Late and/or Negative Substitutions

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Well surely early substitutions when we are two goals down are tactical? In the Liverpool game he changed Jackson for Holt at halftime. I heard him explain that at the fans meeting the next week. He said Jackson had missed the only opportunities we had had and we obviously needed to score goals to get back in the game. He was vindicated to a point because we did score two goals in the second half. However letting in a further three nullified that!! Interestingly though Hughton was roundly booed within the stadium for that substitution so it is a sort of damned if you do damned if you don''t situation.

 

 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well surely early substitutions when we are two goals down are tactical? In the Liverpool game he changed Jackson for Holt at halftime. I heard him explain that at the fans meeting the next week. He said Jackson had missed the only opportunities we had had and we obviously needed to score goals to get back in the game. He was vindicated to a point because we did score two goals in the second half. However letting in a further three nullified that!! Interestingly though Hughton was roundly booed within the stadium for that substitution so it is a sort of damned if you do damned if you don''t situation.

 

 

[/quote]

I think that may have been a mistake on my part for the point I was trying to make. I was just pointing out that Hughton is not opposed to early substitutions in games for tactical reasons, but the situation has to be bad enough that he decides we have nothing left to lose by changing the system.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Indeed buddy. But I think there''s two issues here. One is that Hughton''s attacking options from the bench haven''t been game changing. The second is when I remember substitutions gaining us a point under Lambert they involved the introduction of Wes or Holty and Hughton starts these two.

 

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Now I''m trying to think of occasions last season where Lambert made substitutions to turn draws into wins. I can remember a couple where Holt and/or Hoolahan were introduced and we manged to gain one point by getting a draw from a losing position. But I don''t remember him using subs to gain the two extra points from a draw to a win. Perhaps it''s my age. I remember games from the 60s and 70s like they were yesterday but I''m struggling with last season. Can anyone help me?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Isn''t anyone going to help me out here?

 

 

[Warren Hill 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Now I''m trying to think of occasions last season where Lambert made substitutions to turn draws into wins. I can remember a couple where Holt and/or Hoolahan were introduced and we manged to gain one point by getting a draw from a losing position. But I don''t remember him using subs to gain the two extra points from a draw to a win. Perhaps it''s my age. I remember games from the 60s and 70s like they were yesterday but I''m struggling with last season. Can anyone help me?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Isn''t anyone going to help me out here?

 

 

[/quote]

 

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTIM_99.htm

 

Memory Games

Have fun while you improve your memory

---

[8-)]

[Chip20 69]

Nuff Said wrote

"So he started a game with one set of players and ended with a different one. Isn''t that by definition a change of plan?"

Not if the plan was to start with one set of players and to end with another. :-)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Hughton''s lateness and lack of substitutions was a characteristic of his management at Newcastle as well. I think it is something we are just going to have to get used to.

--- On the eve of Newcastle’s home game with notoriously poor travellers Fulham, it has been interesting to see that Chris Hughton has received some criticism about his substitutions, or more accurately, the lack of them.

http://toonbarmy.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/hughtons-substitutions-criticised/

--- It isn''t the changes he makes that annoy me - its the fact he rarely makes any.

When was the last time you saw ANY team play a full match, that they were desperate to get a goal back in and gets points from and only make ONE change?

I honestly think Hughton does not like the idea of substitutions. Why bother filling a bench of subs if you feel angered at having to make any.

It is the most insane thing I''ve ever seen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A63235181

[Lavanche 0]

Well I''m personaly fan of managers that know when to change plans, but there has been lot of good managers that dont change almost at all.

Schuster in Real Madrid almost always changed first time after 80 minutes and he won the league and had bench full of talent.

It isnt exiting, but sometimes it just works better. I personaly feel this is biggest flaw in Hughton''s gameplan, but this war it has worked pretty well.

Have to remember we are team that raised from League 1 without big spending and have one of the smallest budget in the league now so being midtable team is quite an archievement as those who came up were stronger than those who dropped down.

About negativity of substitions, I havent seen one yet. Lack of substitions is a fact, but most of his subs have worked quite well when they are made.

And I really hate the term negativity, if it means changing defender for a another defender ^^ It would be neutral or positive substition as it doesnt effect game plan, just brings more legs.

In my opinion we lack quality players in the areas that are most effective part of our game in offensive areas. We have Snoddy and Hoolahan, but we really dont have talent to replace them and changint them pure striker would just make us give posession totally to opponent.

Now we have Kamara to be brought or start in Pilkington''s place who is a bit more offensive player but still knows how to play wide.

For middlefield I think Hughton wants to keep that protection on our back four and we really dont have anyone to replace neither Tettey nor Bradders. Fox is playmaker and he is just so slow and static compared to Tettey and doesnt have physical side of Johnson. Lack of gametime has also made his passing game a bit rusty as we saw in Luton match. Howson could fit Tetteys role on the offensive end of the field, but his form has been horrible when chance given.

So for me we have 2 attacking players that are more or less crucial for our game. So it leaves only 2 spots to sub on, striker and left winger and we just less than month ago got players that have quality for those spots.

E.Bennet is big questionmark for me. I like him and he has some talent, but he doesnt fit the formation at the moment. I personaly would use him as a right back when we need to attack, but I''m not a manager and really dont know if he has all the skills and education needed there. Other than that he would fit only Hoolys role as more direct attacking middlefielder, but he wouldnt really be that more offensive so should he be subbed only when we are leading already if ever.

I think I lost a my focus there and dont know if anyone understands my jibberish english ^^ but my point is that we really dont have that much players that would bring impact and so much I would want Hughton to sub sometimes, I know that for some managers not-subbing just works so much better.

So for me we lack depth and mayby Hughton just knows better than us ^^

He might not play prettiest ball always, but at least he triest to get some posession most of the times and we dont just shoot long balls.

I would by the way want to see Surman back in game sometimes. He is only one with Hoolahan that make those nice little pass combinations in last third, but again he just dont fit the formation Hughton is using.