Johnson's Roy of the Rovers substitutions

[Major Isewater]

I am increasingly baffled by LJ's insistence that to throw on attackers as subs is a way to try to win matches.

It's basically nonsense as the team balance goes out the window especially if you substitute the one man who can put a decent ball into the box , Pack .

OK  , we need wins but get the team to be more positive don't just rely on hoofing the ball up to another forward and leaving the defence more exposed.

For all his , so called, wisdom it's naive at best .

 

[chinapig]

I'm all for being positive and tactically flexible but he does tend to be too gung ho I agree.

Still, if he didn't go for it he'd be criticised for that too I suppose. Bit of a no win situation for any manager.

Apparently with Wolves down to 9 men Pulis kept 3 midfielders deep and relied on long throws. Things could be worse. 

[BanburyRed]

I'm all for being bold and positive and for that LJ should be applauded but the somewhat bizarre substitutions yesterday and the change in formation didn't really make any desired impacts.

You can argue that Joe was more advanced for the cross that led to Josh's equaliser but it's not like he or Eros were making lung busting over lapping runs when we changed to 3-5-2.

Fammy should've come off and allowed Bobby to go up top with Milan, to buzz in and around and feed off any flick ons etc but that became all too easy for their defence which to their credit dealt with any City attacking threat quite comfortably, but we didn't threaten enough or with enough purpose or desire.

Too many bobbly passes and side foot looping passes that put the receiver in difficulty instead of the crisp one touch fizzing passes. We can't blame the pitch because Barnsley played well enough (oxymoron?!) to create a host of chances whereas we simply didn't.

Marlon looked increasingly frustrated in the game the longer it went (until subbed), due to lack of movement and options from both Bobby & Fammy, and Korey looked off the pace somewhat, no crunching tackles to set the tone for midfield battle. That said, their Luke Ayling lookalike in midfield was their best player until he went off and we didn't deal with him at all.

Whether it's a rigid 4-4-2 or a more flexible 3-5-2 or 4-3-3, we have to find a way (more consistently) to out think and outwit teams who want to stifle our pattern of play. Which Barnsley did with simple balls over the top to avoid midfield and their blatant and petty falling over at every opportunity.

[Ashtonwurzel]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I am increasingly baffled by LJ's insistence that to throw on attackers as subs is a way to try to win matches.

It's basically nonsense as the team balance goes out the window especially if you substitute the one man who can put a decent ball into the box , Pack .

OK  , we need wins but get the team to be more positive don't just rely on hoofing the ball up to another forward and leaving the defence more exposed.

For all his , so called, wisdom it's naive at best .

 

This is a worry.

Before I could finish typing "throwing on an extra attacker is not always a positive move" we had gone 1-2 down !!

Worked out in the end (just) but not a fan of the more forwards on the pitch the more likely you are to score way of thinking.

[Robbored]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I am increasingly baffled by LJ's insistence that to throw on attackers as subs is a way to try to win matches.

It's basically nonsense as the team balance goes out the window.

OK  , we need wins but get the team to be more positive don't just rely on hoofing the ball up to another forward and leaving the defence more exposed.

For all his , so called, wisdom it's naive at best .

 

He learnt that from playing most of his career under his dad.

[Robbored]

3 minutes ago, Ashtonwurzel said:

This is a worry.

Before I could finish typing "throwing on an extra attacker is not always a positive move" we had gone 1-2 down !!

Worked out in the end (just) but not a fan of the more forwards on the pitch the more likely you are to score way of thinking.

One major difficulty LJ has is that he has no midfield creativity on the bench to bring on. Had GoN been fit then he'd would have been on the bench and almost certainly used.

[BS4 on Tour...]

39 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I'm all for being positive and tactically flexible but he does tend to be too gung ho I agree.

Still, if he didn't go for it he'd be criticised for that too I suppose. Bit of a no win situation for any manager.

Apparently with Wolves down to 9 men Pulis kept 3 midfielders deep and relied on long throws. Things could be worse. 

....like we did at Leeds...

[Maggersno1Fan]

17 minutes ago, Robbored said:

One major difficulty LJ has is that he has no midfield creativity on the bench to bring on. Had GoN been fit then he'd would have been on the bench and almost certainly used.

