Moyes-substitutions

[GoldenToffee]

It was clear that Beto was stinking the place out and he was left on for about 80 minutes. There were options on the bench. Hopefully Moyes has learned his lesson that he now needs to find ways to win games without Beto starting.

Give Barry 5 games, see if he can convert better. If he can't, probably time to play a false 9, probably Ndiaye, because the board left us without a proper striker.

This will probably be better:

Ndiaye
Grealish-Dewsbury-Hall-Dibling​

 

[Marius57]

It was clear that Beto was stinking the place out and he was left on for about 80 minutes. There were options on the bench. Hopefully Moyes has learned his lesson that he now needs to find ways to win games without Beto starting.

Give Barry 5 games, see if he can convert better. If he can't, probably time to play a false 9, probably Ndiaye, because the board left us without a proper striker.

This will probably be better:

Ndiaye
Grealish-Dewsbury-Hall-Dibling​

5 games and writing him off? Ludicrous.

 

[st.domingo]

I’d be down for that

Sean Dyche likes this.

And also, Bournemouth say hi

 

[toffeeblue9]

His weak side is defense. But we were attacking so he would have been useful

Alcaraz would have been at the expense of Ndiaye, Grealish or KDH

He isn't as good as any of them at either the attacking or defensive side of the game. Ditto McNeil.

Bringing either of them on makes us weaker and it's going to be a long season if every time we need a goal, people start shouting "get Alcaraz on" - only time I want to see Alcaraz in the team is if we are playing away from home against a team we need to defend deep against as he's useful in the transition. Otherwise, he simply makes the team weaker than Grealish, Ndiaye or KDH being on the pitch.


I don't mind Alcaraz, but he's not the answer when you're trying to break a team down.

 

[allen]

Alcaraz would have been at the expense of Ndiaye, Grealish or KDH

He isn't as good as any of them at either the attacking or defensive side of the game. Ditto McNeil.

Bringing either of them on makes us weaker and it's going to be a long season if every time we need a goal, people start shouting "get Alcaraz on" - only time I want to see Alcaraz in the team is if we are playing away from home against a team we need to defend deep against as he's useful in the transition. Otherwise, he simply makes the team weaker than Grealish, Ndiaye or KDH being on the pitch.


I don't mind Alcaraz, but he's not the answer when you're trying to break a team down.

But by that logic, you’d never make a sub.

It’s not always about quality, it’s about a player’s relative strengths and an injection of fresh energy and ideas.

 

[toffeeblue9]

But by that logic, you’d never make a sub.

It’s not always about quality, it’s about a player’s relative strengths and an injection of fresh energy and ideas.

I get the argument, but personally I'd rather have my best players on the pitch unless they're not playing well. As an aside to that, none of Grealish, KDH or Ndiaye were having poor games, we just couldn't break down a decent Villa defence.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

No not every game is a nil nil home game with two of the front three tiring and progressive players on the bench in the last 10, Alcaraz or Dibling for KDH was the appropriate call imo. Hypothesising some butterfly effect style imaginary drivel can literally be used for any decision or non decision in any scenario, it's a stupid argument.

I'm still of the opinion Moyes is doing a great job and we are in a better position than I could of hoped for going into the summer, it's also legitimate criticism to say we should have freshened it up in the last 10

You're only saying that because we didn't win. We had complete control of the game in the last 15 minutes and all of the pressure/possession. It was just a question of whether or not we would score. Your assuming that making additional subs was the better decision only because you know the outcome of not making additional subs. I have seen countless games were we have made attacking subs when on top and they changed the flow of the game in the wrong direction with a disrupted pattern of play. Different scenario but I remember being 2-0 up to West Ham with 10 men and looking extremely comfortable. Martinez brings on Niasse up front for fresh legs and all of a sudden we are all over the place. I guarantee you if Niasse was never brought on and we drew that game lots of fans would be saying he deffo should have come on for fresh legs.

 

[Lanolin]

I get the argument, but personally I'd rather have my best players on the pitch unless they're not playing well. As an aside to that, none of Grealish, KDH or Ndiaye were having poor games, we just couldn't break down a decent Villa defence.

