The Make A Fecking Sub ETH Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
noodlehair said:
Thought Ten Hag was fine today. Problem is when his first choice players aren't getting it done or aren't available, he has an extremely small pool of actually reliable players he can use to do anything about it. Basically Garnacho, Fred (sometimes) and Malacia. Everyone else is already on the pitch.

When your back up for Casemiro is Mctominay, and Casemiro is banned, you're kind of limited to what you can do if this causes a problem during the game.
Click to expand...

We're obviously limited, but keeping Eriksen on was a strange choice when he was too tired to keep up. Seems to have made one pass between the 80th and 90th minutes. We'd have been better off with any of:

1) Pellistri out wide and Bruno as the #10

2) Going to 5 at the back by bringing on Maguire or Malacia, and letting Garnacho and Rashford try to snatch a winner

3) Lindelof or Maguire at LCB and move Lisandro into midfield and let McTominay and Fred try to break up play, even if we lose playmaking

Or even something crazier like:

3) Malacia in midfield, or Shaw in midfield and Malacia at LB, just have whoever it is mark Odegaard or double team Saka

4) Mainoo getting 10 minutes in his proper position, even as a 17 year old away at the league leaders, people act like a kid will automatically fall apart in that situation but mostly they just do a 6/10 job

But yeah, the answer was probably 15 minutes of Pellistri trying to get the better of a tiring Zinchenko, who's not exactly Maldini out there defensively (though brilliant as a quasi-midfielder in possession). Not sure why he's so unwilling to use him. He works hard and is used to playing in defensive setups and contributing with dribbling and keeping the ball out wide, which is surely what Ten Hag likes about Antony so much.
 
I know we haven't got much in the squad right now, but I really don't understand why he let Arsenal continue to build momentum without changing anything for the last 10-15 minutes of that game.

Even something as basic as bringing Garnacho on for Weghorst with 10 minutes to go might've given Arsenal something to think about on the counter. The game was really getting away from us and we didn't even have an outlet on the break. Doing nothing just felt like an acceptance of defeat because the warning signs were there before the goal came.
 
CM10 said:
I know we haven't got much in the squad right now, but I really don't understand why he let Arsenal continue to build momentum without changing anything for the last 10-15 minutes of that game.

Even something as basic as bringing Garnacho on for Weghorst with 10 minutes to go might've given Arsenal something to think about on the counter. The game was really getting away from us and we didn't even have an outlet on the break. Doing nothing just felt like an acceptance of defeat because the warning signs were there before the goal came.
Click to expand...

Because the players who are on the pitch are better at the defensive work and Garnacho is still learning that side of the game.

It's obvious and he explained it after the game.

It's away at the form team in the league, if you're bringing on an 18 year old to try to nick a game it shows we're not there with the squad yet and that isn't Ten Hag's fault unless you disagree with what he's doing with Sancho?
 
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
 
Hindsight is 20/20 and we almost came away with a very respectable point, but looking back, I did think there was a moment where Arsenal looked vulnerable after we equalized. We maybe could have taken advantage of that.

I thought Eriksen had his weakest game for us yesterday, I would have liked to have seen Fred replace him when he came on and perhaps roll the dice with one of Garnacho or Pellestri for Antony. But I can also sympathize with ETH's thinking/position given squad options available.
 
Judas said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was the input we got from our Ajax fans.
 
Drainy said:
Because the players who are on the pitch are better at the defensive work and Garnacho is still learning that side of the game.

It's obvious and he explained it after the game.

It's away at the form team in the league, if you're bringing on an 18 year old to try to nick a game it shows we're not there with the squad yet and that isn't Ten Hag's fault unless you disagree with what he's doing with Sancho?
Click to expand...
Going ultra defensive was handing Arsenal momentum. They came close with a couple of chances before scoring, that approach wasn't working.

Weghorst was barely getting involved in the game at that point, I think Garnacho's pace on the break would've been a far more useful tool. Any time we kicked the ball up the pitch it was going straight to Arsenal's defenders and coming back at us. Weghorst might work hard but he's so slow that he wasn't getting close to the ball.

I've already said that he doesn't have the squad to compete with the best, but we were far too passive and should've done something (anything) about it. Keeping things the same was just asking for trouble.
 
Judas said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
Click to expand...
His in game management and subs have won us a lot of points this season.
 
CM10 said:
I know we haven't got much in the squad right now, but I really don't understand why he let Arsenal continue to build momentum without changing anything for the last 10-15 minutes of that game.

Even something as basic as bringing Garnacho on for Weghorst with 10 minutes to go might've given Arsenal something to think about on the counter. The game was really getting away from us and we didn't even have an outlet on the break. Doing nothing just felt like an acceptance of defeat because the warning signs were there before the goal came.
Click to expand...

Although I share people's frustration on the subs but the notion of you dont understand why a manager did that, its easy, that is why he is a top coach.

If you look at it, our best player on the day was? Rashford. He played LW and gave problems all game.

ETH probably didnt want to change that for the sake of bringing Garnacho on. he also did change it bringing Fred on because we were getting done in midfield.

