Subs tonight

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

Really interested to hear what people thought of Wagner's subs tonight.

I thought we looked really decent with the three man midfield. Kenny and Nunez were seeing a lot of the ball and having Sara a bit further forward obviously offered a greater threat.

On 72 mins Wagner abandoned that, taking off Gibson, moving Kenny into defence, putting Fassnacht in Rowe's position and shifting Rowe up front. We basically went 4-4-2.

The only reason I could see for doing this was to keep Rowe on the field - he looked knackered and had given the ball away a couple of times, but it made sense to stick him up front in the hope he might get one chance - but Wagner then took him off seven minutes later.

Just made no sense to me - anyone explain what the benefit was?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,616]

I guess he thought that he could shoehorn an extra attacking player in there whilst retaining the playmaking ability of both Nuñez and McLean from deep. Also, Gibson was on a yellow.

The change surprised me and ultimately it didn't work, but I see the logic behind it. Although if you're going for that idea, I'd have preferred Barnes instead of Fassnacht and Rowe out wide, or even both Fassnacht and Barnes with Rowe going off. 

Hernandez for Sainz on 55 minutes made less sense, in my opinion. 

[Ken Hairy 4,272]

Yeah same as Wacky, I can see the sense in it and have no issues. I think Rowe could have gone off at that point but always difficult to take off your top scorer when chasing a goal no matter how poor a game he was having.

I was surprised the Sainz sub was made so early, but not actually surprised he went off as again I thought he had a poor game.  I think that's where we lost it as there was no real quality from the wingers and were relying on the full backs creating our chances.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

The sub that saw Kenny move to centre back was for me a really poor decision and example of Wagner not reading the game well.

I get he wanted to keep Rowe on but we’d just had a long spell where Kenny and Nunez were dominant in midfield and we never regained that.

no issue with the other subs. 

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

The problem with subs is they are often made because someone isn't playing very well. The problem here being Sainz who's not really doing anything of note after a promising start a few matches back.

Also I thought the subs nullified the best bit of our performance and we created little or nothing for Idah and Barnes.

Wagner had to do something in the last 20 but this was a bit muddled.

[Robert N. LiM 6,282]

5 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

The problem with subs is they are often made because someone isn't playing very well. The problem here being Sainz who's not really doing anything of note after a promising start a few matches back.

That seemed fine to me - it was like-for-like, not disrupting the set-up of the team which was working pretty well. And Onel had a good game against Leeds at Carrow road. As you say, Sainz wasn't quite on it either. Completely reasonable.

It was shifting Kenny back that made no sense to me. As you say:

6 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Also I thought the subs nullified the best bit of our performance and we created little or nothing for Idah and Barnes.

Wagner had to do something in the last 20 but this was a bit muddled.

 

[Petriix 3,219]

I thought we started with our best possible 11 tonight. Unfortunately we lack any real depth in the squad so every substitution brought the quality down a little bit. You have to make changes purely from a 'fresh legs' perspective but we don't have any quality on the bench.

We'd probably have benefited from sticking with the starting team for longer, but Gibson for Idah would have made more sense. You can't blame Wagner for trying something, but Hernandez isn't going to worry Farke. We really need to sign a decent attacking midfielder so that we've got more options. Or a CDM and push Kenny forwards (lol). 

[hogesar 10,763]

I think Wagner had to try something and putting Rowe in a more advanced position was probably our only real option. Rowe had been poor too, but he has that bit of magic.

We looked very good on the ball in the period before that but it wasn't until the subs that we actually got in behind Leeds defence - everything was in front of them. That's not surprising when your two most creative players in Sara and Rowe were having a poor game

[mastoola 204]

didnt have the player to bring on which would of continued the same

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,633]

Lack of squad depth, therefore making 4 or 5 changes as Wagner seems compelled to do regardless of in game situation, will nearly always weaken us.

Last night Wagner changed too much and we lost our foothold. 

[Nuff Said 5,962]

Changing the subject slightly, I see Farke hasn’t got out of the habit of only making subs in the last five minutes of a match unless forced. Comments  from the Leeds fans I read on The Athletic suggested this is some sort of tactical master stroke but I’m not convinced. We seem to have either subs whether they’re needed or not from Wagner or none unless someone is actually unable to play on from Farke.

He does seem to have been converted to the virtues of play acting though, although maybe it’s a Leeds thing, not him. Was it James who went down twice clutching various parts of his anatomy only to miraculously recover when he looked to see the ref wasn’t interested? And he was by no means the only one.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

3 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Lack of squad depth, therefore making 4 or 5 changes as Wagner seems compelled to do regardless of in game situation, will nearly always weaken us.

