The Make A Fecking Sub ETH Thread

  • Based on the club's statement regarding Mason Greenwood, the site's current policy will continue until further clarity about the player's future is known.

    So to reiterate, all discussions about Mason Greenwood remain off limits.

NoPace

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
8,412
Thought Ten Hag was fine today. Problem is when his first choice players aren't getting it done or aren't available, he has an extremely small pool of actually reliable players he can use to do anything about it. Basically Garnacho, Fred (sometimes) and Malacia. Everyone else is already on the pitch.

When your back up for Casemiro is Mctominay, and Casemiro is banned, you're kind of limited to what you can do if this causes a problem during the game.
We're obviously limited, but keeping Eriksen on was a strange choice when he was too tired to keep up. Seems to have made one pass between the 80th and 90th minutes. We'd have been better off with any of:

1) Pellistri out wide and Bruno as the #10

2) Going to 5 at the back by bringing on Maguire or Malacia, and letting Garnacho and Rashford try to snatch a winner

3) Lindelof or Maguire at LCB and move Lisandro into midfield and let McTominay and Fred try to break up play, even if we lose playmaking

Or even something crazier like:

3) Malacia in midfield, or Shaw in midfield and Malacia at LB, just have whoever it is mark Odegaard or double team Saka

4) Mainoo getting 10 minutes in his proper position, even as a 17 year old away at the league leaders, people act like a kid will automatically fall apart in that situation but mostly they just do a 6/10 job

But yeah, the answer was probably 15 minutes of Pellistri trying to get the better of a tiring Zinchenko, who's not exactly Maldini out there defensively (though brilliant as a quasi-midfielder in possession). Not sure why he's so unwilling to use him. He works hard and is used to playing in defensive setups and contributing with dribbling and keeping the ball out wide, which is surely what Ten Hag likes about Antony so much.
 

CM10

Full Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
6,173
I know we haven't got much in the squad right now, but I really don't understand why he let Arsenal continue to build momentum without changing anything for the last 10-15 minutes of that game.

Even something as basic as bringing Garnacho on for Weghorst with 10 minutes to go might've given Arsenal something to think about on the counter. The game was really getting away from us and we didn't even have an outlet on the break. Doing nothing just felt like an acceptance of defeat because the warning signs were there before the goal came.
 

Drainy

Full Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
13,718
Location
Dissin' Your Flygirl
I know we haven't got much in the squad right now, but I really don't understand why he let Arsenal continue to build momentum without changing anything for the last 10-15 minutes of that game.

Even something as basic as bringing Garnacho on for Weghorst with 10 minutes to go might've given Arsenal something to think about on the counter. The game was really getting away from us and we didn't even have an outlet on the break. Doing nothing just felt like an acceptance of defeat because the warning signs were there before the goal came.
Because the players who are on the pitch are better at the defensive work and Garnacho is still learning that side of the game.

It's obvious and he explained it after the game.

It's away at the form team in the league, if you're bringing on an 18 year old to try to nick a game it shows we're not there with the squad yet and that isn't Ten Hag's fault unless you disagree with what he's doing with Sancho?
 

Judas

Open to offers
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
32,084
Location
Where the grass is greener.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
 

groovyalbert

it's a mute point
Joined
Feb 14, 2013
Messages
7,869
Location
London
Hindsight is 20/20 and we almost came away with a very respectable point, but looking back, I did think there was a moment where Arsenal looked vulnerable after we equalized. We maybe could have taken advantage of that.

I thought Eriksen had his weakest game for us yesterday, I would have liked to have seen Fred replace him when he came on and perhaps roll the dice with one of Garnacho or Pellestri for Antony. But I can also sympathize with ETH's thinking/position given squad options available.
 

Lyng

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
2,895
Location
Denmark
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
Yeah that was the input we got from our Ajax fans.
 

CM10

Full Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
6,173
Because the players who are on the pitch are better at the defensive work and Garnacho is still learning that side of the game.

