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

[canarydan23 4,060]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

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?

Erm, ok?

Your post didn't have a question in it to answer, unless being weird you did that weird thing where you make the font the same colour as the background but I just highlighted the post and there wasn't anything hidden in there.

So I quoted your post and made a comment directly linked to the last sentence of it (welcome to an internet forum!). Is this something else to add to the list of odd things people on the PinkUn take umbrage with?

So far I've got;

Any whiff of criticism about Farke, stating a coach of a team that won a match could possibly have made a mistake, stating a coach of a team that is top of the league could possibly have made any mistake, quoting a post and not answering a question that wasn't actually in the post. 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

 

Any whiff of criticism about Farke, stating a coach of a team that won a match could possibly have made a mistake, stating a coach of a team that is top of the league could possibly have made any mistake, quoting a post and not answering a question that wasn't actually in the post. 

Weirder and weirder Dan.

I don't think I posted anything about criticism of Farke because he won a game. I think that was in one of your posts 

I did question it because he's averaged two points a game over two thirds of a season. This points to very good game management and squad management as I'm sure you realise.

 

[horsefly 4,297]

The problem with this question, of course, is that it is entirely unresolvable because it rests on counterfactual conditionals for which it is impossible to establish a truth-value (i.e. true or false). This is a problem for all counterfactual conditionals be they sporting, historical, or whatever. Let me explain myself: 

Fan A says: "If we had made early substitutions today, then we would have won the game more easily"

Fan B says: "If we had made earlier substitutions today then we would have been more likely to concede an equaliser"

In each case the antecedent clause is contrary to fact and thus cannot provide evidence for, or any necessary connection to, the consequent. Thus, no truth value can be established for either of the statements. So trading in counterfactual conditionals, which is the very life-blood of football punditry and heated fan conversations, can never rise above the status of mere opinion. The only evidence we have is the facts of what happened; Farke didn't make early substitutions and we won. Nothing we can say counterfactually adds any insight to that fact one way or the other.

Here endeth the lesson (sorry if you found it boring or prosaic).

[canarydan23 4,060]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Weirder and weirder Dan.

I don't think I posted anything about criticism of Farke because he won a game. I think that was in one of your posts 

I did question it because he's averaged two points a game over two thirds of a season. This points to very good game management and squad management as I'm sure you realise.

 

Ok, I'll be sure to add criticism of coaches who have averaged two points a game over two thirds of a season to the list for you.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Ok, I'll be sure to add criticism of coaches who have averaged two points a game over two thirds of a season to the list for you.

Thank you.

Still think you're weird mind..

🙃

[sonyc 5,510]

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.

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*

This is the kind of post that must have been difficult to write, one that you  obviously felt you had to get in all the qualifications beforehand for fear of an onslaught!  I feel for you Hanks....It's the kind of approach I take too in trying to defend from the front 😅 . I'm glad you went ahead though and offered your thoughts however because  we were screaming  at home for some change in those last 20 minutes. The frustration level reached 9/10 on sonyc's monitor. Only the second time this season that the meter has got so high.

Farke was right ultimately and like many people on this thread have suggested, he just knows his team. Yet for me Mario looked like he was running in treacle for the last 10 (though he was subbed and Mario often looks like that. anyway...plus he also had a decent game) and I felt Todd was doing too many of his tricks and giving up possession that he needn't have done. That he lost the ball made me think he was a second or two slower than during the earlier part of the game. The other thing that crossed my mind was our game on Tuesday. Would it not have been useful to give some bodies a rest? You could tell Chris Goreham felt the same (in my opinion) with his comments. I agree with you about giving Dowell more time yet it was clear even before kick off that he would have to wait his time.

Perhaps we may see changes for Tuesday? Then....do you reckon? And would you bet against that haha? And maybe Farke also knows this first eleven are super fit and can hack such a physical battle that a team like Rotherham gave us  today (look at the fouls stats today!) and still be up for it 72 hours or so later.

