This is not an internal WUM because I am genuinely confused. What is the rationale for making substitutions in the last few minutes of a game unless you are winning and trying to hang on to a lead and/or playing for time? Do the players get some kind of bonus if they actually enter the pitch and this is just CH being a nice guy and making sure they get it? But, if so, why not the 60th or 70th minute? (This is a serious question on my part, I promise). Is it so CH can say 'ah, we tried Hoolahan but it didn't work' because he doesn't want to play him and he wants a reason to justify leaving him out? Is it so Murphy gets some big match experience (but wouldn't thirty minutes help him much more than five)? Is making substitutions like climbing mountains (i.e. because they are there?) I am genuinely mystified.
It's been an obvious annoyance among the fans that Hughton seems so unwilling to make substitutions. It seems pointless to me bringing on these players with 5 minutes left to play. They just aren't going to have time to influence the game. That is surely management 101! I have to say, each passing game gives me less confidence in Hughton.
The answer depends on what is happening in the individual game. In this case, having changed shape with Elmander replacing Pilkington early in the second half, we began playing much better, leading to Fer's goal in the 80th minute. At that point we were on the front foot, and the Newcastle defence less solid. It made perfect sense to keep things as they were. The late substitutions of Hoolahan and Murphy were simply a last few minutes gamble which, had Lambert made them, would have been wildly praised even though unsuccessful.
lambert tened to make changes about 10 minutes earlier, when you introduce new players you disrupt the tempo of the game and it takes a little bit of time to settle, especially if you've changed formation. I remember that Worthy was always very resistant to make changes before the 80th minute again to the annoyance of the fans. i thought yesterday that taking of redmond was an odd move, we really should have taken off Johnson and gone back to playing with 2 wingers for 15 minutes, with 2 up top. Wes was invisible, again because he never got into the game.
I must admit I've never really had an issue with the timing of his substitutions because they never have an impact anyway. Its the structure of the team not the players.
CH please note use of substitutions from previous manager in last nights midland derby. That's how it's done !
For heaven's sake chippy, think before you post. Lambert's substitutions at 60 mins last night involved bringing on three first team regulars, who would have been in the starting eleven had they not been recovering from injury -- Agbonlahor, Weimann and Delph. In other words, he did exactly what Chris Hughton did in the away game at Hull, when he brought on Snodgrass (at half-time). He was trying to protect the not fully-recovered players, but was forced to take the risk with them because his starting eleven was being taken to the cleaners by WBA. By posting this sort of predictable, thoughtless, "Great, here's a chance for another go at Hughton" comment you just show how prejudiced you are against him.
Great post Robbie, bang on I was waiting for someone to comment about last night, and I course I knew there would be no mention about how bloody woeful were before they made the changes. Thanks for not disappointing Chippy
I am not prejudiced against CH I just have no faith in the timing of the substitutions he makes and the rigid formation that the teams plays with, especially away from home. There is a difference in the above and it is the result of the game. As for the Hull game, did CH change the formation to get something from the game after bringing the sub on? No. It was the same system with different personnel. Completley different to Villa last night. PL made 3 attacking subsitutions, changed his formation and he got something from the game. It's similar to what Mourinho did to us at home when we played Chelski. Comparing to what we did at Hull is just pure folly and makes no sense whatsoever. Think before you post. Let me ask you one question that no one has answered yet. Under CH if we went 2 down away from home in the first half, do you think we would recover to 2-2?
That's not true - Hughton brought on Snodgrass for Johnson at half time changing us from 4-5-1 to 4-3-3. Completely different system. He then went further by bringing on Elmander for Tettey on 65' to make us 4-4-2, so yet another formation change. It didn't work because Snodgrass was still in poor form. It was also a little harsh on Johnson, because he was playing OK and it seems to have knocked his confidence a little. In retrospect, the right change would have been Elmander for Johnson and going 4-4-2 immediately, but that can only be said with the benefit of hindsight. I think everyone felt bringing on Snodgrass was the correct decision.
Well actually that it is exactly what we very nearly did do at Newcastle on Saturday. As several people have pointed out, that game could very easily have ended 2:2. So if you are asking whether such a recovery could ever take place under CH, the answer is clearly Yes!
I am totally prejudiced towards CH ! Just to clear that up. How can you possibly use the Hull game as an example compared to what Lambert pulled off last night? We are 1-0 down to ten men, play **** for 50 mins and lose, Villa play **** for 45mins make three attacking changes & get something from the game! What's your point?
No! forget the half time and 2 down, does anyone go into games thinking we will score 2 goals in 90 minutes? I know we did against wet sham, but really does any one expect us to score once at the moment leave alone twice! Bah! edit: Leroy's showing some form so may be I can see us getting 1!