With the way Arsenal were building pressure, taking of a target man incase we have to defend crosses, taking our best player out of position would not have been ideal.

Also, people talking about Eriksen, the problem the coach has is there is no alternative, which is why Bruno has to play RW, if there was a better player in CM, we would be playing him.
 
Damned if you do damned if you don't, hindsight is a marvellous tool if you want to criticise
 
romufc said:
Although I share people's frustration on the subs but the notion of you dont understand why a manager did that, its easy, that is why he is a top coach.

If you look at it, our best player on the day was? Rashford. He played LW and gave problems all game.

ETH probably didnt want to change that for the sake of bringing Garnacho on. he also did change it bringing Fred on because we were getting done in midfield.

With the way Arsenal were building pressure, taking of a target man incase we have to defend crosses, taking our best player out of position would not have been ideal.

Also, people talking about Eriksen, the problem the coach has is there is no alternative, which is why Bruno has to play RW, if there was a better player in CM, we would be playing him.
Click to expand...
Part of being a top coach is also about making tough decisions. I do believe ten Hag is one and I've been pretty supportive of his choices in games so far but I thought it was a big oversight from him yesterday.

Rashford was fine in the first half but his influence on the game had faded in the second. I don't think moving him around would've been too detrimental to our chances as a team, and ten Hag has made that change in plenty of games previously to good effect. Ten Hag is unlucky that three of the first team were out and a few of our players yesterday were treating the ball like a hot potato, I can't dispute that. My only concern is that he didn't try something different when it was clear Arsenal were on top in the game.
 
Zed 101 said:
Damned if you do damned if you don't, hindsight is a marvellous tool if you want to criticise
Click to expand...

I'm sure many fans, including myself, were yelling at their screens for ETH to make a sub. We were under the cosh and needed an attacking outlet. The pace of Garnacho would've been perfect as it has been across most of his sub appearances. Had the result turned out differently, we may have been praising ETH. But in this case, no harm in calling out what seems like a tactical error. I'm sure ETH would himself wonder what he could've done differently.
 
NoPace said:
We're obviously limited, but keeping Eriksen on was a strange choice when he was too tired to keep up. Seems to have made one pass between the 80th and 90th minutes. We'd have been better off with any of:

1) Pellistri out wide and Bruno as the #10

2) Going to 5 at the back by bringing on Maguire or Malacia, and letting Garnacho and Rashford try to snatch a winner

3) Lindelof or Maguire at LCB and move Lisandro into midfield and let McTominay and Fred try to break up play, even if we lose playmaking

Or even something crazier like:

3) Malacia in midfield, or Shaw in midfield and Malacia at LB, just have whoever it is mark Odegaard or double team Saka

4) Mainoo getting 10 minutes in his proper position, even as a 17 year old away at the league leaders, people act like a kid will automatically fall apart in that situation but mostly they just do a 6/10 job

But yeah, the answer was probably 15 minutes of Pellistri trying to get the better of a tiring Zinchenko, who's not exactly Maldini out there defensively (though brilliant as a quasi-midfielder in possession). Not sure why he's so unwilling to use him. He works hard and is used to playing in defensive setups and contributing with dribbling and keeping the ball out wide, which is surely what Ten Hag likes about Antony so much.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced any of those suggestions would have helped and a few of them would have just made us worse.

Bringing Maguire or Lindelof on when your defence is already under pressure for example is a recipe for disaster. Hence why Ten Hag would rather move Shaw there.

Not sure what this Pellistri stuff is based on either. Everything you've mentioned is what Antony was doing but the problem is it stopped being an issue for Arsenal when we started dropping deeper. I wouldn't mind Pellistri getting more chances but that's the sort of thing where if he made that change and we lost I would be somewhat baffled.

Personally would have bought Malacia on for Antony and moved Shaw in as a third CB so they could double up on Saka...but then he kind of bought Fred on to do something similar so its not like he ignored Shaw having a fecking mare.

The big issue was that Mctominay wasn't doing his job (or any job) second half and Eriksen tires in games, and we had no one on the bench who could really address that other than by putting an extra body in there and hoping it helped, which again is basically what we did. He had to use one player to try and solve 2 problems because taking off a midfielder would have just recreated the problem again anyway.

I mean it's not like with Ole who would just sit there were watching us carry half a team of passengers all game and do nothing about it, then make a sub on 80 minutes that had nothing to do with a anything anyway. Ten Hag does tend to react but our pool of players who aren't either passengers or a menace to their own team is quite small...i mean nearly half of them are players he signed...and he doesn't tend to use people if he thinks they won't do their job.

I'd rather have a manager who applies standards to being in the team or coming off the bench, even if it does mean we get stuck in the odd game, because it'll help in the long run and is one of the main reasons we've already improved so much.
 
There have been multiple times this season where he's made tactical changes/subs that have changed the game in our favour.

It's obvious to sit there and think this or that (I myself have wanted subs earlier than have happened) but there are obviously reasons he doesn't do things and I'm pretty sure he's a better manager than any of us.

Fine to question and discuss the merits but some of the posts calling him cowardly are pathetic. The hyperbolic nature of some of you is a bit embarrassing.
 