What makes you think O’neIl who not played all sense would of turned the game 

[General Zod]

I appreciate its not popular to question LJ but I just don’t see that he’s learning or developing as a coach at anywhere near the speed i was expecting.  Strange substitution time and time again make me think we still don’t have a plan B when needed. I know the league position can be used to disprove this but week in week out I’m seeing below par performances performance and it’s like he’s run out of ideas and for the 2nd season running he has been unable to get the team playing again when in a bad run.  From what I can see there is absolutely no pressure on him from anywhere within the club especially  when it’s implied MA said promotion isn’t the aim this season. I think people need a degree of pressure to bring out their best.  I buy into the clubs philosophy, buying youngsters, behind self sufficient and want to support it fully but im questioning if LJ is ever going to be the coach we are told he will be and is their someone better to see this to conclusion  Feels strange writing this when we are just outside the playoffs and it could still be a great season so let’s see if performances improve in the run in.

[Tipps69]

And what’s the opinion if we’re 1-0 or 2-1 down with 10 minutes to go with Djuric & Diony on the bench, would you prefer him to carry on with the same formation & just swap Djuric & Diony for Reid & Diedhiou, leaving us playing the same formation / style as to what has got us 1-0 / 2-1 down?

With limited time left, surely by putting another striker on to join the ones already on the pitch means that he is changing things & trying to rescue the game? At a goal down with limited time left there is little to lose but by changing our formation & style of play it means the opposition have to change to hold on to their 3 points, which is probably what they’ve been doing for the last 10 minutes or so anyway.

LJ is damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t, if he did like for like substitutions people would moan that we needed to chase the game or at least change it, if he changes things to try & rescue things, he’s in the wrong again.

[Robbored]

Just now, Maggersno1Fan said:

What makes you think O’neIl who not played all sense would of turned the game 

GoN is a very experienced midfielder with previous promotions with other clubs under his belt. He's not been available for much of this season thru injury and imv has been sorely missed. 

[cidered abroad]

LJ is tactically naive. It smacks more of how a team of eight year olds would play in the park, than a well paid professional club at the top end of the Championship.

Where has all the inventive attacking game that we had before Christmas gone? We have now become so predictable.Why when we're chasing the game does he keep pulling Reid, our highest goal scorer, back into midfield?

We are so dependent on four players to score. Tammy, Bobby, Flint and Bryan. Our midfield is a barren area. We never see them with late runs into the box that catch defenders unaware. Brownhill chips in occasionally but what do the rest contribute to attacks - all too predictable.

What a waste of another season where some of us dared to dream.

[cidered abroad]

6 minutes ago, General Zod said:

I appreciate its not popular to question LJ but I just don’t see that he’s learning or developing as a coach at anywhere near the speed i was expecting.  Strange substitution time and time again make me think we still don’t have a plan B when needed. I know the league position can be used to disprove this but week in week out I’m seeing below par performances performance and it’s like he’s run out of ideas and for the 2nd season running he has been unable to get the team playing again when in a bad run.  From what I can see there is absolutely no pressure on him from anywhere within the club especially  when it’s implied MA said promotion isn’t the aim this season. I think people need a degree of pressure to bring out their best.  I buy into the clubs philosophy, buying youngsters, behind self sufficient and want to support it fully but im questioning if LJ is ever going to be the coach we are told he will be and is their someone better to see this to conclusion  Feels strange writing this when we are just outside the playoffs and it could still be a great season so let’s see if performances improve in the run in.

I'm in total agreement with you.

[phantom]

I do agree but yesterday he got it right, Reid was infective and Pack / Smith were too similar. It made sense to go with height and a presence up front as we weren't competing up to then. Shame Kent is useless at putting any kind of quality into the box as he was the right choice to be the supply for the front two 

[Fordy62]

40 minutes ago, Robbored said:

He learnt that from playing most of his career under his dad.

You really are an idiot sometimes, aren’t you?

[tinman85]

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

I am increasingly baffled by LJ's insistence that to throw on attackers as subs is a way to try to win matches.

