Ole's Substitutions

[SirAnderson]

Yes I know, another Ole thread. But not try to bash, trying to understand...

What is his reasoning?

1. Could it be he just doesn't trust the players on the bench? Most probably this.
2. Maybe sending a message (whether it is effective or not) to the board that he needs better players and better squad depth?

Looking at one sub specifically of Ighalo:

1. Why extend Ighalo's loan in the first place? Seems a complete waste of money now. If you think he is not good enough? Since he's loan extension 1st June, he has played all but 73 minutes of a possible 810 minutes (Mins each game: 12, 10, 12, 10, 11, 11, 5, 1, 1 all the minutes per game), this is excluding the dead rubber against Lask where he played the full 90. And the FA cup game against Norwich. Sure, we were on a run of good form and our main guys needed to start, but just looking at when he came on?? that's poor for me.

2. Then there is the timing of this substitutions, almost always late. This is connect of course to whatever the reasoning is as stated above.

I'm definitely no expert and don't want to be an armchair manager, but would like the many other arm chairs to give me some help to try and understand why he does substitutions the way he does it...

 

[Crashoutcassius]

i like to thing he wasn't trying to just make a point in such a big game. i personally don't think subs are as important in a game like today, because players tend to find a little extra for such a big game, they have had a slightly longer rest than usual etc. i didn't thin the front 3 looked tired, just that rashford looked out of confidence

 

[Godfather]

Ighalo should have come on way sooner. Apart from that there's not much to bring on from that bench. Our squad is absolute shambles.

 

[Mindhunter]

Yes I know, another Ole thread. But not try to bash, trying to understand...

What is his reasoning?

1. Could it be he just doesn't trust the players on the bench? Most probably this.
2. Maybe sending a message (whether it is effective or not) to the board that he needs better players and better squad depth?

Looking at one sub specifically of Ighalo:

1. Why extend Ighalo's loan in the first place? Seems a complete waste of money now. If you think he is not good enough? Since he's loan extension 1st June, he has played all but 73 minutes of a possible 810 minutes (Mins each game: 12, 10, 12, 10, 11, 11, 5, 1, 1 all the minutes per game), this is excluding the dead rubber against Lask where he played the full 90. And the FA cup game against Norwich. Sure, we were on a run of good form and our main guys needed to start, but just looking at when he came on?? that's poor for me.

2. Then there is the timing of this substitutions, almost always late. This is connect of course to whatever the reasoning is as stated above.

I'm definitely no expert and don't want to be an armchair manager, but would like the many other arm chairs to give me some help to try and understand why he does substitutions the way he does it...

It's #1 above.

We don't have anyone capable of coming off the bench to change the course of the game. The players we start with are often leagues ahead in ability. Ighalo would have only had a chance if we were 3 goals ahead. Since he isn't permanent, Ole doesn't trust him with a do or die situation.

I don't think this is on Ole to be honest. We were atrocious in our finishing today and squandered great chances. Also the less said about the defending the better IMO. We should be prioritizing our defense instead of chasing Jadon Sancho.

 

[SirAnderson]

i like to thing he wasn't trying to just make a point in such a big game. i personally don't think subs are as important in a game like today, because players tend to find a little extra for such a big game, they have had a slightly longer rest than usual etc. i didn't thin the front 3 looked tired, just that rashford looked out of confidence

Without trying to be a complete tit of an arm chair manager, but surely taking Rashford off could have been done much much earlier maybe?

 

[FrankDrebin]

Ighalo,Mata and Lingard's moments are so few and far between now. Realistically, all good guys but they really shouldn't be at a club the size of ours.

We've got as much out of them as any club has. They,and a few others,need to be moved on for us to continually makes strides forwards but,as I;ve been saying, in these Covid times its going to be really,really tough.

 

[AshRK]

It's sad how little trust he has of our bench players. With how Ed operates, cannot see us buying 4 or 5 quality players so he needs to learn to trust his bench more often than not.

 

[Lay]

Ighalo should have come on earlier but I believe he doesn't have faith in his bench.

 

[andeeeeyhart]

Ighalo should have come on way earlier. Mata is a big part of the reason we won the Copenhagen game when he came on. Hell, even Lingard has scored recently, he could have offered something. To not bring a sub on till the 87th minute, 9 minutes after going behind, was absurd.

I get that the quality gap between our starting 11 and our bench is big. But to say there were no options isn't true. When things aren't working (and after the 60th minute, that was definitely the case), you have to change something. Once a team is tiring, they aren't going to turn it around.

Sevilla's bench was considerably weaker than ours, yet they utilised their subs in a far better way than we did. We outplayed them, yet they were far smarter.

I like Ole, but his use of substitions is one of many things that highlight his naivity.

