Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

Substitutions

Recommended Posts

I''ve sat here all season reading quite a lot of  extreme stuff about substitutions, when under analysis a lot of the substitutions have been sensible and on average at the 70 minute mark.  The substitutions can always be criticised of course, but the extreme criticism of them has been unwarranted imo.  The subs scoring goals is not relevant either because the whole team has been struggling for goals, not just subs.

However, I wanted to put the other side down in here, because the substitutions made on Sunday were bang on the money.  Both subs improved the team and we got stronger and stronger because of them.   Managers make decisions and if he got it wrong, arguably, at West Ham, then he more than made up for it with the subs on Sunday.   The Hoolahan one in particular was inspired.   Good team selection, good subs and a good day for the manager, as well as the rest of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh LDC you really do not learn do you!

You have invited the Hughton haters to point out that if Hooper and Hools had been on from the start we would have probably won 5-0!

I have to say Hooper to me is much more of a goal threat than RVW who just isn''t doing what''s on the label at the moment. For all his hard work he just doesn''t look the real deal in front of goal , once again missing a real opportunity in the first half . As for Hools I just like him at home especially because he is one of the few players we have who doesn''t panic in and around the box and can always create something, but I know just like Redmond he can also mess up

The problem with the West Ham game was he made subs when a draw seemed worst we would get from game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Inspired"??? Never a term that has ever been used in association with Hughton before, and certainly not justified for Sunday. Save it for when his changes actually turn a match around completely.

Bringing Hooper on was a ''no-brainier'', and Hooper caused Spurs more problems for Spurs in 20 minutes than RVW had in 70 (yes, he did play his part in the goal).

Anybody could have come on for 5 minutes. If Hughton was offering some sort of olive branch to Hoolahan, then all well and good. I suppose it was "inspired" not to bring Elmander on.

The problem most fans have is with Hughton substituting Redmond. Tiredness barely looks an issue with Redmond, and with the game inevitably stretched, he carries the biggest threat to opposition defences on any quick breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="unique"] and Hooper caused Spurs more problems for Spurs in 20 minutes than RVW had in 70 (yes, he did play his part in the goal).  [/quote]

But it is also worth noting that Spurs had started to commit a lot more numbers forward and were leaving themselves short at the back. And they were tiring. Hooper then had the benefit of running against tired defenders as well as the extra space available to exploit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed Lakey, I was very angry about the substitutions against West Ham and I''m still convinced Hughton''s substitutions in that game lost us points.

However I agree that Hughton got it spot on on Sunday and deserves credit for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can''t disagree that it all came good for Chris Hughton on Sunday as the subs worked a treat. If only this could happen more often.I think the season-long stats say that of all the substitutions the manager''s made not one of them has scored or even made an assist for a goal. I accept that while we score so few goals that''s more likely to happen but it''s stil a record that beggars belief.Either Chris Hughton''s had an extraordinary run of bad luck or there''s something wrong with his selections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really have to be honest here, when he introduced Hoolahan on Sunday, at the time, I didnt get it! I really didnt, but now having had time to think about it, I agree it was a good substitution.....but at the time, whether it was the JD & Cokes I dont know, but I was lost for words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]I really have to be honest here, when he introduced Hoolahan on Sunday, at the time, I didnt get it! I really didnt, but now having had time to think about it, I agree it was a good substitution.....but at the time, whether it was the JD & Cokes I dont know, but I was lost for words.[/quote]My initial reaction when I saw Wes was surprise, but the effect it had on the crowd was to give the whole place a lift at a time when we might have got a bit nervy towards the end of the match.    The atmosphere was already quite heady, but it took it to a new level and must have given all the players a lift in the process, helping us over the line.   A positive substitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]Can''t disagree that it all came good for Chris Hughton on Sunday as the subs worked a treat. If only this could happen more often.I think the season-long stats say that of all the substitutions the manager''s made not one of them has scored or even made an assist for a goal. I accept that while we score so few goals that''s more likely to happen but it''s stil a record that beggars belief.Either Chris Hughton''s had an extraordinary run of bad luck or there''s something wrong with his selections.[/quote]

 

I don''t know what to make of this stat. How does it measure up against other PL managers? I think these stats become important because people don''t like the league table''s view of our manager. A bit of "yeah we''re 14th and closer to top half than relegation but what about these sub stats....."

 

It reminds me of all the fuss that was made about us not winning a game after going behind.  We put that to bed with the victory over West Ham. So now we''re 14th in the table for winning points from losing positions and over half the league have won 1 game or less after falling behind. So that "the sky''s falling in" stat really meant nothing at all!

 

David McNally''s point about Hughton making subs in real time and the criticisms in hindsight is a fair one. Read Sunday''s match thread and many of the "experts" didn''t have Snoddy on the pitch for the second half...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GJP"]

[quote user="unique"] and Hooper caused Spurs more problems for Spurs in 20 minutes than RVW had in 70 (yes, he did play his part in the goal).  [/quote]

But it is also worth noting that Spurs had started to commit a lot more numbers forward and were leaving themselves short at the back. And they were tiring. Hooper then had the benefit of running against tired defenders as well as the extra space available to exploit.

[/quote]

 

This :-)   

 

Spurs had gone 3-5-2 and were chasing the game and it was this as much as rvw coming off that meant space opened up and we created good chances by exploiting the space left behind with some good pace and movement - nothing in the movement suggested that rvw coming on for hooper would not have had teh same result.

 

 

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...