It's obvious and he explained it after the game.

It's away at the form team in the league, if you're bringing on an 18 year old to try to nick a game it shows we're not there with the squad yet and that isn't Ten Hag's fault unless you disagree with what he's doing with Sancho?
Going ultra defensive was handing Arsenal momentum. They came close with a couple of chances before scoring, that approach wasn't working.

Weghorst was barely getting involved in the game at that point, I think Garnacho's pace on the break would've been a far more useful tool. Any time we kicked the ball up the pitch it was going straight to Arsenal's defenders and coming back at us. Weghorst might work hard but he's so slow that he wasn't getting close to the ball.

I've already said that he doesn't have the squad to compete with the best, but we were far too passive and should've done something (anything) about it. Keeping things the same was just asking for trouble.
 

Tom Van Persie

No relation
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
20,105
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
His in game management and subs have won us a lot of points this season.
 

romufc

Full Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
11,485
I know we haven't got much in the squad right now, but I really don't understand why he let Arsenal continue to build momentum without changing anything for the last 10-15 minutes of that game.

Even something as basic as bringing Garnacho on for Weghorst with 10 minutes to go might've given Arsenal something to think about on the counter. The game was really getting away from us and we didn't even have an outlet on the break. Doing nothing just felt like an acceptance of defeat because the warning signs were there before the goal came.
Although I share people's frustration on the subs but the notion of you dont understand why a manager did that, its easy, that is why he is a top coach.

If you look at it, our best player on the day was? Rashford. He played LW and gave problems all game.

ETH probably didnt want to change that for the sake of bringing Garnacho on. he also did change it bringing Fred on because we were getting done in midfield.

With the way Arsenal were building pressure, taking of a target man incase we have to defend crosses, taking our best player out of position would not have been ideal.

Also, people talking about Eriksen, the problem the coach has is there is no alternative, which is why Bruno has to play RW, if there was a better player in CM, we would be playing him.
 

Zed 101

Full Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Messages
824
Damned if you do damned if you don't, hindsight is a marvellous tool if you want to criticise
 

CM10

Full Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
6,173
Although I share people's frustration on the subs but the notion of you dont understand why a manager did that, its easy, that is why he is a top coach.

If you look at it, our best player on the day was? Rashford. He played LW and gave problems all game.

ETH probably didnt want to change that for the sake of bringing Garnacho on. he also did change it bringing Fred on because we were getting done in midfield.

With the way Arsenal were building pressure, taking of a target man incase we have to defend crosses, taking our best player out of position would not have been ideal.

Also, people talking about Eriksen, the problem the coach has is there is no alternative, which is why Bruno has to play RW, if there was a better player in CM, we would be playing him.
Part of being a top coach is also about making tough decisions. I do believe ten Hag is one and I've been pretty supportive of his choices in games so far but I thought it was a big oversight from him yesterday.

Rashford was fine in the first half but his influence on the game had faded in the second. I don't think moving him around would've been too detrimental to our chances as a team, and ten Hag has made that change in plenty of games previously to good effect. Ten Hag is unlucky that three of the first team were out and a few of our players yesterday were treating the ball like a hot potato, I can't dispute that. My only concern is that he didn't try something different when it was clear Arsenal were on top in the game.
 

Nickelodeon

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Messages
1,804
Damned if you do damned if you don't, hindsight is a marvellous tool if you want to criticise
I'm sure many fans, including myself, were yelling at their screens for ETH to make a sub. We were under the cosh and needed an attacking outlet. The pace of Garnacho would've been perfect as it has been across most of his sub appearances. Had the result turned out differently, we may have been praising ETH. But in this case, no harm in calling out what seems like a tactical error. I'm sure ETH would himself wonder what he could've done differently.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
14,651
Location
Flagg
We're obviously limited, but keeping Eriksen on was a strange choice when he was too tired to keep up. Seems to have made one pass between the 80th and 90th minutes. We'd have been better off with any of:

1) Pellistri out wide and Bruno as the #10

2) Going to 5 at the back by bringing on Maguire or Malacia, and letting Garnacho and Rashford try to snatch a winner

3) Lindelof or Maguire at LCB and move Lisandro into midfield and let McTominay and Fred try to break up play, even if we lose playmaking

Or even something crazier like:

3) Malacia in midfield, or Shaw in midfield and Malacia at LB, just have whoever it is mark Odegaard or double team Saka

4) Mainoo getting 10 minutes in his proper position, even as a 17 year old away at the league leaders, people act like a kid will automatically fall apart in that situation but mostly they just do a 6/10 job

But yeah, the answer was probably 15 minutes of Pellistri trying to get the better of a tiring Zinchenko, who's not exactly Maldini out there defensively (though brilliant as a quasi-midfielder in possession). Not sure why he's so unwilling to use him. He works hard and is used to playing in defensive setups and contributing with dribbling and keeping the ball out wide, which is surely what Ten Hag likes about Antony so much.
I'm not convinced any of those suggestions would have helped and a few of them would have just made us worse.

Bringing Maguire or Lindelof on when your defence is already under pressure for example is a recipe for disaster. Hence why Ten Hag would rather move Shaw there.

Not sure what this Pellistri stuff is based on either. Everything you've mentioned is what Antony was doing but the problem is it stopped being an issue for Arsenal when we started dropping deeper. I wouldn't mind Pellistri getting more chances but that's the sort of thing where if he made that change and we lost I would be somewhat baffled.

Personally would have bought Malacia on for Antony and moved Shaw in as a third CB so they could double up on Saka...but then he kind of bought Fred on to do something similar so its not like he ignored Shaw having a fecking mare.

The big issue was that Mctominay wasn't doing his job (or any job) second half and Eriksen tires in games, and we had no one on the bench who could really address that other than by putting an extra body in there and hoping it helped, which again is basically what we did. He had to use one player to try and solve 2 problems because taking off a midfielder would have just recreated the problem again anyway.

I mean it's not like with Ole who would just sit there were watching us carry half a team of passengers all game and do nothing about it, then make a sub on 80 minutes that had nothing to do with a anything anyway. Ten Hag does tend to react but our pool of players who aren't either passengers or a menace to their own team is quite small...i mean nearly half of them are players he signed...and he doesn't tend to use people if he thinks they won't do their job.

I'd rather have a manager who applies standards to being in the team or coming off the bench, even if it does mean we get stuck in the odd game, because it'll help in the long run and is one of the main reasons we've already improved so much.
 

Solius

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Staff
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
78,038
There have been multiple times this season where he's made tactical changes/subs that have changed the game in our favour.

It's obvious to sit there and think this or that (I myself have wanted subs earlier than have happened) but there are obviously reasons he doesn't do things and I'm pretty sure he's a better manager than any of us.

Fine to question and discuss the merits but some of the posts calling him cowardly are pathetic. The hyperbolic nature of some of you is a bit embarrassing.
 

Zippycup

Full Member
Joined
May 24, 2022
Messages
978
The only change I wanted him to make was Garnacho for Weghorst.
I think he kept Weghorst on to try and hold onto the ball higher up the pitch. The problem was we were sitting so deep that the ball simply kept coming back.

I would have brought on Maguire as well for the lads 10 minutes.
 

redshaw

Full Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Messages
8,138
We've come under more pressure at Palace and Arsenal taking off a wide player for another midfielder.

We need outlets as well to give them something to think about, we just invite less possession, and more shots. Once Fred came on for Antony we dropped from around 50/50 to low 40 and had to suffer 8 more shots. It sets off a retreat mentality.

He really should be bringing on Pellistri for Antony and if not at least moving Rashford to the right and bringing Garnacho on. Rashford has been very good on the right this season and for the last 20 it would helped with Garnacho on the left. If Antony wasn't tired then leave him on and put Rashford through the middle and bring Garnacho.

