Quite a bit of discussion has taken place on here about CH's apparent reluctance to use substitutes, with comparisons often being drawn with Paul Lambert, who we think of as someone ready to use a substitute at the drop of a hat. There's an interesting analysis of the use of substitutes in the EPL this season here: http://www.eplindex.com/30756/do-substitutes-win-games-stats-analysis.html The stats confirm that PL makes more use of substitutes than CH (95% v 85% usage of the subs available). But when you look at the outcome of the two managers' use of substitutes it makes interesting reading. For example: 1. CH's substitutes only contributed 2 goals. But then so did Paul Lambert's (and David Moyse's, Brendan Rogers's and Roberto Matinez's, while Martin O'Neill's substitutes at Sunderland only contributed 1 goal). 2. When the impact of the substitutions made in a game by either side is measured in terms of points gained or lost, CH actually does better than PL (and just as well as Arsene Wenger and Brendan Rogers). And it turns out that Villa would actually have benefitted (rising three positions in the table) if substitutes had not been allowed at all! The analysis was done before the season's end, when we were on 35 points and in 14th place. But it certainly throws a different light on the debate.
