A Theory on the (lack of) substitution

[Silvio Dante]

First things first - garbage period sending off, garbage post sending off.

But Williams goes. Football 101 says you need to get another centre half on ASAP - and it could even have happened pre the free kick being taken.

At the risk of making myself unpopular, subbing Eliasson was the obvious move. Why? At 10, you need to be compact and work rate. Most sides when sacrificing take off a winger or a striker. Weimann was never being taken off due to how much closing he does, Fam wasn’t going as he was our out ball and Watkins wasn’t going due to the physicality. So, from the moment of the sending off, Nic was the one who needed to be subbed. You try and keep it at 0-1 and bring on more attacking players later in the game.

Lee’s been in football long enough to know that. But he didn’t do it straight away - why?

As soon as Williams went off, I turned to my mate and said “It probably should be Eliasson that gets subbed - just wait to hear this place though when it happens”

I think Lee knew that reaction was coming, and as such bottled the move and went for a totally needless gamble. He’s been under pressure, so didn’t want to antagonise the crowd. Only when we conceded the second and looked in danger of being obliterated did he make the sub virtually any manager would/should make.

The only alternate is that he really believed Korey Smith at centre half was the way to go.

He bottled it. And that worries me as much, if not more, than anything else today.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

First things first - garbage period sending off, garbage post sending off.

But Williams goes. Football 101 says you need to get another centre half on ASAP - and it could even have happened pre the free kick being taken.

At the risk of making myself unpopular, subbing Eliasson was the obvious move. Why? At 10, you need to be compact and work rate. Most sides when sacrificing take off a winger or a striker. Weimann was never being taken off due to how much closing he does, Fam wasn’t going as he was our out ball and Watkins wasn’t going due to the physicality. So, from the moment of the sending off, Nic was the one who needed to be subbed. You try and keep it at 0-1 and bring on more attacking players later in the game.

Lee’s been in football long enough to know that. But he didn’t do it straight away - why?

As soon as Williams went off, I turned to my mate and said “It probably should be Eliasson that gets subbed - just wait to hear this place though when it happens”

I think Lee knew that reaction was coming, and as such bottled the move and went for a totally needless gamble. He’s been under pressure, so didn’t want to antagonise the crowd. Only when we conceded the second and looked in danger of being obliterated did he make the sub virtually any manager would/should make.

The only alternate is that he really believed Korey Smith at centre half was the way to go.

He bottled it. And that worries me as much, if not more, than anything else today.

His logic was he didn’t want to make the sub until he saw where they were going to create their overloads to.

Surely against 10, they’d create the overloads wherever we decided to not have our 11th player.

At the time and on the way home, I kinda sympathised with the situation, e.g. how were we ever gonna get something out of that with a) being down to 10 men and b) against Brentford.

On reflection, other teams might’ve given it a real go.  We kinda did ok, but we didn’t give it a go.

[Dullmoan Tone]

Eliasson makes loads of tackles - see last game stats (still on the BCFC front page) so I don't buy this lazy narrative.

If you are forced to play on the break, you want someone quick and you have kept Fam on, so balls into the box from set pieces become a lifeline.

Keeping Korey Smith as a CB is just stupid especially as you bring AW into midfield when you have Nagy and Massengo on the bench.

You cannot explain this decision rationally.

[Ohbasso]

I agree about taking Eliasson off, as much as I wouldn’t want to it was the sensible thing to do. The stupid thing to do is only play with one centre back until we’re two down and it’s game over.

[chucky]

I thought (for tactical reasons) he should have taken Hunt off, moved korey to RB and brought on Moore. 

[Dullmoan Tone]

5 minutes ago, chucky said:

I thought (for tactical reasons) he should have taken Hunt off, moved korey to RB and brought on Moore. 

Agree this is a very sensible option, especially as Hunt was clearly struggling with the press, pace and movement of Brentford.

[city1983]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

First things first - garbage period sending off, garbage post sending off.

But Williams goes. Football 101 says you need to get another centre half on ASAP - and it could even have happened pre the free kick being taken.

At the risk of making myself unpopular, subbing Eliasson was the obvious move. Why? At 10, you need to be compact and work rate. Most sides when sacrificing take off a winger or a striker. Weimann was never being taken off due to how much closing he does, Fam wasn’t going as he was our out ball and Watkins wasn’t going due to the physicality. So, from the moment of the sending off, Nic was the one who needed to be subbed. You try and keep it at 0-1 and bring on more attacking players later in the game.

Lee’s been in football long enough to know that. But he didn’t do it straight away - why?

As soon as Williams went off, I turned to my mate and said “It probably should be Eliasson that gets subbed - just wait to hear this place though when it happens”

I think Lee knew that reaction was coming, and as such bottled the move and went for a totally needless gamble. He’s been under pressure, so didn’t want to antagonise the crowd. Only when we conceded the second and looked in danger of being obliterated did he make the sub virtually any manager would/should make.

