Parker’s subs.

[TopCat]

In my opinion this is going to be the difference between play offs and automatic.
Our bench is full of talent and needs fully utilising.
Fresh legs and a different approach with at least 20 to go is needed.

[Bacchus]

As fans we all want to see the attacking talent deployed when a game is tight. As a coach that has to be measured against protecting the point (and sometimes the players.) There have been plenty of occasions where introducing Sarmiento, for example, in a bid to add more attacking threat has led to us creating less because we've lost control of the game.

Of course as we approach the end of the season that 'risk assessment' changes, because the play-off position should be guaranteed so there is less to lose in throwing on the likes of Benson.

[dsr]

As fans we all want to see the attacking talent deployed when a game is tight. As a coach that has to be measured against protecting the point (and sometimes the players.) There have been plenty of occasions where introducing Sarmiento, for example, in a bid to add more attacking threat has led to us creating less because we've lost control of the game.

Of course as we approach the end of the season that 'risk assessment' changes, because the play-off position should be guaranteed so there is less to lose in throwing on the likes of Benson.

We shouldn't be aiming for play-offs. We should be aiming for automatic promotion.

[dougcollins]

If he is aiming for the playoffs, he's playing a dangerous game.

[Murger]

If he’s aiming for the playoffs, he should be sacked.

[claretdj]

Exactly this reason will cost us the top 2 unfortunately, just a total lack of urgency from Parker to utilise his bench around the 65 minute mark & really go for the win in games. I have just come to accept it now that he ain't going to change his stance on bringing subs on earlier, with the way we are playing I just can't see us getting enough wins to make the top 2. As it stands though a good chance of a Burnley v Blackburn playoff final, which would be very interesting.

[Bacchus]

We shouldn't be aiming for play-offs. We should be aiming for automatic promotion.

Well done, you've taken an extreme interpretation of my point to argue against.

Of course he shouldn't be, and isn't aiming for the playoffs. The point was that as we reach the point of the season where that is the worst possible outcome there is less to lose in taking a risk. You knew that though, didn't you?

[chekhov]

If he’s aiming for the playoffs, he should be sacked.

This sentence doesn’t even make any sense. I mean, what a ridiculous assertion. It’s like saying, if he’s aiming for mid table he should be sacked.

[Rileybobs]

The problem is our substitutions tend to make us weaker. I can’t think of many occasions this season when we have been stronger after making substitutions. So there is an argument that Parker is making substitutions too early if anything.

The problem for me is that the substitutions don’t bring with them a different system or a change of gear. We don’t seem to have the ability to turn it up a notch and go for it for the final 20 minutes.

[123EasyasBFC]

The problem is our substitutions tend to make us weaker. I can’t think of many occasions this season when we have been stronger after making substitutions. So there is an argument that Parker is making substitutions too early if anything.

The problem for me is that the substitutions don’t bring with them a different system or a change of gear. We don’t seem to have the ability to turn it up a notch and go for it for the final 20 minutes.

Yeah the subs are always like for like, never take a midfielder off for a striker

[ksrclaret]

When Scott Parker decides he wants more than we are getting from a game, he makes positive subs to make us more likely to score. It's worked on the few occasions he's done it as well, Hull and Norwich away immediately spring to mind. Millwall away as well, although that didn't work as planned.

The problem with Scott Parker is that he's very happy to make subs that turn 0 points into 1, but he's not happy to make subs designed to turn 1 point into 3. Scott Parker is inherently risk averse, and just a bit boring, to be blunt.

[dsr]

Well done, you've taken an extreme interpretation of my point to argue against.

Of course he shouldn't be, and isn't aiming for the playoffs. The point was that as we reach the point of the season where that is the worst possible outcome there is less to lose in taking a risk. You knew that though, didn't you?

We're 18 points clear of seventh place with 13 games left. If the occasional draw turns into a loss it will not keep us from the playoffs. 20 points from 13 games will guarantee play-offs, and that is assuming that Coventry AND West Brom win all their remaining games (apart from the one against each other).

Play offs are 99.9% safe. Choosing tactics that risk automatic promotion because of worry about the 0.1% chance are (IMO) foolish.

[TheFamilyCat]

Well done, you've taken an extreme interpretation of my point to argue against.

Of course he shouldn't be, and isn't aiming for the playoffs. The point was that as we reach the point of the season where that is the worst possible outcome there is less to lose in taking a risk. You knew that though, didn't you?

