Must admit, I like to see a manager go for it in the last 10 minutes, but there's going for it and then there's Kamikaze tactics. It's rare you see a manager use all three subs at once. For obvious reasons. It unbalances the side with so many changes in personnel and although it may improve the teams chances over the course of the match, you are vulnerable for the next 10 minutes as the subs take a while to get to the pace of the game. Managers don't tend to want three players getting up to speed at the same time if they can help it. It's actually debatable whether it improves your side over the remainder of the match because a manager tends only to do it at half time, after his team has took a real battering in the 1st half, as much as a way to show he is unhappy with the performances of certain individuals as a tactic to improve the team. Or, as an act of desperation, after a sudden flurry of goals by the opposition. We did it with just 10 minutes left. It must have happened before, but I can't remember a manager making a triple substitution so late in a game, for tactical reasons, and certainly not when his team is still on for a point away from home. Changing tactics can be beneficial too and change the game in your favour. However, it's rarely instant, the players usually take a while to adjust and it can leave you vulnerable while that adjustment is made. Couple that with the three changes in personnel and we really were taking a gamble. Add to that the personnel that were left on the pitch. Although we gained a central defender, we lost a box to box/defensive midfield player and two full backs. We finished the game with 3 defenders, a defensive midfield player and 6 attacking players. Two up front, one in behind, wingers as wing backs and Hourihane asked to help out Pearson with the midfield defensive duties. I'm surprised we lasted so long after the substitutions before conceding. Having so many attacking players on the field away from home is a huge gamble. Changing formation so late in the game is a huge gamble. Making three subs at once is a huge gamble. Doing all three at the same time just seems... I dunno what to say. Had Donny just scored I could sort of understand it, but even then it would have looked desperate. Go 5-3-2 by all means, but leave Smith and Wabara on, or at least one of them. Use 3 substitutions at the same time if you really must, but don't change everyone else's position on the field at the same time too. Go with two up front, great, but take off Watkins, Hourihane or Harris, not Scowen. Lee Johnson often speaks about the analysis of the video tapes after the match. I wonder if, after viewing them, he might think that taking off both his full backs and his most energetic midfield player at the same time while simultaneously changing the formation of the team when there was only 10 minutes left and we weren't even losing might have something to do with the defeat.
I wasn't at the game but saw the changes come through on Twitter and thought it looked a bit mental considering it was 1-1. The only reasoning I can think of is that if you make this kind of change six times in a season, and four times it fails but twice it comes, you end up with a better points tally overall? There's a lot to be said for the value of three points, especially in this league, so maybe in the first half of the season chasing three points is the way to go? There's still ways and means to go about that though. I'm not sure this was the right one.
I don't really care what he says in public, particularly so soon after the match, but I hope privately he reflects on his decision and we don't get a repeat the next time we're drawing away from home with 10 minutes left. I suspect, in spite of what he's just said, that we won't.
I'm not so sure about that. I don't think the substitutions changed the game much. It's not like Doncaster were dominating the game. Their goal came from nothing. We just switched off. And I can't remember any other chances they had after the subs
That's the point really. With so many changes, in personnel as well as formation, that is much more likely to happen.
Possibly, although with our away record since Wilson and Bassett, any point from anywhere on the road is welcome.
II think you're right but I also hope he doesn't use it as an excuse not to make ANY attacking changes by claiming today was an attacking change that didn't work because today wasn't an attacking change it was an example of bat **** craziness
Weird wasn't it. We've gone from rarely making an attacking sub at all (George Smith for Nyatanga at Rochdale when 3-0 down, Jackson in injury time at Blackpool) to the most attacking triple substitution I've ever seen.
I don't think the substitutions were the issue per se but the issues were we didn't seem to know how to play as a 352 and we really needed to change the tempo more than the shape, back to how we came out in the second half...
You've got a valid point but players shouldn't switch off at any point of the game. They'd been on 10 minutes and they're not playing for an U10s team! Whether there was a direct correlation between the subs and the goal is impossible to know
How silly can a manager be. He replaces Smith, Wabara, and Scowen which totally took our defence out and puts Three forwards on with ten minutes to go. Result is they went down the right flank for Five minutes and Harris is having to race back to cover. Johnson made a complete ba!!s of it . He will have a load of jargon to justify it but he was to blame. Watkins was totally screwed by Euin their full back and was totally defunct. Harris at the same time screwed their full back. The tactics then took Harris out of the game. Which counteracts putting three forwards on. He says he does not play one up front. Poppycock. Winall was up front on his own full stop. He was being hit with forearms into his head and back all match, and when he managed to get ball or lay it off , no one there. I was sat in away stand and moved second half to their goal so was in line with play all match. Hourihane not up with play, Watkins a spectator. That lad will be knackered in two years under Johnsons tactics. We should have played for point latterly.
To make 3 changes was daft and we did look all at sea, although the goal itself came from a really poor cross field ball from the left, which put us in trouble when they picked up possession in a central position in our half. Never really threatened at the other end in the last 10 minutes...
With players forming relationships communication and knowledge of how each other play making three subs to me caused some confusion, I would have put Watkins up front, Wabara right wing and brought James Bree Right back at least then Wabara and Watkins know how each other work. The last time we went chasing the game we got punished against Shrewsbury. We still played well and sometimes you need a bit of luck...