 

[Dan_F]

The players on the bench weren’t great, but like others have said, if we can’t put on our second striker until the 93rd minute of a cup semi, something is wrong. We didn’t need to take off any of the front three to get someone else on. Take Williams off for an attacker.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

Without trying to be a complete tit of an arm chair manager, but surely taking Rashford off could have been done much much earlier maybe?

yeah i think that was the right move. didn't ever look like doing anything, and chances were falling to us. Would have brought on lingard personally. my god imagine it could have been grealish

 

[Skills]

I find it funny how Seville's record signing is probably only a couple of million more expensive than Dan James (who Ole himself bought last summer). Yet he's the one who can't trust his subs.

 

[SirAnderson]

yeah i think that was the right move. didn't ever look like doing anything, and chances were falling to us. Would have brought on lingard personally. my god imagine it could have been grealish

The fact that a few people thinks this, just shows how poor Rashford was. Well guess we not expert...

 

[Mystry]

Matic is arguably first choice, well he has been for most of post lockdown season. Does he suddenly not trust him? McTominay was our go to midfielder for much of the season, is he not worth bringing on for 30 mins when our team is tired?

I don't think it's to send a message to the board, he's not that stupid or petty. No idea what it is though.

 

[Crashoutcassius]

The fact that a few people thinks this, just shows how poor Rashford was. Well guess we not expert...

would you have preferred james or mata? usually mata but for lots of the game we needed that threat on the break as seville controlled the ball well. lingard has the advantage that he can play in the tight space and on the break, not syaing he is very effective on either though but he is more complete than either mata or james right now

 

[PeteManic]

The best team was on the pitch. The bench is shite.

I do think as well, in all seriousness, that Maguire is injured and Rashford is also injured.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

The best team was on the pitch. The bench is shite.

I do think as well, in all seriousness, that Maguire is injured and Rashford is also injured.

I agree but changes were needed when the team was gassed at the 65th minute.

 

[SirAnderson]

would you have preferred james or mata? usually mata but for lots of the game we needed that threat on the break as seville controlled the ball well. lingard has the advantage that he can play in the tight space and on the break, not syaing he is very effective on either though but he is more complete than either mata or james right now

Both came on and did nothing, so could even be that Lingard would have done nothing too. But its just doing nothing that I can take, or doing it so late. Sometimes a player needs to be yanked off when he isn't doing well, or else he just thinks its not a problem. Surely Rashford will know that he was poor tonight, but keeping him on to hope he clicks when it clearly wasn't working, isn't really good for his confidence either.

 

[Foxbatt]

Sir Ando you are spot on. We all agree that the starting eleven bar Matic was the best. Fred his replacement was probably our best player. Subs are not brought on because they are better than the starting eleven. They are brought to change the game. When a manager sees that some players are struggling he should be able to see it. When a manager sees the match swinging to the other team he should be able to see it. Subs should be brought on also to run like crazy for the balance of the time.
Matches are won during the full 90 minutes and not in the first 15 minutes.
Ole should have seen the over loading on our full backs. He should have rectified it. Neither Rashford or Greenwood was helping our full backs. Both had to face two players most of the time. I noticed Rashford struggling with Jesus and losing it. Yes we should have scored but we didn't and this is where other options should have been used. It is pointless saying Rashford should be kept for the penalties when we need to win the game during normal times. I would have even put on Bailly on as a winger/ midfield player and told him to go forward as much as possible.

 

[SAFMUTD]

Its because he's simply not a tactitian, he's more of a "motivational" kind of manager. Does anyone in here get the impression that anything changes when Ole gets the sub on? do the tactics change? or is it man for man changes? I geniunly think he didnt make sustitutions until that late because he doesnt have anything planed to impact the game. The team plays accordingly to the players inertia, if the players are inspired we will see great things, if theyre not we will struggle.

 

[joedirt87]

The players on the bench weren’t great, but like others have said, if we can’t put on our second striker until the 93rd minute of a cup semi, something is wrong. We didn’t need to take off any of the front three to get someone else on. Take Williams off for an attacker.

agreed. our bench is not good, but it's not like Sevilla has some deep bench of super subs either. Their manager made lots of subs and it paid off. Williams needed to come off much earlier, was clear as day. We could have used Ighalo earlier to see if he could have provided some central presence in the box.