One thing for sure though is that despite not always being clinical in our taking of chances this season, we seem to be the best team in controlling matches at the moment ....completely on merit .....and secondly, you never feel we are going to concede because our defence has been superb for these last 20 games - no more horrible last minute Coventry equalisers for sure. This team also has lots of grit. Birmingham may well sit in so it could be another frustrating day but I just hope nowhere near a 9/10 again.

Lots of ways to win a league eh!

Edited February 20, 2021 by sonyc

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Conceded just twice this year.

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

The problem with this question, of course, is that it is entirely unresolvable because it rests on counterfactual conditionals for which it is impossible to establish a truth-value (i.e. true or false). This is a problem for all counterfactual conditionals be they sporting, historical, or whatever. Let me explain myself: 

Fan A says: "If we had made early substitutions today, then we would have won the game more easily"

Fan B says: "If we had made earlier substitutions today then we would have been more likely to concede an equaliser"

In each case the antecedent clause is contrary to fact and thus cannot provide evidence for, or any necessary connection to, the consequent. Thus, no truth value can be established for either of the statements. So trading in counterfactual conditionals, which is the very life-blood of football punditry and heated fan conversations, can never rise above the status of mere opinion. The only evidence we have is the facts of what happened; Farke didn't make early substitutions and we won. Nothing we can say counterfactually adds any insight to that fact one way or the other.

Here endeth the lesson (sorry if you found it boring or prosaic).

This is correct, apart from the fact that the Fan B doesn't seem to exist and you've got your clauses wrong in the quotes.

Fan A says (contemporaneously): We should make some changes as the opposition are starting to come into a game that should be dead and buried

Fan B says (post-final whistle): We won, Farke knew what he was doing, you are just a fan on a message board, he's infallible, he never makes mistake

I would have a lot more respect for Fan B if the discourse went thus;

 Fan A says (contemporaneously):  We should make some changes as the opposition are starting to come into a game that should be dead and buried

Fan B says (also contemporaneously): Don't be silly, Farke knows what he is doing, he'll make a change when he deems it necessary

Then they could very much say I told you so at the final whistle. But they don't. They come across as being more happy that they can use the benefit of hindsight to jump up and down and say "you were wrong" (about a point that you've demonstrated cannot be proven as incorrect) than they are about their team winning a match. For about the 7th time today...bizarre.

[sonyc 5,510]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Conceded just twice this year.

And we haven't conceded a first half goal at Carrow Rd for 628 minutes (longest run in 70 years!)....and our longest unbeaten run at home (15 games) for 35 years!

[canarydan23 4,060]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Thank you.

Still think you're weird mind..

🙃

I'd be deeply troubled if you didn't.

[Ian 1,129]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

This is correct, apart from the fact that the Fan B doesn't seem to exist and you've got your clauses wrong in the quotes.

Fan A says (contemporaneously): We should make some changes as the opposition are starting to come into a game that should be dead and buried

Fan B says (post-final whistle): We won, Farke knew what he was doing, you are just a fan on a message board, he's infallible, he never makes mistake

I would have a lot more respect for Fan B if the discourse went thus;

 Fan A says (contemporaneously):  We should make some changes as the opposition are starting to come into a game that should be dead and buried

Fan B says (also contemporaneously): Don't be silly, Farke knows what he is doing, he'll make a change when he deems it necessary

Then they could very much say I told you so at the final whistle. But they don't. They come across as being more happy that they can use the benefit of hindsight to jump up and down and say "you were wrong" (about a point that you've demonstrated cannot be proven as incorrect) than they are about their team winning a match. For about the 7th time today...bizarre.

Dan, I've seen many of the Fan Bs that you claim don't exist. Many say (and I paraphrase), "look at Farke's record, he seems to know what he's doing".

You seem to be basing your entire theory on the fact that said people don't post at what you consider to be the appropriate point during the Pink'Un match thread to validate their opinion, but I think if you actually bothered looking, you would see that the same debate has been had time and time again over the last couple of seasons and most people are pretty consistent in their view.

Could be that they are either attending (or these days watching) the match, and therefore don't feel like posting on the Pink 'Un at that exact moment in time. Doesn't mean they don't exist, does it?

