Jump to content
Hank shoots Skyler

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

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.

This is the only bit I dont agree with. In what world would someone think Farke 'freezes' and 'crosses his fingers'.

Him and his coaches are in dialogue the entire game and barely go 30 seconds without communicating with one another. Do you not think the concept of 7 players sitting behind them might get a mention?

Farke not making a sub is just as much a decision as making a sub. In fact, its often the braver choice. Most managers make a change on 60-70 mins by default - its very hard to be criticised in that scenario. If we go on to lose our lead or lose the game because he made no substitutions its a really easy stick for fans to attack him with.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I think has been ignored so far is that Farke did end up using 3 subs, as many as he could unless he brought on more than one player at once. He used all these subs after the board for added time had gone up (I think, if not it was certainly close to it), this is something he has done a few times before and it seems to work in breaking up the game. If he had used the subs earlier, and ran out by that time then we would have had 4 or 5 minutes of constant pressure, unless the ball went out for a goal kick or Krul claimed it. This way he is giving his players a breather in the very last minutes, as well as neutering any possible opposition momentum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, hogesar said:

In what world would someone think Farke 'freezes' and 'crosses his fingers'.

He's like a rabbit in the headlights, that Farke.

Edited by kirku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty futile topic since we'll never know if making a sub would cause us to conceed, to score a second or to hold out. 

 

However, I don't understand criticism after a win. 

 

The games been managed, we won. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been some good responses since my OP but I have not been swayed on this one, sorry guys. 

As has also been pointed out, I accept that I am a mere nobody pink'un poster with no credentials that could ever raise any point against a far-superior-in-every-way elite professional coach. So with this in mind, I wanted to see how other elite professional coaches were acting under similar circumstances - to try to illustrate my OP with a bit more ballast.

This is what I found, strictly just looking at today's PL and championship fixtures, with teams narrowly winning, and the subs those winning teams made (up to 85 mins, not including any subs made before the team took the lead):

       Fixture                                                                          Times of sub by winning team                     Total subs before 85 mins

Premier league*

       Liverpool 0 - 1 Everton (at the time of subs)          59 mins, 62 mins                                             2

       Fulham 1 - 0 Sheff Utd                                               78 mins                                                             1

Championship

        Coventry 2 - 0 Brentford                                             61 mins x 2, 71 mins, 78 mins x 2                5**

        Forest 1 - 0 Blackburn                                                59 mins, 69 mins                                              2

        Sheff Wed 0 - 1 Birmingham                                     74 mins, 75 mins                                              2

*PL teams do not have midweek fixtures to prepare for, so less of a need for rotation

**Yes, FIVE, all 5 of their subs made by relegation threatened Coventry, with their squad which lacks quality / depth, versus automatics chasing Brentford, crazy

I think the above does show I had a valid question. Farke would show as bottom of the scale when it comes to sub activity in these situations. So like I said in my OP he is the outlier then (for today's PL / champs games at least). I could extrapolate this over more rounds of fixtures and continue to test for the trend but I'd rather you all took my word... he's going to very near the bottom end. 

And not to mention that we probably have the biggest and most competitive squad in our division - so really we should be making subs even more freely!

So yes I do think we can afford to be a bit less risk averse next time we are narrowly winning, like everyone else.

PS please don't confuse me validating my minor criticism to everyone who made discarding comments with me moaning about the club

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Farke would show as bottom of the scale when it comes to sub activity in these situations.... he's going to very near the bottom end.

We're top of the league, our statistics are the best in the league, we control and dominate games better than at any time in recent memory, our game management and ability to see out wins is the best I can remember, and opposition managers are routinely saying we're the best side in the league.

PS You've not "validated your criticism" with the groundbreaking point of "other teams made some more substitutions so we should too". It's hard to imagine a more simplistic way of ignoring the myriad variables involved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valid points OP, but we won the three points. The end justifies the means.

This does seem to be a season of even more valium grabbing, nail-biters than usual, with quite a few games where we have either struggled to get that vital goal against packed defences or, if we do get an early goal we never seem to 'fill our boots' and are left with a fraught ending due to the fact that a lucky bounce or such could cause us to lose the ascendency. 

