Using all 3 subs when winning - Is it worth the risk?

[Sothall_Blade]

We've done it a few times already this season and on Saturday we did it with over 30 minutes left.
Every time we do this, we run quite a high risk of a player getting injured and being reduced to 10 men.
Worst-case scenario, Howard gets injured or sent off and we end up with 10 men and an outfield player in goal.

I couldn't see us losing or even drawing on Saturday with a one goal lead and an extra man but we ran the risk of throwing that vital three points away.
Was it worth the risk just to have a fresher pair of legs on the pitch?

Alcock was injured, fair enough and Coutts hasn't played for months so those changes were understandable.
However, I would have kept Baxter on the pitch for as long as possible as he didn't look injured and should surely be able to last more than 55 minutes.

We got away with it on Saturday but we will get caught out again sooner or later (as we did with Flynn's injury last season).
When we do people will say "well with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have used all out subs...etc".
That's partly why I'm raising it as a query now. After a positive performance and good victory.

Unless enforced by injuries, I just don't think it's ever worth the risk when you're winning. Is it just me?

 

[grafikhaus]

Good point and one I've noticed also. It just encourages clubs like Bury to be even more thuggish and reduce us to ten men. Not a risk worth taking.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

Depends on Adkins' thinking.

Maybe he thought it was worth giving reed another 30 minutes of first team football so he could show what he could do. Think Baxter took a kick first half too.

We have done it a few times tho, and it could cost us like when Flynn got injured last year just after we pointlessly replaced a left back

 

[yorkshirecoast]

We've done it a few times already this season and on Saturday we did it with over 30 minutes left.
Every time we do this, we run quite a high risk of a player getting injured and being reduced to 10 men.
Worst-case scenario, Howard gets injured or sent off and we end up with 10 men and an outfield player in goal.

I couldn't see us losing or even drawing on Saturday with a one goal lead and an extra man but we ran the risk of throwing that vital three points away.
Was it worth the risk just to have a fresher pair of legs on the pitch?

Alcock was injured, fair enough and Coutts hasn't played for months so those changes were understandable.
However, I would have kept Baxter on the pitch for as long as possible as he didn't look injured and should surely be able to last more than 55 minutes.

We got away with it on Saturday but we will get caught out again sooner or later (as we did with Flynn's injury last season).
When we do people will say "well with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have used all out subs...etc".
That's partly why I'm raising it as a query now. After a positive performance and good victory.

Unless enforced by injuries, I just don't think it's ever worth the risk when you're winning. Is it just me?

Agreed. It seems an unnecessary risk and will cost us sooner or later. Particularly baffling on Saturday given we were already 2-1 up against 10 men. If we had lost a player to injury it would have given Donny a big boost at a time when we were well on top. I would keep the 3rd sub until the last 5 mins unless we are losing.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'd imagine this decision is based on statistical analysis.

 

[BushBlade]

Agreed. It seems an unnecessary risk and will cost us sooner or later. Particularly baffling on Saturday given we were already 2-1 up against 10 men. If we had lost a player to injury it would have given Donny a big boost at a time when we were well on top. I would keep the 3rd sub until the last 5 mins unless we are losing.

I think the fact they were down to ten made it easier. If we lost someone it's still only ten v ten.
Generally though I agree. If we've used all subs after sixty minutes it's always in the back of my mind, 'what if someone gets injured?'

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

I like the new risk culture, that's taken over from the dour safety-first approach we've been so familiar with (which goes back way beyond Cloughy tbf).

 

[Fulwood Blade]

slightly off beam a bit - go and ask the England Rugby coach as to making substitutions when winning.

stupid Idiot - had the bloody Welsh lot having a pop all day....................

 

[BushBlade]

slightly off beam a bit - go and ask the England Rugby coach as to making substitutions when winning.

stupid Idiot - had the bloody Welsh lot having a pop all day....................

Wrong fucking forum, twat.


.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Wrong fucking forum, twat.


.

Off to bed now after that put down - made me fucking cry...............

UTB

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I like the new risk culture, that's taken over from the dour safety-first approach we've been so familiar with (which goes back way beyond Cloughy tbf).

Exactly. It's a risk but it must be a researched risk.

The likely benefits outweigh the likely costs.

At some point it might backfire but that is not an argument against it long term.

 

[Lord Bos of Eckington.]

I'd imagine this decision is based on statistical analysis.

Adkins works on statistical , analytical risk ,and physiological evidence that it assists fatigue , tactics and minimises the risk of injury , which can influence the game to ensure mistakes are controlled on the pitch. Even when you are winning , you can and still influence the game in your favour. Last season in the premiership the following was recorded.

Percentage of availuable substitution used - Chelsea 98.9 % . Burnley 17%

Adkins is using every available advantage he can ,( even when winning ) with technology , which for the manager , and club is commendable.

Sometimes 3 subs are used , when losing , is that the tactics were wrong in the first place- That was when life was a little bit simpler.

Gone are the days at the lane , that if you were named as a sub , you would only get your boots dirty , if the team were losing , or someone got injured.

UTB

 

[wizadry]

We've done it a few times already this season and on Saturday we did it with over 30 minutes left.
Every time we do this, we run quite a high risk of a player getting injured and being reduced to 10 men.
Worst-case scenario, Howard gets injured or sent off and we end up with 10 men and an outfield player in goal.

I couldn't see us losing or even drawing on Saturday with a one goal lead and an extra man but we ran the risk of throwing that vital three points away.
Was it worth the risk just to have a fresher pair of legs on the pitch?

Alcock was injured, fair enough and Coutts hasn't played for months so those changes were understandable.
However, I would have kept Baxter on the pitch for as long as possible as he didn't look injured and should surely be able to last more than 55 minutes.