The only alternate is that he really believed Korey Smith at centre half was the way to go.

He bottled it. And that worries me as much, if not more, than anything else today.

This wouldn’t surprise me at all. I remember him bringing on matty Taylor in a game and he after the game that it’s because the crowd have a song about him and wanted to lift the crowd 

[NcnsBcfc]

20 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

Agree this is a very sensible option, especially as Hunt was clearly struggling with the press, pace and movement of Brentford.

100% agree.

[RedM]

I'm sure LJ felt we could grab a goal back then shut up shop, so he left on Ellisson and sacrificed adding a defender hoping to be positive and attack. Once level i think he would have added a defender. 

I certainly am not thinking that is what should have happened, just what LJ was thinking. Personally I would have taken off Weimann and left Elisson on and added Moore immediately after the sending off. Weimann tends to work hard but often with little to show for it, at least Elliasson has quite a few assists lately, although defensively he is a weak link that they no doubt would have exploited.

Ultimately though it could have been either of them that was subbed and I doubt it would have made much difference today.

 

[RedM]

28 minutes ago, chucky said:

I thought (for tactical reasons) he should have taken Hunt off, moved korey to RB and brought on Moore. 

I don’t know what would have been worse, completely shatter Hunts confidence by hauling him off after his errors or making him play off when his head was shot at least for a chunk of the match?

[NcnsBcfc]

5 minutes ago, RedM said:

I'm sure LJ felt we could grab a goal back then shut up shop, so he left on Ellisson and sacrificed adding a defender hoping to be positive and attack. Once level i think he would have added a defender. 

I certainly am not thinking that is what should have happened, just what LJ was thinking. Personally I would have taken off Weimann and left Elisson on and added Moore immediately after the sending off. Weimann tends to work hard but often with little to show for it, at least Elliasson has quite a few assists lately, although defensively he is a weak link that they no doubt would have exploited.

Ultimately though it could have been either of them that was subbed and I doubt it would have made much difference today.

 

Whilst I agree, I think at 2-0; that substitution was nothing more that hoisting a white flag; and saying "please take it easy on us".

In the second half we have no shots/corners or any other attacking stat; whilst in theory trying to get back into the game.

That was not helped by a complete lack of creative players on the pitch, and don't get me started about bringing on another cdm (nagy) as the second sub; for an attacking player.

[RedM]

7 minutes ago, ncnsbcfc said:

Whilst I agree, I think at 2-0; that substitution was nothing more that hoisting a white flag; and saying "please take it easy on us".

In the second half we have no shots/corners or any other attacking stat; whilst in theory trying to get back into the game.

That was purely now to a lack of creative players on the pitch, and don't get me started about bringing on another cdm (nagy) as the second sub; for an attacking player.

I would have left Watkins on, but maybe he was dead on his feet as he has had so little match time and two games in such a short period  was probably hurting him more that it showed. He was giving us energy and options though, he may not be the most polished of players but he at least was giving it a go. Same with Diedhiou, he didn’t deserve to be on the losing team today if effort won matches.

[DSTAF]

33 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

Agree this is a very sensible option, especially as Hunt was clearly struggling with the press, pace and movement of Brentford.

Which is why it didn’t happen. 

[NcnsBcfc]

1 minute ago, RedM said:

I would have left Watkins on, but maybe he was dead on his feet as he has had so little match time and two games in such a short period of time was probably hurting him more that it showed. He was giving us energy and options though, he may not be the most polished of players but he at least was giving it a go. Same with Diedhiou, he didn’t deserve to be on the losing team today if effort won matches.

I would have bought Semenyeo on. At least he could have run at them(possibly); and given us another option(again, doubtful). 

The substitution of bringing Nagy on bought what to the game?

[AppyDAZE]

53 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

Eliasson makes loads of tackles - see last game stats (still on the BCFC front page) so I don't buy this lazy narrative.

If you are forced to play on the break, you want someone quick and you have kept Fam on, so balls into the box from set pieces become a lifeline.

Keeping Korey Smith as a CB is just stupid especially as you bring AW into midfield when you have Nagy and Massengo on the bench.

You cannot explain this decision rationally.

Added to this, I can only find 2 City goals scored since the start of November, when NE hasn't been on the pitch (Cardiff and Millwall a defeat anyway, I believe)

Taking him off was a clear statement ie let's try to lose this game by as few as poss.

Triffic. 0-4 so job done!

