No substitutions last night - a tactical error?

Buzzer

Languidly Clinical

Oct 1, 2006

26,121

• Apr 17, 2013

• #1

I think Poyet really should have used at least one of them to take off poor Ulloa who looked completely shagged on 70 minutes. It's clear that he still has to adjust to the pace of the English game and I would rather have a fit Ulloa for 70 minutes a game rather than run him into the ground. Look after him please Gus.

Posh were there for the taking and although I was happy with a good solid point we could have mixed things around in the last 15 minutes and gone for the winner. I was told our bench was v young (although not as young as the 12 year old that Posh had warming up on the sidelines) but what's the point in having subs if you don't use them? Our central defenders would have looked after an inexperienced young defender and then maybe pushed Bridge or Calderon up to midfield and pushed Orlandi up too.

Anyone any idea why there were no subs made?

 

pasty

A different kind of pasty

Jul 5, 2003

30,283

West, West, West Sussex

• Apr 17, 2013

• #2

I can only think that not losing was more important than not winning.

 

Diego Napier

Well-known member

Mar 27, 2010

4,416

• Apr 17, 2013

• #3

Buzzer said:

Anyone any idea why there were no subs made?

Click to expand...

Because Gus thought Croft would score rather than hit the bar.

 

E

essbee

New member

Jan 5, 2005

3,656

• Apr 17, 2013

• #4

I reckon if we had gone behind - changes would have been made.

 

El Sid

Well-known member

May 10, 2012

3,806

West Sussex

• Apr 17, 2013

• #5

Would like to have seen Barker on for Ulloa for last 10 mins. Ulloa was done in and we could have done with the extra pace on the break.

OP is right, need to look after Ulloa a bit on the run in. 3 x 90 mins in 8 days is pushing him a bit IMO.

 

L

LeicesterGull

Active member

Feb 2, 2009

220

• Apr 17, 2013

• #6

I honestly don't think a sub would have delivered what we needed. Thought Gus was spot on by remaining unchanged, who would have replaced Ulloa? I don’t think we had a young defender on the bench, and in any case would that really have been a wise move? I’ve seen Barker a couple of times now and whilst he’s a tidy player his introduction would have changed the team dynamic for the worst, and we would have been for the taking.

Just remember, win our home games and draw away and we’re there.

 

SIMMO SAYS

Well-known member

Jul 31, 2012

11,716

Incommunicado

• Apr 17, 2013

• #7

I blame Barnes

 

G

gazingdown

Well-known member

Feb 26, 2011

1,055

• Apr 17, 2013

• #8

Or alternatively, more game time will get Ulloa fitter....

I suspect the subs were there for one of the following reasons:
1. injury
2. gone behind, need more attackers
3. a few goals ahead, give a youngster some game experience

Ulloa is also useful (moreso than the youngsters) at defending corners, that could be crucial in the dying minutes of the game, esp at 0:0.
There is also the risk of a youngster doing something "stupid" that more experienced heads would not.

 

Triggaaar

Well-known member

Oct 24, 2005

50,200

Goldstone

• Apr 17, 2013

• #9

If Ulloa had come off and we'd conceded (perhaps due to Ulloa not being there to head away a corner, or Ulloa not being there to hold the ball up so we could get out of defence), then we could criticise the tactical decision. As it was, that was another important point for us, and with players returning (Barnes, Kaz, Buckley, Vicente) on Saturday, we'll be better placed to rest Ulloa.

 

Eggman

Well-known member

Jul 8, 2003

3,688

West Sussex

• Apr 17, 2013

• #10

Triggaaar said:

If Ulloa had come off and we'd conceded (perhaps due to Ulloa not being there to head away a corner, or Ulloa not being there to hold the ball up so we could get out of defence), then we could criticise the tactical decision. As it was, that was another important point for us, and with players returning (Barnes, Kaz, Buckley, Vicente) on Saturday, we'll be better placed to rest Ulloa.

Click to expand...