The commentator never failed throughout the last sixty yesterday to remind us of the fragility of our one goal lead, to the extent that he all but talked a Rotherham equaliser up.

As for your apology:

"As has also been pointed out, I accept that I am a mere nobody pink'un poster with no credentials that could ever raise any point against a far-superior-in-every-way elite professional coach."

Don't concern your self with that. All over the country on hundreds of football forum there are usually thousands of supporters expressing doubts about their  manager's decisions, selections and substitutions concerning the latest game played, lost, drawn or won.

Very few of them have any genuine credential either. Me included  ... "Why wasn't Drmic brought back into the fold when we were short? "Where's young Martin these days?"

It's the way it is. It's what's involved when supporting a football club.

Any one who comes the old, "You're not qualified" line would be a rarity indeed if he had never, ever himself questioned a manager's decision.

Edited by BroadstairsR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours 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. 

Spot on and articulated better than I ever could. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, kirku said:

We're top of the league, our statistics are the best in the league, we control and dominate games better than at any time in recent memory, our game management and ability to see out wins is the best I can remember, and opposition managers are routinely saying we're the best side in the league.

PS You've not "validated your criticism" with the groundbreaking point of "other teams made some more substitutions so we should too". It's hard to imagine a more simplistic way of ignoring the myriad variables involved.

I agree with you - mostly. We are the best side in the league, we are top, we have overall played well in games and a lot of the time the team has closed out games with a good level of control. But I still believe that a more proactive approach in winning positions would stop us regularly losing momentum somewhat in the second half of games. And no I accept that this approach hasn’t bitten us too much in terms of results - but it has been noted in performance levels which have made for nervy viewing quite often in games where I believe we let the onus shift to the opposition unnecessarily. Just my opinion of course.

Now I respect that that is in part due to our inability to convert the numerous chances we create (and be out of sight), but it seems other clubs aren’t bothered about being two or three goals up before daring to make a sub when only narrowly winning. All I wanted to point out is that this risk averse nature is actually pretty exclusive to Farke.

I am also of the opinion that we may have been able to see more from some of injury recovering players (Idah, Hernandez, Dowell, Rupp, Mumba) if Farke was a bit more adventurous in this department like other managers appear to be. And given the run of fixtures we now have I don’t think it’s ever been so important to use our squad! 

Go on and list the myriad of variables that make my point invalid please? Do you really think if I looked at other rounds the trend would not still show (for god’s sake don’t make me do it)?

It could be that a couple of the subs mentioned were made due to injuries. But what else? Why are other managers making regular subs in tight winning situations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Go on and list the myriad of variables that make my point invalid please? Do you really think if I looked at other rounds the trend would not still show (for god’s sake don’t make me do it)?

It could be that a couple of the subs mentioned were made due to injuries. But what else? Why are other managers making regular subs in tight winning situations?

Please don't waste your time, it's really not proving the point you think it is.

Which part of our current league position (or our results over the last two Championship seasons) makes you think that Farke and his coaching team are missing something as basic as you're outlining?

In the post above you insinuate you've got a better plan for managing the injury recovery of elite athletes and then go on to say that the only other variable you can think of in making a substitution is an in-game injury.

Image result for knowledge confidence curve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

There has been some good responses since my OP but I have not been swayed on this one, sorry guys. 

As has also been pointed out, I accept that I am a mere nobody pink'un poster with no credentials that could ever raise any point against a far-superior-in-every-way elite professional coach. So with this in mind, I wanted to see how other elite professional coaches were acting under similar circumstances - to try to illustrate my OP with a bit more ballast.

This is what I found, strictly just looking at today's PL and championship fixtures, with teams narrowly winning, and the subs those winning teams made (up to 85 mins, not including any subs made before the team took the lead):

       Fixture                                                                          Times of sub by winning team                     Total subs before 85 mins

Premier league*

       Liverpool 0 - 1 Everton (at the time of subs)          59 mins, 62 mins                                             2

       Fulham 1 - 0 Sheff Utd                                               78 mins                                                             1

Championship

        Coventry 2 - 0 Brentford                                             61 mins x 2, 71 mins, 78 mins x 2                5**

        Forest 1 - 0 Blackburn                                                59 mins, 69 mins                                              2

        Sheff Wed 0 - 1 Birmingham                                     74 mins, 75 mins                                              2

*PL teams do not have midweek fixtures to prepare for, so less of a need for rotation

**Yes, FIVE, all 5 of their subs made by relegation threatened Coventry, with their squad which lacks quality / depth, versus automatics chasing Brentford, crazy

I think the above does show I had a valid question. Farke would show as bottom of the scale when it comes to sub activity in these situations. So like I said in my OP he is the outlier then (for today's PL / champs games at least). I could extrapolate this over more rounds of fixtures and continue to test for the trend but I'd rather you all took my word... he's going to very near the bottom end. 