I just can't stand sacrificing attacking options with more junk midfielders, conceding more possession and shots after the brilliant work Rashford and Lisandro did. 1 point out 6.

Against City he brought on Garnacho to get us back in, this immediately give us more weight instead of letting City get another. Arsenal aren't trying to keep it at 2-2 nor should we. We've conceded at Palace and Arsenal anyway, the best way to get a draw or sneak a win is to freshen the attack, not sit back for the last 20.
 

NoPace

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
8,412
Eriksen tires in games, and we had no one on the bench who could really address that other than by putting an extra body in there and hoping it helped, which again is basically what we did.
Leaving Eriksen on as a #10 when his legs were gone was the mistake. Ten Hag was presumably hoping he wouldn't be a liability in that role even once tired because his positioning is good, #10 is easier than #8, and hey he might make a killer pass on the counter or hit a winning set piece cross, but we'd have been better off with Bruno staying in that role at least providing some legs and similar creative passing on the break, and just using Pellistri on the right, or Fred there and Malacia in Fred's role in midfield just marking Odegaard basically.

Pellistri isn't a bad player. We've seen it a bunch with Uruguay. He's completely deficient as a goal threat, so I can understand why he's not a bigger part of our squad, especially considering we're already very short of goals at the #9 position, but he'd have given us more than Eriksen for the last 15 minutes of the Arsenal game, so not bringing him on was a mistake.

This stuff should take care of itself with a quality midfield signing (and thank god we finally have a manager who knows what a good midfielder looks like, we're not gonna bring in Morgan Schneiderlin 2.0 this summer) and a fit Sancho, and Ten Hag has done well with Garnacho and Fred as bench players, so I don't think it's some huge problem going forward, but if Newcastle or Spurs get hot then it could cost us 4th place. Though obviously if we'd hired literally anyone else we'd not be favorites for that spot, so again it's not some huge black mark against Ten Hag or anything. But this thread isn't about all the great things Ten Hag has done (that's the general ETH thread), it's about his subs.
 

Jeppers7

Pogfamily Mafia
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
5,907
ETH is doing a brilliant job. I can’t see anything to moan about at this stage. We’ve got a woeful squad and have a free transfer from Brentford, who’s doing a decent job but will need upgrading and a loan signing from Burnley. When you are Manchester United and you have to do this, then it’s hardly ideal. We are heavily reliant on about 8 players otherwise the drop off is unbelievable.
 

captaincantona

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
1,479
it’s clear that we tire significantly after 50 minutes. Whatever the game plan it has to include a contingency for not being able to press high anymore because once we stop the other team settles and completely dominates (City/Palace/Arse). The key for me is not keeping players on that give us a chance of retaining the ball up top…(Eriksen to be calm on the ball…Weghorst physicality) it’s about having players that press and unsettle the other team to break their momentum and rhythm and give us a chance to win some second balls and break a few times. It changes the mentality of the opponent - they have something to worry about instead of being allowed play their game and bombard us.

In that regard, even before we equalised I think we needed Eriksen off for Fred, Weghorst off for Garnacho and Bruno taking up his right sided position albeit a little deeper. More energy, move the game 10 or 20 yards back towards their goal. The time arsenals back line had in that second half was absurd. I don’t even think it’s a fitness thing…2 games a week with this type of squad would kill anyone.
 

Ish

Lights on for Luke
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
29,512
Location
Where fans' expectations are too high
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
Yeah i recall that as well, but here's to hoping once the bench "strengthens" a little (Martial fit, Sancho return etc.), it'll become a little better. He's done well recently in terms of rotations/subs in fairness, albeit they were in "lesser" games. Hopefully 2-3 more signings in the summer and we're looking much stronger squad wise. Fixture schedule have also killed us.
 
X