Subs cost us the game

[harwich fox]

Why change a winning side ? Especially against a good side and bring on Vardy and Waghorn taking off two strikers who were a constant threat,and allowed Cardiff back into the game,bring on a defender yes but it those subs cost us the match

[Narborough_fox]

Nugent and Wood will have been tiring, bringing on Waghorn and Vardy was the right thing to do it meant that they could defend from the front. Bringing on defenders may have caused confusion if we changed to a back 5 or something like that. We didn't stop the cross, you can't blame Vardy or Waghorn for that.

[lestajigs]

If we brought a def on, and they scored, everyone would be moaning how we were to defensive, good point me thinks

[Guest MattP]

We are playing Weekend/Midweek every game at the minute.

You can't leave two strikers on for 90 mins every match in that situation and expect them to retain a decent level of performance.

[Mark_w]

I wasn't at the game, but I got the impression that subs didn't cost us the game at all. It sounded like we only improved after the first change and Vardy and Waghorn coming on had little effect on the game. Would be interesting to hear the view of someone at the game.

[Tielemans63]

Nuge very rarely plays the full 90 and Wellend was never going to last the distance on his return.

[Steve_Walsh5]

Listened to it on the radio due to being at work. Vardy didn't sound the best when he came on, should have ran the ball into the corner but crossed it in said, didn't track back for the goal, then after kick off gave the ball away which started another attack for Cardiff.

[BNET]

How many managers in professional football, when one up to the team top of the table, away from home bring on two forwards in the last few minutes ?

[Webbo]

We scored after the first sub, was that tactically naive?

[inckley fox]

Nugent and Wood will have been tiring, bringing on Waghorn and Vardy was the right thing to do it meant that they could defend from the front. Bringing on defenders may have caused confusion if we changed to a back 5 or something like that. We didn't stop the cross, you can't blame Vardy or Waghorn for that.

I think people would tend to blame Pearson, rather than Vardy or Waghorn. After all Waghorn can hold the ball up, and he's had two assists from about fifteen minutes of football recently.

Vardy, though, is another matter. If you look at the facts, we've been four times more likely to score without him on the pitch than with him on the pitch since November, and his suicidal challenge against Boro very nearly cost us two points before. I've seen the goal and there's no question that he shares a sizeable chunk of the blame. Pearson really should have learnt his lesson.

For me it's a terrible shame, especially as Pearson had the upper hand all night, the players put up a fight for him - and above all, he seemed to have the tactical edge until those final two changes.

Derby is huge for us -- and for him. It's a must win for both.

[BNET]

We scored after the first sub, was that tactically naive?

That as nothing to do with my question does it.

[Corky]

Would you want the much loved Gallagher on instead? Or "Shitbread"?

We had enough chances to put the game to bed before injury time. We didn't convert them. That cost us the game.

[Mark_w]

That as nothing to do with my question does it.

Great observation. I'm sure he would have quoted you if it did.

[dynamark]

None is the answer.Extra 30 seconds added for each so nothing gained there in theory.First sub Kane was fair enough kept the shape by the sound of it.No point bringing Knocky on that late.Waghorn I could understand straight swop for Nugent bit more experienced player but not vardy in that situation.Sad loss of 2 points

[kingfox]

They are not to blame.

I'm pissed about the result, but I'm more pissed when people are putting the blame on Waghorn and Vardy.

Watch the goal, and then tell me what Vardy could of done better?

There were three players particularly close to the crosser, one of which was St Ledger, are we going to blame him as well?

[Col city fan]

Bollox!

The subs didn't cost us the game. The missed chances cost us the game. We could have been home and dry.

How many times could that have been said away from home this season.... Plenty.

The best sides put the game to bed and don't allow the other team the chance to equalise.

Don't blame Pearson tonight.. He did his job. It sounds like Chris Wood should have scored, for example, when the keeper made a save.

How's about blame Chris Wood tonight?

Bet you won't though eh...

[Kitchandro]

Would you want the much loved Gallagher on instead? Or "Shitbread"?

We had enough chances to put the game to bed before injury time. We didn't convert them. That cost us the game.

What's happened to old Shitbread? I can't remember the last time I heard his name, real or otherwise.

I know he's been on the bench but has he seen a blade of grass this year?

[iamafox]

Bloody excuses.

[Thracian]

What's being suggested is that we didn't need to bring anyone on. That the striker's we had were occupying the home defence and giving them things to worry about which is certainly how it sounded. The idea that they were tiring is so lame. If they're not fit for 90 minutes they should be.

I'm not going to second guess it cos I wasn't there but my first thought when Vardy came on was that it's too many substitutes for no obvious reason and likely to disrupt a side that was playing so effectively. Alan young referred to it as well.

There seemed no need for it. Players don't feel tired when they're winning against the League leaders - they're driven by adrenalin and contrary to the idea of being fatiqued we seemed to have dominated the second half.

Yet almost as soon as we scored our priorities seemed to change, it was all Cardiff and Youngy ended up talking about running the ball into the corners and so on.

