Is It Only Albion Managers

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

That make substitutions no fan can fathom?

A criticism of Corberan was his substitutions and even in Brunt's short reign I recall decisions that baffled me.

Didn't understand why Mowbray took both Fellows and Johnston off at Plymouth and Saturday was another where I reckon most of us were left shaking our heads! For 66 mins we dominated the game without much of a goal threat. Then Mowbray replaced Diangana and Grant with Fellows and Johnston which almost 2 a man most of us would have started with. In the next short 15 minutes we took the lead and created a couple decent chances but then without the game won inexplicably took off our main goal threat (I almost choked when the commentator said Wallace would 'stiffen up the midfield.) We spent the last long 15 mins hanging on as for the only bit of the game Wednesday looked like scoring.

That 15 mins of stress was imo both predictable and unnecessary and imo a direct result of poor substitutions. Is there anyone on here at the game or watching on TV who thought Wallace and Diakite for Armstrong and Mowatt was a good idea? And if we can all see it why can't Albion managers?

[kettering_baggie]

It seems to have become standard practice for managers to use most, if not all, substitutes every match. Unfortunately for us and probably many other teams outside the Premier League, the squad does not have enough quality to replace like with like. I dislike the five subs rule intensely, three is more than enough. The manager should pick his team and have to live with it, not change half the team during the game. The poor dears ought to be fit enough to play two whole games a week.

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

It seems to have become standard practice for managers to use most, if not all, substitutes every match. Unfortunately for us and probably many other teams outside the Premier League, the squad does not have enough quality to replace like with like. I dislike the five subs rule intensely, three is more than enough. The manager should pick his team and have to live with it, not change half the team during the game. The poor dears ought to be fit enough to play two whole games a week.

I'm sure there's an element of truth in what you say but if giving subs game time is more of a priority than winning then I am even more at a loss to understand modern day football than I am many more aspects of modern day life!

[Bombers right foot]

5 subs a game is killing football, making substitutions for the sake of it, killing the play stone dead at times, these modern day players are supposed to be super fit, they should be able to play twice a week, as for Wallace I?m sick of the sight of him wandering around offering very little, he?s not the future the younger ones are.

[Leicesterbaggie]

I think that most of you are aware of my take on it. If you are in the lead, as far as possible, keep the eleven on that have got you into that position. Why change a winning formula. I can understand changing things if they are not going well but otherwise, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

[Dubbag]

That make substitutions no fan can fathom?

A criticism of Corberan was his substitutions and even in Brunt's short reign I recall decisions that baffled me.

Didn't understand why Mowbray took both Fellows and Johnston off at Plymouth and Saturday was another where I reckon most of us were left shaking our heads! For 66 mins we dominated the game without much of a goal threat. Then Mowbray replaced Diangana and Grant with Fellows and Johnston which almost 2 a man most of us would have started with. In the next short 15 minutes we took the lead and created a couple decent chances but then without the game won inexplicably took off our main goal threat (I almost choked when the commentator said Wallace would 'stiffen up the midfield.) We spent the last long 15 mins hanging on as for the only bit of the game Wednesday looked like scoring.

That 15 mins of stress was imo both predictable and unnecessary and imo a direct result of poor substitutions. Is there anyone on here at the game or watching on TV who thought Wallace and Diakite for Armstrong and Mowatt was a good idea? And if we can all see it why can't Albion managers?

When there was only one sub per game it was easy. When two it was still easy. Now there is so much possible strategy by bringing on certain players, it has become quite tactful to do. I think some managers are not good at it.

[soulman101]

The Ist sub in a a FA cup final was Dennis Clark coming on for the injured John Kaye in our 68 cup final v Everton .
In our 4th rd away at Southampton ,our goalie John Osbourne went off injured and Graham Williams went in goal .

[baggiematt]

As frustrating as it is, I suspect it?s sensible asset management, led by physios and owners.

A lot of these old championship players are riddled with little injuries and it completely disrupts a squad. Look at Ajayi, he can?t make a full season these days. One big injury at the wrong time and it can kill their career and championship seasons are very long.

Rodri is the best example of a player totally relied upon and city clearly can?t get by without him.

Diangana was class until that nasty hamstring injury which lost him a yard of explosivity. He?s not been the same player since.

Fellows and Johnstone are probably ?35m worth of assets. If you were an owner you would protect them at all costs. Brighton do this quite well, with a decent sized squad and a lot of rotation. I think we?re following their lead in terms of model.

The key thing for me is not the rotation that?s the problem, it?s the quality of the squad. So it?s positive that we bought 4 attacking players in January.

