Page 1 of 1
Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:50 pm
by wilks_bfc
What is the point in preparing a substitution and then not making it?
Drinkwater was all ready to come on before we scored, I’m assuming Westwood would have been the one going off.
Now I know Westwood put the ball in but that shouldn’t have made any difference in the decision. I thought he’d been ineffective for those 80mins.
We had them on the ropes and spent the next 20mins knocking it sideways when what we needed was the extra drive forward
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:54 pm
by SandyLaneClaret
I think McNeill was to be subbed due to his injury. Decided to leave him on when we went 2-1. Could be wrong.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:55 pm
by tarkys_ears
Prolly cost us 50 grand to put DD on and the game was already lost.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:57 pm
by cricketfieldclarets
I thought he was going to bring Bardsley off and go 3 at back but that was probably too ambitious.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:01 pm
by wilks_bfc
I only assumed Westwood as when the game restarted, the screen showed that the change had been made and Westwood was off.
Mind, this is also the same screen that showed Charlie Taylor was on a yellow card for 5mins
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:24 pm
by ClaretTony
wilks_bfc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:01 pm
I only assumed Westwood as when the game restarted, the screen showed that the change had been made and Westwood was off.
Mind, this is also the same screen that showed Charlie Taylor was on a yellow card for 5mins
A lot of errors on the screen regularly, I'd take no notice of anything on there to be honest.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:01 pm
by Foulthrow
ClaretTony wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 3:24 pm
A lot of errors on the screen regularly, I'd take no notice of anything on there to be honest.
Aye. They gave Charlie Taylor a yellow until they realised it was the other Taylor wearing 3 that had been booked.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:03 pm
by ClaretTony
Foulthrow wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:01 pm
Aye. They gave Charlie Taylor a yellow until they realised it was the other Taylor wearing 3 that had been booked.
I did spot that one
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:03 pm
by Granny WeatherWax
It’s the most tinpot screen in the league with its tinpot adverts and tinpot errors tinpot not showing VAR decisions etc. Whoever runs it is a massive tinpot.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:05 pm
by Barry_Chuckle
A substitution at that point would have been a positive move, chose to settle for a 2-1 defeat as we created nothing after the goal.
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got Mr Dyche.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:06 pm
by Iloveyoubrady
Granny WeatherWax wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:03 pm
It’s the most tinpot screen in the league with its tinpot adverts and tinpot errors tinpot not showing VAR decisions etc. Whoever runs it is a massive tinpot.
Do you reckon it’s tinpot ?
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:08 pm
by Rileybobs
Think it was the right call to sit Drinkwater back down to be honest. The way we were playing I was pretty confident we’d continue to create goal scoring opporunities in the remaining 15 minutes. Unfortunately we played with too much patience and composure which I usually have the opposite criticism of.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:09 pm
by AlargeClaret
- 88722F23-5529-45E3-B52D-A888142134FF.jpeg (79.54 KiB) Viewed 2286 times
Our screen operator and announcer
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:09 pm
by Rileybobs
Barry_Chuckle wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:05 pm
A substitution at that point would have been a positive move, chose to settle for a 2-1 defeat as we created nothing after the goal.
If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got Mr Dyche.
That’s not true though is it. Why would we settle for a 2-1 defeat? We created plenty of opportunities in the second half but unfortunately failed to do so after scoring.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:24 pm
by Barry_Chuckle
Rileybobs wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:09 pm
That’s not true though is it. Why would we settle for a 2-1 defeat? We created plenty of opportunities in the second half but unfortunately failed to do so after scoring.
After we scored we created naff all Riley, did their sub keeper have anything to do?
Drinkwater was ready to come on, to change the game at 2-0 down, we score and DD doesn't come on. With that substitution not happening, we settled with what we had on the pitch, and that was far from good enough.
At 2-1 down you need to roll the dice, by not doing so is a joke.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:26 pm
by Rileybobs
Barry_Chuckle wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:24 pm
After we scored we created naff all Riley, did their sub keeper have anything to do?
Drinkwater was ready to come on, to change the game at 2-0 down, we score and DD doesn't come on. With that substitution not happening, we settled with what we had on the pitch, and that was far from good enough.
At 2-1 down you need to roll the dice, by not doing so is a joke.
I know we didn’t create after scoring, I posted exactly that above. But I have no problem with Dyche deciding that it was worth persevering with Westwood with just a one goal deficit, particularly after his contribution for the goal and the quality of his set piece deliveries. It ultimately didn’t pay off but I can see the reasoning behind it.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:30 pm
by claretspice
Thought the logic change was to take off Bardsley, who offers nothing going forwards and was having the worst of all bad performances on the pitch, and sit Westwood at right back to utilise his ability to cross the ball.
Thought the logic of that became even more obvious after we scored, but whatever the change that was being planned, nothing changed just because we scored. In the end we ran out of gas in the final 15 minutes so we'd just have benefited from some fresher legs.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:49 pm
by cricketfieldclarets
claretspice wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:30 pm
Thought the logic change was to take off Bardsley, who offers nothing going forwards and was having the worst of all bad performances on the pitch, and sit Westwood at right back to utilise his ability to cross the ball.
Thought the logic of that became even more obvious after we scored, but whatever the change that was being planned, nothing changed just because we scored. In the end we ran out of gas in the final 15 minutes so we'd just have benefited from some fresher legs.
Agree thats the change i said. But with taylor mee and tarks as a back 3.
Re: Aborted Substitutions
Posted: Wed Jan 01, 2020 4:50 pm
by IanMcL
wilks_bfc wrote: ↑Wed Jan 01, 2020 2:50 pm
What is the point in preparing a substitution and then not making it?
Drinkwater was all ready to come on before we scored, I’m assuming Westwood would have been the one going off.
Now I know Westwood put the ball in but that shouldn’t have made any difference in the decision. I thought he’d been ineffective for those 80mins.
We had them on the ropes and spent the next 20mins knocking it sideways when what we needed was the extra drive forward
Mean corners and fks from Westwood.