And not to mention that we probably have the biggest and most competitive squad in our division - so really we should be making subs even more freely!

So yes I do think we can afford to be a bit less risk averse next time we are narrowly winning, like everyone else.

PS please don't confuse me validating my minor criticism to everyone who made discarding comments with me moaning about the club

What has immediately struck me is Hughton! What the hell has happened in these few years since with us? He made a sub at 59 minutes one nil up and a like for like striker for goodness sake! Not a defender or DM. ☺️

Guess some people mellow as they age. Who would have enjoyed their 1-0 win more yesterday... Daniel or Chrissie? We all know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ian said:

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...

Yep, and one of the guys behind the modern updates (sensiblesoccer.de) is a mate of mine and Norwich fan. They're constantly refining the original code, and have everything totally up to date with a 2021 player database. It's well worth a nostalgic download if you're not already playing it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I agree with you - mostly. We are the best side in the league, we are top, we have overall played well in games and a lot of the time the team has closed out games with a good level of control. But I still believe that a more proactive approach in winning positions would stop us regularly losing momentum somewhat in the second half of games. And no I accept that this approach hasn’t bitten us too much in terms of results - but it has been noted in performance levels which have made for nervy viewing quite often in games where I believe we let the onus shift to the opposition unnecessarily. Just my opinion of course.

Now I respect that that is in part due to our inability to convert the numerous chances we create (and be out of sight), but it seems other clubs aren’t bothered about being two or three goals up before daring to make a sub when only narrowly winning. All I wanted to point out is that this risk averse nature is actually pretty exclusive to Farke.

I am also of the opinion that we may have been able to see more from some of injury recovering players (Idah, Hernandez, Dowell, Rupp, Mumba) if Farke was a bit more adventurous in this department like other managers appear to be. And given the run of fixtures we now have I don’t think it’s ever been so important to use our squad! 

Go on and list the myriad of variables that make my point invalid please? Do you really think if I looked at other rounds the trend would not still show (for god’s sake don’t make me do it)?

It could be that a couple of the subs mentioned were made due to injuries. But what else? Why are other managers making regular subs in tight winning situations?

Exactly. If yesterday was a one off I might agree about variables but there is a clear pattern here. I think its tough to deny that Farke is, overall, more cautious about using subs in these situations than most managers. That isn't necessarily a bad thing- I remember a game away at West Ham where Hughton made changes at 0-0 that cost us the game- but it is definitely a thing.

In terms of the variables of yesterday's game- I cant think of a better opportunity to bring Hernandez on than how it was set up yesterday. We were finding space in behind, Rotherham were pushing up, so some pacey fresh legs could have combined to either further exploit that space or at least make Rotherham think twice about how far forward they pushed. I dont accept that because we got away with the 3 points that the decisions made are automatically correct. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

 

Now I respect that that is in part due to our inability to convert the numerous chances we create (and be out of sight), but it seems other clubs aren’t bothered about being two or three goals up before daring to make a sub when only narrowly winning. All I wanted to point out is that this risk averse nature is actually pretty exclusive to Farke.

I dont understand why not making a sub is risk averse?

Surely the point youre making is that making substitutions is the more risk averse option?

I've said it multiple times elsewhere that not making a sub is just as proactive a decision as making one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, king canary said:

Exactly. If yesterday was a one off I might agree about variables but there is a clear pattern here. I think its tough to deny that Farke is, overall, more cautious about using subs in these situations than most managers. That isn't necessarily a bad thing- I remember a game away at West Ham where Hughton made changes at 0-0 that cost us the game- but it is definitely a thing.

