Substitutions - Preserving Mental and Physical Strength?

[Guest MattP]

Most people seem a bit baffled around the substitution of Knockaert last night given that he was the main creative force and Pearson appeared to confirm afterwards if was tactical.

 

I don't think this is the last time we are going to see things like this over the next couple of months and I hold a belief part of the reason for the bad run last season was not only a lack of confidence but a tiredness from a mental and physical standpoint considering we had such a small squad playing such a large number of games.

 

Given NP has always taken a very strong opinion on the Sports Science side of the game if wouldn't surprise me if we had a "Tour De France" style system looking at how many yards certain players are covering and making sure they don't extend themselves to a point where they are unable to reach a high standard come the end of the season due to being out of gas.

 

We are about to head into a period of a hell of a lot of games in a short space of time (9 in less than a month) and we play a style of football where our players are often coming off the field very tired after putting in a real shift, players like Vardy, Knockaert and Dyer are at the top of this list. (King already is widely regarded on here as needing a rest now even before this period)

 

With that in mind I can see on quite a few occasions changes occuring not just because of performance on the pitch but because of an intention to make sure our best and most creative players are kept at peak physical fitness over the course of the winter.

 

It may have been the intention last night just to give Knockaert 45 minutes to hopefully give him a chance to influence the game (which he did magnificently with his goal) and then get him off to help keep his level at a high standard over the next few months.

 

So we may have to show a bit of patience over the next 6-8 weeks, even players clearly influencing a match might be coming off in what looks like a strange decision at the time but with a far bigger picture being thought about in the long run.

 

Most top football clubs do this now, the days of "they should be fit enough to play every few days" are long gone and most top managers realise whilst that may be the case of you really want to send them out there, the odds of them achieving a high standard consistenly if being forced to do that get lower and lower.

 

So if it's 1-1 on Saturday with fifteen minutes to go and a dangerous but shattered Lloyd Dyer is dragged off, maybe it's time to think about the bigger picture and how pacing ourselves whilst making sure our players are in a good place fitness wise could see us have a far better overall season and avoid a similar situation to what happened after the New Year twelve months ago.

[Lineker's Left Foot]

Am a fan of Nigel, but if you're losing why would Hammond come on?? Personally if we were going with 4-3-3 would put King on to feed the front three with James sitting deep and Drinky box to box

[Guest Col city fan]

Am a fan of Nigel, but if you're losing why would Hammond come on?? Personally if we were going with 4-3-3 would put King on to feed the front three with James sitting deep and Drinky box to box

Exactly this. Sure, I can see Matt's point. But both the substitutions against Forest and Sheff Weds were not bringing on like for like. Subbing Knocky for Hammond is not like for like. If you are taking off an attacking player when he's knackered, you replace him with another attacking player WHEN YOU ARE CHASING A GAME, like we were on both occassions.

That wasn't about fitness. Especially not after 45 mins.

[BrummieFOX]

Am a fan of Nigel, but if you're losing why would Hammond come on?? Personally if we were going with 4-3-3 would put King on to feed the front three with James sitting deep and Drinky box to box

Did you not read anything the original poster said? I'm not saying he's right, but he was questioning whether Pearson might be making seemingly 'strange' substitutions to preserve mental and physical strength. He has to do something to ensure we don't show the same catastrophic drop in form as last year and perhaps this is his method.

 

Unfortunately 90% of football fans only see the black and white. "We lost 2-1, we must be shit". "He took Knockheart off, that's wrong." Football at this level is so complex, you can't just isolate one off decisions, games, performances, substitutes etc.

 

It is a results business but it's also each game is a 2 horse race with a ridiculous amount of variables, to criticise so heavily after one bad performance or one bad substitution is quite simply stupid and naive. 

[Harry - LCFC]

Probably the first major disagreement I've had with Pearson this season. Can understand the argument about tiredness being put forward but I'd prefer to simply not play him the next game rather than take off our best player (at the time) when we needed him most.

 

Sounds like a good reason to expand the squad a little.

[Guest Col city fan]

Did you not read anything the original poster said? I'm not saying he's right, but he was questioning whether Pearson might be making seemingly 'strange' substitutions to preserve mental and physical strength. He has to do something to ensure we don't show the same catastrophic drop in form as last year and perhaps this is his method.

Unfortunately 90% of football fans only see the black and white. "We lost 2-1, we must be shit". "He took Knockheart off, that's wrong." Football at this level is so complex, you can't just isolate one off decisions, games, performances, substitutes etc.

It is a results business but it's also each game is a 2 horse race with a ridiculous amount of variables, to criticise so heavily after one bad performance or one bad substitution is quite simply stupid and naive.

Christ! Was the poster criticising so heavily? He was questioning the substitution like others have in other threads. Personally, I think Matt P has a point, although to sub off your most creative player after 45 mins cos he might be unfit having played less than 2 games in a fortnight is maybe a little worrying?

I do think we need another 'overreaction' thread. For those people who are overreacting to any opinion which is deemed to be critical in some way. Its got crazy.

[hackneyfox]

I do think we need another 'overreaction' thread. For those people who are overreacting to any opinion which is deemed to be critical in some way. Its got crazy.

You should be used to it by now Col.

 

Pearson made no mention of taking Knocky for any other reason than tactical.

He made a mistake last night imo.

For me this is what happened last season, we started off playing great passing and attacking football then Pearson seemed to become overly defensive once we hit the top, just hope we're not seeing a repeat.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Interesting post Matt, but I'm not sure. If a player is tired, a player is tired and probably best rested full stop, not given 45 mins. My take at the time was solely that Knocky had a knock from the Mattock incident, but seeing stuff mentioned since, it seems it was tactical, but I can't help but feel that maybe it was also felt that Knocky was a little bruised and maybe a little riled, that helped tip NP to make the strategic change that he might not have otherwise.

 

So whilst I agree that during this period of many games there will be some squad rotation, I don't think it's going to happen mid-game as you're suggesting.

[Captain...]

I theorised this in another thread that he took him off to stop him getting injured, with big games coming up and Mattock having almost broken his leg (exaggerrating as I didn't see it) he might have taken him off for his own protection.

 

Others have said we lost the game in midfield, so I can see why he would consider Hammond to help us win the midfield battle.

 

It didn't work.

 

I hope Matt is right and that Pearson is going to conserve the players' energy and utilise the whole squad to avoid burn out and physical and mental fatigue, and we hopefully won't have a repeat of last season's disaster.

 

It may cost us in some games, but hopefully in the long run it will pay off.

[Guest MattP]

Exactly this. Sure, I can see Matt's point. But both the substitutions against Forest and Sheff Weds were not bringing on like for like. Subbing Knocky for Hammond is not like for like. If you are taking off an attacking player when he's knackered, you replace him with another attacking player WHEN YOU ARE CHASING A GAME, like we were on both occassions.

That wasn't about fitness. Especially not after 45 mins.

 

I agree with that and Wood on for Knocky and a slight formation adjustment would made much more sense given hindsight, that said the same formation and personnel pretty much enabled us to get a grip on a game at Ipswich and come out 2-1 winners so I can see why he tried it.

 

Plus it sounded like towards the end of the first half we were being completely over ran in midfield.

 

Interesting post Matt, but I'm not sure. If a player is tired, a player is tired and probably best rested full stop, not given 45 mins. My take at the time was solely that Knocky had a knock from the Mattock incident, but seeing stuff mentioned since, it seems it was tactical, but I can't help but feel that maybe it was also felt that Knocky was a little bruised and maybe a little riled, that helped tip NP to make the strategic change that he might not have otherwise.

 

So whilst I agree that during this period of many games there will be some squad rotation, I don't think it's going to happen mid-game as you're suggesting.

 

Not wanting people to agree, just putting it out there as a thought and reasoning behind the substituion, we'll probably only know at the end of the month if this is actually happening.

 

Maybe a full rest would be better, but maybe they have also decided Knockaert can do one and a half games on a short week and that leaves him in a suitable and stable physical manner, Wenger gave an interesting interview a few weeks back that despite his form and how well he is playing, Ramsey will be managed over the winter to ensure he has the best chance to retain his current level of form over the whole season.

 

It might be something we are doing with Knockaert, I wouldn't be surprised to see another shortened outing for him on Saturday.

[Dan]

I think his reasoning behind taking Knockaert off was to assert control in the midfield area because we had none at all - and to be honest, it didn't work.

[GingerrrFox]

We were losing the battle in midfield which was why he brought Hammond on in my opinion. Dyer gives us the pace that can stretch defences and he is highest in assists and has scored some goals recently which is why Nigel maybe kept him on.

However Matt raises a very valid point. We have one of the most sophisticated sport science departments in English football and it may well be that the analytical data was saying he was performing below his usual level physiologically. Substitutions to prevent injury are a big thing now and this could just be a part of it.

[foxfanazer]

I think it proves we need to add quality cover on the wings in January.

[Nick]

I'm not sure it's all that complicated.

 

NP often takes off Knocky which strikes people as strange as he is just about our most creative player - certainly our most skillful.

 

The problem NP has with Knocky seems to be his defensive abilities in terms of his strength, tackling and positioning off the ball when the opposition are in possession.

[kingfox]

I talked about physical and mental strength last season, some agreed, some thought I was talking absolute bollocks, but those people are the usual numpties who put me down as one of those idiots, when I'm actually not.

 

Drinkwater in particular, looked physically and mentally drained, in the second half of last season, others as well, but for Drinky he stuck out like a sore thumb. This is a major problem, that we don't want to happen again, it happened last season, and it nearly wrecked our campaign altogether, I don't want to see it happening this season again, because if we drop off and slide down the table, it will be down to the lack of physical and mental strength. 

 

We had an even smaller squad around this stage last season, with around only 19 squad players. Right now we have 22 I think, some of which are pretty much pointless i.e Bakayogo, Hopper & St Ledger.

 

Is it a case of filling in the gaps, where we lack competition, especially on the wings so Dyer and Knockaert won't suffer burn out?

 

We will see, but we need to use this squad wisely again, or all our hard work again, will just go down the drain.

[Bert]

Pearson said it was because we weren't getting back into shape quick enough.

We were being hammered in the middle and the only logical sub to bring on in that situation is Hammond, if you're going to make it of course.

Matt makes some good points though and to an extent I quite agree with most of it.

Pearson is big into the sports science side of football.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

Am a fan of Nigel, but if you're losing why would Hammond come on?? Personally if we were going with 4-3-3 would put King on to feed the front three with James sitting deep and Drinky box to box

 

 

Exactly this. Sure, I can see Matt's point. But both the substitutions against Forest and Sheff Weds were not bringing on like for like. Subbing Knocky for Hammond is not like for like. If you are taking off an attacking player when he's knackered, you replace him with another attacking player WHEN YOU ARE CHASING A GAME, like we were on both occassions.

That wasn't about fitness. Especially not after 45 mins.

 

I thought it was fairly obvious but clearly not....

 

We changed formation at half time from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 with James and Hammond in behind Drinkwater who moved into an advanced central role. We needed someone with a bit more bite in there which is why Hammond was the better option over King, and Drinkwater had struggled to get on the ball so moving him further forward allowed him to do that. One of the main problems was that, in getting bogged-down in a scrappy central midfield, Drinkwater wasn't able to conduct play and link things up as he usually does.

 

There was no like-for-like because we were changing formation and Pearson was clearly trying to put an extra man in the middle of the park to take control of that area as we had failed to do in the first half. If changing something that isn't working and getting an extra body into a crucial area whilst also maintaining a front three of Dyer, Nugent and Vardy in a 4-3-3 isn't a positive/sensible move then I don't know what is...

 

Knockaert doesn't fit into that formation as easily because you require a lot more discipline (i.e. you have to stick to your side and can't roam like he's allowed to when on the right in a midfield 4) and to compensate for losing the wide men in your midfield the widest of the front 3 in the 4-3-3 have to have the pace to work back quickly if the opposition is attacking down the flank. I imagine that Knockaert could well do this but there have been plenty of times that Pearson has alluded to not fully trusting Knockaert tactically at times and him not being as disciplined as Pearson may like. Vardy, Nugent and Dyer are much pacier and safer bets to stay on and the knock Knockaert took probably made the decision even easier.

 

 

I theorised this in another thread that he took him off to stop him getting injured, with big games coming up and Mattock having almost broken his leg (exaggerrating as I didn't see it) he might have taken him off for his own protection.

 

Others have said we lost the game in midfield, so I can see why he would consider Hammond to help us win the midfield battle.

 

It didn't work.

 

I hope Matt is right and that Pearson is going to conserve the players' energy and utilise the whole squad to avoid burn out and physical and mental fatigue, and we hopefully won't have a repeat of last season's disaster.

 

It may cost us in some games, but hopefully in the long run it will pay off.

 

 

I think his reasoning behind taking Knockaert off was to assert control in the midfield area because we had none at all - and to be honest, it didn't work.

 

IMO it did work.

 

Ok, we weren't at our best but we certainly had control of the middle of the park second half and kept the ball a lot better than we were doing in the first 45 minutes. For me, the problem was that it came too late as we lost the battle in the first half, leaving us chasing the game. Which is why in other threads I've said that I'd like to see Hammond start in the games where we're playing poor sides away from home who will turn the game into a scrap/battle.

[ImBlue]

3 in the middle and you would think you had control.

There was one point where all 3 got shrugged off by the same guy. Black defensive mid, don't know his name.

We're there in numbers, not in presence.

[ImBlue]

I thought it was fairly obvious but clearly not....

We changed formation at half time from a 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3 with James and Hammond in behind Drinkwater who moved into an advanced central role. We needed someone with a bit more bite in there which is why Hammond was the better option over King, and Drinkwater had struggled to get on the ball so moving him further forward allowed him to do that. One of the main problems was that, in getting bogged-down in a scrappy central midfield, Drinkwater wasn't able to conduct play and link things up as he usually does.

There was no like-for-like because we were changing formation and Pearson was clearly trying to put an extra man in the middle of the park to take control of that area as we had failed to do in the first half. If changing something that isn't working and getting an extra body into a crucial area whilst also maintaining a front three of Dyer, Nugent and Vardy in a 4-3-3 isn't a positive/sensible move then I don't know what is...

Knockaert doesn't fit into that formation as easily because you require a lot more discipline (i.e. you have to stick to your side and can't roam like he's allowed to when on the right in a midfield 4) and to compensate for losing the wide men in your midfield the widest of the front 3 in the 4-3-3 have to have the pace to work back quickly if the opposition is attacking down the flank. I imagine that Knockaert could well do this but there have been plenty of times that Pearson has alluded to not fully trusting Knockaert tactically at times and him not being as disciplined as Pearson may like. Vardy, Nugent and Dyer are much pacier and safer bets to stay on and the knock Knockaert took probably made the decision even easier.

IMO it did work.

Ok, we weren't at our best but we certainly had control of the middle of the park second half and kept the ball a lot better than we were doing in the first 45 minutes. For me, the problem was that it came too late as we lost the battle in the first half, leaving us chasing the game. Which is why in other threads I've said that I'd like to see Hammond start in the games where we're playing poor sides away from home who will turn the game into a scrap/battle.

Correct, right move, wrong time.