By the time the playoffs are the worst case scenario (mathematically, as we are guaranteed top already) the top two will be likely out of sight.

[Murger]

This sentence doesn’t even make any sense. I mean, what a ridiculous assertion. It’s like saying, if he’s aiming for mid table he should be sacked.

Makes perfect sense. He should be aiming for the top 2, not the top 6.

[taio]

Makes perfect sense. He should be aiming for the top 2, not the top 6.

I've no doubt the number one objective of both Parker and the Board is automatic promotion.

[loganking222]

By the time the playoffs are the worst case scenario (mathematically, as we are guaranteed top already) the top two will be likely out of sight.

It's a weird feeling as I already have my mind settled with the playoffs. And it's a Sunderland playoff final.

[Murger]

I've no doubt the number one objective of both Parker and the Board is automatic promotion.

Well the way he goes about games says something different.

[taio]

Well the way he goes about games says something different.

Doesn't alter the fact that the main objective is automatic promotion.

[chekhov]

Makes perfect sense. He should be aiming for the top 2, not the top 6.

In what imaginary world would he only be aiming for a play-off place?

[Murger]

In what imaginary world would he only be aiming for a play-off place?

The world in which he’s happy to settle for a point whilst those around continue to win.

[taio]

The world in which he’s happy to settle for a point whilst those around continue to win.

This is what Parker said after yesterday's game:

"The facts are that we didn't get the result and we're disappointed that we didn't win the game because we fully deserved to, but we didn't put our chances away today."

[Rileybobs]

The world in which he’s happy to settle for a point whilst those around continue to win.

If he was happy to settle for a point then he wouldn’t be making offensive substitutions when we’re drawing a game. In fact he’d be more likely to make defensive substitutions, which he doesn’t. Parker is not settling for a point, the team is just lacking the ability to turn games like this into a win.

[Murger]

This is what Parker said after yesterday's game:

"The facts are that we didn't get the result and we're disappointed that we didn't win the game because we fully deserved to, but we didn't put our chances away today."

The 2 Foster chances happened earlier on in the game, they didn’t go in so the manager has to adapt. He doesn’t.

[taio]

The 2 Foster chances happened earlier on in the game, they didn’t go in so the manager has to adapt. He doesn’t.

He wasn't happy with a point. His aim isn't to make the play-offs at the expense of automatic promotion. You are making stuff up.

[Murger]

If he was happy to settle for a point then he wouldn’t be making offensive substitutions when we’re drawing a game. In fact he’d be more likely to make defensive substitutions, which he doesn’t. Parker is not settling for a point, the team is just lacking the ability to turn games like this into a win.

He has all that attacking talent on the bench though.

[ClaretLoup]

I think dsr really has hit the nail on the head above. We have to start taking more risks in games like yesterday.

When Woodman was time wasting taking goalkicks, that should have been the green light for Shelvey to replace Laurent or Cullen, Pires for Humphries and Barnes for Flemming. I sense that Basher would have loved half an hour against the PNE cloggers.

[Rileybobs]

He has all that attacking talent on the bench though.

And he utilised some of it yesterday. He also had attacking talent on the pitch.

[Jakubs Tash]

As fans we all want to see the attacking talent deployed when a game is tight. As a coach that has to be measured against protecting the point (and sometimes the players.)

There is zero point at this stage in the season in “protecting the point”. We might as well lose going for a win than sitting back and holding on for a point.

Losing at this stage of the season isn’t going to affect our chances of getting in the play offs - but winning might affect our chances of getting top two.

Earlier in the season, I might have agreed with you but not at this stage with the situation as it currently is.

[HurstGrangeClaret]

I agree with JT on this. In my opinion, SP wasn’t brave enough with how he used his subs yesterday. He could see the way the match was going. Yes we’d missed chances but he should have utilised his attacking options more, and at an earlier time.

[dsr]

If he was happy to settle for a point then he wouldn’t be making offensive substitutions when we’re drawing a game. In fact he’d be more likely to make defensive substitutions, which he doesn’t. Parker is not settling for a point, the team is just lacking the ability to turn games like this into a win.

I don't count replacing a winger with a winger, or a midfielder with a midfielder, to be an offensive substitution. On offensive substitution is when the manager changes the shape or tactics to become more attacking. We don't do that unless we're losing; when we're drawing, we do not change tactics.