To argue that such people don't exist, that actually posters are just using the benefit of hindsight and aren't ballsy enough to stand behind their opinion, is a little bit bizarre mate.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Ian

[horsefly 4,297]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

This is correct, apart from the fact that the Fan B doesn't seem to exist and you've got your clauses wrong in the quotes.

Fan A says (contemporaneously): We should make some changes as the opposition are starting to come into a game that should be dead and buried

Fan B says (post-final whistle): We won, Farke knew what he was doing, you are just a fan on a message board, he's infallible, he never makes mistake

I would have a lot more respect for Fan B if the discourse went thus;

 Fan A says (contemporaneously):  We should make some changes as the opposition are starting to come into a game that should be dead and buried

Fan B says (also contemporaneously): Don't be silly, Farke knows what he is doing, he'll make a change when he deems it necessary

Then they could very much say I told you so at the final whistle. But they don't. They come across as being more happy that they can use the benefit of hindsight to jump up and down and say "you were wrong" (about a point that you've demonstrated cannot be proven as incorrect) than they are about their team winning a match. For about the 7th time today...bizarre.

You have missed my point I'm afraid (which is fundamentally philosophical and not sporting). My points are not concerned with the particulars of the counterfactuals that are stated but with the very nature of counterfactual conditionals themselves. Feel free to take your pick of whatever counterfactual conditional takes your fancy, it will always be the case that it cannot yield a truth-value (true or false) for the statement made. Thus it is that no debate which makes use of them is ever resolvable, and never rises beyond the level of assertion of opinion.

[kirku 1,332]

25 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Thus it is that no debate which makes use of them is ever resolvable, and never rises beyond the level of assertion of opinion.

This 

Which is why many posters, myself included, are more inclined to trust the opinion of the league-winning coach, who is widely regarded as the best we've had in decades, over RandomPoster123, whose main footballing achievement was once winning a game of SWOS on the Amiga.

Edited February 20, 2021 by kirku

[hogesar 9,657]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

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. 

This is an excellent post.

[shefcanary 2,393]

54 minutes ago, sonyc said:

And we haven't conceded a first half goal at Carrow Rd for 628 minutes (longest run in 70 years!)....and our longest unbeaten run at home (15 games) for 35 years!

Wow, longest unbeaten run at home for 35 years!  And no fans there to see it?  Hmm..... 🤔  Why don't we keep the fans out?  🤣

[BigFish 1,986]

1 hour ago, Ian said:

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?!

This is the point.

Farke has a method, a plan. The team is superfit. He plays his best 11. If they don't shape up they don't play. They are drilled and organised. He is squeezing every drop of competitive advantage.

Rotation weakens this. Premature substituitions weaken this.

[canarydan23 4,060]

59 minutes ago, Ian said:

Dan, I've seen many of the Fan Bs that you claim don't exist. Many say (and I paraphrase), "look at Farke's record, he seems to know what he's doing".

You seem to be basing your entire theory on the fact that said people don't post at what you consider to be the appropriate point during the Pink'Un match thread to validate their opinion, but I think if you actually bothered looking, you would see that the same debate has been had time and time again over the last couple of seasons and most people are pretty consistent in their view.

Could be that they are either attending (or these days watching) the match, and therefore don't feel like posting on the Pink 'Un at that exact moment in time. Doesn't mean they don't exist, does it?

To argue that such people don't exist, that actually posters are just using the benefit of hindsight and aren't ballsy enough to stand behind their opinion, is a little bit bizarre mate.

No, it doesn't mean they don't exist. But as ever, I'll form opinions based on what I actually see and read rather than what strangers "could" be thinking at any given time. I'll react to what they are saying at a tangible moment.

I've no problem with people thinking his substation strategy was fine today (as it usually is). I disagree, I think proactive changes improved Rotherham and would have improved us. Disagree by all means, at the time or after the game.

But the "I missed your tenure as England manager" attitude was rightfully condemned when Roeder adopted it. I'll condemn it when fans adopt it also.

Edited February 20, 2021 by canarydan23

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, BigFish said:

This is the point.

