The trouble is people just see Heitinga (a centre back by trade) coming on for Jelavic (a striker) and just assume it's a negative substitution taking off a striker and throwing on an extra defender.
The reality though is quite different isn't it? Fellaini was playing today as a holding midfield player with both Anichebe and Jelavic up top in a 4-4-2. Jelavic was once again totally ineffective today so a change was made.
Heitinga didn't come on and join Jags and Distin at the back to shut up shop, he slotted in to Fellaini's holding midfield role where let's be honest, Fellaini didn't excell today. Heitinga CAN play a holding midfield role and you'd trust him more there at the moment than centre half!
Fellaini was then pushed up in to a role hes been excellent in this season, to join Anichebe and hopefully prove to be more effective than Jelavic who might as well have stayed at home today.
But no, in the eyes of some people who don't understand football, the ginger **** just took off a striker and replaced him with a centre back!!
Thats all fair enough mate and i don't disagree, it wasn't a megative or positve chancge as such, it simply a change, a "try something else which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't" kind of change.
If Fellaini had scored, or more certainly if his presence up there meant us creating chances that we weren't before which we scored from it would have been a good tactical sub.
The fact the sub scored a rare nay freak goal doesn't make it any better sub than it was.
It was still a striker off for a defender in midfield away to a Championship team in game we were supposedly going all out to try and win.
He could have subbed Mucha for Howard and Mucha scored from a goal kick, still wouldn't have been a good sub to make in a game we should have been
trying to win rather than
hoping to win.