[foxfanazer]

Manager in wrong substitution shocker!!!...read all about it

[Guest Col city fan]

I talked about physical and mental strength last season, some agreed, some thought I was talking absolute bollocks, but those people are the usual numpties who put me down as one of those idiots, when I'm actually not.

Drinkwater in particular, looked physically and mentally drained, in the second half of last season, others as well, but for Drinky he stuck out like a sore thumb. This is a major problem, that we don't want to happen again, it happened last season, and it nearly wrecked our campaign altogether, I don't want to see it happening this season again, because if we drop off and slide down the table, it will be down to the lack of physical and mental strength.

We had an even smaller squad around this stage last season, with around only 19 squad players. Right now we have 22 I think, some of which are pretty much pointless i.e Bakayogo, Hopper & St Ledger.

Is it a case of filling in the gaps, where we lack competition, especially on the wings so Dyer and Knockaert won't suffer burn out?

We will see, but we need to use this squad wisely again, or all our hard work again, will just go down the drain.

I agreed with you about the lack of physical strength thing last season, as you know. It was apparently an issue last night too. We can't complain about our league position but can continue discussing areas for improvement. Keep at it KF. IMO you are right more often than wrong.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Good opening post, certainly agree with the sentiment.

I was surprised at the time and assumed Knocky had been injured in the challenge by Mattock but obviously not.

It's a game of fine margins though and I thought Hammond was the best player on the pitch for the first fifteen minutes of the second half. If we'd scored then, as Vardy and Nugent should have done, then Pearson might have been hailed for making another good substitution.

It wasn't the Hammond substitution that made us less attacking, it was taking off Nugent and Dyer. Fair enough you might need to save their legs because they'd covered a huge amount of ground up til then but we were awful after they went off.

Even taking off an attacking winger for a defensive midfielder isn't necessarily a defensive move if it means you get hold of the midfield and create more chances as a result. Although we created more in the first half, we were overrun at times through the middle and losing that initiative is what cost us the game overall in my opinion.

[BrummieFOX]

Christ! Was the poster criticising so heavily? He was questioning the substitution like others have in other threads. Personally, I think Matt P has a point, although to sub off your most creative player after 45 mins cos he might be unfit having played less than 2 games in a fortnight is maybe a little worrying?

I do think we need another 'overreaction' thread. For those people who are overreacting to any opinion which is deemed to be critical in some way. Its got crazy.

It wasn't the fact he had criticised the player, anyone is within their right to do it. But there's about 5 other threads to do that it. His reply wasn't really in context to the original post which was providing an alternative suggestion to why Pearson was subbing players at seemingly strange times.

[Beliall]

good post, I would rather he brought knocky on for the second 45 though.

[Guest MattP]

Good opening post, certainly agree with the sentiment.

I was surprised at the time and assumed Knocky had been injured in the challenge by Mattock but obviously not.

It's a game of fine margins though and I thought Hammond was the best player on the pitch for the first fifteen minutes of the second half. If we'd scored then, as Vardy and Nugent should have done, then Pearson might have been hailed for making another good substitution.

It wasn't the Hammond substitution that made us less attacking, it was taking off Nugent and Dyer. Fair enough you might need to save their legs because they'd covered a huge amount of ground up til then but we were awful after they went off.

Even taking off an attacking winger for a defensive midfielder isn't necessarily a defensive move if it means you get hold of the midfield and create more chances as a result. Although we created more in the first half, we were overrun at times through the middle and losing that initiative is what cost us the game overall in my opinion.

 

This is a very good point, despite the 'nightmare substitution' we seemed to create more in the second half than we did in the first and we got through the whole 45 minutes without conceding and with that bettering the result from the first 45.

 

Vardy or Nugent take just one of the chances they should and we are all lauding the switch.

 

Whose to say we don't lose 3 or 4-1 leaving Knocky on and a defence even more exposed in the second half. These things are so easy in hindsight.