We got away with it on Saturday but we will get caught out again sooner or later (as we did with Flynn's injury last season).
When we do people will say "well with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have used all out subs...etc".
That's partly why I'm raising it as a query now. After a positive performance and good victory.

Unless enforced by injuries, I just don't think it's ever worth the risk when you're winning. Is it just me?

Good post and good points made at exactly the right time as you quite rightly say, i.e. not when we've lost. It's not the first time it's happened and won't be the last, we just have to hope it doesn't bite us on the arse. As someone elluded to above though, it's kind of refreshing to be taking risks rather than trying to keep it tight and hoping that something will happen like last year.

We always say United have been more reactive instead of proactive over the years, well i suppose Adkins is doing just the opposite of that in a way and making sure the players who have had knocks or could be close to injury need taking off when he feels the need to.

 

[Bergen Blade]

We've done it a few times already this season and on Saturday we did it with over 30 minutes left.
Every time we do this, we run quite a high risk of a player getting injured and being reduced to 10 men.
Worst-case scenario, Howard gets injured or sent off and we end up with 10 men and an outfield player in goal.

I couldn't see us losing or even drawing on Saturday with a one goal lead and an extra man but we ran the risk of throwing that vital three points away.
Was it worth the risk just to have a fresher pair of legs on the pitch?

Alcock was injured, fair enough and Coutts hasn't played for months so those changes were understandable.
However, I would have kept Baxter on the pitch for as long as possible as he didn't look injured and should surely be able to last more than 55 minutes.

We got away with it on Saturday but we will get caught out again sooner or later (as we did with Flynn's injury last season).
When we do people will say "well with the benefit of hindsight we shouldn't have used all out subs...etc".
That's partly why I'm raising it as a query now. After a positive performance and good victory.

Unless enforced by injuries, I just don't think it's ever worth the risk when you're winning. Is it just me?

Baxter's substitution may have been planned, but I think Doncaster had a couple of attacks right after that. They won a couple of free kicks and Basham made a superb tackle. We had a quiet spell and Coutts looked like he was becoming more static and tired. Adkins may have thought at that stage that it was necessary to ask more questions of Doncaster defensively, and Adams helped us do that.

At the end we were playing:

Howard
Freeman Edgar Collins Wallace
Reed Basham
Adams - - - - - Flynn - - - - Sammon
Sharp
​

I think the match showed a difference between Adkins and Clough, with the former wanting to control games we're winning by having possession and continuing to create chances. Clough would possibly looked to shore us up and take fewer risks, defend deeper, keep it in the corners, etc. But notice that Adkins did change to a lone striker formation, so it's a measured approach, an attempt to control the rest of the game, rather than gung ho.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Just seen on Twitter that Baxter (groin) and Alcock (hip)/ ribs) are doubtful tonight so seems those changes were enforced. Coutts was always likely to tire and need replacing to Adkins hand may have been forced to some extent on this occasion.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

Did it again today and paid the price.
No, it's not worth the risk!

 

[Rodders]

Did it again today and paid the price.
No, it's not worth the risk!

Billy looked fucked with a groin injury just after the 3rd was made - will be sheer good luck if he's avoided aggravating it.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Billy looked fucked with a groin injury just after the 3rd was made - will be sheer good luck if he's avoided aggravating it.

Should have been a penalty from the challenge that injured him

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Depends on Adkins' thinking.
QUOTE]

.

Well that's us fucked then

 

[PokerBlade]

Exactly. It's a risk but it must be a researched risk.

The likely benefits outweigh the likely costs.

At some point it might backfire but that is not an argument against it long term.

People often miss the long term nature of playing statistics. The same arguments were levelled at Warnock back when fewer subs were named and he would often choose not to have a sub keeper. Even when it looked like costing us, I'm sure we won two with Jags in net. But Warnock benefited frequently from being able to bring on experienced strikers like Pesch and Allison to nick winners or hold up the play.

The worst case and unlikely scenario with Adkins' tactics is having to hold on for say 10-15 minutes with ten men. I'm sure statistics for player injuries are readily available to them, and players with knocks are more likely to be able to push on for a short amount of time than if there's say half a game left.

The pressing concern is that every tactical change we made throughout the game today appeared to make us worse.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

People often miss the long term nature of playing statistics. The same arguments were levelled at Warnock back when fewer subs were named and he would often choose not to have a sub keeper. Even when it looked like costing us, I'm sure we won two with Jags in net. But Warnock benefited frequently from being able to bring on experienced strikers like Pesch and Allison to nick winners or hold up the play.

The worst case and unlikely scenario with Adkins' tactics is having to hold on for say 10-15 minutes with ten men. I'm sure statistics for player injuries are readily available to them, and players with knocks are more likely to be able to push on for a short amount of time than if there's say half a game left.

The pressing concern is that every tactical change we made throughout the game today appeared to make us worse.

Well that's twice it's backfired for us in the last 12 months ( Flynn last season)
I would suggest that players limp off the pitch in the last 15 minutes quite regularly.
You just don't notice it much because most managers have left themselves a spare sub.
Of course you gamble if you're chasing a game but not when the 3 points are yours to lose.

According to Adkins he took Hammond off only because there was a risk he might get sent off and he'd be down to ten men.
Then a few minutes later he exposes himself to that very risk 11 times over by any player (including the goalie) potentially going down injured.
Even Adkins has admitted he's now going to assess his third substitution and "learn from his mistakes"

 

[PokerBlade]

How many minutes have we spent forced down to ten men? You'd need to analyse the points lost from those positions vs. the expectation with eleven men i.e. you'd sometimes concede like today even with a full side. And then you have to weigh that up against the potential benefits of bringing players on, which is much harder to quantify.

With some reasonable assumptions that wouldn't be hard to calculate, but you'd need actual data rather than just guess work.