Spot bollock on.

 

D

Deleted member 18477

Guest

• Apr 17, 2013

• #11

if Ulloa is that tired i hope Gus is giving him the days off in between the games! we need him for 90 mins every game simple as that!

his job is very simple now... score, hold ball up and head away from box when defending a corner! hopefully he's not training IF he's that tired...

 

JBizzle

Well-known member

Apr 18, 2010

5,824

Seaford

• Apr 17, 2013

• #12

It sems pretty obvious, even half fit Ulloa hold the ball up better than anyone else in the team. Who would you have brought on?

16 Ankergren
06 El-Abd
22 Painter
18 Dicker
35 Forster-Caskey
37 March
33 Barker

 

B

Breesy1

New member

Mar 14, 2013

105

London/Hove

• Apr 17, 2013

• #13

sidtheseagull said:

Would like to have seen Barker on for Ulloa for last 10 mins. Ulloa was done in and we could have done with the extra pace on the break.

OP is right, need to look after Ulloa a bit on the run in. 3 x 90 mins in 8 days is pushing him a bit IMO.

Click to expand...

This

 

Meade's Ball

Well-known member

Jul 7, 2003

13,612

Hither (sometimes Thither)

• Apr 17, 2013

• #14

I think Ulloa spent more time picking himself up from a fervent pressing game from Zakuani than from running, so in opposition to some other games recently, i didn't see him rundown or over-weathered. Hammond was the one who looked like he barely walk at the end after covering the entire pitch and throwing in some expert lunges when called upon. None of the players, though, looked like they wanted to go off and take a break, every one of them unflagging in their commitment. They ought to be fit enough to last 90 minutes, have a couple of days part-rest and then train up for Saturday's clash, aided by a player or two returning from injury to freshen things up.
No mistake made.

 

El Presidente

The ONLY Gay in Brighton

Helpful Moderator

Jul 5, 2003

39,709

Pattknull med Haksprut

• Apr 17, 2013

• #15

Ulloa looked spent, but I suspect Gus wanted him for his ability to win the ball in the air in both boxes.

If we win the next two games, then the match v Wolves will feature a lot of kids!

 

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat

Aug 18, 2009

65,489

Beside the seaside, beside the sea

• Apr 17, 2013

• #16

The obvious answer was that half the bench, not only had to travel back to Brighton during the night, but had a match tonight against Charlton, which they won 3-2.

 

Mellotron

I've asked for soup

Jul 2, 2008

31,845

Brighton

• Apr 17, 2013

• #17

Considering the options, losing Ulloa would've probably put a lot more pressure onto an already strained back 6.

 

hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.

Helpful Moderator

Mar 16, 2005

61,321

Chandlers Ford

• Apr 17, 2013

• #18

Thunder Bolt said:

The obvious answer was that half the bench, not only had to travel back to Brighton during the night, but had a match tonight against Charlton, which they won 3-2.

Click to expand...

Don't be daft. You really think he was saving the youngster's legs for the reserve game? Really??

 

slartibartfast

Active member

Sep 11, 2004

319

Henfield

• Apr 17, 2013

• #19

Interestingly, Gus didn't use any subs in the match at home v Charlton a few weeks ago either, which I thought was unusual at the time. That was a 0-0 too... perhaps he doesn't want to tamper because 1) he thinks this team is going to make the breakthrough, or 2) he doesn't want to risk disturbing the clean sheet .... or both? Or maybe we are analysing too much...

 

Surf's Up

Well-known member

Jul 17, 2011

10,169

Here

• Apr 18, 2013

• #20

El Presidente said:

Ulloa looked spent, but I suspect Gus wanted him for his ability to win the ball in the air in both boxes.

If we win the next two games, then the match v Wolves will feature a lot of kids!

Click to expand...

Not so sure about that, it'll depend on results elsewhere and whether we've secured 4th or not, if we still need the extra point v Wolves I can only see kids coming on if we're 3-0 up!