 

[Foxbatt]

Yes our 1999 CL final was a classic example. When the Yorke/ Cole combination did not work SAF changed it and brought on Ole and Teddy. Different variations and it worked. Managers need to plan to win the match in 90 minutes and not in the first 15 minutes. James may be a terrible player but still he can do a job. That job is tiring the opposition defence. His job could have been running non stop till he could not and then he comes off.
Either the players do not listen to the manager( I do not think so) or they have no idea how to do these things. When you see your manager raving and ranting on the touchline you try that extra bit. It is human nature. When your manager sits there you do not do that extra bit. It is human nature.
I simply think he is not good enough. We can give him all the time and he definitely is not going to get the sack this season but that does not mean he is going to win us the PL or the CL. I think next season is his last.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

His lack of subs until late in games is surely a middle finger to the club telling them he wants his own options to choose from - we were on top for a lot of the game, he should have looked to have an impact earlier.

 

[Collet]

Yes our 1999 CL final was a classic example. When the Yorke/ Cole combination did not work SAF changed it and brought on Ole and Teddy.

SAF had Ole AND Teddy on the bench.
Today, there is no one near the two of them on the bench.

 

[Nialler]

Personally I'd have liked to see Ighalo come on earlier than he did and would have given Lingard a run out instead of James. McTominy also has a habit of scoring the odd goal and might have made a better impression than Mata. We lost this game in the first 15 minutes of the second half by not scoring the numerous chances we created and appeared sluggish thereafter. Anyway it's done now and cannot be altered, we played well and the team can hold their heads high. Big lesson learned is that we need a dominant centre-half alongside Harry and a full back who can cross the ball more effectively and of course Sancho would be a terrific addition to the team, just pay the fee Ed and stop procrastinating.

 

[SAFMUTD]

His lack of subs until late in games is surely a middle finger to the club telling them he wants his own options to choose from - we were on top for a lot of the game, he should have looked to have an impact earlier.

Well he had two players he bought in the bench, so Its hardly a clever way to critisize the board.

 

[Jetrooooo]

Yes our 1999 CL final was a classic example. When the Yorke/ Cole combination did not work SAF changed it and brought on Ole and Teddy. Different variations and it worked. Managers need to plan to win the match in 90 minutes and not in the first 15 minutes. James may be a terrible player but still he can do a job. That job is tiring the opposition defence. His job could have been running non stop till he could not and then he comes off.
Either the players do not listen to the manager( I do not think so) or they have no idea how to do these things. When you see your manager raving and ranting on the touchline you try that extra bit. It is human nature. When your manager sits there you do not do that extra bit. It is human nature.
I simply think he is not good enough. We can give him all the time and he definitely is not going to get the sack this season but that does not mean he is going to win us the PL or the CL. I think next season is his last.

If he could bring on Ole, Teddy and Beckham to whip in some corners i'm sure he would. Only sub I wouldve made after conceding was Ighalo for Williams. Our bench is just thrash. How many times he subbed it Fred, Mata, James, Ighalo, Williams after leading and we didnt do feck all the rest of the game. We were quite decent, but sometimes you just lose a match.

 

[Banana Republic]

As others have said, as far as poor game management and poor substitutions go, tonight was not a one off.
Ole has terrible form for poor game management when we’re beginning to struggle and players are tired, or not performing.
He seems oblivious to the need to do something, anything, to freshen things up before it’s too late.
Even if we’re signing one or two new faces before the new season, I don’t have any faith in this poor decision making changing any time soon.
I had thought we’d progressed and were beginning to move in the right direction, but I’m worried it was just a flash in the pan and we’re just as far away as we were this time last year.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Well he had two players he bought in the bench, so Its hardly a clever way to critisize the board.

The great Igahlo & James

We really are shambolic.

 

[Foxbatt]

If he could bring on Ole, Teddy and Beckham to whip in some corners i'm sure he would. Only sub I wouldve made after conceding was Ighalo for Williams. Our bench is just thrash. How many times he subbed it Fred, Mata, James, Ighalo, Williams after leading and we didnt do feck all the rest of the game. We were quite decent, but sometimes you just lose a match.

That is because he asks them to do things they cannot do. When he brings on Ighalo at the least minute he is not going to change it by much. He needs to bring his subs on when it is needed early on. When Odion is on he needs to change the play too. It is not good playing the same way when Martial is the CF.

 

[SAFMUTD]

The great Igahlo & James

We really are shambolic.

Well what can I say, they are Ole players.

 

[AFC NimbleThumb]

Well what can I say, they are Ole players.

I see no lies.

 

[gorky_utd]

Cannot blame ole. We simply don't have any thing on the bench. Ideally Greenwood should be a sub in this type of match but we simply don't have a proper rw. We don't have a target man type back up striker. Don't have a back up lb. The squad needs atleast 3 4 signings. Frustrating loss as we played well tonight which is not an easy task against a good spanish side.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Yes I know, another Ole thread. But not try to bash, trying to understand...

What is his reasoning?

