Substitutions

[Laudrup1690 928]

12 hours ago, JamieD said:

Don’t get me wrong, Gerrard deserves a lot of credit just for the fact that here we are raging that we haven’t got two wins against a team who spent 100 million euros this season, when we feel we deserve them, and I would have bitten your arm off for two points from Benfica when the draw came out, but we are allowed FIVE subs in this tournament. Five. That is half the outfield team who can be replaced with fresh players, for a team absolutely dominating with a pressing game. What can possibly explain Gerrard’s reluctance to use them? Will he learn from this?

I can understand why we didn’t last night tbh because from the bench I can’t really see anyone who would of made a difference.

I honestly don’t think say bringing on helander or barker etc would of changed the result 

[docspiderman 694]

4 hours ago, British_Empire said:

I've literally never heard that.

Unless you are conflating people criticising Arfield's sloppiness giving the ball away for their late equaliser, as criticising his substitutions by some sort of proxy as he came on as a substitute. 

I don't think anyone had a problem with Arfield being brought on, they were unhappy with the error which is a bit different. The substitution wasn't wrong tactically, Gerrard can't be blamed for that (Arfield, a trusted player, giving the ball away).

The criticism was that at 2-3 with a couple of minutes left he did not do what all   managers do; break up play and opposition momentum by making tactical subs.

[British_Empire 9,645]

1 minute ago, docspiderman said:

The criticism was that at 2-3 with a couple of minutes left he did not do what all   managers do; break up play and opposition momentum by making tactical subs.

Aye. Maybe I've picked Bluepeter9 up wrong, but I thought he said he was criticised for making subs in Lisbon? 

[Rangers_no1 15,262]

29 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

Aye. Maybe I've picked Bluepeter9 up wrong, but I thought he said he was criticised for making subs in Lisbon? 

He only made one sub in Benfica. People said he should have made more tbh.

[JCDBigBear 8,304]

17 hours ago, AlCapone said:

Right, I’ve educated you and they other  pussies @psb07158@left wingerfor years in the politics forum so let me educate you over here as well.

Lack of subs? Okay his decision was based on the next game, Falkirk away at 5pm on Sunday so he could afford to drain the legs. This was vastly influenced by the unfortunate fact we had Aribo , jack and Zungu all injured, if Jack  and Aribo had been fit and on the bench they would have came on at 60 minutes. Now look at the players on the park. No change required in the back 5.  In Midfield, Davis and Kamara were the only two that could play their position/role so that’s 7 out of 11 you couldn’t replace. Up front Kent, Alfredo and roofe were all having a good game and full of energy so that’s 10 you couldn’t replace. That only leaves Arfield and again he was having a good influential game and still motoring 

The only players on the bench that would have been safe to bring on were Barker, Hagi and Itten. Barker would have been a replacement for Kent, Itten for Alfie and Hagi for Roofe but the simple fact was that all of these players on the field were playing well and the subs would have weakened the team. No one else on the bench would have made us stronger in any position. The other subs?  who would you have brought McLaughlin, Barjonas, Bassey, Helander, Dickson, King, or Stewart on for?

The worrying thing  is that for the first time this season we had a weak bench, a very weak bench and with our next game being as easy as it gets he could afford to take the risk of draining the legs of  the starting eleven.

in short if Aribo and jack had of been on the bench they would have came on and if we had of say been playing Hibs at midday on Sunday subs would have been made.

clever strategic thinking by the manager. No short term leftie thinking 

That isn't all true though.  He could and should have changed Kent and Roofe as both looked tired.  Kent was also not having a particularly good game.   As someone has already posted, we paid some £5 million for Hagi and Itten.  I think Gerrard should have changed it with Itten on in place of Roofe about 70th minute and another sub on for Kent 5 or 10 mins later.  Benfica had already brought on 3 fresh players by the 70th minute and it showed.

[AlCapone 7,399]

1 hour ago, JCDBigBear said:

That isn't all true though.  He could and should have changed Kent and Roofe as both looked tired.  Kent was also not having a particularly good game.   As someone has already posted, we paid some £5 million for Hagi and Itten.  I think Gerrard should have changed it with Itten on in place of Roofe about 70th minute and another sub on for Kent 5 or 10 mins later.  Benfica had already brought on 3 fresh players by the 70th minute and it showed.

Okay well the first thing we disagree on is Kent and Roofe, they didn’t look knackered to me and were important cogs in the wheel.  Itten plays a very different game from Roofe and would have meant a change in shape. Who would you have brought you n for Kent?  Hagi again would have changed the shape, who would you have brought him on for?

[JCDBigBear 8,304]

15 hours ago, AlCapone said:

Okay well the first thing we disagree on is Kent and Roofe, they didn’t look knackered to me and were important cogs in the wheel.  Itten plays a very different game from Roofe and would have meant a change in shape. Who would you have brought you n for Kent?  Hagi again would have changed the shape, who would you have brought him on for?

It wouldn't matter who I said should be brought on as you have already dismissed everyone else's opinion.

[AlCapone 7,399]

1 hour ago, JCDBigBear said:

It wouldn't matter who I said should be brought on as you have already dismissed everyone else's opinion.

No that’s my opinion which I put up to be shot Down, what’s yours? why are you scared of sharing it?