In terms of the variables of yesterday's game- I cant think of a better opportunity to bring Hernandez on than how it was set up yesterday. We were finding space in behind, Rotherham were pushing up, so some pacey fresh legs could have combined to either further exploit that space or at least make Rotherham think twice about how far forward they pushed. I dont accept that because we got away with the 3 points that the decisions made are automatically correct. 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but again I don't think we 'got away' with 3 points, I thought we fully deserved that.

I personally wanted to see Onel and Dowell on, however...

The players who were on the pitch all contributed offensively and defensively. In the latter stages Cantwells work rate was invaluable tracking back even into central positions to help out. Maybe Farke didn't think we would get that from Onel, or at least not to the same effect. And we didnt concede a clear cut chance. 

I'd love to rest Buendia sometimes too but he is our most aggressive presser which really helps us out defensively in latter stages.

I dont think its a case of 'we won so every decision was correct'. Its just you can't argue with any certainty it was incorrect. Especially when you look at the performance alongside the result. We never really looked like conceding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ian said:

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. 

Absolutely! My little foray into the philosophy of counterfactual conditionals was an attempt to demonstrate  that no counterfactual statement can be proved or disproved (on either side of the debate, whatever the issue, football or non-football). Thus they can only express an opinion; nothing more nothing less. Perhaps the real issue here, for which there is some possibility of providing qualified evidence, is the degree to which we should believe that Farke will get his substitution judgements right, where that belief is correlated to the actual results achieved. And the qualified evidence we have for that is our league position (but lest we forget, that doesn't prove that alternative substitution judgements might have either improved or reduced our current points total, nothing counts as evidence in that respect). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kirku said:

Please don't waste your time, it's really not proving the point you think it is.

Which part of our current league position (or our results over the last two Championship seasons) makes you think that Farke and his coaching team are missing something as basic as you're outlining?

In the post above you insinuate you've got a better plan for managing the injury recovery of elite athletes and then go on to say that the only other variable you can think of in making a substitution is an in-game injury.

Image result for knowledge confidence curve
.

Feel like we are going round in circles a bit here mate. You didn’t even answer any of my points or questions like I did for you... just insulted my intelligence without sounding like you fully followed what I meant when describing your ‘variables for substitutions’.

My point was that in my list of games and subs above, the only reason for subbing a player which could be excused from my list was if someone was injured / had a knock etc - because that can’t be helped. That is not on the manager. 

If you’re going to list ‘tactical change’, ‘resting players’, ‘get some minutes in players who are returning to form’ etc as other variables, then you’re only proving my point exactly that Farke doesn’t see as much value in this reasoning as other managers - because he doesn’t do it anywhere near as much. So what else is there, I’ll ask again for your ‘myriad of variables’ please? 

Nor did you answer why the consensus of other professional managers is different. For some reason you now expect me to be the one to formulate the plan for nurturing our players? What? I’m merely looking at other teams and other professional clubs - I fully described myself as a nobody pink’un poster 2 posts ago! 

It seems some people have agreed (or at least respected) my OP, which is in tight winning spots other managers do more subbies than Farke does. Especially considering our extremely healthy squad size I would expect us to be a bit more comfortable doing this too. That’s it...

You also asked which games have happened this season that I’m referring to, but I really think you must be kidding yourself a bit if you can’t recall several times where we’ve ended up hanging on unnecessarily - it’s the Norwich way isn’t it! Our last two matches are an example of really really strong first halves, and pretty poor / average second ones. I think a bit more rotation may have helped. I will go back and find more games if you really want me to, but I already feel like I might be wasting my time...

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I dont understand why not making a sub is risk averse?

Surely the point youre making is that making substitutions is the more risk averse option?

I've said it multiple times elsewhere that not making a sub is just as proactive a decision as making one.

I get what you’re saying, but personally I think Farke sees it as easier to not make a sub, and less risky.

Of course there is some risk in not subbing anyone, but the 11 on the pitch have been on for the majority of the game, so they’re settled into the game, they are tiring - sure - but there is not going to be any immediate change to the team’s rhythm in the same way a new sub can cause.

