Bluetintedspecs Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Hindsight is the most exact sight, sadly for me NP is damned if does and damned if he doesn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsJohnMurphy Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Make a league table of second halves only & we'd be top. The second halves almost always includes the substitutes, so whatever Nige is doing in the second halves to bring the points home including making subs, is about as successful as it's possible to be. What's your point? Of course, Pearson doesn't have a Plan B ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 6 goals in about 120 substitutions (40x3?) We don't make 3 substitutions a game. I'd imagine the average is around 2.5. In addition, I'd say at least 25% of those will be defensive changes. Finally, certain subs aren't really goalscorers and may just make up the part of the team trying to create opportunities. 40x2.5 =100. Discount defensive changes and we're down to 75 at the very most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep blue Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 You must have forgotten the one on one Burnley missed in injury time then! Well, one of us must have a false memory; I wouldn't like to call it. The main idea I was promoting was that we are a squad with a fragile vein of confidence, and that rediscovering our confidence is the key to our resurgence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smudgerfox Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Are you really trying to argue that the only reason to bring on a sub is for that guy to score and if he doesn't then the substitution is wrong? You're Bonkers! . Yes that is bonkers that's not what I'm saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smudgerfox Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 We don't make 3 substitutions a game. I'd imagine the average is around 2.5. In addition, I'd say at least 25% of those will be defensive changes. Finally, certain subs aren't really goalscorers and may just make up the part of the team trying to create opportunities. 40x2.5 =100. Discount defensive changes and we're down to 75 at the very most. I stand to be corrected but I can recall very few defensive substitutions at all this season. All I can remember injury-induced. Schmeichel, De Laet, Morgan, Keane, Konchesky - the full 90 mins under normal circs. Before Keane, Whitbread, before Whitbread Moore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I stand to be corrected but I can recall very few defensive substitutions at all this season. All I can remember injury-induced. Schmeichel, De Laet, Morgan, Keane, Konchesky - the full 90 mins under normal circs. Before Keane, Whitbread, before Whitbread Moore. Okay I might have overestimated the defensive changes but I'm probably not too far wrong. Measuring the number of goals per sub isn't the best way of doing it IMO, you have to look at other things like assists too to judge how effective they are - Even things like Dyer's run to make space for Nugent against Wolves. I don't think our subs have been bad this season, not brilliant or anything but reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 I do select to read as little of your stuff as possible yes. To be honest I stopped after you said you wouldn't second guess anything as you weren't there, and then went on to second guess everything. I presume those moaning at the subs have also given credit to team selection and first substitution that put us in a winning position away from to the leaders in the first place? Or to the sub against Leeds that salvaged a late point? i'm perfecrtly happy to give credit for an effective substitution. But to make two such late changes last night was not in the least effective and was an unnecessary risk that was never worth taking given how well the side was playing. References to the changes in the radio commentary - by me and others - only adds weight to that view. The team was disturbed and for no logical purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smudgerfox Posted 13 March 2013 Share Posted 13 March 2013 Okay I might have overestimated the defensive changes but I'm probably not too far wrong. Measuring the number of goals per sub isn't the best way of doing it IMO, you have to look at other things like assists too to judge how effective they are - Even things like Dyer's run to make space for Nugent against Wolves. I don't think our subs have been bad this season, not brilliant or anything but reasonable. I'm not making any grand claims - just saying that packing the bench with forwards might be more justified if they were regularly coming on and changing the game. I'm using their goal tally as a rough and ready indication of their impact. If the forward subs aren't winning us games we'd have drawn or getting us draws we'd have lost then you might as well have more defensive cover on the bench. It doesn't make NFP a bad manager and it probably wouldn't have made much difference over the season but there's always a risk with having too few defensive options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 i'm perfecrtly happy to give credit for an effective substitution. But to make two such late changes last night was not in the least effective and was an unnecessary risk that was never worth taking given how well the side was playing. References to the changes in the radio commentary - by me and others - only adds weight to that view. The team was disturbed and for no logical purpose. Alan Young, Ian Stringer and some blokes who weren't at the game thought the subs were a bad idea? Bloody hell, they must be right. Pearson out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deep blue Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 Alan Young, Ian Stringer and some blokes who weren't at the game thought the subs were a bad idea? Bloody hell, they must be right. Pearson out! On the other hand, on radio 5 live David Pleat (!) was waxing lyrical over all our forward substitution options. He thought it made perfect sense, and that bringing on different types of forwards with different playing styles gave the Cardiff defence more problems to think about. Just saying, like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 and you actually believe a tw@t like pleat who has hated leicester for the last 20+ years. but the bottom line is, they didn't give them more problems, so he was full of bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillo Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 If he brings that revardy on useless sell the crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 Pearson has made many excellent substitutions this season. Even the Vardy option has worked out once (Barnsley was it?). The unavoidable truth, though, is that they didn't work out this time. And I'm surprised to see anyone claiming that the goal had nothing to do with Vardy because, quite simply, it did... and Pearson himself acknowledged that the cross should have been cut out. Not that anything of this is particularly important. If we repeatedly made changes which cost us games and never made changes which won them (see Micky Adams' second season) then this would be a major talking point. Thankfully it's not that bad quite yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 Alan Young, Ian Stringer and some blokes who weren't at the game thought the subs were a bad idea? Bloody hell, they must be right. Pearson out! Young and Stringer just described what happened, which wasn't good. They didn't say anything about whether the substitutions were right or not. They didn't have to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 Pearson has made many excellent substitutions this season. Even the Vardy option has worked out once (Barnsley was it?). The unavoidable truth, though, is that they didn't work out this time. And I'm surprised to see anyone claiming that the goal had nothing to do with Vardy because, quite simply, it did... and Pearson himself acknowledged that the cross should have been cut out. Not that anything of this is particularly important. If we repeatedly made changes which cost us games and never made changes which won them (see Micky Adams' second season) then this would be a major talking point. Thankfully it's not that bad quite yet. It's not even remotely bad. If there was a league table of second halves (when almost all substitutions are made) it would have us at the top. Whatever Pearson does at halftime & through subs obviously works better than any other manager in the league. His reasons for bringing on two hard working, grafters in place of wearly looking better goals scorers, as Cardiff inevitably cranked up more pressure was imo a sound decision. Pearson has picked out the individual fault there and would presumably have felt very let down by that cross not being closed down better. Regardless though, I think he made the right subs at the right time as is usually the case (if we were to look at the fictional second half-only league table). In fact he must feel extraordinarily let down as he rarely if ever mentions stuff like that, for him it's always the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 Two substitutions so close to the end of a game we're in charge of and winning....you've gotta be kidding. It was inviting mistakes and that's what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 14 March 2013 Share Posted 14 March 2013 and you actually believe a tw@t like pleat who has hated leicester for the last 20+ years. but the bottom line is, they didn't give them more problems, so he was full of bs. Seriously? You think Pleat was lying as some sort of act of spite? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.