Last night Wagner changed too much and we lost our foothold. 

Not just last night either as he has done this numerous times and he has this compulsion to start the subs process on or around 60 minutes in every game regardless of the game situation as you say CCC and there is little doubt it will happen again on Sunday.

[ron obvious 1,711]

11 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

I guess he thought that he could shoehorn an extra attacking player in there whilst retaining the playmaking ability of both Nuñez and McLean from deep. Also, Gibson was on a yellow.

The change surprised me and ultimately it didn't work, but I see the logic behind it. Although if you're going for that idea, I'd have preferred Barnes instead of Fassnacht and Rowe out wide, or even both Fassnacht and Barnes with Rowe going off. 

Hernandez for Sainz on 55 minutes made less sense, in my opinion. 

I'm fed up with this dismissal of Onel's abilities. He made a huge difference when he came on. He is twice as strong as Sainz, quicker, & has just as much ability to get past players. He won the ball at least twice when he had no right to do so, & single-handedly created a good chance for Idah.

Having said all that I rate Sainz the better player overall for his positioning & ability to outfox defences; Onel is predictable in the sort of runs he makes which makes him easier for the opposition to shut out - but he's still a handful & that sheer strength & pace can terrify defenders. 

Last night Sainz was pretty anonymous & got outrun by defenders most of the time. He had a pretty poor game. Onel was far, far more effective when he came on.

[Petriix 3,219]

21 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

I'm fed up with this dismissal of Onel's abilities. He made a huge difference when he came on.

I'm fed up with the unevidenced belief that Onel is 'effective'. I know he's got a couple of assists recently but those moments are very much the exception. He is strong, and fast. Enough to terrify defenders... until they realise that they don't actually need to tackle him because he loses the ball all by himself most of the time. 

Last night he came on before the 60th minute. He touched the ball 16 times, of which exactly 4 were completed passes. I don't really care what he does with the other touches because, if they don't lead to a successful, progressive pass, they weren't 'effective' at all. 

He's a great guy but he's never quite been good enough. 

[Move Klose 303]

Hes rubbish, anyone who thinks differently must watch games with his eyes closed.

[hogesar 10,763]

42 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I'm fed up with the unevidenced belief that Onel is 'effective'. I know he's got a couple of assists recently but those moments are very much the exception. He is strong, and fast. Enough to terrify defenders... until they realise that they don't actually need to tackle him because he loses the ball all by himself most of the time. 

Last night he came on before the 60th minute. He touched the ball 16 times, of which exactly 4 were completed passes. I don't really care what he does with the other touches because, if they don't lead to a successful, progressive pass, they weren't 'effective' at all. 

He's a great guy but he's never quite been good enough. 

Although, the individual run to create the opportunity for Idah, even if it wasn't the perfect option, was more than Sainz had done in terms of creation in 60 minutes. So I can fully understand why he's given minutes off the bench.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

Sainz won’t beat someone for pace and when playing away and looking for threat on the counter he’s not quite right. He’s better suited to games where we are likely to dominate the ball. I had no issue with that sub and thought Onel did well, as he generally has done in recent appearances.

 

[Google Bot 3,934]

What's most disappointing about that Onel run and Idah chance is that it was so poorly executed it hasn't even made any of the highlights.

I didn't think Onel's decision was that bad when watching it live, as I thought he was running that diagonal line and Idah in plain line of sight.  Plus, he at least he played the ball in front of Idah - usually it's a complete scuff of a pass, or it goes behind the player and a complete breakdown of a move.

I would love to see it again to see what people are saying in regards to him taking a different option, is the clip on social media or anything?

[jaberry2 769]

2 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

What's most disappointing about that Onel run and Idah chance is that it was so poorly executed it hasn't even made any of the highlights.

I didn't think Onel's decision was that bad when watching it live, as I thought he was running that diagonal line and Idah in plain line of sight.  Plus, he at least he played the ball in front of Idah - usually it's a complete scuff of a pass, or it goes behind the player and a complete breakdown of a move.

I would love to see it again to see what people are saying in regards to him taking a different option, is the clip on social media or anything?

It was a brief moment of some respite late in the game, but I never expected Onel or Idah to have an end product and finish the move. They just dont possess that level of quality for me. Albeit I was out of my chair at the time

[ron obvious 1,711]

4 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'm fed up with the unevidenced belief that Onel is 'effective'. I know he's got a couple of assists recently but those moments are very much the exception. He is strong, and fast. Enough to terrify defenders... until they realise that they don't actually need to tackle him because he loses the ball all by himself most of the time. 

