Substitutions

[The Yinzer]

I feel that Poch has a tendency to be rather conservative with the timing of his substitutions. We usually bring one sub on around the 70th minute, one around the 80th minute and one around the 85th minute. That's not usually going to be enough time for the second and third subs to make much of an impact.

 

[Burko]

I don't think it's so much the personnel but the actual choices being made by the manager with regards to subs. A lot of the changes he makes are confusing at best.

 

[Deadwood'sPostMatch]

I miss Defoe coming on at the 70 minute mark.

 

[ChickenNuggetz]

I don't think it's so much the personnel but the actual choices being made by the manager with regards to subs. A lot of the changes he makes are confusing at best.

Agreed. He's subbed Chadli on the last three games and he's literally brought nothing of value each time he's subbed on. I get that he's trying to get Chadli some minutes but he's just never been a great impact sub in my opinion.

 

[Totti]

In some games it comes off, in some games it does. I wouldn't put too much into it. Let's actually have a look at the games where we've made subs this season and their contributions:

Everton (A)
Son, Chadli and Onomah didn't add anything to the game.
1-1 when first sub made. 1-1 FT.
Watford (A)
Eriksen looked good when coming on, Son come on and scored the winner, Chadli offered nothing.
1-1 when first sub made. 1-2 FT.
Norwich (H)
Son and Chadli didn't add anything to the game. Carroll scored the third and final goal.
2-0 when first sub made, 3-0 FT.
Southampton (A)
Son, Chadli and Carroll didn't add much to a game we were in control of.
0-2 when subs were made, 0-2 FT.
Newcastle (H)
Son and Chadli offered nothing and we lost the game when both come on.
1-0 when first sub made.
1-2 at full time whistle.
West Brom (A)
Son offered nothing. N'Jie was unlucky to be ruled offside late on.
1-1 when subs were made. 1-1 FT.
Chelsea (H)
Lamela and N'Jie didn't add much. Forced sub due to injury.
0-0 when subs were made, 0-0 FT.
West Ham (H)
Mason worked hard, Lamela and Onomah to late to make impression.
3-0 when first sub was made. 4-1 FT
Woolwich (A)
Mason on for Alli and Son replaced Lamela, arguably our two best players and it showed when they came off.
0-1 when first sub was made, 1-1 FT.
Aston Villa (H)
Davies and Onomah both had a part to play in our brilliant third goal. Mason hit the post.
2-0 when first sub was made, 3-1 FT.
Bournemouth (A)
Trippier, N'Jie and Mason all come on in a game we dominated and allowed us to continue ticking.
1-5 when first sub made, 1-5 FT.
Liverpool (H)
N'Jie showed raw ability when coming on and came close to winning it for us. Townsend made no impact
0-0 when first sub made, 0-0 FT
Swansea (A)
Townsend wasn't effective, N'Jie huffed and puffed and Dembele didn't have much time to make an impact.
2-1 when first sub made, 2-2 FT.
Man City (H)
N'Jie run City ragged with his pace and skill, got an assist. Chadli had a goal taken from him which was then ruled out and Carroll didnt have time to make an impact
3-1 when first sub was made, 4-1 FT
Crystal Palace (H)
Eriksen come on and assisted the winner. N'Jie and Carroll made no impact, though had little time.
0-0 when first sub was made, 1-0 FT.
Sunderland (A)
Seem to remember Townsend actually being really good in this one when he come on, Lamela got the assist for the winner, Carroll little impact
0-0 when first sub was made, 0-1 FT
Everton (H)
Alli showed promise when coming on, Pritchard didn't have much time to make an impact.
0-0 when first sub was made, 0-0 FT
Leicester (A)
Alli came off the bench and scored what should have been the winning goal. Carroll and Bentaleb made no impact.
0-0 when first sub was made, 1-1 FT
Stoke (H)
Lamela and Bentaleb were both poor when coming on, we lost our shape and both were bad subs.
2-0 when first sub come on, 2-2 FT.
Man Utd (A)
Lamela, Mason and Alli all came on in the second half but ultimately didn't do enough to draw us level
1-0 when first sub made, 1-0 FT.

--

It looks like overall, our subs have been given us more positives then negatives. I'd say only Stoke City and Woolwich were where subs cost us the game, Newcastle too of course when we took Carroll off. I'd say overall it's probably harder for someone to come into our team with the way we play as you need 100% from everyone and everyone to be on the same wave length for our press and style to work, coming off the bench into a game probably doesn't allow the easiest of transitions. Son against Woolwich was a prime example considering how good Lamelas defensive work was.

