Substitutes (And a bit of starting)

[Silvio Dante]

Firstly, Bell over Wells was a poor call, and it’s no coincidence that no goals from open play in four games starts when Wells is out of the side. Has to start, no questions asked (on the assumption fit).

However, subs. 
 

Joe Williams gets injured. We have two centre midfielders on the bench in OTC and King. A like for like swap is available but we move Scott out of the “10” and into CM. Andi looked out of place there and frequently ended up further forward - shape lost. Begs the question of why King and OTC are on the bench if you don’t use in that scenario.

The second subs of Wells and Cornick. I wanted Wells on but the timing was wrong - we were on a run of pressure post their goal and the reorganisation to take Tanner off led to further lost shape. Maybe you put NW on only but it looked to me Nige had decided on the subs and didn’t react to the fact the team had reacted.

I think Nige got the game management wrong today - yes we were poor all round, but that extended to the bench for me today.

[Kolsch]

7 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Firstly, Bell over Wells was a poor call, and it’s no coincidence that no goals from open play in four games starts when Wells is out of the side. Has to start, no questions asked (on the assumption fit).

However, subs. 
 

Joe Williams gets injured. We have two centre midfielders on the bench in OTC and King. A like for like swap is available but we move Scott out of the “10” and into CM. Andi looked out of place there and frequently ended up further forward - shape lost. Begs the question of why King and OTC are on the bench if you don’t use in that scenario.

The second subs of Wells and Cornick. I wanted Wells on but the timing was wrong - we were on a run of pressure post their goal and the reorganisation to take Tanner off led to further lost shape. Maybe you put NW on only but it looked to me Nige had decided on the subs and didn’t react to the fact the team had reacted.

I think Nige got the game management wrong today - yes we were poor all round, but that extended to the bench for me today.

The substitutions cost us today.

As you say, completely lost our shape with the Williams / Andi sub. Should have been King.

Nakhi coming on was fair, Bell was ineffective today. Strange taking Tanner off though, we were attacking well down the right and it meant Sykes was far too deep so we lost all shape.

It goes back to the square peg in round hole argument. Where Nige is now refraining from just playing his strongest starting team personnel wise (players in wrong positions etc), he seems to want to do it with substitutions now.

[eardun]

I was surprised by the decision to take Tanner off and move Sykes back, especially as Sykes looked really threatening in the forward role. I guess Pearson felt that it worked v Man City. I had no issue with the decision to move Scott into Williams’ position though, with Weimann taking Scott’s position -  both Weimann and Scott are comfortable in those positions. 

[Bristol Oil Services]

23 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

I think Nige got the game management wrong today - yes we were poor all round, but that extended to the bench for me today.

Nige's tired, after a busy week, chatting to Henry Winter and Pep and everyone, staying up late Tuesday night.

[joe jordans teeth]

I don’t quite get that bell starts over wells myself either it’s a bit mind boggling 

[AshtonRobin21]

I can’t stand when we result to chucking all attackers on the pitch when we are losing.

Our main strength is our ability to counter attack at pace. However, when we have 5 attackers on the pitch, it limits our space in key areas. 

I also question what our long-term plan is for Cornick. So far he has been used as a target man type (flick ons), but today he was expected to play as a winger. Real mixed messages there. 

Weimann looks far from the player he was last season. There’s no doubt that the constant changing of positions is a factor in that. Personally, I would like to see him given a go as the ‘9’. Press from the front. He’s always trying to get into the box, so will give Sykes something to aim at when we counter attack.

[Bris Red]

7 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

I don’t quite get that bell starts over wells myself either it’s a bit mind boggling 

Agree. You have to commend Pearson and the trust he places in the youngsters though, he must see something in Bell for him to keep his place at the moment.

[Davefevs]

For the Williams sub was the most natural sub to make…even if it meant moving Scott back into midfield.  He’s not gonna bring on OTC ahead of Weimann is he?  Bringing King on would mean James would need to provide the legs.

We were playing fine, started second half brightly with Scott driving us on.

The goal changed the game.  Goals do that.

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, eardun said:

. I had no issue with the decision to move Scott into Williams’ position though, with Weimann taking Scott’s position -  both Weimann and Scott are comfortable in those positions. 