Farke has a method, a plan. The team is superfit. He plays his best 11. If they don't shape up they don't play. They are drilled and organised. He is squeezing every drop of competitive advantage.

Rotation weakens this. Premature substituitions weaken this.

Nah. Farke accepts early(ish) subs improve the team. He's done it plenty of times this season. I read a stat that we're near the top of the goals from subs table.

It tends to be when we're just a goal up that he freezes and crosses his fingers, hoping we hold on. At the moment we seem to be. My opinion is that if he was as proactive as he often is in this situation (or topic?) then we wouldn't just be holding on. And it's exacerbated by the 5 sub rule having a more significant impact on team's energy levels.

For me, it explains why Rotherham and Coventry looked significantly better in the second half than the first half in the last two games. It didn't impact the result, but in my opinion it negatively impacted the performance and potentially the final score.

Still love Farke and think he's doing a top, top job.

[Ian 1,129]

9 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

No, it doesn't mean they don't exist. But as ever, I'll form opinions based on what I actually see and read rather than what strangers "could" be thinking at any given time. I'll react to what they are saying at a tangible moment.

I've no problem with people thinking his substation strategy was fine today (as it usually is). I disagree, I think proactive changes improved Rotherham and would have improved us. Disagree by all means, at the time or after the game.

But the "I missed your tenure as England manager" attitude was rightfully condemned when Roeder adopted it. I'll condemn it when fans adopt it also.

F*** me, I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

But I still maintain that those people who pretend that Farke is actually incompetent and incapable of making straightforward and easy decisions, or that he's not aware of the obvious benefits to bringing on fresh legs are more than deserving of the "Glenn".

[BigFish 1,986]

6 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

For me, it explains why Rotherham and Coventry looked significantly better in the second half than the first half in the last two games. It didn't impact the result, but in my opinion it negatively impacted the performance and potentially the final score.

Both Rotherham and Coventry lost. Both went into the second half losing and chasing the game. In fact neither scored. Excellent game management.

[king canary 7,602]

11 minutes ago, Ian said:

F*** me, I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

But I still maintain that those people who pretend that Farke is actually incompetent and incapable of making straightforward and easy decisions, or that he's not aware of the obvious benefits to bringing on fresh legs are more than deserving of the "Glenn".

As I got the Glenn treatment tonight, I'm going to assume you mean me.

Would love to see where I've suggested Farke is incapable or incompetent...

[canarydan23 4,060]

15 minutes ago, Ian said:

F*** me, I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

But I still maintain that those people who pretend that Farke is actually incompetent and incapable of making straightforward and easy decisions, or that he's not aware of the obvious benefits to bringing on fresh legs are more than deserving of the "Glenn".

If people were saying he was incapable and incompetent I'd be taking them to task as well.

But let's be honest, you're taking to task people who haven't said anything of the sort.

[TheGunnShow 5,937]

There's also an argument that by exposing the players to that sort of workload, that is precisely why they are so hardened, match-fit and able to withstand late pressure well. I'd also say something else - whilst there is an issue with other players not being quite as sharp, Farke seems to (at least as far as I can tell from the outside looking in) think that if he only has to change one player or so then it will have far less effect on the collective nature of the team.

Prime example of a more extreme type of switcheroo - the FA Cup defeat to Barnsley. The team was very disjointed as it was half the reserves if not more thrown in up the top end of the pitch, with first-teamers needing game time. Needless to say, the performance was out of sync and Barnsley thoroughly deserved the win. If, however, we only switch one or two players, the basic structure is still present.

[Ian 1,129]

Just now, king canary said:

As I got the Glenn treatment tonight, I'm going to assume you mean me.

Would love to see where I've suggested Farke is incapable or incompetent...

Thanks for the reply. For what it's worth, in general I think you are a really good poster and more than likely I over-reacted to some heat-of-the-moment posts in the match thread, so I do apologise for that as it was pretty unnecessary on my part.

However, there has definitely been a repeated theme of posts and commentary regarding Farke making poor substitutions, not being aware of the depth he has on the bench, or being stubborn and unwilling to make substitutions to bring fresh legs on. To me, these are basics which every elite coach must be aware of - and IMO, given his track record, he deserves a little more benefit of the doubt.

