The Lack of Good Options from the Bench

[buster. 5,395]

I had a look at the bench for the game up at Dens Park last Friday and what was apparent was the dearth of any reliable outfield quality to call upon.

 

Alnwick

Hodson

Bates

Barjonas

Pena

Herrera

Hardie

 

Murty was forced into the first substitution, bringing on Herrera when Moreleos was injured. The Mexican got the whole second half and did very little.

 

No further change was made until the 84th minute, in reaction to Dundee scoring their second goal. Hardie, coming on for Candeias. Not surprisingly, he did nothing.

 

This while Dundee did have some quality to bring on and it won them the game.

 

-------------------------

 

The week before against Hamilton, Nemane and Kranjcar were on the bench. Despite our inability to create much in the second half, Kranjcar didn't get on (and didn't make the bench against Dundee).

 

Hamilton scored in the 66th minute and 81 mins.

 

Hardie came on for Morelos (72 mins)

Herrera for Miller (73 mins)

Nemane for Windass (88 mins)

 

 

As it stands (with current injury list) If the starting XI don't do a job, Murty is very limited as to positive personnel changes he can make.

 

-----------------------

 

Despite our budget being notably larger than Aberdeen, they will have a much stronger bench than we do tonight and that is mainly down to two poor summer tansfer windows trying to take short-cuts to where we want to go.

[Frankie 8,687]

Agreed and was just discussing same in the match preview.

 

We lack proper depth in the squad. Sure, guys like Dorrans and Wallace being injured doesn't help but our awful work in the transfer market means we can have little faith in someone like Dalcio or Nemane to step in.

 

I feel particularly sorry for guys like Morelos and Candeias who have done well but must be getting fed up and/or jaded.

[Uilleam 6,028]

Dalcio and Nemane are loans, which begs the question, why borrow players not to use them?

Or why borrow, at all, players who are not good enough to use, even when stretched?

[buster. 5,395]

Dalcio and Nemane are loans, which begs the question, why borrow players not to use them?

Or why borrow, at all, players who are not good enough to use, even when stretched?

 

It's not very often that players on loan make a big impression and they often seem to be cheap options to pad out a squad.

 

 

If Eck could get Iniesta and Messi on loan (as he previously went for) then maybe he is the man

[Uilleam 6,028]

To borrow, and not to use, benefits neither the lending club, whose players get no/little game time, experience, etc., nor the borrowing club, which pays fees, salaries, etc., and receives nothing in return.

The borrowed players themselves get little benefit beyond a different training regime, and the borrowing club's own players get their noses out of joint, as they see guys brought in, temporarily, in front of them, and who are, perhaps, unlikely to be as committed to the club as they are.

 

Don't borrow players, unless you need, and intend to use, them. Even then, you are developing an asset for someone else, at your own expense. With a loan with option to buy, you might even increase the value of the player, if he trains on successfully.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Uilleam

[Darthter 542]

Nothing against loan players....but as others have said, why get them & not play them???

 

Looking at the info in the original post, it would appear that substitutions are reactionary, rather than preemptive.

If something isn't working....why wait till the 72min before making a change???

 

Also, changing like for like isn't going to have much effect if the overall strategy isn't working. I think there are decent option available - are we honestly saying that Dundee have a more talented/better squad than us? - but the sub options need to be utilised better.

[buster. 5,395]

To borrow, and not to use, benefits neither the lending club, whose players get no/little game time, experience, etc., nor the borrowing club, which pays fees, salaries, etc., and receives nothing in return.

The borrowed players themselves get little benefit beyond a different training regime, and the borrowing club's own players get their noses out of joint, as they see guys brought in, temporarily, in front of them, and who are, perhaps, unlikely to be as committed to the club as they are.

 

Don't borrow players, unless you need, and intend to use, them. Even then, you are developing an asset for someone else, at your own expense. With a loan with option to buy, you might even increase the value of the player, if he trains on successfully.

 

If a club has a clear strategy, is well run and well organised, it is much more likely they'll get more out of the loan system.

 

Warburton, who was organised and effective when he arrived at Ibrox, seemed to have a clearer idea of what he wanted out of the loan system and got a reasonable return.

 

Caixinha, who had a great deal on his plate at the time of squad reorganisation didn't do so well in this market and Mark Allen, who arrived in mid June seemed to help bring in Nemane and John.

 

TBF, it'll be much more difficult for any player to come in and do a job under current circumstances......although if they have something about them, it shouldn't be.........

But if they have something about them, maybe they wouldn't be getting loaned out.

Edited November 29, 2017 by buster.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

The lack of good options on the pitch is in the main problem.

[pete 2,499]

Against Hamilton Murty brought on Nemane in the 88th minute. I have no idea what he thought he could do in a few minutes except waste our valuable time. Even if he took off a defender and stuck an extra man up front I may have some understanding of it but he took off Windass.

[Frankie 8,687]

The lack of good options on the pitch is in the main problem.

 

It's all related though.

 

If we look at Celtic, they have a good core of 16 players where they can make changes for games (before they start or during it) because this core all play regularly - be it in Europe or domestically. Rodgers isn't afraid to drop/rest player A or B as he knows their replacement can do just as well or better.

 

I'm all for playing a settled XI as much as possible but I don't think we integrate fringe players enough. Is that because they're not good enough? Probably but eventually the players that are half-decent often burn out because they're never rested.