Saturday's substitutes

[Dr Balls]

Haven't seen anyone else mention this, but what was going on with our substitutions?

Once Pack went off to be replaced by Taylor, pushing Korey into midfield, we lost all shape, with O'Dowda covering right back, and Bobby supposed to be slipping back more into midfield. It just didn't work. Cant understand why LJ didn't replace Pack with Vyner, so we could keep 4 at the back & move Korey into midfield.

As it was, our worst spell in the game was the last 15 minutes, with Woodrow coming on for Reid and us playing a form of lopsided 3-4-3 formation, rather than sticking to 4-4-2 and actually looking as if we knew how to outnumber 10 men. Frankly we were all over the place & a bit lucky to hang on at the end. If Tomlin had come on earlier down their left, we might have had even more problems.

Something for LJ to reflect on, once the satisfaction of beating Colin's Crapdiff has ebbed away a little... 

[Tipps69]

2 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

Haven't seen anyone else mention this, but what was going on with our substitutions?

Once Pack went off to be replaced by Taylor, pushing Korey into midfield, we lost all shape, with O'Dowda covering right back, and Bobby supposed to be slipping back more into midfield. It just didn't work. Cant understand why LJ didn't replace Pack with Vyner, so we could keep 4 at the back & move Korey into midfield.

As it was, our worst spell in the game was the last 15 minutes, with Woodrow coming on for Reid and us playing a form of lopsided 3-4-3 formation, rather than sticking to 4-4-2 and actually looking as if we knew how to outnumber 10 men. Frankly we were all over the place & a bit lucky to hang on at the end. If Tomlin had come on earlier down their left, we might have had even more problems.

Something for LJ to reflect on, once the satisfaction of beating Colin's Crapdiff has ebbed away a little... 

If Vyner has been bought on, Colin would of undoubtedly targeted him & put massive pressure on him. Pack in theory had to come off as he was already walking a tightrope with regards to potentially getting sent-off & there’s no knowing if others had picked injuries & you just can’t allow for these sort of things.

Our preparation for the game was thrown into disarray by the Wright suspension so late into the week & there probably just wasn’t enough time to get Vyner up to speed with all the preparation & imagine the flack both LJ & ZV would of got if he was thrown in & struggled or cost us a goal or two! It was probably safer for the long term benefit of Vyner’s long term footballing education to leave him on the sidelines.

[Youngish]

Agree with a lot of what you said there, though Pack probably had to be brought off given his final warning, and I think Reid picked up a knock. With no midfielders on the bench, Woodrow had to come on and drop into midfield. So although the change of shape was probably a bad call, the substitutions themselves were understandable imo 

[Cider-Head23]

We brought Taylor on for Pack pushing Reid into the midfield, with Taylor taking Reid's position up top.  

No issues with Reid being pushed back into midfield as he has played there for most of his career it's not unknown to him at all.

Reid seemed to pick up a knock which left us no choice but to bring on Woodrow in central midfield to see out the last 10 mins. 

We seemed to lose our way a little bit, but although they had two free kicks in dangerous areas.. I didn't think they troubled us to much in the latter stages.

 

[Dr Balls]

If LJ isn't going to use Vyner, why is he putting him on the bench? Surely you have to have a plan for what you would do if any particular player gets injured. It's a bit like chess, thinking a couple of steps ahead. If a central midfielder comes off, yes move Korey into midfield, but then what do you do for a right back? O'Dowda may well be coming into his best ever form, but a right wing back he is not. Plus it left Bobby Reid coming back into midfield with Taylor coming on, if Brownhill moves out to the right. And one thing we already knew was that Bobby is not a central midfielder in the traditional sense, in that he is too weak in the tackle, plus he was getting tired. Which was why we ended up looking so lopsided, and why Woodrow looked so lost, as I don't think anyone was clear what he was supposed to be doing when he came on.

[tinman85]

Our squad is down to bare bones. Badly unlucky with injuries. We need this two week break and three signings in Jan. Striker, right back and 100 percent a central midfield player. Let's not make the same mistake as ten years ago. 

[Robbored]

14 minutes ago, tinman85 said:

Our squad is down to bare bones. Badly unlucky with injuries. We need this two week break and three signings in Jan. Striker, right back and 100 percent a central midfield player.

All clubs will have a shopping list for the January window and pretty much all of them would want a '100%' midfielder. Decent ones aren't easy to find but hopefully LJ and MA have one or two lined up.

 I'm not too bothered about the RB or striker position tho. Wright is missing for one more game only. Reid is high up in the top scorer list. Both Taylor and Djuric will be very  close to Championship fitness come the Preston game. 