[Simon79]

Doesn’t surprise me Elliasson getting subbed one bit, it’s almost the obvious candidate really. In that situation, I think I would go 3-4-1-1. In all honesty though, did Smith going to centre back contribute to their second goal? Thought he did ok. Haven’t seen it back, but remember Bentley punching a shot & them reacting quicker. COYR 

[RedM]

12 minutes ago, ncnsbcfc said:

I would have bought Semenyeo on. At least he could have run at them(possibly); and given us another option(again, doubtful). 

The substitution of bringing Nagy on bought what to the game?

Very poor bench to select from for our situation today. Semenyo would have seemed more positive I agree, maybe he wanted Nagy to protect the defence and allow Moore or perhaps Smith to get forward a bit more, dunno?

Semenyeo is oddly still so very unknown, I’ve not seen him offer too much in the limited time he has had. Could have been a hero but just as likely had a harsh lesson by a well drilled side too.

[Harry]

I agree that Eliasson was always going to be the sacrificial player to be subbed. It’s the natural reaction, creative/wide player departs when you lose a defender. 
It wasn’t a popular decision but the understandable one. 
What is unforgivable though is not bringing a centre back on immediately. That one will have me baffled for a long while yet. 

[Northern Red]

2 hours ago, ncnsbcfc said:

Whilst I agree, I think at 2-0; that substitution was nothing more that hoisting a white flag; and saying "please take it easy on us".

In the second half we have no shots/corners or any other attacking stat; whilst in theory trying to get back into the game.

That was not helped by a complete lack of creative players on the pitch, and don't get me started about bringing on another cdm (nagy) as the second sub; for an attacking player.

That one annoyed me more than the Eliasson sub.

[sh1t_ref_again]

When Williams went off said straight away, he needs to take off Elliasson and bring on Moore and was getting annoyed he had not done so, then thought about it and countered my own argument by looking at how Brentford were trying to play through us on the deck and did not have big players up front so maybe Smith could a job. Unfortunately once we went 2 down it was too late, although I thought Moore was superb and we had a good go at Brentford.

If there's one side in this league you do not want to be a man down is Brentford

[kit]

2 hours ago, Simon79 said:

Doesn’t surprise me Elliasson getting subbed one bit, it’s almost the obvious candidate really. In that situation, I think I would go 3-4-1-1. In all honesty though, did Smith going to centre back contribute to their second goal? Thought he did ok. Haven’t seen it back, but remember Bentley punching a shot & them reacting quicker. COYR 

But we had weiman playing centre midfield and really had no shape whatsoever with zero bite in midfield. The moment Moore came on we had shape and looked defensively solid.

It wasn't until the second sub that we then lost that shape and started getting ripped open again.

[Chappers]

5 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

First things first - garbage period sending off, garbage post sending off.

But Williams goes. Football 101 says you need to get another centre half on ASAP - and it could even have happened pre the free kick being taken.

At the risk of making myself unpopular, subbing Eliasson was the obvious move. Why? At 10, you need to be compact and work rate. Most sides when sacrificing take off a winger or a striker. Weimann was never being taken off due to how much closing he does, Fam wasn’t going as he was our out ball and Watkins wasn’t going due to the physicality. So, from the moment of the sending off, Nic was the one who needed to be subbed. You try and keep it at 0-1 and bring on more attacking players later in the game.

Lee’s been in football long enough to know that. But he didn’t do it straight away - why?

As soon as Williams went off, I turned to my mate and said “It probably should be Eliasson that gets subbed - just wait to hear this place though when it happens”

I think Lee knew that reaction was coming, and as such bottled the move and went for a totally needless gamble. He’s been under pressure, so didn’t want to antagonise the crowd. Only when we conceded the second and looked in danger of being obliterated did he make the sub virtually any manager would/should make.

The only alternate is that he really believed Korey Smith at centre half was the way to go.

He bottled it. And that worries me as much, if not more, than anything else today.

My first reaction was that Moore for Elliason was the only realistic option for substitution. 
Manager under pressure, trying to appease the masses rather than do the obvious.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

then thought about it and countered my own argument by looking at how Brentford were trying to play through us on the deck and did not have big players up front

If there's one side in this league you do not want to be a man down is Brentford

Two observations. 

1) That Brentford were looking to play through us on the deck calls into question further that we're too weak, need physicality etc etc. I'm really not so convinced, certainly not the traditional type of enforcer or kicking players up in the air as I've seen on some threads! 

2) Yep. Hard enough vs them at 11...harder vs them a goal down, harder still a man down.

A man and a goal? That early? Looking down the barrel...exactly what happened as it goes!

[1960maaan]

13 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

He bottled it. And that worries me as much, if not more, than anything else today.

This might be partly true , who knows. But I really think most people who have had a little moan if he’d done it straight away, he compounded the feeling by letting us go 2 down then taking off our main threat. 
I agree, we should have tried to keep it tight until late on then have a go , game was over at 2-0 and down to 10.