However think when we don’t make a sub for so long the whole team starts to tire or lose freshness over time - while our opposition tend to make up to 5 subs to sharpen themselves - of course it’s also easier for them to do that in a losing position - but as a result we sometimes lose our momentum towards the latter stages in these winning scenarios IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, repman said:

One thing that I think has been ignored so far is that Farke did end up using 3 subs, as many as he could unless he brought on more than one player at once. He used all these subs after the board for added time had gone up (I think, if not it was certainly close to it), this is something he has done a few times before and it seems to work in breaking up the game. If he had used the subs earlier, and ran out by that time then we would have had 4 or 5 minutes of constant pressure, unless the ball went out for a goal kick or Krul claimed it. This way he is giving his players a breather in the very last minutes, as well as neutering any possible opposition momentum.

You are assuming we would have pressure. We are top of the table for a reason. We handle pressure better than others. We have a reputation for scoring late on as well.

I do understand what yesterday was about. Three subs late on disrupts the game which suited us.

But I would wager that virtually every poster was wanting a sub to come on and change things. Fair enough, DF was content with what we were doing and had faith in those on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Absolutely! My little foray into the philosophy of counterfactual conditionals was an attempt to demonstrate  that no counterfactual statement can be proved or disproved (on either side of the debate, whatever the issue, football or non-football). Thus they can only express an opinion; nothing more nothing less. Perhaps the real issue here, for which there is some possibility of providing qualified evidence, is the degree to which we should believe that Farke will get his substitution judgements right, where that belief is correlated to the actual results achieved. And the qualified evidence we have for that is our league position (but lest we forget, that doesn't prove that alternative substitution judgements might have either improved or reduced our current points total, nothing counts as evidence in that respect). 

You are right of course. But there is a legitimate comparison with other managers who are more willing to make changes in the same spot.

It is clearly a preference thing between coaches, I am not saying there is a right and wrong. But there are pros and cons for both approaches, my preference would be that Farke was more with the general consensus - or actually even one of the more adventurous ones given our squad size! 

I do think we have now seen a bit of a vicious cycle which sees nearly all of our bench lacking match sharpness and thus struggling to make an impact in the limited moments they do manage to get. And I do think there have been multiple games this season which have mapped a similar path in terms of momentum. 

But Farke’s preference over rotation both in game and across multiple fixtures is to rely on the tight knit group of the first 11 - only really altering it for injuries or after / during a bad result, and clearly that has got us through very well so far! So I’m not in any way unhappy, it is simply a preference thing.

Edited by Hank shoots Skyler
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but again I don't think we 'got away' with 3 points, I thought we fully deserved that.

I personally wanted to see Onel and Dowell on, however...

The players who were on the pitch all contributed offensively and defensively. In the latter stages Cantwells work rate was invaluable tracking back even into central positions to help out. Maybe Farke didn't think we would get that from Onel, or at least not to the same effect. And we didnt concede a clear cut chance. 

I'd love to rest Buendia sometimes too but he is our most aggressive presser which really helps us out defensively in latter stages.

I dont think its a case of 'we won so every decision was correct'. Its just you can't argue with any certainty it was incorrect. Especially when you look at the performance alongside the result. We never really looked like conceding.

Were you making a cup of tea when they hit the crossbar? Or when Aarons blocked a goalbound shot with Krul heading in the wrong direction?

We were significantly worse second half than first half, that's pretty much a given. For phases of the second half we were worse than Rotherham and did very nearly concede at least twice that I can remember. 

I suspect if changes were made that may not have been the case; we would have been as comfortable in the second half as we were in the first. Apparently that's an unacceptable opinion to some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Were you making a cup of tea when they hit the crossbar? Or when Aarons blocked a goalbound shot with Krul heading in the wrong direction?

We were significantly worse second half than first half, that's pretty much a given. For phases of the second half we were worse than Rotherham and did very nearly concede at least twice that I can remember. 

I suspect if changes were made that may not have been the case; we would have been as comfortable in the second half as we were in the first. Apparently that's an unacceptable opinion to some.

Nobody has said its unacceptable its just my opinion is there's no evidence for that. What you're saying is if we had made a couple of subs Rotherham wouldn't have created a single opportunity. I'm not sure I've seen a game in the championship where one team hasn't created a single opening.