[Rileybobs]

I don't count replacing a winger with a winger, or a midfielder with a midfielder, to be an offensive substitution. On offensive substitution is when the manager changes the shape or tactics to become more attacking. We don't do that unless we're losing; when we're drawing, we do not change tactics.

Well I think an offensive substitution could be defined in a number of ways. For example, replacing a player with one who is more likely to score I would consider to be an offensive substitution. Parker made two such substitutions yesterday.

[Woodleyclaret]

Poor use of subs at PNE with Preston tiring it was crying out for Ash,Benny , Jonjo and Sarmiento and really get at them 2 points thrown away .

[claretcarrot93]

And he utilised some of it yesterday. He also had attacking talent on the pitch.

Did he? We had Laurent and Cullen still on the pitch playing 451 and Anthony got another 90 minutes.

[Rileybobs]

Did he? We had Laurent and Cullen still on the pitch playing 451 and Anthony got another 90 minutes.

Well of course he did. He brought Edwards and Brownhill on.

[Nonayforever]

The only game that I have seen Parker make , what I call a positive sub, is the Hull game , where he switched Antony & put Edwards on.It didn't produce a goal though.
The rest of his subs are like for like , same system.
He's definitely scared to gamble for a win.

[Dark Cloud]

I thought in his early matches Parker was pretty proactive with his subs and wasn't scared or adverse to fairly early changes which was a good thing and imo contrasted starkly with SD for example. However, he's become increasingly reluctant to change things early and then when he does he rarely makes what I think are the glaringly obvious changes. I think we have an extremely strong bench most games and we don't always utilise it fully. How Shelvey couldn't even get a kick on Saturday when we were dominating, but struggling to break the deadlock was wrong (imo)

[claretcarrot93]

Well of course he did. He brought Edwards and Brownhill on.

A winger for a winger and a CM for a CM. He has never put two strikers playing up front on when we are drawing like Kompany used too.

[CoolClaret]

A winger for a winger and a CM for a CM. He has never put two strikers playing up front on when we are drawing like Kompany used too.

Go on then, how many games did we bring two strikers on in the champ under VK?

The only time I can strictly recall was Dervisoglu coming on against Rotherham alongside Ashley Barnes after Jay Rod was substituted earlier.

[Rileybobs]

A winger for a winger and a CM for a CM. He has never put two strikers playing up front on when we are drawing like Kompany used too.

I didn’t say he did. He had attacking talent on the bench and utilised some of it, which is what I said and what you disagreed with.

[dsr]

Go on then, how many games did we bring two strikers on in the champ under VK?

The only time I can strictly recall was Dervisoglu coming on against Rotherham alongside Ashley Barnes after Jay Rod was substituted earlier.

Kompany used tactics that successfully won far more than they drew, so his tactics for turning draws into wins clearly worked. Parker is using tactics that are hopeless at turning draws into wins, hence the suggestions that he might try something different.

[claretcarrot93]

Go on then, how many games did we bring two strikers on in the champ under VK?

The only time I can strictly recall was Dervisoglu coming on against Rotherham alongside Ashley Barnes after Jay Rod was substituted earlier.

Did we go for the win and win that game?

[claretcarrot93]

I didn’t say he did. He had attacking talent on the bench and utilised some of it, which is what I said and what you disagreed with.

It was like for like as it always is at 0-0, he wont make attacking positional change using his bench. Which is fine if need the point but we need all three

[Greenmile]

I tend to go on opposition messageboards quite often to follow their match threads, either while the game is going on or when I get home, and there is invariably a lot of fans of all clubs calling for early substitutions when their team is losing (or not winning).

However, early subs remain quite a rare thing.

It’s almost as though professional football managers know something that gobshite fans on messageboards (and I count myself amongst them) don’t.

[Rileybobs]

It was like for like as it always is at 0-0, he wont make attacking positional change using his bench. Which is fine if need the point but we need all three

This is a different argument than my post that you disagreed with -the simple fact which you disagreed with is that he utilised some of the attacking talent on his bench!

But on your point, I agree that changes are often like for like if you are being very simplistic about football formations and systems. On Saturday Parker brought off Hannibal for Brownhill, who carries a significantly bigger goal threat. He brought on a left footed forward in Edwards for Foster and moved Anthony to the left, meaning we had two 'inverted wingers'. Edwards was brought down in the box after cutting inside, and Anthony should probably have scored having done the same from the opposite flank.