Look - I know we all get frustrated and non-plussed at his "passive" approach to substitutions at times, and I do understand this viewpoint if we were losing games, or not in the position we are in the league table. But, I really do find it flabbergasting that people really think Farke is missing an obvious trick given his track record and our current league position, and consider it far more likely he knows a hell of a lot more about what he needs to do to get out of this division that we do.

[Ian 1,129]

5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

If people were saying he was incapable and incompetent I'd be taking them to task as well.

But let's be honest, you're taking to task people who haven't said anything of the sort.

Well, people don't have to literally say that "Farke is incompetent" to imply this.

By saying that it's patently obvious he needs to bring on fresh legs, or that he should be making x substitution at y time, or that he is missing obvious game management techniques which would make it easier to close out games, are implying just that IMO. He's an elite football coach - if he's not aware he can bring 5 substitutes on 3 times during the match, he is therefore incompetent.

I prefer to think he probably knows exactly what he is doing. Our position in the league table, and the fact he won it a couple of years ago during what most people expected to be a transitory season where we struggle massively, kind of bears that out IMO.

I guess I object to the over-simplification of something that is pretty complex. However, I probably should be more considerate of the fact people are posting out of passion and stress during the game, so it's not going to be the most balanced and thoughtful of opinions.

[canarydan23 4,060]

14 minutes ago, Ian said:

Well, people don't have to literally say that "Farke is incompetent" to imply this.

By saying that it's patently obvious he needs to bring on fresh legs, or that he should be making x substitution at y time, or that he is missing obvious game management techniques which would make it easier to close out games, are implying just that IMO. He's an elite football coach - if he's not aware he can bring 5 substitutes on 3 times during the match, he is therefore incompetent.

I prefer to think he probably knows exactly what he is doing. Our position in the league table, and the fact he won it a couple of years ago during what most people expected to be a transitory season where we struggle massively, kind of bears that out IMO.

I guess I object to the over-simplification of something that is pretty complex. However, I probably should be more considerate of the fact people are posting out of passion and stress during the game, so it's not going to be the most balanced and thoughtful of opinions.

The last part is certainly true.

Which makes the post full time whistle Roederisms even less excusable.

[Ian 1,129]

6 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

The last part is certainly true.

Which makes the post full time whistle Roederisms even less excusable.

[Branston Pickle 3,653]

It does seem a little odd in what turns out to be a tight game (oddly so, given we ought to have been out of sight within the first 30 minutes) not to freshen things up.  We have 5 potential subs, so it wouldn’t have been too much to make one or two like-for-like changes a little earlier than we did, but it’s not a huge biggie, there’s various ways you can get the result.

It is a bit odd that this is apparently our best home run in however long it is, as at FCR we don’t actually seem to have really been firing on all cylinders this season - moreso than in other years that I remember (85/86 was a particularly good one), but I suppose it is ultimately about getting the results. 

[Ian 1,129]

1 hour ago, kirku said:

This 

Which is why many posters, myself included, are more inclined to trust the opinion of the league-winning coach, who is widely regarded as the best we've had in decades, over RandomPoster123, whose main footballing achievement was once winning a game of SWOS on the Amiga.

On an off-topic note - cut my teeth on the Amiga and develop commercial software these days. What a machine! You probably know this, but SWOS developer Jon Hare is an avid Norwich supporter...

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

Its a difficult one.

I do worry that we'll head towards problems with fatique again if we don't rotate a bit more / use the squad.

But not leaving it late when our lead is slender as you suggest can go the other way can't it? Subs don't always change things positively, if we brought Dowell on what if he just didn't get into the game at all? 

There was a point in the game when Rotherham were chasing an equaliser where I thought it would have made sense to bring Onel on to exploit the gaps they were leaving, if I'm honest.

But we never really know what is going on in the group do we, who knows whether Onel reported soreness the day before and Farke decided it wasn't worth the risk. 

 

Edited February 20, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten