Substitutions - Preserving Mental and Physical Strength?

[MooseBreath]

The thing that annoys me is that he has tried it before and it has always failed. Infact I can barely remember us scoring a goal so far this season while playing anything other than 442. At the beginning of the season it was almost laughable how bad we were starting 532 or 433 and then how good we'd suddenly become as soon as we switched to 442. Birmingham probably the best example, not a sniff at goal until we switched the 442, then bang three late goals. It should be clear to everyone that when this Leicester side needs a goal, it should be playing 442.

Maybe Knocky did need a rest last night, in which case it highlights the fact that we have no respectable backup - a clear managerial error.

If our sports science is so great and we knew he needed to play less than 90, then you start with a 433 and bring him on if and when we need a goal. Starting him only to bring him off when he was most needed is a clear managerial error.

Maybe it was tactical, in which case it was an even clearer managerial error. He could have taken Dyer off instead and left our best player on the pitch. Two clear managerial errors in one.

Whichever way you look at it, Pearson is plainly at fault. It's not the end of the world of course, but it's very frustrating when a manager makes mistakes which seem so obvious and easy to avoid.

[GingerrrFox]

The thing that annoys me is that he has tried it before and it has always failed. Infact I can barely remember us scoring a goal so far this season while playing anything other than 442. At the beginning of the season it was almost laughable how bad we were starting 532 or 433 and then how good we'd suddenly become as soon as we switched to 442. Birmingham probably the best example, not a sniff at goal until we switched the 442, then bang three late goals. It should be clear to everyone that when this Leicester side needs a goal, it should be playing 442.

Maybe Knocky did need a rest last night, in which case it highlights the fact that we have no respectable backup - a clear managerial error.

If our sports science is so great and we knew he needed to play less than 90, then you start with a 433 and bring him on if and when we need a goal. Starting him only to bring him off when he was most needed is a clear managerial error.

Maybe it was tactical, in which case it was an even clearer managerial error. He could have taken Dyer off instead and left our best player on the pitch. Two clear managerial errors in one.

Whichever way you look at it, Pearson is plainly at fault. It's not the end of the world of course, but it's very frustrating when a manager makes mistakes which seem so obvious and easy to avoid.

 

We battered Middlesbrough playing 3-5-2 in the 2nd half.

[Harry - LCFC]

Would agree with that. People who think 4-4-2 is outdated are so, so wrong. Great formation whatever level you play at.

[Kitchandro]

There are many times to take Knockaert off in matches. Last night was not one of them.

 

If he wasn't injured it's an indefensible tactical cock up by Pearson.

[Grewks]

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.

 

 

If you attended the game you would of realized that NP's sub was the right one at the time.

 

 

We had no control of the ball in the first half. Neither james or Drinky won a tackle for the whole first 45 minutes. Bringing Hammond on was genius and totally changed the style of the game. He won the ball back 2-3 times within the first few moments of him coming on, looked very intelligent on the ball, and most importantly from my point of view he committed 'intelligent fouls'.

 

There was no point in 'going for it' with 45 minutes left, and then concede within the first 5 and be out of it at 3-1. Also, Knockaert was brought down just before the break, and required a bit of attention so maybe NP thought it wasn't worth risking him, or maybe he couldn't run it off.

 

 

 

The most obvious thing to come out of the substitution is that Hammond must start games away from home. It wasn't until he came on that we won the right to play our own football. I know we took the lead, but that was through a piece of individual brilliance as oppose to tactical genius.

 

When he came on he was committed and played like the captain on the pitch. He had a go at the pole and drinky for not spreading the ball quick enough, and he was quite right to. Should be getting more starts from now on as he is our best all round central midfielder. As great as drinky has been, he got bullied at times last night.

[Guest Col city fan]

If you attended the game you would of realized that NP's sub was the right one at the time.

We had no control of the ball in the first half. Neither james or Drinky won a tackle for the whole first 45 minutes. Bringing Hammond on was genius and totally changed the style of the game. He won the ball back 2-3 times within the first few moments of him coming on, looked very intelligent on the ball, and most importantly from my point of view he committed 'intelligent fouls'.

There was no point in 'going for it' with 45 minutes left, and then concede within the first 5 and be out of it at 3-1. Also, Knockaert was brought down just before the break, and required a bit of attention so maybe NP thought it wasn't worth risking him, or maybe he couldn't run it off.

The most obvious thing to come out of the substitution is that Hammond must start games away from home. It wasn't until he came on that we won the right to play our own football. I know we took the lead, but that was through a piece of individual brilliance as oppose to tactical genius.

When he came on he was committed and played like the captain on the pitch. He had a go at the pole and drinky for not spreading the ball quick enough, and he was quite right to. Should be getting more starts from now on as he is our best all round central midfielder. As great as drinky has been, he got bullied at times last night.

Though I get what you're saying, lets have it right. A 'bit of genius' by Nige would have had us set up to play against a bigger, more physical side right from the off, not for just 45 mins.

Again, this is my point. We LOST against a managerless Sheff Weds side, on a woeful run of form and you are genuinely suggesting 'genius' on the part of Pearson. Its over the top mate!!!

Finally, even if I go with you and agree with your notion of 'genius' for 45 mins... well it wasn't that good was it? We didn't score!

For fooks sake, get some balance going on! Sheff 2 City 1 and you are suggesting 'genius'. Lord give me strength...

[pazzerfox]

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.

Maybe it was due to ball retention and us not keeping the ball when in possession.  Nigel eluded to this fact during his interview with Stringer.

[Stadt]

All managers make mistakes, I don't think any combination of changes would have won that game.

[Grewks]

Though I get what you're saying, lets have it right. A 'bit of genius' by Nige would have had us set up to play against a bigger, more physical side right from the off, not for just 45 mins.

Again, this is my point. We LOST against a managerless Sheff Weds side, on a woeful run of form and you are genuinely suggesting 'genius' on the part of Pearson. Its over the top mate!!!

Finally, even if I go with you and agree with your notion of 'genius' for 45 mins... well it wasn't that good was it? We didn't score!

For fooks sake, get some balance going on! Sheff 2 City 1 and you are suggesting 'genius'. Lord give me strength...

 

 

 

If you didn't go, you cannot have a view, it is as simple as that.

 

 

You can only base your view on what you 'heard' most likely from the two morons on the radio.

 

 

As for the point about 'genius', it was just to emphasise that the decision he made to bring hammond on was much closer to being considered genius as oppose to 'wrong'.

 

 

With Hammond on we were a much greater threat going forward. There is no doubt knocky is a more creative player, but ironically as you mention 'balance' is was exactly what the substitution gave us.

 

If Vardy could finish any one v one and Nuge could stick the ball into an empty net the substitution would have been a stroke of genius. The fact we still lost 2-1 does not make the decision wrong, it was the best one we could of made at the time.

[Grewks]

If you didn't go, you cannot have a view, it is as simple as that.

 

 

You can only base your view on what you 'heard' most likely from the two morons on the radio.

 

 

As for the point about 'genius', it was just to emphasise that the decision he made to bring hammond on was much closer to being considered genius as oppose to 'wrong'.

 

 

With Hammond on we were a much greater threat going forward. There is no doubt knocky is a more creative player, but ironically as you mention 'balance' is was exactly what the substitution gave us.

 

If Vardy could finish any one v one and Nuge could stick the ball into an empty net the substitution would have been a stroke of genius. The fact we still lost 2-1 does not make the decision wrong, it was the best one we could of made at the time.

 

 

 

Edit - Just to point out about your first point, about Nige setting up against a physically bigger side.

 

 

No manager in world football has psychic abilities. The fact they changed manager so recently meant that we could not set up for how they would play, as we would have no idea.

[ozleicester]

Footballers incapable of playing 50 games of football in a season? 

 

Resting them when we are safe is one thing, resting them when we are battling? well there is no need to save players for the end of the season if we arent in the race by then (not that i am saying we wont be)

 

If they arent injured and are performing, then taking them off is the wrong decision,

 

If they are not fit enough to run out a 50 game season, then the training needs to be looked at.

 

If they are not mentally tough enough to run out a 50 game season then the man management needs to be looked at.

[Oxfordfox83]

If they are not fit enough to run out a 50 game season, then the training needs to be looked at.

Bad news for every manager in the top 4 tiers of English football-apparently all their excuses about fatigue are actually their fault. Or does this bizarre statement only apply to Leicester players?

[MooseBreath]

Genius? You've got to be joking. We're getting overran on the middle of the park, so I'll just stick another man in there. That's genius? A five year old could come up with that idea. Quite aside from the fact that it clearly didn't work as we lost the game. Phooking genius it was a dumb move, real simpleton stuff

[Silverdaz]

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.

He wanted to go 4-3-3 but keep our pacy players on and to give a bit of suppport to Was who getting done a bit his side as Knockaert wasnt tracking back

[Dan]

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

 

This. Strikers aren't the problem, it's the lack of depth out wide.

 

I do wonder if this Dawson has anything about him though.

[Dan]

Would agree with that. People who think 4-4-2 is outdated are so, so wrong. Great formation whatever level you play at.

 

We don't play a very traditional 4-4-2 if you ask me. The traditional 4-4-2 has natural wingers or even defensive wingers, playing with a more defensive midfielder and a more attacking midfielder in the centre - with a big man/small man combination. That's how I perceive the 'dated' 4-4-2.

 

Leicester play a totally different midfield. Dyer's a pretty natural winger (and he's showing it far more this year), Drinkwater controls a game from deep, King is a bit of a box to box and Knockaert is if anything like an inside forward, a playmaker from out wide. Accompanied by a forward playing deeper (Nugent) and a forward closing down (Vardy). All of these when we're off the ball, and attacking with pace when we're on it.