20 minutes to go and we take of Hannibal and replace him with a more defensive midfielder in Laurent.

It seemed like he'd settled for a point there and then. The other subs were just like for like (one enforced).

No change in formation to try and win the game. This could ultimately cost us.

Hannibal was absolutely dreadful tonight, amazed he lasted as long as he did.

Would have preferred Benson to Sarmiento.

The issue was he made the subs too late.

I think Albion's tough defenders would have taken Benson out at an early stage

I thought every sub was fine really, although Foster would have started for me. Everything else was fairly attacking, wasn’t it? Hannibal wasn’t doing anything, Laurent got a good assist against Luton and played quite advanced… you could argue for Benson over Sarmiento, but we just couldn’t get a grip of the game at all, so I’m not sure it would have mattered.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:48 pm

I thought every sub was fine really, although Foster would have started for me. Everything else was fairly attacking, wasn’t it? Hannibal wasn’t doing anything, Laurent got a good assist against Luton and played quite advanced… you could argue for Benson over Sarmiento, but we just couldn’t get a grip of the game at all, so I’m not sure it would have mattered.

I didn't agree with not bringing Benson on, we needed someone who could create something out of the blue because we sure as hell weren't scoring again otherwise.

The problem wasn't the subs, it's the total lack of ability we have as a team to sustain attacks and pen teams in. We let teams get out so easily, our high press is slow and hesitant. It's been a problem all season and is why we can't break teams down when we desperately need a goal.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:44 pm

20 minutes to go and we take of Hannibal and replace him with a more defensive midfielder in Laurent.

It seemed like he'd settled for a point there and then. The other subs were just like for like (one enforced).

No change in formation to try and win the game. This could ultimately cost us.

The thought process with taking Hannibal off is to put our top goalscorer in a position to win the game for us, it didn't work but it's far from a defensive move. The issue was Laurent didn't get up to the speed of the game and his distribution was awful.

The Foster injury was the biggest problem in terms of us wrestling back the initiative, it's hardly ideal when a sub is subbed off.

We weren't good enough in the second half, that's a fact.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:48 pm

I thought every sub was fine really, although Foster would have started for me. Everything else was fairly attacking, wasn’t it? Hannibal wasn’t doing anything, Laurent got a good assist against Luton and played quite advanced… you could argue for Benson over Sarmiento, but we just couldn’t get a grip of the game at all, so I’m not sure it would have mattered.

Foster has just managed one tap in all season.

Goody1975 wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:51 pm

The thought process with taking Hannibal off is to put our top goalscorer in a position to win the game for us, it didn't work but it's far from a defensive move. The issue was Laurent didn't get up to the speed of the game and his distribution was awful.

The Foster injury was the biggest problem in terms of us wrestling back the initiative, it's hardly ideal when a sub is subbed off.

We weren't good enough in the second half, that's a fact.

I just felt we'd settled for a point with 20 minutes to go. We barely threatened once Laurent came on.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:54 pm

I just felt we'd settled for a point with 20 minutes to go. We barely threatened once Laurent came on.

That was because his pass selection was wrong just about every time, that was his fault not Parker's, he was pretty rank when he came on.

I was sat on row b in the 100 club, Laurent tried to drive us forward down the right when he came on. The problem was that WBA were defensively solid. I assume it was Callum Styles who was their left back , was at Burnley as a youngster, he had Edwards in his pocket.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:44 pm

20 minutes to go and we take of Hannibal and replace him with a more defensive midfielder in Laurent.

It seemed like he'd settled for a point there and then. The other subs were just like for like (one enforced).

No change in formation to try and win the game. This could ultimately cost us.

Can't agree with that at all

Another game where I've thought the subs knocked about 10% off the performance.

As worryingly often under Dyche, Parker's Plan B seems to just be Plan A with players who aren't as good/suited to it.

Agree with the above that Hannibal stayed on the pitch as long as he did absolutely ineffective tonight. Surely the sub to make was Benson to try and win the game?

Hannibal had a shocker, I think it was a fair sub.

Every sub is always like for like. Perfect opportunity tonight to hook Hannibal for Foster and try Foster and Flemming up top together.

Steve-Harpers-perm wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:00 pm

Agree with the above that Hannibal stayed on the pitch as long as he did absolutely ineffective tonight. Surely the sub to make was Benson to try and win the game?

Absolutely.

Like for like again.

Will we ever see two up top under Parker?

Laurent that kept probing their defensive line by making runs into the box to try and open them up?

Just because a sub is 'like for like' doesn't mean that the tactical instruction is the same.

Mind boggles why people would expect we would suddenly switch to two up top. That's not how we play, would be completely foreign to them. Never happen.

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:04 pm

Laurent that kept probing their defensive line by making runs into the box to try and open them up?

Just because a sub is 'like for like' doesn't mean that the tactical instruction is the same.

As others have said, he was rubbish when he came on, but it was the wrong sub to start with.

fidelcastro wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:05 pm

As others have said, he was rubbish when he came on, but it was the wrong sub to start with.

Why is it the wrong sub? He was doing nothing, Laurent has been effective at giving us that extra drive when we've used him off the bench. Seems reasonable to me

The aggressive substitution would have been Foster for Hannibal and if we're bringing on Laurent then bring him on for Cullen. We go 4-4-2 and look to move it forward quicker rather than passing through Cullen.

This could have forced them on the back foot and allowed us to camp out in their half and exert real pressure. Of course this brings a risk that we could be more open at the back and more susceptible to losing a goal on the break but if your intention is to go foot to he pedal for the last 10 games then these are the risks worth taking trying to get into the top two

Same old same old, would it really hurt putting two strikers upfront and trying something new? How many times have we seen the same subs and it doesn’t work. The game needed a different approach.