 

[Tipps69]

16 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

If LJ isn't going to use Vyner, why is he putting him on the bench? Surely you have to have a plan for what you would do if any particular player gets injured. It's a bit like chess, thinking a couple of steps ahead. If a central midfielder comes off, yes move Korey into midfield, but then what do you do for a right back? O'Dowda may well be coming into his best ever form, but a right wing back he is not. Plus it left Bobby Reid coming back into midfield with Taylor coming on, if Brownhill moves out to the right. And one thing we already knew was that Bobby is not a central midfielder in the traditional sense, in that he is too weak in the tackle, plus he was getting tired. Which was why we ended up looking so lopsided, and why Woodrow looked so lost, as I don't think anyone was clear what he was supposed to be doing when he came on.

Sometimes circumstances dictate! No one could foresee Wright getting suspended late into the week & Pisano picking up a fairly long term injury! As of Tuesday afternoon, City would of had both of these right-back options available to them by Tuesday night one of those options were gone but we would still have the plan of Wright at right-back with Vyner not required! By Thursday night / Friday morning we had lost Wright, there simply wasn’t enough time to throw Vyner (who predominantly a centre-back himself) into a very physical encounter against a manager / club who are well versed in the art of playing a very physical game!!

[BigTone]

47 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

Haven't seen anyone else mention this, but what was going on with our substitutions?

Once Pack went off to be replaced by Taylor, pushing Korey into midfield, we lost all shape, with O'Dowda covering right back, and Bobby supposed to be slipping back more into midfield. It just didn't work. Cant understand why LJ didn't replace Pack with Vyner, so we could keep 4 at the back & move Korey into midfield.

As it was, our worst spell in the game was the last 15 minutes, with Woodrow coming on for Reid and us playing a form of lopsided 3-4-3 formation, rather than sticking to 4-4-2 and actually looking as if we knew how to outnumber 10 men. Frankly we were all over the place & a bit lucky to hang on at the end. If Tomlin had come on earlier down their left, we might have had even more problems.

Something for LJ to reflect on, once the satisfaction of beating Colin's Crapdiff has ebbed away a little... 

However, we won

[Dr Balls]

20 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

Sometimes circumstances dictate! No one could foresee Wright getting suspended late into the week & Pisano picking up a fairly long term injury! As of Tuesday afternoon, City would of had both of these right-back options available to them by Tuesday night one of those options were gone but we would still have the plan of Wright at right-back with Vyner not required! By Thursday night / Friday morning we had lost Wright, there simply wasn’t enough time to throw Vyner (who predominantly a centre-back himself) into a very physical encounter against a manager / club who are well versed in the art of playing a very physical game!!

Just turning that on its head for a second, what would you have done if Korey had got injured and we needed a right back? Move Brownhill back? Then move Bryan into central midfield, plus bring on someone on the left to replace Bryan.

I appreciate that we were left short of right backs in a way no-one on Tuesday could have predicted, but Vyner was supposedly our defensive substitute on Saturday and on the basis of this logic, he was never going to come on whatever the situation, which goes back to, was it just we needed someone to keep the bench warm, and Zak's backside fitted best?!

[Monkeh]

chucking Vyner on in such a high pressure game defending a 2-1 lead would of been a nightmare, that was the situation you need experienced pro's not an young inexperienced player,

Had we been 3-1 I've no doubt in my mind Vyner would of come on  

[1bristolcity]

Lee 'spoiled' the game, it was not an ordinary fixture, a lot riding on the 3 points, not a time to go down to 10 men with 15 minutes left, sometimes it has to be done, too many times in the past we have conceded late on, ask his Dad! 

[East End Old Boy]

14 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

chucking Vyner on in such a high pressure game defending a 2-1 lead would of been a nightmare, that was the situation you need experienced pro's not an young inexperienced player,

Had we been 3-1 I've no doubt in my mind Vyner would of come on  

Don’t like it when people post just “This”. But definitely this!

[cidercity1987]

At 1-1, Johnson decided to take Pack off to protect him and more importantly to go 3-5-2. O'Dowda and Bryan wing backs, Reid in the 'Freeman' position and Taylor up front.

This would seem a great idea to me. However, we then scored just before the sub, at which point I would have rather reconsidered the change.

Johnson decided to stick to his idea and to be honest, it didn't really work well as we were not chasing a goal at that point.

Reid was then injured and Woodrow was a like for like replacement in the attacking CM role.

