060]

Get St John's Ambulance on standby; this post could cause aneurysm to a couple of posters on here.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 minute ago, Fiery Zac said:

Farke made game changing substitutions earlier in the season...though they were largely described as lucky! 

Sigh...

''Quick disclaimer - I am very happy with how we've been playing overall, and ecstatic with our league position of course. I love Farke and he has done fantastically well with substitutions when we have needed a winner this season.''

[hogesar 9,618]

Again I'd have liked to see Dowell get some minutes and Onel today, but that's just my personal opinion.

As per I won't criticise Farke for it because he's the one delivering week in week out in a pressure situation.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Good post.

But how can you be proven wrong?

I often want to see a sub made and am disappointed when none is forthcoming or the sub isn't what I called for.

But I don't question Farke's ability or game management because he doesn't agree with me.

 

We will never truly know! But I am interested to see how we can maintain performance levels without rotating during the next period, that will probably be a good indicator. 

[hogesar 9,618]

1 minute ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

We will never truly know! But I am interested to see how we can maintain performance levels without rotating during the next period, that will probably be a good indicator. 

I guess what might be interesting is looking at what the teams around us have done. For example, have Brentford rotated alot recently and they've lost momentum and rhythm? Or have they stuck with the same side like us and fatigue is hitting in?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Just now, Hank shoots Skyler said:

We will never truly know! But I am interested to see how we can maintain performance levels without rotating during the next period, that will probably be a good indicator. 

I guess. But they won't show what they'd be if more changes had been made.

We could have made changes today and lost 2-1. It's all unknowns but 64 points from 31 games suggests Farke couldn't have been more spot on this season so far.

 

 

[hepphep 175]

Just out of curiosity, what are the subs that people wanted to see earlier? I feel that maybe excluding Tettey, our sub options would have maybe given more pace and attack power with fresh legs but for sure weakened us defensively. Therefore I feel it more like decision to bring someone to get that second goal or focus on getting clean sheet. Especially as nobody seemed really exhausted

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I guess what might be interesting is looking at what the teams around us have done. For example, have Brentford rotated alot recently and they've lost momentum and rhythm? Or have they stuck with the same side like us and fatigue is hitting in?

They got to 2 points a game for one game. We have pretty much stayed there for weeks.

[Fiery Zac 1,066]

9 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Sigh...

''Quick disclaimer - I am very happy with how we've been playing overall, and ecstatic with our league position of course. I love Farke and he has done fantastically well with substitutions when we have needed a winner this season.''

Apologies. My glasses not performing to the correct standard, will substitute them immediately 

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, hepphep said:

Just out of curiosity, what are the subs that people wanted to see earlier? I feel that maybe excluding Tettey, our sub options would have maybe given more pace and attack power with fresh legs but for sure weakened us defensively. Therefore I feel it more like decision to bring someone to get that second goal or focus on getting clean sheet. Especially as nobody seemed really exhausted

I'd have liked Onel for Todd to give us pace to exploit the large space Rotherham left in behind, Dowell for Vrancic as a like for like just for freshness and to give the defence something else to think about, and Sorenson for McLean.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Rotherham made five changes and they still lost.........

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'd have liked Onel for Todd to give us pace to exploit the large space Rotherham left in behind, Dowell for Vrancic as a like for like just for freshness and to give the defence something else to think about, and Sorenson for McLean.

Apart from McLean I'd have liked the other two. But that doesn't mean Farke is wrong for not doing it.

It's people saying Farke's use of subs and game management is poor that I disagree with. 

[hogesar 9,618]

6 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'd have liked Onel for Todd to give us pace to exploit the large space Rotherham left in behind, Dowell for Vrancic as a like for like just for freshness and to give the defence something else to think about, and Sorenson for McLean.

Would have had no problems personally had Farke made all three changes but I can see in particular why Cantwell and Mclean weren't taken off. Mclean was covering really well down the left hand side for Gianoulis (sp) and Cantwell drifting inside seemed to really panic Rotherham and occupied 2 of there players most of the time!

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Rotherham made five changes and they still lost.........

They did indeed.

Much better second half than first though, weren't they?

Wonder why.

[hogesar 9,618]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Apart from McLean I'd have liked the other two. But that doesn't mean Farke is wrong for not doing it.

It's people saying Farke's use of subs and game management is poor that I disagree with. 

Nobody can say its poor with any credence because of where we are in the table!

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Apart from McLean I'd have liked the other two. But that doesn't mean Farke is wrong for not doing it.

It's people saying Farke's use of subs and game management is poor that I disagree with. 

I don't think Farke's use of subs and game management is poor.

I think his use of subs was poor today.

That's an unacceptable viewpoint to some weirdos on here.

The argument seems to be we won so everything the coach did must've been spot on. It's not much of an argument, but hey ho. We're mostly Norfolk folk here so like something to grumble about. I'll grumble about the lack of subs, you can grumble about people grumbling. Everyone's a winner.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Hard to disagree with the op.   Rotherham had five outfield players with fresh legs in the second half - half their outfield team - so in those circumstances it seems a bit counter-intuitive to stick with the same players throughout and see a team that (imo) looked to be struggling physically and mentally, trying to keep a much fresher looking team at bay.  We did it and won, so there can be no recriminations, but the op's points were made well - and as the season progresses, the main eleven as they are at the moment are bound to feel the pace, especially with so many games coming thick and fast.

