Cedwyn Scott

[Pie-eyed&legless]

Three opportunities plus half-time to make substitutions seems to me to be enough to make tactical changes but retain a "window" for non-concussion injuries if required.
The whole thing is a mess IMO. A manager uses all his windows to change his team and then with 15 minutes to go a player gets a broken leg and the team then has to play with 10 men! This rule could affect relegation or promotion and needs changing (possibly to the ref being the judge of a serious injury substitution?)

I suppose the reason we have subs in the first place is because of players getting injured and having to leave the pitch - tactical substitutions were probably never intended

[BigFatPie]

After Scott came on, he nearly scored and nearly set one up. So whilst he was brought on to get minutes into him, he’s nearly wrapped the whole thing up and then nearly put a bow on it. Don’t see much issue with that myself…

A lot of ‘nearlies’ in that paragraph. I’m just not a big fan of purposefully weakening the team at 2-0 and half an hour to go, which subbing off Didzy for Cedwyn clearly is atm.

All worked out ok on Saturday and obviously no one minds too much until it doesn’t work out.

[SmiffyPie]

I suppose the reason we have subs in the first place is because of players getting injured and having to leave the pitch - tactical substitutions were probably never intended

Yes but we have had the ability to have tactical subs for 20 or so years now and all teams apply it so it's nothing new. Managers need to manage the windows and in the best interests of their players should be able to sub an injured player off if need be.

[Boomerangpie]

A lot of ‘nearlies’ in that paragraph. I’m just not a big fan of purposefully weakening the team at 2-0 and half an hour to go, which subbing off Didzy for Cedwyn clearly is atm.

All worked out ok on Saturday and obviously no one minds too much until it doesn’t work out.

It’s a simple case of risk and reward, pros and cons aplenty. I think when you are 2-0 up and dominant as we where then it’s more than an acceptable time to do it. Worked out great on Saturday.

No doubt the first time it doesn’t work out we will hear about it. I hope we are 2-0 up with half an hour to go lots of times this season.

[OldBanksy]

A lot of ‘nearlies’ in that paragraph. I’m just not a big fan of purposefully weakening the team at 2-0 and half an hour to go, which subbing off Didzy for Cedwyn clearly is atm.

All worked out ok on Saturday and obviously no one minds too much until it doesn’t work out.

You could say the same about Matty Palmer. Not up to speed. Needs minutes.

[LeftPeg_Pie]

A lot of ‘nearlies’ in that paragraph. I’m just not a big fan of purposefully weakening the team at 2-0 and half an hour to go, which subbing off Didzy for Cedwyn clearly is atm.

All worked out ok on Saturday and obviously no one minds too much until it doesn’t work out.

Appreciate there’s a couple of nearly’s in there, but my wider point is that with Scott having two (nearly) goal involvements (terrible modern football parlance) evidence of substitutions disrupting our flow?

If he’d have ambled round and done sod all, then I’m happy to agree substitutions disrupted the flow, but I don’t think there’s evidence of that from Saturday.

[LeftPeg_Pie]

Yes but we have had the ability to have tactical subs for 20 or so years now and all teams apply it so it's nothing new. Managers need to manage the windows and in the best interests of their players should be able to sub an injured player off if need be.

I understand the sentiment, but by allowing an extra ‘window’ for an injury, your potentially opening up the chance for this to be abused.

You could probably argue that being injured or whatever classes as an injury could be open to interpretation too. Is there an injury threshold? Does any injury count to open up the window?

If we’re looking at the extra window being a player welfare issue, could you argue, based on available medical data, that a player is fatigued to such an extent that playing the last 10 minutes say, may increase the chance of injury by X% so should the window be opened.

Interesting concept but feels fraught with issues.

[Elite_Pie]

I understand the sentiment, but by allowing an extra ‘window’ for an injury, you’re potentially opening up the chance for this to be abused.

For those old enough to remember, that’s how the substitute law evolved. At first you were allowed one sub only in the event of injury, but Don Revie at Leeds quickly worked out that if you were chasing the game, a player went down ‘injured’ and an attacker came on even if the fake injury was a defender. It was then allowed for tactical reasons, and it evolved from there.

[1955pie]

I suppose the last window could be kept until after the 80th minute.
But on Saturday Nick Tsaroula didn’t go off until the 83rd minute so that would have made no difference.
Players always have the risk of injury from the 1st to the 111th minute. Part of the game unfortunately.

[SmiffyPie]

I remember injured players being shoved up front out of the way while the rest of the team make the best of the situation.