Zelalem And The Interpretation Of A Role

[aweebluesoandso 290]

people are not going to like it but i think the double sub is picked before the game

 

Cant argue with this, as that's generally true? Although injury, red card or such get's in the managers way for his choices.

Edited February 7, 2016 by aweebluesoandso

[BrahimHemdani 1]

people are not going to like it but i think the double sub is picked before the game

 

I would suggest that's blatantly obvious; and I'm wondering if our very own master tactician Rousseau considers that gives the opposition an advantage (since if we fans can pretty much guess the subs so can opposition coaches) and also blinds MW to any tactical changes that might actually be required in our line up, or is he so wedded to Plan A that there cannot even be a Plan A (v2)?

Edited February 7, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[trublusince1982 243]

I would suggest that's blatantly obvious; and I'm wondering if our very own master tactician Rousseau considers that gives the opposition an advantage (since if we fans can pretty much guess the subs so can opposition coaches) and also blinds MW to any tactical changes that might actually be required in our line up, or is he so blinded by Plan A that there cannot even be a Plan A (v2)?

 

think it fits with his words on not reacting to opposition tactics or strengths and relying on doing our own things better. Personally its not for me, the game is too fluid to be considered fully before the fact. Games should be influenced during the match with weakness in the opponent or our own side deciding the next move.

[MacK1950 2,399]

Good interpretation of the game should be used to complement the good use of substitutes and not a pre-planned change.I agree with the thoughts that substitution tactic is pre-planned but watching games from other sources there seems to be many of the changes made on the hour mark,a sign of modern manuals?

[Rousseau 10,819]

I would suggest that's blatantly obvious; and I'm wondering if our very own master tactician Rousseau considers that gives the opposition an advantage (since if we fans can pretty much guess the subs so can opposition coaches) and also blinds MW to any tactical changes that might actually be required in our line up, or is he so wedded to Plan A that there cannot even be a Plan A (v2)?

 

I don't think substitutions are devised beforehand.

 

Surely, most sides are predictable with their subs anyway? We know our side best so it'll be second nature to guess what's to come sub-wise. Watching the Hibs-Hearts game today I could tell you what potential subs would be made.

 

Moreover, there are only 2 or 3 adaptations you can make to a side in a game situation: go more defensive, go more attacking, or more of the same (refresh). We have never had the need -- generally -- to go more defensive and so tend to do the latter two. Combine this with the fact we have a very lean squad, it's no wonder the subs are predictable. And, there are only three changes to be made, out of 6 players (excluding the 'keeper).

 

As to whether this is a disadvantage, not necessarily. Every side will do their analysis and preparation before a game to devise a way to win, so IMO teams will know, more or less, what an opponent will do; it comes down to how well those strategies are executed.

 

I think the 'Plan A' comments have been misinterpreted a little. Warburton indeed wants his teams to play a certain way and will not deviate from that, but that doesn't mean changes can't be made to the personnel, which will have an effect of the team. For example, we lined-up with both Ball and Halliday in the side against Killie; both have a defensive side to their game. We were still playing plan A, but the personnel chosen provided a different slant on that game-plan -- more steel in there! The line-up clearly shows Warburton tweaking his line-ups to deal with 'better' sides. I suspect we'll see more of that in the future.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Rousseau

[Rousseau 10,819]

Good interpretation of the game should be used to complement the good use of substitutes and not a pre-planned change.I agree with the thoughts that substitution tactic is pre-planned but watching games from other sources there seems to be many of the changes made on the hour mark,a sign of modern manuals?

 

Apparently the optimum times for subs are: 59 minutes, 68 minutes and 77 minutes. This clearly resembles the changes made in our games. Clearly, it's not absolute, but it's another way he's using data to come to the best decisions; like taking short corners.

 

I don't think they're pre-planned. There are only three changes to be made, out of 6 players (excluding the 'keeper). Combine that with the fact we only tend to make subs to go more attacking or refresh what we're already doing -- dictated by the type of games we play, where we dominate -- it's no wonder subs are predictable.

[colinstein 294]

Plan A2 actually happened in that game. Defence was reinforced.

Subs were chosen for plan A2

[Frankie 8,652]

I don't buy into the theory that subs are known before the game starts.

 

Yes, the manager may well like to think he knows who he'll bring on (and that makes sense) but the suggestion he'd ignore any bad performances and/or tactical issues to make these choices seems unlikely to me.

[Frankie 8,652]

PS: I thought Zelalem played very well again on Saturday and it's a shame he didn't have a Holt to help in a creative sense.

[buster. 5,257]

I don't buy into the theory that subs are known before the game starts.

 

Yes, the manager may well like to think he knows who he'll bring on (and that makes sense) but the suggestion he'd ignore any bad performances and/or tactical issues to make these choices seems unlikely to me.

 

Whilst there may well be a plan of sorts regards personnel/subs because of whatever factor, it will of course be subject to change.

 

I'd also note that our bench for league games is now stronger after the transfer window, with more attacking options.