KRBFC wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:06 pm

Same old same old, would it really hurt putting two strikers upfront and trying something new? How many times have we seen the same subs and it doesn’t work. The game needed a different approach.

You don't "try something new" when it's 1-1 and you're still on top and trying to create. You just dont

CoolClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:04 pm

Laurent that kept probing their defensive line by making runs into the box to try and open them up?

Just because a sub is 'like for like' doesn't mean that the tactical instruction is the same.

Laurent who ballsed up two relatively simple passes in the space of about a minute.

I like him and think he has a place in the squad - he was unlucky not to start tonight given his performance against Luton - but he wasn’t the correct substitution to make.

As I said before Luton, we need to start games fast and get the ball into the 6 yard box quick and early, and make sure you have bodies in there to challenge for the ball and second balls. We can't afford to keep knocking the ball backwards because the perfect pass to an unmarked man isn't on.

We didn't get the bodies in the box, we didn't put the early ball into the box, and too often in wide areas we passed backwards. It frustrates the hell out of me, as I'm sure it does most fans. At the end of the day the only person who can change that is SP, but he seems so reluctant/frightened to go for it. With only 10 games to go that's shocking.

We didn't go for the jugular tonight.

I thought Foster and Laurent should both have come on on the hour, and Edwards was lucky to last as long as he did. Ultimately West Brom had a patched up line up including a midfielder at centre back and we didn't really challenge them in the second half.

Thought it was actually a game in which Foster might have been effective off the left and that might have allowed us to get another forward player on the pitch. But certainly the 433 shape didn't work tonight and the logic of bringing on Sarmiento over Benson, and doing so so late, escaped me. It didn't look like working and it didn't work.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:08 pm

You don't "try something new" when it's 1-1 and you're still on top and trying to create. You just dont

Why? Have we not learnt anything from all of the draws this season? Changing like for like does nothing. Maybe if we were braver in the changes we’d see late winning goals.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:08 pm

You don't "try something new" when it's 1-1 and you're still on top and trying to create. You just dont

We weren’t on top at any stage of that game.

claretspice wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:13 pm

We didn't go for the jugular tonight.

I thought Foster and Laurent should both have come on on the hour, and Edwards was lucky to last as long as he did. Ultimately West Brom had a patched up line up including a midfielder at centre back and we didn't really challenge them in the second half.

Thought it was actually a game in which Foster might have been effective off the left and that might have allowed us to get another forward player on the pitch. But certainly the 433 shape didn't work tonight and the logic of bringing on Sarmiento over Benson, and doing so so late, escaped me. It didn't look like working and it didn't work.

Foster did come in at the hour and Laurent was't that far behind. I'd have been tempted to try Benson to try and offer a different threat from range.

They are a decent side though and v well organised

I had no problem with the subs, I just thought we were a little slow and hesitant again tonight in the build up. We seem afraid of really going at teams we think might be able to hurt us on the break.

Murger wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:21 pm

We weren’t on top at any stage of that game.

Large spells we were absolutely in control

BabylonClaret wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:25 pm

Foster did come in at the hour and Laurent was't that far behind. I'd have been tempted to try Benson to try and offer a different threat from range.

They are a decent side though and v well organised

Far too physical of a game for Benson

Two up front tonight Flemming and Ash with instructions to pur wide men to take on their markers and get the ball in early
This back pass and mauling about cost us 2 points

poor substitutes again and to be honest i also think Scott had decided on a draw and if we want to go up you have to chances to win the game, overall fair result.

Always a risk starting a player in a night match during Ramadan.

Not sure there was too much wrong with the subs tonight tbh. Hannibal was struggling to have much impact, Laurent was the obvious replacement with the only real alternative being Sarmiento.

Benson was possibly a hope for pinging in a long range effort but the likelihood is that he'd have mostly been rolling around on the floor in a game like that.

Parker doesn't play 2 up front. The team don't train with 2 up front. If we sacrifice a midfielder and lose control of the game the 2 strikers are pointless because they don't see the ball. The only time we'll see that approach is when there is nothing to lose, not when we're trying to turn 1 point into 3.

dermotdermot wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:51 pm

Foster has just managed one tap in all season.

I’m not fosters biggest fan but that just isn’t true at all. I’m not saying he has been good but off the top of my head the opening goal against Blackburn and the long run to set up the goal at Luton are other examples of what he has done this season.

Benson and Edwards aren’t dissimilar. They both only really offer anything when receiving the ball in the final third. Given how the WBA defence had nullified Edwards and forced him back towards our half way line, I suspect Parker felt Sarmiento and Koleosho offered something a bit different and might be more effective out of possession in a tight game.

Murger wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:21 pm

We weren’t on top at any stage of that game.

Did you go down for an early pint before h/t?

Loyalclaret wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 7:31 am

Did you go down for an early pint before h/t?

It’s Murger. Take what actually happened and add on three layers of misery.

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 7:34 am

It’s Murger. Take what actually happened and add on three layers of misery.

I've known him for years, I'll accept that i'm probably the polar opposite on the Turf

You could be forgiven for thinking Parker has already decided his subs before the game.

agreenwood wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 12, 2025 7:34 am

It’s Murger. Take what actually happened and add on three layers of misery.

Well funny.

GetIntoEm wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 11, 2025 11:26 pm

Far too physical of a game for Benson

Good job he chose the tank that is Sarmiento instead.