It's an attitude that makes me sick and especially as we seemed to have done so well. Why not keep doing what was hurting them - pressing them high and trying to stop them getting the ball forward into our box where they could hurt us?

I've mentioned that Pearson's luck's run out with conceding ground and, although I'll stand correcting, this is exactly how it came across. Having got the lead we tried to hold it instead of continuing to press. At one time Stringer described the ball going to Wood and how he was totally isolated and simply couldn't hold the ball long enough for support that never arrived anyway.

Whether Pearson wanted it that way I don't know but the evidence suggests it because neither of the replacement strikers retain possession anyway so it seems they went on, not so much o threaten, but to defend from the front - and that's not the same as pressing as a unit.

It really was a pity and a waste. But something we've been guilty of so often. I wonder if Wood had scored his earlier simple chance if we'd have tried to hold out for all that time.

It's never the right approach to me and certainly not against a team like Cardiff who really can attack you given time and space. And it's definitely iffy when we don't have subs who can hold the ball.

Two more points squandered through questionable tactics. And it's no use suggesting we had the better chances, hit the woodwork etc. Because once we'd gone in front it's my bet the chances would have stopped and, instead of playing to our strengths, we'd have tried to beg the rest of the game.

[dynamark]

Seems fair.Put youself in Nug or Wood's position would you want to come of with a few minutes left in sight of a great result probably no.Its a different thing being told in advance to work on 60-70 minutes .Nothing to gain

[BNET]

What's being suggested is that we didn't need to bring anyone on. That the striker's we had were occupying the home defence and giving them things to worry about which is certainly how it sounded. The idea that they were tiring is so lame. If they're not fit for 90 minutes they should be.

I'm not going to second guess it cos I wasn't there but my first thought when Vardy came on was that it's too many substitutes for no obvious reason and likely to disrupt a side that was playing so effectively. Alan young referred to it as well.

There seemed no need for it. Players don't feel tired when they're winning against the League leaders - they're driven by adrenalin and contrary to the idea of being fatiqued we seemed to have dominated the second half.

Yet almost as soon as we scored our priorities seemed to change, it was all Cardiff and Youngy ended up talking about running the ball into the corners and so on.

It's an attitude that makes me sick and especially as we seemed to have done so well. Why not keep doing what was hurting them - pressing them high and trying to stop them getting the ball forward into our box where they could hurt us?

I've mentioned that Pearson's luck's run out with conceding ground and, although I'll stand correcting, this is exactly how it came across. Having got the lead we tried to hold it instead of continuing to press. At one time Stringer described the ball going to Wood and how he was totally isolated and simply couldn't hold the ball long enough for support that never arrived anyway.

Whether Pearson wanted it that way I don't know but the evidence suggests it because neither of the replacement strikers retain possession anyway so it seems they went on, not so much o threaten, but to defend from the front - and that's not the same as pressing as a unit.

It really was a pity and a waste. But something we've been guilty of so often. I wonder if Wood had scored his earlier simple chance if we'd have tried to hold out for all that time.

It's never the right approach to me and certainly not against a team like Cardiff who really can attack you given time and space. And it's definitely iffy when we don't have subs who can hold the ball.

Two more points squandered through questionable tactics. And it's no use suggesting we had the better chances, hit the woodwork etc. Because once we'd gone in front it's my bet the chances would have stopped and, instead of playing to our strengths, we'd have tried to beg the rest of the game.

Good post Thracian.

[Webbo]

Could it be that the team who are clear at the top and have been all season salvaged a point at home because they're a good side?

[Thracian]

Could it be that the team who are clear at the top and have been all season salvaged a point at home because they're a good side?

But it was us who voluntarily changed the emphasis when we were categorically on top of the game. Why disrupt a team that is functioning so well and where everyone understands what they're doing. When the second substitution was made reference was made in commentary to Dyer holding his hands up as if questioning his new role. What was the point in doing anything to disturb a team that was doing the job so well?

[Thracian]

That as nothing to do with my question does it.

I think the first substitution was inevitable. Wellens was never going to last much more than an hour. And there was no obvious reference to any great confusion although it was suggested our system changed to 4-4-2 or 4-2-4 and that might have contributed to us scoring.

The problem came with the two late changes that caused so much disruption/confusion and led to us having players out of position and defending situations in unfamiliar places. We certainly stopped moving back and forward as a unit because the lack of support was referred to.

[Steve_Walsh5]

I think the first substitution was inevitable. Wellens was never going to last much more than an hour. And there was no obvious reference to any great confusion although it was suggested our system changed to 4-4-2 or 4-2-4 and that might have contributed to us scoring.

The problem came with the two late changes that caused so much disruption/confusion and led to us having players out of position and defending situations in unfamiliar places. We certainly stopped moving back and forward as a unit because the lack of support was referred to.

I'm sure I heard on the radio Alan young say Llyod Dyer has just looked over to see what his position is going to be.