http://www.sunderlan...utes-1-7621942? Sam Allardyce: Why I changed Sunderland’s tactics after just 19 minutes. please log in to view this image DeAndre Yedlin is taken off. Sam Allardyce insists that he had no hesitation in turning to his substitutes with less than 20 minutes on the clock against Watford. Sunderland were dealt a significant blow on the morning of Saturday’s visit of the Hornets after in-form centre-half Younes Kaboul was forced out through illness. Quote "When I see things, there’s no point waiting until half-time which I generally do" The loss of the £3million summer signing was painfully evident during the opening exchanges, as Sunderland’s defence was run ragged by a Watford side who could possibly have been 3-0 up. Allardyce reacted, with DeAndre Yedlin taken off in a switch to a 4-5-1, and the Sunderland boss says that he couldn’t wait any longer to make a substitution - which produced an improvement, albeit without any points. “The change had to be done,” he said. “When I see things, there’s no point waiting until half-time which I generally do. It’s about doing things there and then . . . . that’s what I’m paid to do. “You’ve got to do it before it gets any worse, because it wasn’t good at that stage, and it made a difference." “We changed it twice. We stabilised it at first and then we went to the diamond and created more chances.” Full-back Billy Jones took Kaboul’s place in the back three after the only centre-back in Sunderland’s squad, Wes Brown, had returned to full training last week and wasn’t even included on the bench, but despite Jones previously struggling in an unfamiliar centre-back role in last month’s rout at Everton, Allardyce had not wanted to abandon the system which had been working well for Sunderland. Allardyce added: “I could have done without Younes Kaboul being ill. I think that that was a big blow with Lee Cattermole and Seb Larsson already out. “I could have said ‘right lads I’m going to change the whole system because Younes is ill' but I just thought that it would have thrown the lads completely after the performances that they had given. “I didn’t think that it was so much the system . . . . I just thought that it was individuals not playing very well. I made the change and put someone else in midfield to give us a bit more protection." “I think that it worked in the second half, where we dominated more and more. The game was 'bitty' because of the conditions, so mistakes were going to be made. “Regarding what we created – particularly in the second half – we’re very disappointed that we haven’t got anything.” Ultimately it didn't work, but it's nice to know (we already know) that Sam isn't a ditherer when it comes to changing things It's worked in the past (against Stoke, for example) and it will in the future He also said . . . . “I know that we lost an unfortunate goal, but we shouldn’t have allowed them to get to that position anyway. It made a difference, and from my point of view, I changed the shape of the team twice and I feel that it got us better twice.” Sunderland created plenty of opportunities to equalise in the final quarter of the game, and Allardyce was again left ruing his side’s lack of ruthlessness in front of goal. “Our shooting boots failed us again,” he said. “I think that sometimes there’s an air of panic about the team. We only win a game when we’ve got a clean sheet. When we’re a goal behind there seems to be an air of panic behind the whole team, a rush, an over-eagerness that we’ve got to get a goal, but you’ve got all that time left. It only takes a second to score a goal, and you’ve got to be patient and play and wait and play and play until you get those chances. Up until the last five minutes or so, that was quite good.” “The expectation was high today from the fans. I think that they’d seen what we’d done, we’d won back to back games, we’d beat our old rivals, we beat Stoke, and I think they felt that we’d come here today and get another victory." “Every game we play we have to be 100 per cent to win it, and I didn’t think in the first half that there was any player on the pitch 100 per cent. That’s why we changed it so quickly, and it got better in the second-half. It’s a very funny league this year. More teams are winning away from home than ever before.” That's true . . . . let's beat the Russians and the Saudis (Chelski and Man. Saudi)
A manager with some tactical nous who will react to what he is seeing on the pitch? Steve Bruce eat your heart out.
I thought we were unlucky to lose this game, and would have won it had we kept our defence of the past few weeks intact. I think it highlights the urgent need for a capable central defender in the January window..
He got it right no doubt about it as the game changed from then. What he got wrong was leaving Defoe on the bench and then taking Fletcher off for Defoe. Being 1-0 down he should have left him on and taken Toivonen off.
Baffled me completely. I'd have started Defoe instead of Borini and let him come on later for fresh legs. Toivonen only has 60-70 mins in his legs and was left completely in limbo for the last 20 mins & was a waste of a shirt for it.
Wasn`t Defoe injured though. Maybe he wasn`t recovered enough for a full 90 mins. I like the idea of Sam being adaptable mind. Whether he gets it right or not is a different matter but at least he`s trying rather than persist with something that isn`t working. On a lighter note, according to the physio room Kaboul and Catts return scheduled for the 19th Dec.
I've read loads of comments on various forums regarding Defoe not starting was a mistake. However, the facts is that he had just returned from injury and his fitness levels may not have been 100%, hence his position on the bench..
I was just thinking of a reason, especially the way Sam has been heaping praise on him recently. Couldn`t think of another one tbh.
A perfectly good reason Pop. We're going to need Defoe, risking many future points for the sake of maybe getting three points against Watford and losing Defoe in the process would have been daft in my opinion. If the medical staff didn't think he was ready to start that's fine by me. We need our best players fit for the long haul.
Absolutely. I would expect him to start against Chelsea and hopefully Kaboul and Catts back. Those 3 can make a big difference.
There's a debate in that statement... Do you start your star striker, hoping he'll win the game and take him off if he's not got 100% fitness levels, or do you start him from the bench, maybe fetching him on to win the game late on, although you could end up chasing the game. I'd be in the 'Start him' camp. Always start your best team.
Yeah, that's the opposition argument... the pace of the game is much more demanding in the first half... in the last 20 minutes it'll have died down somewhat... but how much fitness can you lose in two weeks... I'll answer that, not that much. I'd sooner give him the first 20 mins than the last 20, that's just me... I hate subs lately anyhow, Nick Powell has been brought on for Fellaini and Juan Mata in our last two games respectively, Nick Powell.... Nick ****ing Powell.
There's also the possibility his hamstring may have still been a bit tight. Coming on as sub may have been a risk in itself. In which case I'd hope he hasn't aggravated it.