I think it's fine to say you wouldn't have changed it but I just can't agree that you shouldn't make subs unless someone's having a nightmare. That's the whole point of having a squad and options. For me we became a bit predictable on saturday, we were constantly looking to get the ball to Grealish at the corner of the box and he was looking to twist and turn his way past his man to put a cross in. The introduction of someone like Alcaraz to be a bit more direct or maybe Dibling to do the same down the other side seemed worth a try to me. It's not that not making a sub was a cardinal sin, but there were clearly reasons why it may have been worth doing.

 

[toffeeblue9]

I think it's fine to say you wouldn't have changed it but I just can't agree that you shouldn't make subs unless someone's having a nightmare. That's the whole point of having a squad and options. For me we became a bit predictable on saturday, we were constantly looking to get the ball to Grealish at the corner of the box and he was looking to twist and turn his way past his man to put a cross in. The introduction of someone like Alcaraz to be a bit more direct or maybe Dibling to do the same down the other side seemed worth a try to me. It's not that not making a sub was a cardinal sin, but there were clearly reasons why it may have been worth doing.

Yeah, maybe I should have phrased that slightly differently.

What I'd say is that I wouldn't have changed it on Saturday as I thought we were, by and large, playing well.

More generally, I'd rather have my best players on the pitch unless there's a logical reason to make a change - that's the bit where I think debate comes in as we probably all have slightly different takes on logic. I can see the Dibling argument perhaps as Ndiaye may have been tiring a bit (he often doesn't seem a 90 minute player), but that's a step into the unknown. To me Alcaraz makes us weaker in almost every way other than him being a little more direct (which, to my eyes, results in us losing possession more often), and then you have the hail mary of McNeil and the hope that he might boom a corner in that they can't deal with or belt one in from distance that he seems to do a couple of times a season.

But broadly, if our players are playing well and we've got our best players on the pitch, I'd prefer to let it play out

 

[Cameron Manning]

Alcaraz isn't as good as the players who were on the pitch, ditto McNeil.

Dibling is yet to be decided.

So no

What did you make of Rohl’s performance?

 

[Cameron Manning]

I think it's fine to say you wouldn't have changed it but I just can't agree that you shouldn't make subs unless someone's having a nightmare. That's the whole point of having a squad and options. For me we became a bit predictable on saturday, we were constantly looking to get the ball to Grealish at the corner of the box and he was looking to twist and turn his way past his man to put a cross in. The introduction of someone like Alcaraz to be a bit more direct or maybe Dibling to do the same down the other side seemed worth a try to me. It's not that not making a sub was a cardinal sin, but there were clearly reasons why it may have been worth doing.

I agree and only two substitutions which never changed the way we were playing or improved the performance in any way.

 

[toffeeblue9]

What did you make of Rohl’s performance?

Largely quite good. His use of the ball was the question mark before he got here but didn't see much of an issue with that in his cameo and on the whole I liked what I saw from him

 

[Look to the future]

So he brings on Dibling, Alcaraz and McNeil and one of them gives the ball away and leads to a villa goal then what?

You’d have people moaning at Moyes for not keeping Ndiaye, KDH and Grealish on the pitch

He who dares Rodney!

 

[Dddddd]

It was clear that Beto was stinking the place out and he was left on for about 80 minutes. There were options on the bench. Hopefully Moyes has learned his lesson that he now needs to find ways to win games without Beto starting.

Give Barry 5 games, see if he can convert better. If he can't, probably time to play a false 9, probably Ndiaye, because the board left us without a proper striker.

This will probably be better:

Ndiaye
Grealish-Dewsbury-Hall-Dibling​

Don’t agree at all

Needed a physical presence against their two centre halves and that’s why Beto was on the pitch so long. He was the best option.

Barry needs to beef up and become more aggressive over the season before he’s written off.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

I agree and only two substitutions which never changed the way we were playing or improved the performance in any way.

I think Rohl sub had a good effect. I'd like to see the stats but I felt we were more dominant when he was on the field.