[Bad Robot 11,659]

On 27/11/2020 at 11:42, Rangers_no1 said:

He only made one sub in Benfica. People said he should have made more tbh.

He should have made some subs in injury time in Benfica to try hold onto the win but not at Ibrox as the we weren’t trying to hold on for a point as the potential was still there to win the 3 IMO

[Redwhiteandblue 3,200]

On 26/11/2020 at 22:54, AlCapone said:

Right, I’ve educated you and they other  pussies @psb07158@left wingerfor years in the politics forum so let me educate you over here as well.

Lack of subs? Okay his decision was based on the next game, Falkirk away at 5pm on Sunday so he could afford to drain the legs. This was vastly influenced by the unfortunate fact we had Aribo , jack and Zungu all injured, if Jack  and Aribo had been fit and on the bench they would have came on at 60 minutes. Now look at the players on the park. No change required in the back 5.  In Midfield, Davis and Kamara were the only two that could play their position/role so that’s 7 out of 11 you couldn’t replace. Up front Kent, Alfredo and roofe were all having a good game and full of energy so that’s 10 you couldn’t replace. That only leaves Arfield and again he was having a good influential game and still motoring 

The only players on the bench that would have been safe to bring on were Barker, Hagi and Itten. Barker would have been a replacement for Kent, Itten for Alfie and Hagi for Roofe but the simple fact was that all of these players on the field were playing well and the subs would have weakened the team. No one else on the bench would have made us stronger in any position. The other subs?  who would you have brought McLaughlin, Barjonas, Bassey, Helander, Dickson, King, or Stewart on for?

The worrying thing  is that for the first time this season we had a weak bench, a very weak bench and with our next game being as easy as it gets he could afford to take the risk of draining the legs of  the starting eleven.

in short if Aribo and jack had of been on the bench they would have came on and if we had of say been playing Hibs at midday on Sunday subs would have been made.

clever strategic thinking by the manager. No short term leftie thinking 

If he thinks we need to bring on another defender (Helander) in the Killie game to see out the game, then why does he think a team who he admitted started to get tired in the 70th min could see a game out against a team who we threw away 2pts just 2 weeks prior when they had a player less on the park? We should have been through on Thursday night.  

I haven't liked the idea that we have turned into a club who seem to be geared up towards getting Liverpool their dream manager after he's learned his trade here. We're not an apprentice club.

Yes, we might be playing some good football at times, but say we get scunnered with Covid over Christmas? We could yet again go into another new year trying to play catch up. 

People moan at the senior players when we don't see a game out with the usual "the experienced players should know better"

Well what about a manager? Surely something like that should be a bare minimum requirement? ESPECIALLY when you have 5 subs.

[TopCat 4,259]

On 26/11/2020 at 22:54, AlCapone said:

Right, I’ve educated you and they other  pussies @psb07158@left wingerfor years in the politics forum so let me educate you over here as well.

Lack of subs? Okay his decision was based on the next game, Falkirk away at 5pm on Sunday so he could afford to drain the legs. This was vastly influenced by the unfortunate fact we had Aribo , jack and Zungu all injured, if Jack  and Aribo had been fit and on the bench they would have came on at 60 minutes. Now look at the players on the park. No change required in the back 5.  In Midfield, Davis and Kamara were the only two that could play their position/role so that’s 7 out of 11 you couldn’t replace. Up front Kent, Alfredo and roofe were all having a good game and full of energy so that’s 10 you couldn’t replace. That only leaves Arfield and again he was having a good influential game and still motoring 

The only players on the bench that would have been safe to bring on were Barker, Hagi and Itten. Barker would have been a replacement for Kent, Itten for Alfie and Hagi for Roofe but the simple fact was that all of these players on the field were playing well and the subs would have weakened the team. No one else on the bench would have made us stronger in any position. The other subs?  who would you have brought McLaughlin, Barjonas, Bassey, Helander, Dickson, King, or Stewart on for?

The worrying thing  is that for the first time this season we had a weak bench, a very weak bench and with our next game being as easy as it gets he could afford to take the risk of draining the legs of  the starting eleven.

in short if Aribo and jack had of been on the bench they would have came on and if we had of say been playing Hibs at midday on Sunday subs would have been made.

clever strategic thinking by the manager. No short term leftie thinking 

Summed up to perfection mate........ agree 100%  with all of this.

 

 

[The Dude 11,603]

20 hours ago, JCDBigBear said:

That isn't all true though.  He could and should have changed Kent and Roofe as both looked tired.  Kent was also not having a particularly good game.   As someone has already posted, we paid some £5 million for Hagi and Itten.  I think Gerrard should have changed it with Itten on in place of Roofe about 70th minute and another sub on for Kent 5 or 10 mins later.  Benfica had already brought on 3 fresh players by the 70th minute and it showed.

Kent was fucked and it was clear that he wasn't as involved defensively as he had been in the first hour. I'm sure it was even mentioned on commentary that he looked burst.

[Swally 6,286]

It's no just the performance that suffered because of the lack of subs, when you think about it you're also risking injuries. This was an important high profile game, and sometimes you have to sub players because they might lunge into a tackle or do something stupid just because they're knackered but still want to perform.

[JCDBigBear 8,304]

On 28/11/2020 at 11:36, AlCapone said:

 why are you scared of sharing it?

What??