[9goals2hattricks3pen]

[QUOTE=baggiematt;40657357]As frustrating as it is, I suspect it?s sensible asset management, led by physios and owners.

A lot of these old championship players are riddled with little injuries and it completely disrupts a squad. Look at Ajayi, he can?t make a full season these days. One big injury at the wrong time and it can kill their career and championship seasons are very long.

Rodri is the best example of a player totally relied upon and city clearly can?t get by without him.

Diangana was class until that nasty hamstring injury which lost him a yard of explosivity. He?s not been the same player since.

Fellows and Johnstone are probably ?35m worth of assets. If you were an owner you would protect them at all costs. Brighton do this quite well, with a decent sized squad and a lot of rotation. I think we?re following their lead in terms of model.

The key thing for me is not the rotation that?s the problem, it?s the quality of the squad. So it?s positive that we bought 4 attacking players in January.[/QUOTE

Sorry but I can't accept 'It's sensible asset management'

Take the specific of Armstrong's substitution on Saturday. You, me and next door's dog knew it was a decision that weakened the side. The player came here because he needed game time and he's not our asset to be 'sensible' with. So why sub him?

I don't believe owners dictate to managers who they can and can't play. I can't envisage any manager working under those sort of constraints. And if they are your 'prized assets' surely those are the very players you need on the pitch at the end if the game is in the balance. It's all about winning isn't it?

What's the answer to Rodri situation. Don't play him?

I do agree with you there is an all too obvious problem with the quality of the squad. But if everyone knows that then why oh why do it ffs?'

There's a stat for everything these days and sure enough there's one for goal involvements from subs season to date

Rohl 149 subs 22 goal involvements

Farke 143 subs 16 goal involvements

Corberan 104 subs ONE goal involvement!

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/cham...wettbewerb/GB2

It's a problem we are all aware of but the bare facts are startling

To finish on what I hope is a positive I'm very happy with tonight's X1 I just hope that either we are 2 up with 10 to play or that front 3 are still on the pitch. Agreed?

[baggiematt]

[QUOTE=9goals2hattricks3pen;40657944]

As frustrating as it is, I suspect it?s sensible asset management, led by physios and owners.

A lot of these old championship players are riddled with little injuries and it completely disrupts a squad. Look at Ajayi, he can?t make a full season these days. One big injury at the wrong time and it can kill their career and championship seasons are very long.

Rodri is the best example of a player totally relied upon and city clearly can?t get by without him.

Diangana was class until that nasty hamstring injury which lost him a yard of explosivity. He?s not been the same player since.

Fellows and Johnstone are probably ?35m worth of assets. If you were an owner you would protect them at all costs. Brighton do this quite well, with a decent sized squad and a lot of rotation. I think we?re following their lead in terms of model.

The key thing for me is not the rotation that?s the problem, it?s the quality of the squad. So it?s positive that we bought 4 attacking players in January.[/QUOTE

Sorry but I can't accept 'It's sensible asset management'

Take the specific of Armstrong's substitution on Saturday. You, me and next door's dog knew it was a decision that weakened the side. The player came here because he needed game time and he's not our asset to be 'sensible' with. So why sub him?

I don't believe owners dictate to managers who they can and can't play. I can't envisage any manager working under those sort of constraints. And if they are your 'prized assets' surely those are the very players you need on the pitch at the end if the game is in the balance. It's all about winning isn't it?

What's the answer to Rodri situation. Don't play him?

I do agree with you there is an all too obvious problem with the quality of the squad. But if everyone knows that then why oh why do it ffs?'

There's a stat for everything these days and sure enough there's one for goal involvements from subs season to date

Rohl 149 subs 22 goal involvements

Farke 143 subs 16 goal involvements

Corberan 104 subs ONE goal involvement!

https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/cham...wettbewerb/GB2

It's a problem we are all aware of but the bare facts are startling

To finish on what I hope is a positive I'm very happy with tonight's X1 I just hope that either we are 2 up with 10 to play or that front 3 are still on the pitch. Agreed?

I take your point but the club have 3 games in 7 days. I doubt anyone would play a player for 90 minutes for each of those games. If you sub the player, keep him fresh to play 2/3 out of the games and get the result, then it?s good management. It?s just management of risk isn?t it?

I do think modern football owners ask a manager to consider player condition and physio advice as part of their management. Don?t take that advice and lose a player for the season and that?s on the gaffer. Equally lose a player for a week and they?re out for 3 games so it?s in the managers interest to use the squad.

You won?t find a championship manager that doesn?t use nearly all 5 subs so there must be some well recognised thought around it.