I guess the important thing right now is Farke thinks differently to you and its working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to have another look at the result...........yep we won 1-0. Rotherham made 5 subs, improved as the game went on against a clearly tiring Norwich City (tongue firmly in cheek here) but "*cough*, they created a couple of chances but they  still lost and still failed to score. Surely that is argument enough to demonstrate that the bringing on of subs or not is not a binary subject. It is possible  that not making substitutions, not wanting to upset the balance of the team and trusting your players on the pitch to get the result is actually the right decision. I will admit that in the past I have uttered those immortal words "I would take x off" only for "x" to pop up 10 minutes later to score. We have to work on the basis that DF sees the players week in week out, knows them well and currently sitting seven points clear at the top of the league he has got some idea of what he is doing...........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I already feel like I might be wasting my time...

You are.

I'm not going to get drawn into a long discussion and answer each of your points because they're all based on the same logical fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kirku said:

You are.

I'm not going to get drawn into a long discussion and answer each of your points because they're all based on the same logical fallacy.

Lol okay. A logical fallacy you haven’t even remotely tried to explain. Is it really that difficult for you to list that myriad of variables which I apparently omitted? Or explain why other managers don’t have the same viewpoint as Farke? 

I’m generally pretty open minded about stuff so you may even change my mind - but it seems you’d prefer to just try to take the high ground shoot me down without actually saying anything which I can get behind or debate.

You called me nobodypinkunposter123, I tried to show where my opinion had come from - based on what other professional coaches do in the same position. I showed this. I asked some questions in return, but you can’t be bothered!

This isn’t really a fair way of debating a topic in my opinion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

I had to have another look at the result...........yep we won 1-0. Rotherham made 5 subs, improved as the game went on against a clearly tiring Norwich City (tongue firmly in cheek here) but "*cough*, they created a couple of chances but they  still lost and still failed to score. Surely that is argument enough to demonstrate that the bringing on of subs or not is not a binary subject. It is possible  that not making substitutions, not wanting to upset the balance of the team and trusting your players on the pitch to get the result is actually the right decision. I will admit that in the past I have uttered those immortal words "I would take x off" only for "x" to pop up 10 minutes later to score. We have to work on the basis that DF sees the players week in week out, knows them well and currently sitting seven points clear at the top of the league he has got some idea of what he is doing...........

 

This is the key bit really. Those advocating subs have valid reasons but they have a presupposition that making a sub is always the right call later in a game, as if not making a sub could be the right call too. Not making a sub has as many variables to it as making a sub.

I know I'm repeating myself but some seem to think Farke is scared or almost that he forgets to make sub, not accepting that not making a sub is just as conscious a decision as making one. And at this stage why would he change? He's outperforming every other club in the league, both those that do make loads of subs and those who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

This is the key bit really. Those advocating subs have valid reasons but they have a presupposition that making a sub is always the right call later in a game, as if not making a sub could be the right call too. Not making a sub has as many variables to it as making a sub.

I know I'm repeating myself but some seem to think Farke is scared or almost that he forgets to make sub, not accepting that not making a sub is just as conscious a decision as making one. And at this stage why would he change? He's outperforming every other club in the league, both those that do make loads of subs and those who don't.

I don’t think he’s scared, I think it’s just his preference to keep with the same 11, I don’t necessarily think it’s always right to change it either. But I do think we have the players available to utilise our bench a bit more, and I do think there have been plenty of games where the lack of subs in winning spots caused a shift in dynamic in the game. This season has been a stressful one on the heart!

Yes it hasn’t necessarily impacted our results, but I have noted it in our performances. And I do also think the lack of rotation may tire our squad out during the next run or games.

Of course I can’t prove myself to be right as has been said, but it is interesting that other clubs appear a bit more willing than Farke in the same spot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesnt all this boil down to the old 'tree falling /not falling in the forest if you can /cant hear it' theory.  

The only analogy I can offer to compare is that we have a healthy wood pile....of points, bigger than all our neighbours  in fact....so my guess is that the tree did in fact fall.😇😇😇

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Surely the fact that the managers of these other clubs can't even lay a glove on Farke would point to him being right?

Rediculously arrogant statement about a manager who came rock bottom of the Premier League last season.

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

×
×
  • Create New...