It's basically nonsense as the team balance goes out the window especially if you substitute the one man who can put a decent ball into the box , Pack .

OK  , we need wins but get the team to be more positive don't just rely on hoofing the ball up to another forward and leaving the defence more exposed.

For all his , so called, wisdom it's naive at best .

 

Like father like Son. Roy of the Rovers duo

[Wrongagain]

46 minutes ago, Robbored said:

He learnt that from playing most of his career under his dad.

Was his dad an ineffective midfielder too?

[BigAl&Toby]

7 minutes ago, tinman85 said:

Like father like Son. Roy of the Rovers duo

You aren’t a fan of his are you? 

[General Zod]

3 minutes ago, phantom said:

I do agree but yesterday he got it right, Reid was infective and Pack / Smith were too similar. It made sense to go with height and a presence up front as we weren't competing up to then. Shame Kent is useless at putting any kind of quality into the box as he was the right choice to be the supply for the front two 

Kent shouldn’t get near the bench, a let down every time he gets on the ball.  I know we probably feel obligated to play him given the terms of the loan but it’s a shame as he contributes little and he’s no doubt taking up Eliasson’s spot and impacting a player we actually own development.  Kent is certainly a player who needs to take a good look at himself.  Absence has certainly shown O’Dowda’s value to the team.

[BigAl&Toby]

9 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

You really are an idiot sometimes, aren’t you?

Sometimes? Most of the time.

I see the others are at it too.

Its raining here but I’ve had enough already. I’m up Muriel Jones shortly to get me seed potatoes in. 

[robin_unreliant]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

One major difficulty LJ has is that he has no midfield creativity on the bench to bring on. Had GoN been fit then he'd would have been on the bench and almost certainly used.

I thought Walsh was being raved about when we signed him? One or two cameos then consigned to the bench like the majority of LJ's signings. It really is incredible how many we have signed that are adding nothing to the first team.

If it wasn't for the L1 stalwarts who are the heart of this team we would be in dire straits.

[Olé]

The substitutions made very little sense to anyone, the only thing I could think is LJ felt the team was becoming far too reliant on Pack being the only one willing or able to try and open up Barnsley, and wanted to force the rest of them to take some responsibility and play.

But even then it was still bizarre. Compare our midfield to theirs - we made Moncur look like he owned central midfield, he had a very easy time picking out their forward players runs, but for us Pack would have to drop to within yards of Wright and Baker to get on the ball, from which position he sees Korey overrun in central midfield and his only option is a long ball upfield, in the hope Reid, Famara or Paterson could make runs off them.

It didn't work much, the quality of chances we were creating (if at all) was significantly worse than Barnsley, who had the luxury of playing their passing out of advanced positions in midfield - i.e. Moncur pushing up, their forwards running the channels, giving them the spare man all the time. It starts by getting on the ball in midfield, and we rarely did. So why we doubled down on an already failed long ball game by removing Pack, is beyond me. 

Of course Djuric is a great target man and was the obvious (and welcome) player to bring on, but give yourself someone who can get him the ****ing ball, don't sacrifice the only ball playing midfielder in doing so. The stupidity of the subs is highlighted when you look at them together. Kent is a (sadly often wasted) bet on running at them from deep. Djuric is a bet on having players get crosses and balls into a target man. These are two different plans.

I didn't mention it in my report, but when you compare all of Barnsley's 900 free headers to our dearth of chances, the standard of our crossing was (not for the first time) very poor. The few times we got to the byline we then delivered a tired cross, or an underhit low ball to no one in particular. Here's an idea, if you're betting on Djuric why not bet on Eliason who at least is a disciplined crosser of the ball (the pair of subs that changed the game at Hull).

But no, we're awful in midfield, so our solution is to remove the one player who has put his foot on the ball and connected with any of his teammates, to chuck on Djuric, having already introduced Kent, a player who is more likely to run twenty five yards in the wrong direction into trouble before he'd ever look up and put a ball on Djuric's head. How is this joined up thinking. As you say, this is Roy of the Rovers stuff, cavalier but utterly nonsensical.

