That 70 Minute Mark

[Aaron-Bcfc]

17 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Tbf to Weimann, he isn’t a winger!

He isn’t anything. 

[BromleyRed]

17 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

We played into their hands today by trying to play too much football too deep in our own half, when any mistake from their high press immediately put us in trouble. Kelly had a poor game by his high standards and Da Silva deserved his chance. 

Our major problem is that we are so ponderous going forward. When we break, we only go so far forward before passing back. Plus if I was to sum up "our identity" it would be "possession for possession's sake"!

Exactly this. We take too long to get forward. At one point I mentioned that Kelly played the ball back and somebody said what was he supposed to do. I wasn't actually criticising Kelly as I agree there were no other options. He was furthest forward but we take ages to get anywhere near the opposition penalty area. Frustrating and boring to watch. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Regardless of the "who is good and who is shit" debate (and in my book none of the starting line-up are shit) we have to say that the OP is spot-on and Johnson leaves making subs until far too late in tbe match for them to tell .

Taylor did make a difference, but by the time he got on the pitch it was the 77th minute. Asking a lot for the guy to turn the whole match in 16 minutes.

Brentford had already signalled their intent to defend the point when they subbed Watkins for Judge.  That should have been our cue to bring on fresh legs and go all out attacking.

Definitely agree- far too late in the game.

My favorite one was v Millwall was it where he made 2 in the 83rd minute and one in the 90th. Just pointless.

[Robbored]

22 hours ago, LeeJohnsonsFlatCap said:

Why does LJ always decide that this is the time to make an impact off the bench. Those 90th minute subs do my head in too. 

With around 20mins to go the manager knows what needs changing and with enough time for the subs to effect the game.

The 90th min subs are simply to make the sub feel part of the team and to ensure he gets his appearance bonus. Unless there’s an extraordinary amount of added on time tactically it’s of no benefit.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Robbored said:

With around 20mins to go the manager knows what needs changing and with enough time for the subs to effect the game.

The 90th min subs are simply to make the sub feel part of the team and to ensure he gets his appearance bonus. Unless there’s an extraordinary amount of added on time tactically it’s of no benefit.

Think an hour, 65 mins at a push is a better time myself. 20 minutes? Well maybe but feels just that bit too late.

Still better than his subs v Millwall however!

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, Robbored said:

With around 20mins to go the manager knows what needs changing and with enough time for the subs to effect the game.

The 90th min subs are simply to make the sub feel part of the team and to ensure he gets his appearance bonus. Unless there’s an extraordinary amount of added on time tactically it’s of no benefit.

How many subs around the 65-70 minute mark are tactical versus fresh legs.  I might do an analysis later, but my gut feel is that most subs are tactical, rather than fresh legs, e.g. normally result in a change in formation, rather than a like for like change.  That’s only my gut feel.  Based on that, do you think that is good?  I’d like to think that the majority are just fresh leg subs because the team / style that went before in the prior 65-70 minutes was correct.  To me it seems too many subs are needed to correct an incorrection if that makes sense.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

How many subs around the 65-70 minute mark are tactical versus fresh legs.  I might do an analysis later, but my gut feel is that most subs are tactical, rather than fresh legs, e.g. normally result in a change in formation, rather than a like for like change.  That’s only my gut feel.  Based on that, do you think that is good?  I’d like to think that the majority are just fresh leg subs because the team / style that went before in the prior 65-70 minutes was correct.  To me it seems too many subs are needed to correct an incorrection if that makes sense.

Game changing subs are a strength and a weakness tbh. If he rectifies it with that, then that's okay but as you say the wrong shape to begin with maybe also- on the other hand teams in this division have a wide variety of styles so it's useful to a point and may not indicate a tactical error from the start but simply that the other side have shifted and he's responding. Still if that's the case, then rather than use a sub as a first resort, if it's like a game of chess opposition manager tweaks then LJ responds- if possible make in-game changes with those already on the pitch- keep the subs for when they are truly needed.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Game changing subs are a strength and a weakness tbh. If he rectifies it with that, then that's okay but as you say the wrong shape to begin with maybe also- on the other hand teams in this division have a wide variety of styles so it's useful to a point and may not indicate a tactical error from the start but simply that the other side have shifted and he's responding. Still if that's the case, then rather than use a sub as a first resort, if it's like a game of chess opposition manager tweaks then LJ responds- if possible make in-game changes with those already on the pitch- keep the subs for when they are truly needed.

B-B-B-Bingo.  

Yesterday he could’ve gone 442 by putting Weimann inside (bought him to play him centrally) and moving Pato out wide and kept JB and MP in a traditional 2.  But no.

There are too many games where is overhaul / over-reaction rather than tweak.

To give him credit, last week v Derby (because it was first half) he pushed Pato onto Huddlestone.  Had it been second half, he’d have made a double sub to get the same effect.

[Robbored]

36 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

How many subs around the 65-70 minute mark are tactical versus fresh legs.  I might do an analysis later, but my gut feel is that most subs are tactical, rather than fresh legs, e.g. normally result in a change in formation, rather than a like for like change.  That’s only my gut feel.  Based on that, do you think that is good?  I’d like to think that the majority are just fresh leg subs because the team / style that went before in the prior 65-70 minutes was correct.  To me it seems too many subs are needed to correct an incorrection if that makes sense.

Subs can both or either of fresh legs or tactical and to me it doesnt really matter. 

To me the important factor is the amount of time they get and roundabout the 70min mark is usually enough time to influence the game.

Who gets subbed is an entirely different topic............

[wendyredredrobin]

Subs are coming on too late for me.  I've seen some managers realise very quuckly during a game that their tactics are not working and make a change 20 or 30 minutes in.

Half time is good to change things too, but any substitution later than 60 minutes has little time to make an impact.

Both Weimann and COD both made a couple of good forward runs yesterday and would have been clean through if it were not for our midfielders turning back towards their own goal every time they received the ball and passed it backwards or sideways.

Wasn't impressed with Kelly or Pack yesterday, but it was nice to see Pisano notch up his first goal.  He is fairly tall and could maybe be used a bit more at set pieces.

Our ratio of shots to Brentford's wasvery poor.  We certainly found it hard getting through or around their defence and need some pace up front I think.

Starting with Fam and Andi on the wings with the midfielders making runs through the middle seemed to be a strange tactic, though quite an interesting one.

Kelly needs to understand that in a tight situation, he needs to smack the ball into row Z sometimes (he's young and will learn though).