Substitutions

[adam95581]

Fair but then to begin with, there wasn't enough drive and determination to recover from 2-0 down. Even in the last few minutes we seemed content with passing it around instead of lumping it in to their box - a must when you're desperate for a goal despite how 'ugly' it is.

Vardy and Schlupp I don't think would have sufficed. Although Nugent had a shocker of a game, Schlupp wasn't much better. Very, very quiet in the first half and didn't impose himself on the game. To be fair, not many other players did - probably only Knockaert and Wasilewski.

I thought Schlupp was very good in the first half. Strong presence, good interlinking and positive. I can think of three occasions during the match where he received the ball with his back to goal and managed to turn the defender to make progress down the pitch.

Second half I'd agree but then again I'd struggle to suggest anyone came away with a credible second half performance!

[Guest Col city fan]

Completely agree with this post - Forest were organised and playing deep and therefore there was very little chance for our wingers to isolate their full backs, as a result I think Nigel wanted to get ball players in the gap between back 4 and midfield and chose Drinks and GTF for this role (could argue that Knocky may have done this) but having a player in this position essentially won us a pen so the change was vindicated in my eyes.

I think today was just an example of how dangerous it can be when you don't take your chances....at 0-0 they wouldn't have been as defensive and we'd have created more clear cut chances in the second half.

Onto the next one...LTID

For the final time, the penalty was won due to a daft challenge, came completely out of the blue and could have happened with any formation we care to play.

How can you interpret that a change in our formation is intrinsically linked to a defender completely miss timing a challenge? You can't...

I do agree with you though that Pearson tried to change what we were trying to do. Personally, I'd have kept the most dangerous players on the pitch. To replace Knocky for Hammond? When we needed 2 was like replacing Cristiano Ronaldo with Lassana Diarra, relatively speaking. Made no sense to me. We looked LESS like scoring after the changes.

As you say though, it was one of those games. We now need to bounce back with a victory.

[Dickov22]

I think the subs made us LESS likely to score.

The penalty could have happened with any formation, just a clumsy and unnecessary challenge from the defender.

We really do need strength in depth with our strikers. To bring on GTF when you are chasing a game is not sufficient.

The game was screaming for GTF- he was bought on to win knockdowns and headers for the quickest player on the pitch Vardy to chase. It just didn't happen, because Hobbs and Halford were outstanding.

I would have fetched Nugent off and left Schlupp on personally, but I doubt it'd have made any difference. Just wasn't our day yesterday

[Guest Col city fan]

The game was screaming for GTF- he was bought on to win knockdowns and headers for the quickest player on the pitch Vardy to chase. It just didn't happen, because Hobbs and Halford were outstanding.

I would have fetched Nugent off and left Schlupp on personally, but I doubt it'd have made any difference. Just wasn't our day yesterday

He's not good enough buddy. The plan might have been correct, but to rely on GTF shows a lack of quality in depth. If we want/need to get a big bloke in for the knock-downs (I sincerely hope we DONT go down that route) then GTF is not the fella.

[Mack]

Everything was just wrong yesterday, theres no point trying to make sense of it, just bin it and move on.

[Bettsj2]

For the final time, the penalty was won due to a daft challenge, came completely out of the blue and could have happened with any formation we care to play.

How can you interpret that a change in our formation is intrinsically linked to a defender completely miss timing a challenge? You can't...

I do agree with you though that Pearson tried to change what we were trying to do. Personally, I'd have kept the most dangerous players on the pitch. To replace Knocky for Hammond? When we needed 2 was like replacing Cristiano Ronaldo with Lassana Diarra, relatively speaking. Made no sense to me. We looked LESS like scoring after the changes.

As you say though, it was one of those games. We now need to bounce back with a victory.

It was a clumsy challenge yes but the passing leading up to the challenge was very neat and effective to get us up to that point.

Knocky was all over the place, chasing everything down and trying to make it happen. He was one mistimed challenge away from being off and I think we realised that so took him off. The ref would not have given him any chance. Watched the whole game back this morning and am convinced thats why he went off. About two minutes before he was subbed, he was battling for the ball and you could see his frustration starting to come out.

[Dickov22]

He's not good enough buddy. The plan might have been correct, but to rely on GTF shows a lack of quality in depth. If we want/need to get a big bloke in for the knock-downs (I sincerely hope we DONT go down that route) then GTF is not the fella.

I think he might prove to be a decent player for us over the course of the season. Needs to be fitter though!

[Guest Col city fan]

It was a clumsy challenge yes but the passing leading up to the challenge was very neat and effective to get us up to that point.

Knocky was all over the place, chasing everything down and trying to make it happen. He was one mistimed challenge away from being off and I think we realised that so took him off. The ref would not have given him any chance. Watched the whole game back this morning and am convinced thats why he went off. About two minutes before he was subbed, he was battling for the ball and you could see his frustration starting to come out.

Now THAT'S a plausible reason... And one I must confess I hadn't considered.

Good post..

[foxfanazer]

When Pearson took off Lloyd and Knocky today I looked at my mate, he looked at me.. Both of us looked quizzically at each other and mouthed 'why'?

We've been out, had a few lagers and frankly, still don't know.

