Jump to content

Subs @ 60


KeyserSoze

Recommended Posts

Yea I know it was 70mins yesterday. But what do folks think about this tactic?

For me I think Law, Sheils and Clark (the usual subs not all the time though) add very little to our game. Putting two players on after only 15 mins of the second half makes us loose our rhythm especially as we have just had half time break too. 

For me subs are tactical to counter some opposition tactic,  to replace "puffed out players" or "injuries ". Just seems the gaffer does this for keeping folks happy. Perhaps though when we have better subs it may not be as much as an issue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven't always done it in games...there has been a few where we've kept it basically the same until late but when you look at players such as Miller can he always go 90minutes, no, so getting a great 60 out of him is better than stretching it over 90 (although yesterday he was magnificent for the full 90).

I think it's working well...keeping us fresh...and giving players the time to make a difference in a game and show what they're capable of.

He doesn't appear to make subs just to keep people happy in my eyes, we just seem to manage our players much better these days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said:

Yea I know it was 70mins yesterday. But what do folks think about this tactic?

For me I think Law, Sheils and Clark (the usual subs not all the time though) add very little to our game. Putting two players on after only 15 mins of the second half makes us loose our rhythm especially as we have just had half time break too. 

For me subs are tactical to counter some opposition tactic,  to replace "puffed out players" or "injuries ". Just seems the gaffer does this for keeping folks happy. Perhaps though when we have better subs it may not be as much as an issue. 

The 60 min subs work fine and his later than usual use of subs highlights how brilliant we were .

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping we wouldn't see subs at 60 mins as we were playing so well and we didn't.  It is to keep players happy as well as replacing jiggered players, but it is the manager's job to keep people happy and tactically manage the game.  I have no complaints other than hopefully replacing Sheils and Clark next year with better players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I have one criticism of MW , it's this . Usually it's pretty irrelevant , and we can give players game time , but on occasion when the games tight and we're playing well , it almost seems as if we do it as a rule , as opposed to reacting to what's happening on the park. I was hoping he didn't change it yesterday , with the way we were playing , and he didn't , at least till a bit later , so he kinda proved me wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also helps keep the subs match fit.  I was slightly disappointed Liam Burt didn't come on but it was only 2-0 at the time and Mark Warburton obviously had his reasons for his decision to go with the players he did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KeyserSoze said:

It's not so much about yesterday. Just in general. I think it interrupts our flow. 

Yeah i think they were right yesterday as forrester looked like he was tiring , i have moaned about it previously though as i think it has knocked us out of our stride when we have been building up pressure in other games

Link to post
Share on other sites

It only really happens when were winning 2-0 or under. He wants to change the game up and just go for the jugular. Yesterday he knew he didnt want to upset the rythm so soon after scoring the 3rd. I like them especially if we are drawing or winning by 1. 

One Mark Warburton.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

Yea I know it was 70mins yesterday. But what do folks think about this tactic?

For me I think Law, Sheils and Clark (the usual subs not all the time though) add very little to our game. Putting two players on after only 15 mins of the second half makes us loose our rhythm especially as we have just had half time break too. 

For me subs are tactical to counter some opposition tactic,  to replace "puffed out players" or "injuries ". Just seems the gaffer does this for keeping folks happy. Perhaps though when we have better subs it may not be as much as an issue. 

Clark was decent yesterday, and to be fair I honestly don't think he deserves the criticism he gets most of the time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KeyserSoze said:

Yea I know it was 70mins yesterday. But what do folks think about this tactic?

For me I think Law, Sheils and Clark (the usual subs not all the time though) add very little to our game. Putting two players on after only 15 mins of the second half makes us loose our rhythm especially as we have just had half time break too. 

For me subs are tactical to counter some opposition tactic,  to replace "puffed out players" or "injuries ". Just seems the gaffer does this for keeping folks happy. Perhaps though when we have better subs it may not be as much as an issue. 

Look at how many late goals we've scored this season, a lot of that is down to the overall fitness of our team but also that MW keeps the tempo high by adding fresh legs to the midfield and front three.

Remember we've also got a lean squad so rotation and freshness is important to maintain the level of intensity we play our games at. I thought Barry was the best he's been in weeks yesterday and it's no coincidence that followed an opportunity for him to rest up for the last game.

It's predictable but if it ain't broke, don't fix it - happy for this to continue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prso's headband said:

It only really happens when were winning 2-0 or under. He wants to change the game up and just go for the jugular. Yesterday he knew he didnt want to upset the rythm so soon after scoring the 3rd. I like them especially if we are drawing or winning by 1. 

One Mark Warburton.

Pretty sure it's nothing to do with the score as it happens most games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean Shiels in particular does add when he comes on as a sub, Law does accomplish things and Clark can have bits of genius here and there. Now, we take those 3 players, who already add something to the game when they are brought on as subs but we replace them with new boys we're getting in the summer the team would be bolstered immensely. 

If you look at how O'halloran was played against Raith, first half he didn't do much. Now I think that was intentional, he has outstanding pace and when he starts using that past 70 minutes, the opposition will be too tired to do anything about it. or they'll make mistakes and allow us a free kick/penalty. 

Think of that same tactic but with our subs. They'll impact the game, and the opposition will be too tired to do anything about it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...