 

 

[Dr Balls]

42 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

chucking Vyner on in such a high pressure game defending a 2-1 lead would of been a nightmare, that was the situation you need experienced pro's not an young inexperienced player,

Had we been 3-1 I've no doubt in my mind Vyner would of come on  

But sometimes you have to trust younger players. Before Danny Rose joined us on loan he had been thrown into a North London derby as a relatively unknown teenager, but didn't just play well, scored a screamer of a goal that won the match.

To be fair to LJ, we have a relatively young team, but there is still a question of when more Academy players will get to break into the first team. For both Vyner & Kelly, this is going to need careful handling, but they need to play in proper competitive fixtures to move forward in their development.

[Monkeh]

1 minute ago, Dr Balls said:

But sometimes you have to trust younger players. Before Danny Rose joined us on loan he had been thrown into a North London derby as a relatively unknown teenager, but didn't just play well, scored a screamer of a goal that won the match.

To be fair to LJ, we have a relatively young team, but there is still a question of when more Academy players will get to break into the first team. For both Vyner & Kelly, this is going to need careful handling, but they need to play in proper competitive fixtures to move forward in their development.

he trusted his young player last season against derby and he got ripped to shreds, Vyner needs to be brought on slowly and in such a high pressured environment it's not a great thing to do, 

Had he brought on Vyner and we went on to draw, you'd be criticizing Johnson for bringing him on, what lee did at the weekend was 100% correct thing to do, it was about game management and it worked as we saw them off and came away with 3 points 

as i said had we been 3-1 up, Korey would of gone into midfield and vyner would of come on at right back, its less pressure on the young lad  

[Shtanley]

I think Bakinson could’ve come on in centre mid instead of Woodrow, but I get why LJ chose Woodrow. Experience and all that. 

[Tipps69]

25 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

Just turning that on its head for a second, what would you have done if Korey had got injured and we needed a right back? Move Brownhill back? Then move Bryan into central midfield, plus bring on someone on the left to replace Bryan.

I appreciate that we were left short of right backs in a way no-one on Tuesday could have predicted, but Vyner was supposedly our defensive substitute on Saturday and on the basis of this logic, he was never going to come on whatever the situation, which goes back to, was it just we needed someone to keep the bench warm, and Zak's backside fitted best?!

If there were no other options then yes, Vyner would probably of had to come on.

You have to realise that playing any team managed by Colin, you are going to be in for a physical contest & he will target any young inexperienced player, especially a defender or goalkeeper with a constant bombardment.

Baker probably only played more due necessity rather than him being in ideal physical fitness & more of case of us being in hope he could last knowing that in affect he could have 2 weeks off to recover.

I was surprised that Magnússon also played but having lost Paterson as well on Friday, we didn’t have a like for like replacement there & it meant shuffling the midfield & moving Bryan forward as it was, which means even more credit should go to the players & coaching team because the only position that wasn’t messed around with was the keeper!! And that against a team who know all the ‘tricks of the trade’ & who were sat 2nd in the table (not a struggling team).

This was a massive result which was obtained with a fair few first choice players missing, credit needs to go where it’s deserved instead of trying to pick holes in an already depleted squad. How many supporters would have chosen that team / squad for that game if they had been given the choice?

[Dr Balls]

17 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

he trusted his young player last season against derby and he got ripped to shreds, Vyner needs to be brought on slowly and in such a high pressured environment it's not a great thing to do, 

Had he brought on Vyner and we went on to draw, you'd be criticizing Johnson for bringing him on, what lee did at the weekend was 100% correct thing to do, it was about game management and it worked as we saw them off and came away with 3 points 

as i said had we been 3-1 up, Korey would of gone into midfield and vyner would of come on at right back, its less pressure on the young lad  

And had we conceded from those free kicks around the edge of the penalty box that we gave away in the last 10 minutes, when we appeared at 6s & 7s in midfield and defence, then LJ would have faced more scrutiny.

As it is we won "ugly" and to some extent got away with it at the end. But considering that we may have a similar situation at Sheffield Wednesday, with Korey playing right back, as both Pisano & Wright are not available, LJ needs a coherent plan should Korey need to come off or be moved.

[Robbored]

52 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

chucking Vyner on in such a high pressure game defending a 2-1 lead would of been a nightmare, that was the situation you need experienced pro's not an young inexperienced player,

Had we been 3-1 I've no doubt in my mind Vyner would of come on  

Absolutely right.

You would think that those who wanted Vyner on would have though of that but then not everyone thinks about the possibilities of what might happen.

[Dr Balls]

21 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

If there were no other options then yes, Vyner would probably of had to come on.