Whilst the substitutes yesterday didn't bring any effect, they didn't cost us much neither. Unfortunately they didn't work but we saw subs against Watford, notably Son, who got quite of abuse yesterday because of his performance, come off the bench and win us the game. So it's all well and good when it works but it seems like people jump on the team/manager when it doesn't.

 

[existenzrippchen]

I am a huge fan of Poch, but...

He doesn't use the squad well, and he, imo, makes wrong tactical choices when he subs. Both are important reasons why our subs have little or No positive influensa, and why we become weaker post sub.

We line up with close to the same eleven every game. Even in the cups, we have mostly used our first team. This, mixed with some injuries to our rotation players, means they don't get the match readiness we need.

It's hard to make an impact when you get 3 minutes of first team football a week, like Onomah, 8 minutes like Chadli, or even 20 minutes like Son.

The latter struggles with his first touch, his combination play, his decision making and his defensive teamwork. All those factors will most likely improve with more game time, but are hard to improve in training or on the bench.

If Poch wants more impact from the bench, he needs to rotate more, to keep more players more involved.

Tactically I find Pochettino's choices to be strange at times. People are talking about us as potential title candidates. I do not agree. Part of the reason for this is that our nine draws aren't coincidental.

Previous champions have had a tendency to, in games where they are not in front in the last ten-fifteen minutes, completely take control over the game, dominate their opponents, and get the goal or goals they need.

What we seem to do is lose control towards the end, which imo is often because of the subs, and maybe partly due to players getting tried. It was said a couple of games ago that we would be league leaders if games only lasted one half.

By taking off Eriksen and putting on Son, we lose control. The latter moves more offensively, he is not as good at holding on to the ball, he is not as good at defending, neither positionally nor as a ball winner. The same goes for most of the subs we've used - partly, as mentioned, because of the lack of match readiness, partly because of skillset, mentality and how long they've been with us.

If Poch had brought on a Mason, a Bentaleb, we could've established more dominance and had more of a chance to win and less of a chance to lose.

We were very lucky not to lose against a ten man Watford after poor subs, and could've easily lost against Everton in the last fifteen as well.

The players are tired again because of high press. We should've won that game easily in the first half but didn't use the chance. Us not winning against Everton has not that much to do with our subs.

We have alot of young players and they still have to learn how to play in the final quarter of the game. I don't know what you exactly mean by 'Poch gets his tactics wrong'... Last season we won a good amount of games in the final minutes when we're playing worse than this season.

We are trying to avoid draws now and win games. We are risking more, you could see that against Watford and Everton.

And no, Mason and Bentaleb wouldn't have brought on more stability. We were more likely to not win the game. Mason hasn't played over 6 weeks and Bentaleb even longer. Wouldn't have helped much.

We won against Watford because we took a risk.

 

[Mrs Perryman]

From a tactical point of view, I'm not going to be able to add much to this discussion and I have read people's opinions with interest. However, I do find some of Poch's decisions a bit baffling at times. But then again, what do I know - I thought bringing on Carroll against Norwich was a mistake, and lo and behold, he scored a cracker! I agree that he doesn't really have the luxury of having potential game changers warming the bench, ie a back up striker for Harry, and I'm not sure that neither Chadhli or Son are the answer to that problem. But is a quality player in that position going to be content being not much more than an understudy?

 

[Yorkshire_Spurs]

I think the main issue we have is we lack a like for like swap for Kane, and Son / Chadli just don't offer much impact from the bench (I get that son nicked the winner at Watford).

The subs baffle me sometimes, but then I wonder who else I would bring on. If not Chadli / Son then who? Though Bentaleb seemed the obvious choice at Everton, even if it was for Eriksen with Carroll pushing forward.

 

[hibberni]

IMHO I think his error was subbing Alli & not Kane (see my post in Tottenham Hotstats).
Son for HK and switch Eriksen & Lamela back to their normal starting positions.

 

[Totti]

I thought I'd bump this thread to once again praise Pochettinos substitutes. Outstanding, won the game.

 

[Blanchflower]

I'd like to think that Poch has read this thread, as ever since the run of games that prompted the OP our subs have been making an ever increasing impact on games.

