Experience without quality is useless though. It’s now pushing 5 years that Werner has been a terrible player. The fact we actively chose to inherit as such is mind boggling. Genuinely one of the worst transfer decisions this club has made. Bad signings are part and parcel of football but knowingly making a bad signing is beyond ridiculous and we are basically getting what we deserve for making such a bad judgement.
The issue isn't about people trying harder. It's completely unprofessional for players not to be trying and they should indeed be pulled off the field if they are not fully committed. The issue is what to do to people who are performing badly. i don't think people make fewer mistakes and perform better if under the threat of sanction.
Mistakes are likely to be random events. If they can't be predicted then they you literally can't take action to avoid them. Of course there will be times when the player's performance remains poor for the rest of the match. But generally it will be better to keep the superior player on the field.
So what is the point of having subs if not to help alter the course of the game? I think by your logic, we may as well just have a squad of 11 players every week.
I've already said that as players tire their performance reduces and a fresher player should perform better. Also you might deliberately ask a player to run themselves into the ground knowing that they will be replaced on 64 minutes say. And you can change tactics by use of substitutes. The only thing I don't want them used for is to replace players who have had a bad first half because I simply don't believe that is a good indicator that they will continue to be bad.
Well originally teams were allowed one sub for serious injuries and he had to cover everyone including the keeper. Eventually that was extended to three subs and tactical changes started sneaking in. Now it's become a part of the game to alter tactics with subs or simply change a man having a bad game against his opponant. I have even seen games (international i think) where seven subs were permitted. **** me you might as well allow clubs to change the full team at half time if they are playing ****.
I don't know because I can't watch the version of the game with Moore on at the start. I also don't know how confident Moore is and whether playing too early might be bad for him. I would pick Moore for sure but Ange knows a lot of facts that I don't.
I dont think the psychology behind running a successful football team and running a successful business is the same type of psychology at all tbh
I would like to add that if I knew my manager was likely to pull me off for a bad performance it would make me more likely to perform badly.
Bentancur is a squad option at best. Not good enough to be a key part of a midfield that has trophy aspirations. The worrying thing for me is that’s how I feel about Sarr, Maddison and Bissouma too. They all look good against poor teams but often exposed against the top 7/8 teams in England.
Definitely getting pelters. This guy will never win a league. He's never been about to win the league but to be fair he did win us the cl which i was chuffed with.
You are comparing apples with oranges. This is not a business scenario in that sense. Substituting a player forms a regular part of the game. Every team does it. And if not for injury or to rest a player, then it is to change the course of a game - do something different. And these guys are being paid a small fortune every week. To not perform for 25-50% of that week's 'work' is not acceptable. The coach has them 6 days a week to support, watch, prepare and influence. If they cannot then go out on the pitch and maintain concentration for more than 45 minutes then either they or he is not doing their job.
Not when Werner continues to regularly not produce the goods. He had a poor first half, redeemed by one 4m pass to Maddison, but did not improve in the 2nd half as the team unravelled. Yet he stayed on until 75th minute when he was replaced by...not Moore, but Sarr. In an otherwise very good first half, the only two players off their game were Werner and Bentancur. They were the two replaced first. So do you think that was just a coincidence or Ange identifying key problems and trying - too late - to try and stop the rot? Maybe, just maybe, if he had reacted at HT and brought Moore and Bissouma on then that might have kept the momentum.
Everyone at any level of any endeavour will make mistakes. The key to good performance is to learn from them. The first two goals actually resulted from unlucky mistakes. VdV's small touch made it hard for Udogie to clear for the first and Udogie's tackle put the ball in a place where the attacker had space and time to get to it before VdV could react. I don't think anyone is to blame for that.
All hindsight imo rcl. None of those players were established and the only ones where you could see good things happening were lloris vertonghen and eriksen who had "proven" themselves at ajax and france but not the prem. Vertonghen had potential but wasnt there yet (bit like van de ven), walker and rose weren't the powerhouse they were and i think people were not high on them. Dembele wasnt the cm dominating playmaker but was more like a playing making forward. Kane hadn't even established himself into the first team at all (similar to mike moore).