So we keep the same team largely - it worked last time, so if the players can stay fit and recover beteween matches, there is no reason why it can't be done again. It's a marathon - a hard slog - the players look up for it and they won again today, so everyone is doing the business, including Farke. On balance it is working, we are top and so far staying the course. I guess if we weren't we'd see more changes and earlier subs if we are down in a match.  The more we are winning the more we will see the same players, but we know we have decent options on the bench if needed too.......Rotherham were behind and threw everything at it including all their subs, but they still lost. Maybe the moral is in the result.........

[Hairy Canary 668]

I can’t see how the decision to delay the substitutions can be criticised. Maybe we would have done better had they been made, maybe we would have done worse but one thing is for sure. We wouldn’t have gained any extra points!

When you’re losing then yes, make substitutions to change the game and hopefully turn it in your favour. It’s worth a go. When you’re winning why take any risks, unless it looks like the game is slipping away?  Farke clearly felt comfortable that the players on the pitch would be able to stop Rotherham from scoring. He was right.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Swansea made five subs and one of them got injured and they ended up playing with ten men.........

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Swansea made five subs and one of them got injured and they ended up playing with ten men.........

I suspect if Farke was 4-1 down after an hour even he would have made a few subs.

[hepphep 175]

24 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I'd have liked Onel for Todd to give us pace to exploit the large space Rotherham left in behind, Dowell for Vrancic as a like for like just for freshness and to give the defence something else to think about, and Sorenson for McLean.

I think we would have had that effect with those changes, but I also think it would have made us much more vulnerable defensively. Both Onel and Dowell have been really lacking defensive effort in their earlier appearances. Sorenson might have done, but as he has not really played next to Skipp this season, that couldve been bit of gamble as well. I feel that is clear reasoning for delaying subs.

 

I am pretty sure that if the game would have been 2-0 we would have seen earlier subs.

Edited February 20, 2021 by hepphep

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

I suppose Farke's thinking is that he can maybe swap one or two players at most if a couple are beginning to show signs of fatigue in training.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

21 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I don't think Farke's use of subs and game management is poor.

I think his use of subs was poor today.

That's an unacceptable viewpoint to some weirdos on here.

The argument seems to be we won so everything the coach did must've been spot on. It's not much of an argument, but hey ho. We're mostly Norfolk folk here so like something to grumble about. I'll grumble about the lack of subs, you can grumble about people grumbling. Everyone's a winner.

You quote my post and answer something else. That's a bit weird.

And I like being weird thank you. How does being weird work for you?

 

 

[horsefly 4,287]

I think the clue is in your question: when we are " winning narrowly" Farke is reticent to upset the balance of the team if it doesn't look like we are going to concede. He tends to make substitutions if we are chasing a winner, or a well on top, or because of player injury/excessive fatigue. Remember the home game v Coventry when we lost 2 points after substitutions. So far he has an excellent record on substitutions so I for one am happy to endorse it. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think we will all differ on who to sub.

To be honest, I am not a fan of Vrancic where he is playing. I think that position requires someone whose first thought when we have the ball is attack. I think Mario's first choice is to look to pass, from slightly deeper.

I don't think he contributed much today and we were the better team so I would have liked to have seen Dowell replace him with at least 35 minutes left.

[Ian 1,129]

1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Quick disclaimer - I am very happy with how we've been playing overall, and ecstatic with our league position of course. I love Farke and he has done fantastically well with substitutions when we have needed a winner this season.

But... I do think there is a valid debate / discussion on whether we should be making subs earlier in games where we are only edging the lead. And yes thank you I do know we won again today.

...

Of course, completely happy to be proven wrong on this, so we will see how things pan out during this period - but at this stage it does seem a bit unusual to me given the circumstances. So again to be super clear, I absolutely love Daniel Farke and this team, but I do believe our approach to substitutions - strictly in games we are narrowly winning - could be stronger. 

*Gets down behind computer desk*

Very good post, and a lot of valid points. I suspect the correct argument will only be borne out of the results of the season, and given how things are going so far, I think it's fair to accept there is a method in Farke's seeming madness. I also think his use of substitutions seems to have improved this season, as has been shown by the match-winning changes he made several times earlier on in the season.

Ultimately, as a manager, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Had Farke brought someone on earlier and they struggled to adjust to the pace at a crucial time, or the cohesion of the squad had been upset so much that we ended up losing the game, he would have been smashed for it. Equally, he could have bought on Idah/Dowell earlier and we went on to win the game comfortably. Given that we had more than enough chances to win this and the Coventry game by a larger margin, yet still couldn't take our chances with probably our strongest 11, makes me doubt whether it's Farke's substitutions that are the reason for this.

What does get my goat is when people act as if game management and substitutions is simple, and that Farke is an idiot who should just bring fresh legs on when things are getting a bit tight. I get that we are all fans, and some probably handle the pressure of a tight 1-0 game against Rotherham better than others, but I genuinely can't understand people who try and act as if it's basic stuff Farke is missing.

There are, presumably, all other sorts of factors Farke is thinking about - squad cohesion, testing the key players within these pressure situations, match freshness and other things we are not privy to. Maybe, just maybe, given our current position in the table, is it not possible that Farke's "lack" of substitutions and determination to reduce rotation as much as possible are a major factor as to why we are where we are?!

Anyway, I suspect none of us will ever be able to prove or disprove this one way or the other, but people pretending that because they have played a few seasons of Football Manager or watched Norwich for decades that this substitution malarkey is straightforward, easy and that he's "doing it wrong" is very silly IMO.