Out Thought

[HAMPSHIRE DAVE]

Fair play to the Millwall boss + his team.
He made three subs at half-time and changed the formation.
We brought on one sub 20 minutes from time.
WHAT WAS WRONG WITH AT LEAST GIVING JR A GO??
I'm not going to called for our manager's head as I'm sure
he had his reasons for his lack of subs in the second-half
but I'm just confused
HAMPSHIRE DAVE

 

[Gritt23]

I do tend to agree about JR. I was saying as we left the stadium, what was he on the bench for it it wasn't to throw him on towards the end when we needed a goal?

 

[Spicy]

As soon as we were a goal down we should have tried throwing more subs at them - we were losing so it didn't, with the exception of goal difference at the end of the season, matter by how many. I am all for trying out new tactics but there are some matches that we absolutely need to win - today being one of them - to make up for those we have little chance of winning, i.e. the Reading game.

 

[NMH]

"subs" is a bit of a general term - you can't just proclaim that we should just throw 'subs' at a game to match the number that the other side play. That just doesn't mean anything tactically.

Fresh legs are one thing, but these are young professional men who, when not injured should be able run for 90 minutes regardless.

Subs are just an admission that someone isn't up to the job in their position at the time, on the day.
If the right players were on the pitch in the first place, you don't need to substitute them.

 

[dougdeep]

With a midfield like ours yesterday, it wouldn't have mattered how many forwards we had brought on.