See, I get what you’re saying but disagree for a specific reason.

Last season, Andi played as the third striker in an effective 10 position, and played there well. The issue is that the way that “10” plays now is different and for that reason, he’s not comfortable there and it effects our shape.

To expand, if you have WSM, Andi is coming onto the ball (typically passed from deeper) which has been held up by Martin or Semenyo. So his “10” job is as a runner, picking up spares and passing to runners.

Now, we have three runners up front. The ball isn’t being held up, it’s being played through the lines from the “10” for those three to run onto and break. That’s not Andi’s game - and although Alex was our best CM option, he’s also our best “10” option in the wider system and you lose less by bringing King on for Williams and keeping him there.

TL:DR - He can play as a 10, just not how we play currently

[1960maaan]

47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For the Williams sub was the most natural sub to make…even if it meant moving Scott back into midfield.  He’s not gonna bring on OTC ahead of Weimann is he?  Bringing King on would mean James would need to provide the legs.

We were playing fine, started second half brightly with Scott driving us on.

The goal changed the game.  Goals do that.

Agree with what you say Dave, but Weimann has ben anonymous for a fair time now, he's made little impact either starting or from the bench. It would have been a big call to bring on OTC, but maybe a better fit. Even King , with him and James splitting the pitch but not getting too far forward. I just thought we looked light in MF after the change and missed Scott on the ball further forward. Scott ended up trying to dribble out and getting caught and robbed. 
Not sure OTC is ready for a start so Tuesday will be interesting.

[Curr Avon]

2 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Firstly, Bell over Wells was a poor call, and it’s no coincidence that no goals from open play in four games starts when Wells is out of the side. Has to start, no questions asked (on the assumption fit).

However, subs. 
 

Joe Williams gets injured. We have two centre midfielders on the bench in OTC and King. A like for like swap is available but we move Scott out of the “10” and into CM. Andi looked out of place there and frequently ended up further forward - shape lost. Begs the question of why King and OTC are on the bench if you don’t use in that scenario.

The second subs of Wells and Cornick. I wanted Wells on but the timing was wrong - we were on a run of pressure post their goal and the reorganisation to take Tanner off led to further lost shape. Maybe you put NW on only but it looked to me Nige had decided on the subs and didn’t react to the fact the team had reacted.

I think Nige got the game management wrong today - yes we were poor all round, but that extended to the bench for me today.

You're spot on. And if Andy King doesn't get any game time, what's the point of his place in the squad?

[petehinton]

Can you imagine the outcry on here if he’d have done OTC or King on at 0-0 and we’d have lost 2-0. 
 

One of those days. Basically Everything went wrong. ****** by injuries too. Shit happens 

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Firstly, Bell over Wells was a poor call, and it’s no coincidence that no goals from open play in four games starts when Wells is out of the side. Has to start, no questions asked (on the assumption fit).

However, subs. 
 

Joe Williams gets injured. We have two centre midfielders on the bench in OTC and King. A like for like swap is available but we move Scott out of the “10” and into CM. Andi looked out of place there and frequently ended up further forward - shape lost. Begs the question of why King and OTC are on the bench if you don’t use in that scenario.

The second subs of Wells and Cornick. I wanted Wells on but the timing was wrong - we were on a run of pressure post their goal and the reorganisation to take Tanner off led to further lost shape. Maybe you put NW on only but it looked to me Nige had decided on the subs and didn’t react to the fact the team had reacted.

I think Nige got the game management wrong today - yes we were poor all round, but that extended to the bench for me today.

 

Sadly, making Scott and Sykes do defensive duties (well, DM duties for Scott) is a waste of Scott's creativity and Sykes' goal threat.

And personally I'd have kept Bell on and partnered with Wells. Cornick just doesn't seem up to speed yet. I'm not writing the bloke off like some, but a shape change and 2-up would be my preferred. 

These are all "ideal world" scenarios.

In the real world, the injuries made things very tough. The Williams-James partnership has worked pretty well. To use a cliche, they were the spine of the team and James generally most in touch with the defence, while Williams was more in touch with the attack, with both screening the middle of the park. 

Unfortunately, we don't really have anyone else who does their jobs quite like they do