The fact it was a match where at the other end of the pitch Baker and Wright had decided simply to have the day off, I suppose we really should be grateful for a point as the whole thing stunk - and I say that as someone who has been positive all season. Add in the horrific approach at Burton in our prior trip, and I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find a consecutive pair of away games we've looked so clueless since the Brentford/Preston debacle a year ago.

Still fuming, which is a first this season.  Of course I'm aware and pleased we remain very much in contention, but as always, the standard of performances should be our early warning indicator, and I'm afraid our alarm broke after sixty minutes yesterday due to overuse.

[Guest]

I am quite baffled. 

- Did we not comeback to win a point yesterday, 

- Do we not score a quarter of all goals in the last 15 minutes, 

- Don't we have some of the best stats in the league for points gained from losing positions?

That second goal, which came just moments after the sub I believe, was nothing to do with it when the defence was that inept.

[Redstreet]

3 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

I am increasingly baffled by LJ's insistence that to throw on attackers as subs is a way to try to win matches.

It's basically nonsense as the team balance goes out the window especially if you substitute the one man who can put a decent ball into the box , Pack .

OK  , we need wins but get the team to be more positive don't just rely on hoofing the ball up to another forward and leaving the defence more exposed.

For all his , so called, wisdom it's naive at best .

 

Pack off and Kent on , not a good move IMO

Pato was doing very little and Djuric certainly unsettled their big defenders . Most telling substitution was Moore  wing substituted for them and also Moncur , both of whom had excellent games I regret to say . I think on balance the subs worked 

[chinapig]

3 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

....like we did at Leeds...

We certainly used long throws with some success but I don't recall us playing 3 deep midfielders. Or Leeds being down to 9 men. Or us being the home team.

In fact it was one of those games we should have shut down rather than pushing for a third goal imo. Unfortunately we tend not to do that, something LJ could do with learning.

[georgebcfc]

Hang on no one was complaining when Djuric came on and turned a drab 0-0 into 3 points last time out.. Maybe Pack had a knock, not uncommon to see '90 minute players' given slightly less when you have 2 games in 4 days. Damned if he makes subs or not I think 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could Walsh have not brought something different to the midfield?

Why sign a decent young player and just bench him?? Barely play him, I mean- what's the point.

[pillred]

4 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

LJ is tactically naive. It smacks more of how a team of eight year olds would play in the park, than a well paid professional club at the top end of the Championship.

Where has all the inventive attacking game that we had before Christmas gone? We have now become so predictable.Why when we're chasing the game does he keep pulling Reid, our highest goal scorer, back into midfield?

We are so dependent on four players to score. Tammy, Bobby, Flint and Bryan. Our midfield is a barren area. We never see them with late runs into the box that catch defenders unaware. Brownhill chips in occasionally but what do the rest contribute to attacks - all too predictable.

What a waste of another season where some of us dared to dream.

Tammy's back thank god for that!!

[Grey Fox]

3 hours ago, dave36 said:

Was his dad an ineffective midfielder too?

Lee Johnson was not an ineffective midfielder, he was influential in keeping the team passing the ball rather than hoofing it. It was no coincidence that when he missed the last five or so games of the play off final system , that our form collapsed and we missed out on automatic promotion..

[Grey Fox]

4 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

LJ is tactically naive. It smacks more of how a team of eight year olds would play in the park, than a well paid professional club at the top end of the Championship.

Where has all the inventive attacking game that we had before Christmas gone? We have now become so predictable.Why when we're chasing the game does he keep pulling Reid, our highest goal scorer, back into midfield?

We are so dependent on four players to score. Tammy, Bobby, Flint and Bryan. Our midfield is a barren area. We never see them with late runs into the box that catch defenders unaware. Brownhill chips in occasionally but what do the rest contribute to attacks - all too predictable.

What a waste of another season where some of us dared to dream.

Looking at the stats 17 players have scored this season for us, with 6 scoring 5 or more ! You missed Patto. As to  waste, are you serious, were you at the Man U game, did you go to the Etihad, do you miss a relegatio battle, it has been a fantastic season, and it is not over yet. Look at the table, we are only outside the play offs on goal difference.