Think Knockaerts was purely because of his booking. He's a passionate player and he could've easily got frustrated and lashed out. The ref wouldn't have thought twice about sending him off either

[Haydos]

Can someone explain to me the decision to bring Knockeart off and bring on a Dean Hammond?

Nothing against Dean but we needed two goals... If Knockeart was tired from running, why not drop him into the middle where he doesn't have to work as hard and is so much more effective? Instead we brought a CDM on and pushed Drinkwater on instead of King who is fairly useless in the deep lying role.

Vardy was unfit and proved completely useless today. GTF Should have come on before him. Oh and Nugent played the full 90...

This is not an isolated incident on suspect substitutions. Am I alone on this?

Wait? You think people have to do less work in the middle? Have you ever played football?

[Johnny Cash]

Wait? You think people have to do less work in the middle? Have you ever played football?

Did I say I wanted him to be box to box? I think most people realised what I was saying in respect that he wouldn't have to do the chasing on the flanks.

Nice try gorgeous.

[nlukka]

Forest were spoiling the game, it had turned really scrappy & we couldn't get our game going.

Dyer & Knocky weren't having the impact, I thought attempting to get a bit more steal in the middle was the obvious thing to do.

Subs & change of direction from NP has extremely often won us the game, hence our best ever start to a league season... So your dig at NP on that front is bizarre along with the nodding heads in agreement, but to be expected on FT

 

Spot on. Off the top of my head I can think of games against Boro, Watford, Blackpool, Birmingham, Derby (at home ) where the subs have had a positive impact.

 

Yesterday was strange, taking Knocky off seemed bizarre to me. In fairness though, given that Forest had everyone behind the ball second half, playing deep and narrow and with two big centre backs, I'm not sure whether any change available yesterday would have made much difference. 

[DennisNedry]

Don't understand why people were upset with Knocky being taken off?

 

First half he was electric, but 2nd half I barely remember him touching the ball. And he was on a yellow as well. No point getting a silly red when the game was already lost.

 

Hammond coming on was odd though I admit. I don't think any changes would have worked yesterday, we were beaten on 43 minutes imo.

[adam95581]

For the final time, the penalty was won due to a daft challenge, came completely out of the blue and could have happened with any formation we care to play.

How can you interpret that a change in our formation is intrinsically linked to a defender completely miss timing a challenge? You can't...

I do agree with you though that Pearson tried to change what we were trying to do. Personally, I'd have kept the most dangerous players on the pitch. To replace Knocky for Hammond? When we needed 2 was like replacing Cristiano Ronaldo with Lassana Diarra, relatively speaking. Made no sense to me. We looked LESS like scoring after the changes.

As you say though, it was one of those games. We now need to bounce back with a victory.

My point isn't so much that the change in personnel led to the penalty, but that the change in personnel did allow us to alter the way we were playing (going centrally through Forest as opposed to around the outside/in behind) and therefore did lead to the penalty in this sense.

I think this is the point you're also making when you say 'I do agree with you though that Pearson tried to change what we were trying to do.'

[Guest Sharpe's Fox]

I agree that the wide play was getting us nowhere and that playing through the middle with Drinkwater further forward won us the peno. Maybe Knockaert could have been pushed more central, though?

[Guest Col city fan]

I agree that the wide play was getting us nowhere and that playing through the middle with Drinkwater further forward won us the peno. Maybe Knockaert could have been pushed more central, though?

Absolutely...

[Kitchandro]

Awful subs, sealed our fate really.

 

Agree with what Moosey said on the other thread, bringing Knocky off for Hammond was one the strangest and most inexplicable subs I've ever seen. It's like he wanted us to lose.

 

Nugent should have been hauled off well before his penalty.  And it's not the first time this season he should have been subbed and wasn't.

 

I'm a fan of Pearson but the definition of 'Pearson Bummer' are the people defending him in this instance. It's indefensible.

[Corky]

Couldn't understand Knockaert coming off, let alone Hammond coming on. James would be more suitable when chasing a game.

[chrishlcfc]

Subs were strange and disappointing yesterday. I think when pearson made the subs especially taking knocky off for hammond was just basically a sign that we had given up on the game.

 

Nevermind onwards and upwards anyway, i'm not going to be heavily critical towards pearson because he's doing an excellent job and we were bound to lose at home eventually.

[The Doctor]

Sun always shines in your world does it?

 

I'm fairly certain if the real Johnny Cash was still alive he'd be suing you for defamation, given you're associating his name with the moronic witterings of a pointless cuntweasel.

[Johnny Cash]

I'm fairly certain if the real Johnny Cash was still alive he'd be suing you for defamation, given you're associating his name with the moronic witterings of a pointless cuntweasel.

Where do you practise?

[Ash79]

I'm fairly certain if the real Johnny Cash was still alive he'd be suing you for defamation, given you're associating his name with the moronic witterings of a pointless cuntweasel.

Do any weasels have a point? I only ask as whilst I have no interest in beastiality a **** weasel does conjure up some interesting imagery!

[The Horse's Mouth]

Pearson's has proven that the myth of him having a plan b over the summer break is false, league out here we come

[Unabomber]

Pearson's has proven that the myth of him having a plan b over the summer break is false, league out here we come

What does that even mean?

[Guest Col city fan]

Pearson's has proven that the myth of him having a plan b over the summer break is false, league out here we come

What the fook you talking bout?