:dierpochhug:

 

[gajt]

He got them spot on against Watford. He's obviously still learning just like the players are

 

[SpursMeHeart]

 

[Totti]

Once more..

 

[Totti]

I've always been supportive of Pochettinos substitutions as he usually always makes the right decision but bringing on Mason for Lamela goes down as one of the worst substitutions in footballing history.

 

[gajt]

I've always been supportive of Pochettinos substitutions as he usually always makes the right decision but bringing on Mason for Lamela goes down as one of the worst substitutions in footballing history.

Personally at the time I was happy with the sub. Erik was already on a yellow and he was still going in recklessly with the challenges. Maybe in hindsight it was the wrong decision, but you know what they say about hindsight...

 

[DeadlyDemon]

Personally at the time I was happy with the sub. Erik was already on a yellow and he was still going in recklessly with the challenges. Maybe in hindsight it was the wrong decision, but you know what they say about hindsight...

I love Lamela's work ethic but he does get himself booked frequently. The Lamela sub came literally just after Sanchez' booking which involved Lamela so I think it was a smart time to take him off.

I don't feel the subs were the greatest yesterday but overall I think Poch gets them right more often than he gets them wrong. I thought Rose had been one of our better players so I was more surprised at that substitution than the other two.

 

[Bazali]

So many different ways to look at this:
1. Your assumption is not true - Son came on and scored against Watford, Ali came on against Leicester and scored, Onomah was superb against Anderlecht at the Lane and Dembele came on and got the winner. Mason was excellent when he came on against West Ham. Carroll came on and scored against Norwich. Carroll also came on as sub recently, can't remember who against, and he gave us control back to a game that was tipping in favour of the oppo. So I's say that at least a third of our games our subs have positively effected/changed the game.
2. Availability - Clinton has had a positive effect with every appearance from the bench and unlucky not to score. But as he is now injured and the option to bring him on is no longer there.
3. Expectations - Are you expecting a sub to have a positive effect on the game 100% of the time, if so why and what other teams do you know does it to that effect? If you are then surely the team we are playing also brings on subs trying to change the game too.
4. Opposition - Are we desperately pushing for a goal because we are behind or are we leading and need to control the game.
5. Injury - Sometimes the decisions on who to bring on are made for you due to an injury to a player.
6. Blooding youth and new players in - We have the likes of Winks, Onomah, Clinton, Son, Carroll and soon to add to that Pritchard who are being given minutes with the future in mind, by that I mean next year and beyond.

I assume you've posted this because our subs yesterday were poor and didn't effect the game in our favour but aside of yesterday I can only think of the Stoke game where our subs effected the result negatively, mind you in that game it was a double whammy as it was their subs that created and got both their goals.

Not sure what point I am trying to make other than I am disagreeing with your point that our subs "so often weaken our team". Yesterday and Stoke aside what other games can you refer to to back up we are weakened.

I will concede however that when Dembele comes off we loose control of midfield. (BTW Carroll has been an excellent sub when he comes on (he is not a 90min player yet that is for sure).

I think it was Citeh away when Carroll came on, played well in a role Poch wanted and sharpened up the midfield with his quick passing

I'm a Carroll fan and think he should be used more

Substitutions must be one of the most difficult decisions a manager can make

Take yesterday

Lamela had a good game but the stupid yellow card clearly affected him so who to bring on?

At the time I agreed Mason was the obvious choice taking his performance against WH into consideration but he never got into the pace of the game so, with hindsight, Chadli or Onomah should have come on

Poch doesn't have that luxury and, in any case, Chadli could have been worse or he could have come up with a goal!

I didn't see their equaliser coming as it was a scuffed shot which should have been saved

Very lucky IMO

 

[Bazali]

I love Lamela's work ethic but he does get himself booked frequently. The Lamela sub came literally just after Sanchez' booking which involved Lamela so I think it was a smart time to take him off.

I don't feel the subs were the greatest yesterday but overall I think Poch gets them right more often than he gets them wrong. I thought Rose had been one of our better players so I was more surprised at that substitution than the other two.

Looking at Poch's demeanour after their flukey equaliser he might have been thinking 'where was Rose'?

But I agree in that Rose had a good game generally as did Walker

 

[existenzrippchen]

I've always been supportive of Pochettinos substitutions as he usually always makes the right decision but bringing on Mason for Lamela goes down as one of the worst substitutions in footballing history.

What the fuck do you mean by that? 'Worst subtition in footballing history'... slightly over reacting...