You have to realise that playing any team managed by Colin, you are going to be in for a physical contest & he will target any young inexperienced player, especially a defender or goalkeeper with a constant bombardment.

Baker probably only played more due necessity rather than him being in ideal physical fitness & more of case of us being in hope he could last knowing that in affect he could have 2 weeks off to recover.

I was surprised that Magnússon also played but having lost Paterson as well on Friday, we didn’t have a like for like replacement there & it meant shuffling the midfield & moving Bryan forward as it was, which means even more credit should go to the players & coaching team because the only position that wasn’t messed around with was the keeper!! And that against a team who know all the ‘tricks of the trade’ & who were sat 2nd in the table (not a struggling team).

This was a massive result which was obtained with a fair few first choice players missing, credit needs to go where it’s deserved instead of trying to pick holes in an already depleted squad. How many supporters would have chosen that team / squad for that game if they had been given the choice?

More than happy that we won. Also aware that winning shouldn't get away from scrutinising the performances and decision-making. If we want to succeed at the highest level, then you review both the positives and negatives of any game. And there were lots of positives, just that the last 15 minutes felt much more uncomfortable against 10 men than perhaps it should have done.

 

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

More than happy that we won. Also aware that winning shouldn't get away from scrutinising the performances and decision-making. If we want to succeed at the highest level, then you review both the positives and negatives of any game. And there were lots of positives, just that the last 15 minutes felt much more uncomfortable against 10 men than perhaps it should have done.

 

but it was the correct decision we won,  you seem to be the only one to disagree with it

[Dr Balls]

25 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

but it was the correct decision we won,  you seem to be the only one to disagree with it

I am suggesting that we won in spite of some of the substitution decisions. And in the pub afterwards, most seemed confused by them, given how we ended against 10 men. But you obviously disagree, which is one of  the joys of a forum: different opinions. 

[Major Isewater]

1 hour ago, BigTone said:

However, we won

You just don't get it Tone , it's hard being a City fan these days .

All we can moan about is the tannoy in the Dolman and certain substitutions.

For goodness sakes leave them with something .

[BigTone]

4 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

You just don't get it Tone , it's hard being a City fan these days .

All we can moan about is the tannoy in the Dolman and certain substitutions.

For goodness sakes leave them with something .

Sorry Sir

[cidered abroad]

27 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

but it was the correct decision we won,  you seem to be the only one to disagree with it

He's not the only one. We became so lop sided in the last fifteen minutes that we looked quite disorganised. I understand that Cardiff would throw a lot at us then even with only ten men, but having lost our shape, we appeared unable to keep hold of the ball and play out time more safely. For instance, we still kept putting in long corners instead of wasting time with short ones and making it difficult for them to get the ball.

But we are still learning; coaches and young players. We got away with the win whereas last season we would have lost 2-3.

[Bar BS3]

This is the kind of thread that you’d expect had we lost the game and thrown our lead away. 

It Was LJ’s job to see the game out, and we did!

When Pack had to go off, we needed Smith in Midfield. 

Vyner would have been a huge risk, bar absolute necessity. 

I thought LJ got the changes spot on, seeing as we had Pack 1 foul away from a red card, down to bare bones of a squad and the Bobby picking up a knock. 

Apart from the potential problem of 2 Lee Tomlin free kicks, they didn’t really trouble us during the latter stages. 

We kept trying for the 3rd goal to kill the game, as well as keeping it fairly tight at the back. 

Job well done. 

[MichaelRobartes]

I thought it was strange to change the formation. Cardiff probably looked better with ten men than they did with 11 after that and I felt that we backed off them too much. I didn't disagree with taking Pack off at all given that he must have been on a final warning, but I probably would have preferred to put Smith into midfield and bring on Vyner. I understand why Johnson didn't but I don't really see the point of having him if we've no intention of playing him. That being said, I don't think Frankie had a proper save to make. I did think Tomlin's first free kick was destined for the back of the net though!

All in all, I'm glad that I'm not a football manager! Hopefully some of our injured players will be back for the next run of matches and we'll see less guys played out of position.

[mozo]

Seemed like weird choices and didn't seem to relieve pressure and I'm sure he'll reflect on that

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, Shtanley said:

I think Bakinson could’ve come on in centre mid instead of Woodrow, but I get why LJ chose Woodrow. Experience and all that. 

Funnily enough that’s the one thing I would have done differently. Woodrow looked a bit lost in midfield and Bakinson plays there week in week out for the U23’s. But Johnson chose to go with the slightly more experienced player and will rightly point out we saw the game out.