1. Could it be he just doesn't trust the players on the bench? Most probably this.
2. Maybe sending a message (whether it is effective or not) to the board that he needs better players and better squad depth?

Looking at one sub specifically of Ighalo:

1. Why extend Ighalo's loan in the first place? Seems a complete waste of money now. If you think he is not good enough? Since he's loan extension 1st June, he has played all but 73 minutes of a possible 810 minutes (Mins each game: 12, 10, 12, 10, 11, 11, 5, 1, 1 all the minutes per game), this is excluding the dead rubber against Lask where he played the full 90. And the FA cup game against Norwich. Sure, we were on a run of good form and our main guys needed to start, but just looking at when he came on?? that's poor for me.

2. Then there is the timing of this substitutions, almost always late. This is connect of course to whatever the reasoning is as stated above.

I'm definitely no expert and don't want to be an armchair manager, but would like the many other arm chairs to give me some help to try and understand why he does substitutions the way he does it...

If he makes the early subs and still conceded, people will make the same thread like the Southampton game. Don't you think?

Not making early subs today imo makes sense because we were dominating the game with great chances. Why trying to sub them off with worse players with no guarantee to make different impact when we had it under control? And we don't need the sub to prevent the 2nd goal that we conceded, that was basic error.

 

[sammsky1]

Yes our 1999 CL final was a classic example. When the Yorke/ Cole combination did not work SAF changed it and brought on Ole and Teddy. Different variations and it worked. Managers need to plan to win the match in 90 minutes and not in the first 15 minutes. James may be a terrible player but still he can do a job. That job is tiring the opposition defence. His job could have been running non stop till he could not and then he comes off.
Either the players do not listen to the manager( I do not think so) or they have no idea how to do these things. When you see your manager raving and ranting on the touchline you try that extra bit. It is human nature. When your manager sits there you do not do that extra bit. It is human nature.
I simply think he is not good enough. We can give him all the time and he definitely is not going to get the sack this season but that does not mean he is going to win us the PL or the CL. I think next season is his last.

Surely you can spot the false equivalence in your post?

Who is OGS's equivalent subs to Solskjaer and Sheringham? Ighalo and Lingard. Not quite as game changing is it?

 

[Leftback99]

You can be sure that if Ole had brought James and Ighalo on earlier and we had still lost the same posters would be saying "why on earth did he change it?".

 

[SirAnderson]

If he makes the early subs and still conceded, people will make the same thread like the Southampton game. Don't you think?

Not making early subs today imo makes sense because we were dominating the game with great chances. Why trying to sub them off with worse players with no guarantee to make different impact when we had it under control? And we don't need the sub to prevent the 2nd goal that we conceded, that was basic error.

Sure I hear you, there is definitely no guarantee they will make a difference, but I don't think one of them could have done much worse than Rashford tonight for example. I can understand why he left it so late, but aside from those flurry of chances in the first 10-15mins of the second half, we were toothless iirc, and didn't even need to take off our attackers, just gamble and loaded it up. I mean, extra time to bring on Ighalo? That's bad, bring him on a minute after we went behind maybe. But anyway, I'm not trying to slam Ole, just want to understand and getting different opinions like yours helps.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Sure I hear you, there is definitely no guarantee they will make a difference, but I don't think one of them could have done much worse than Rashford tonight for example. I can understand why he left it so late, but aside from those flurry of chances in the first 10-15mins of the second half, we were toothless iirc, and didn't even need to take off our attackers, just gamble and loaded it up. I mean, extra time to bring on Ighalo? That's bad, bring him on a minute after we went behind maybe. But anyway, I'm not trying to slam Ole, just want to understand and getting different opinions like yours helps.

James & Lingard won't do much worse than Rashford but can they also do better? We were in control before 78th min, he had good reason not to make change, otherwise people will make a new thread "why on earth did he change it?" just like in the Southampton game.

He didn't bring Ighalo until extra time because he believed Greenwood can still turn it around. It makes sense because Greenwood has the assets to score.

 

[Foxbatt]

James & Lingard won't do much worse than Rashford but can they also do better? We were in control before 78th min, he had good reason not to make change, otherwise people will make a new thread "why on earth did he change it?" just like in the Southampton game.

He didn't bring Ighalo until extra time because he believed Greenwood can still turn it around. It makes sense because Greenwood has the assets to score.

He has certainly has the assets to score but once they got in front they will defend and Greenwood playing on the right is not going to do much. He never was defending and AWB was really on his own the whole night with two players doubling up on him. The same on our left. Rashford never came back to defend.
If he had changed it around after they scored we may have had a better chance of equalising.

 

[tenpoless]

I think fresh legs of decent players are better than tired legs of very good players. But that's just me and it's obvious he doesn't trust the bench.