I think there's a lot of subtlety which gets missed by the casual spectator, Kompany even said that his Burnley teams often played something like 10 different systems/formations within a game, I suspect most spectators wouldn't pick up on the majority of this. Parker often switches between one holding midfielder and two during the course of a game as a very simple example.

I've seen lots of people clamour for 2 strikers, as if this will magically result in more wins - football doesn't work like that. Not to mention that centre forward is our weakest position in the squad, so why would we play with 2?

[claretcarrot93]

This is a different argument than my post that you disagreed with -the simple fact which you disagreed with is that he utilised some of the attacking talent on his bench!

But on your point, I agree that changes are often like for like if you are being very simplistic about football formations and systems. On Saturday Parker brought off Hannibal for Brownhill, who carries a significantly bigger goal threat. He brought on a left footed forward in Edwards for Foster and moved Anthony to the left, meaning we had two 'inverted wingers'. Edwards was brought down in the box after cutting inside, and Anthony should probably have scored having done the same from the opposite flank.

I think there's a lot of subtlety which gets missed by the casual spectator, Kompany even said that his Burnley teams often played something like 10 different systems/formations within a game, I suspect most spectators wouldn't pick up on the majority of this. Parker often switches between one holding midfielder and two during the course of a game as a very simple example.

I've seen lots of people clamour for 2 strikers, as if this will magically result in more wins - football doesn't work like that. Not to mention that centre forward is our weakest position in the squad, so why would we play with 2?

Considering the amount of 0-0s is not worth trying two attackers to win a game? Flemming behind foster has not been used once this season despite them both playing that actual position

[Rileybobs]

Considering the amount of 0-0s is not worth trying two attackers to win a game? Flemming behind foster has not been used once this season despite them both playing that actual position

I'm sure Parker has considered it. In fact I'm sure he's looked at it on the training pitch. Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that it will place more defensive responsibilities on our wide forwards and therefore make us even less of a goal threat. Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that it will give us less control of the midfield. Perhaps he doesn't think Flemming and Foster are suited to those specific roles.

Leeds United only play one centre forward to the best of my knowledge and don't get many 0-0's. Like I say, people are looking for very simple solutions that don't exist.

[CoolClaret]

Kompany used tactics that successfully won far more than they drew, so his tactics for turning draws into wins clearly worked. Parker is using tactics that are hopeless at turning draws into wins, hence the suggestions that he might try something different.

Did he?

Or did he just have more attacking options and better attacking players available for selection than Parker, and through moments of individual brilliance (that Edwards nearly provided on Saturday!) we managed to turn some games on their head?

[dsr]

I'm sure Parker has considered it. In fact I'm sure he's looked at it on the training pitch. Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that it will place more defensive responsibilities on our wide forwards and therefore make us even less of a goal threat. Perhaps he doesn't like the fact that it will give us less control of the midfield. Perhaps he doesn't think Flemming and Foster are suited to those specific roles.

Leeds United only play one centre forward to the best of my knowledge and don't get many 0-0's. Like I say, people are looking for very simple solutions that don't exist.

It's undoubtedly true that Parker is happy to settle for a point if it's 0-0 at 75 minutes. If he wasn't, he would do something different instead of going for the tried-and-tested way of drawing 0-0.

The question is, would we in fact get less than a point a game if we brought Barnes on, or brought Edwards or Benson on and shifted Foster to the middle?

[claretonthecoast1882]

It's undoubtedly true that Parker is happy to settle for a point if it's 0-0 at 75 minutes. If he wasn't, he would do something different instead of going for the tried-and-tested way of drawing 0-0.

The question is, would we in fact get less than a point a game if we brought Barnes on, or brought Edwards or Benson on and shifted Foster to the middle?

Yet Portsmouth (h) Swansea (h) Norwich (a)are 3 games where he didn't settle for a draw and went on to win the game with a goal after 75 minutes.

[dsr]

Against Portsmouth and Norwich we were losing. I have never said he won't change things when we are losing, only when we are drawing. Swansea was the one game out of 12 when we were drawing 0-0 and went on to win, though I'm not sure what he changed that made the Swansea man decide to stick his arm in the air and give us a penalty.