Last night he came on before the 60th minute. He touched the ball 16 times, of which exactly 4 were completed passes. I don't really care what he does with the other touches because, if they don't lead to a successful, progressive pass, they weren't 'effective' at all. 

He's a great guy but he's never quite been good enough. 

That's utter & complete nonsense. The issue is he has his head down & doesn't often pick the best option or release the pass when he should - he tends to keep going until he gets tackled, by which time he has 2 or 3 guys closing him down. Even then he'll often wriggle & force his way through, but keeps going with his head down until he's stopped or has missed the best time to pass.

Last night he was far more effective than Sainz. And if Sargent had been on the receiving end of his through ball I strongly suspect the outcome would have been a lot better.

[ron obvious 1,711]

3 hours ago, Google Bot said:

What's most disappointing about that Onel run and Idah chance is that it was so poorly executed it hasn't even made any of the highlights.

I didn't think Onel's decision was that bad when watching it live, as I thought he was running that diagonal line and Idah in plain line of sight.  Plus, he at least he played the ball in front of Idah - usually it's a complete scuff of a pass, or it goes behind the player and a complete breakdown of a move.

I would love to see it again to see what people are saying in regards to him taking a different option, is the clip on social media or anything?

Exactly my view. Hopefully it'll come up on Canaries tv full 90 soon & I'll be able to review it.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Sargent is clearly in recovery still, but he would have done a lot better with that opportunity. Pukki would have buried it most times, as would most half-decent strikers.

I thought Hernandez was exceptional in that passage of play and that and a couple of defensive contributions fully justified Wagner's decision to bring him on, which was basically to hope for some impact from a player often noted for a lively substitute's performance. 

[Google Bot 3,934]

10 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

And if Sargent had been on the receiving end of his through ball I strongly suspect the outcome would have been a lot better.

Idah's got a very powerful shot on him,  I honestly thought he was going to just leather it as we had 2 others running into the box and if the keeper spilt or it bounced back could've favoured us.

In fact, we don't take those sort of chances much in general when they arrive, Emi was very good at just hitting a shot into a crowded area and we'd score from it. I would like us to do that a little bit more, as defences panic at this level.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,616]

11 hours ago, ron obvious said:

I'm fed up with this dismissal of Onel's abilities. 

That was never my intention. 

I recognise that Hernandez has some useful attributes. He's quick, direct and capable of causing a bit of panic in tiring defences.

Five years ago, he also had good dribbling ability in tight spaces and an end product, but whether it's through injuries or a lack of confidence, he no longer has these. 

However, what surprised me about the substitution was that we have a more-or-less fully fit squad right now and Hernandez was the first sub brought on. This implies that he's the plan B. Personally, I'd say that Hernandez off the bench to impact the game is a plan D at best.

 

11 hours ago, ron obvious said:

 He made a huge difference when he came on. 

Did he? OK, Sainz contributed very little, but Hernandez didn't really contribute either.

Aside from the 40-yard carry on the counter when he played in Idah, did he ever trouble the Leeds defence or create anything?

[ron obvious 1,711]

Just seen the full 90 & Idah was the only realistic option (Sara had 2 players for company & may have been offside). Idah should have taken it in his stride, the ball was played nicely in front of him. He had plenty of time & space to pick a shot. Which was likely the problem.

Edited January 25 by ron obvious

[Google Bot 3,934]

1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

Just seen the full 90 & Idah was the only realistic option (Sara had 2 players for company & may have been offside).

I caught it on a fan recorded video too (Timestamped 13:31):

Clearly the better decision by Onel to play it into space for Idah than try to find Sarge.  He probably could've taken it on further though, I don't think the defender is going to make that challenge with so our two runners coming in, would've backed off for sure.

Edited January 26 by Google Bot

[canarybubbles 2,199]

I think replacing Sainz with Hernandez made sense (Sainz was having a fairly poor game) but the timing was questionable. We were on top at that moment, building up momentum, and anything that risked that momentum seems misguided. Many of us have said on here that it almost seems as if Wagner has a written note to remind himself 'use substitution in the sixtieth minute' rather than looking at the game and responding to it. 

With McLean in such good form during this match, and looking like our most creative option in midfield, the change of formation which placed him back in the defence seemed to blunt our creativity, although perhaps there werefactors leading to this decision that we don't know about?

In general, I wish Wagner's substitutions felt less pre-planned and formulaic.