The only change I wanted him to make was Garnacho for Weghorst.
I think he kept Weghorst on to try and hold onto the ball higher up the pitch. The problem was we were sitting so deep that the ball simply kept coming back.

I would have brought on Maguire as well for the lads 10 minutes.
 
We've come under more pressure at Palace and Arsenal taking off a wide player for another midfielder.

We need outlets as well to give them something to think about, we just invite less possession, and more shots. Once Fred came on for Antony we dropped from around 50/50 to low 40 and had to suffer 8 more shots. It sets off a retreat mentality.

He really should be bringing on Pellistri for Antony and if not at least moving Rashford to the right and bringing Garnacho on. Rashford has been very good on the right this season and for the last 20 it would helped with Garnacho on the left. If Antony wasn't tired then leave him on and put Rashford through the middle and bring Garnacho.

I just can't stand sacrificing attacking options with more junk midfielders, conceding more possession and shots after the brilliant work Rashford and Lisandro did. 1 point out 6.

Against City he brought on Garnacho to get us back in, this immediately give us more weight instead of letting City get another. Arsenal aren't trying to keep it at 2-2 nor should we. We've conceded at Palace and Arsenal anyway, the best way to get a draw or sneak a win is to freshen the attack, not sit back for the last 20.
 
noodlehair said:
Eriksen tires in games, and we had no one on the bench who could really address that other than by putting an extra body in there and hoping it helped, which again is basically what we did.
Click to expand...

Leaving Eriksen on as a #10 when his legs were gone was the mistake. Ten Hag was presumably hoping he wouldn't be a liability in that role even once tired because his positioning is good, #10 is easier than #8, and hey he might make a killer pass on the counter or hit a winning set piece cross, but we'd have been better off with Bruno staying in that role at least providing some legs and similar creative passing on the break, and just using Pellistri on the right, or Fred there and Malacia in Fred's role in midfield just marking Odegaard basically.

Pellistri isn't a bad player. We've seen it a bunch with Uruguay. He's completely deficient as a goal threat, so I can understand why he's not a bigger part of our squad, especially considering we're already very short of goals at the #9 position, but he'd have given us more than Eriksen for the last 15 minutes of the Arsenal game, so not bringing him on was a mistake.

This stuff should take care of itself with a quality midfield signing (and thank god we finally have a manager who knows what a good midfielder looks like, we're not gonna bring in Morgan Schneiderlin 2.0 this summer) and a fit Sancho, and Ten Hag has done well with Garnacho and Fred as bench players, so I don't think it's some huge problem going forward, but if Newcastle or Spurs get hot then it could cost us 4th place. Though obviously if we'd hired literally anyone else we'd not be favorites for that spot, so again it's not some huge black mark against Ten Hag or anything. But this thread isn't about all the great things Ten Hag has done (that's the general ETH thread), it's about his subs.
 
ETH is doing a brilliant job. I can’t see anything to moan about at this stage. We’ve got a woeful squad and have a free transfer from Brentford, who’s doing a decent job but will need upgrading and a loan signing from Burnley. When you are Manchester United and you have to do this, then it’s hardly ideal. We are heavily reliant on about 8 players otherwise the drop off is unbelievable.
 
it’s clear that we tire significantly after 50 minutes. Whatever the game plan it has to include a contingency for not being able to press high anymore because once we stop the other team settles and completely dominates (City/Palace/Arse). The key for me is not keeping players on that give us a chance of retaining the ball up top…(Eriksen to be calm on the ball…Weghorst physicality) it’s about having players that press and unsettle the other team to break their momentum and rhythm and give us a chance to win some second balls and break a few times. It changes the mentality of the opponent - they have something to worry about instead of being allowed play their game and bombard us.

In that regard, even before we equalised I think we needed Eriksen off for Fred, Weghorst off for Garnacho and Bruno taking up his right sided position albeit a little deeper. More energy, move the game 10 or 20 yards back towards their goal. The time arsenals back line had in that second half was absurd. I don’t even think it’s a fitness thing…2 games a week with this type of squad would kill anyone.
 
Judas said:
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I do remember the Dutch contingent on here warning that his in game management including subs was frustrating and not the best. So it might be something we have to get used to, at least till we have much better options for him to call upon.
Click to expand...
Yeah i recall that as well, but here's to hoping once the bench "strengthens" a little (Martial fit, Sancho return etc.), it'll become a little better. He's done well recently in terms of rotations/subs in fairness, albeit they were in "lesser" games. Hopefully 2-3 more signings in the summer and we're looking much stronger squad wise. Fixture schedule have also killed us.
 
+1 for the late game subs being correct at seeing out the game
-2 for not taking off Casemiro immediately after the 2nd goal and giving Sabitzer 30 minutes and the freak red card doesn't happen. Hard to predict, but Ten Hag continually trying to get every minute out of Casemiro and Eriksen, while understandable, has now cost us twice.
+3 for fixing the club to where Sabitzer wanted to come here badly and Rashford can win us games like this consistently.
 
NoPace said:
+1 for the late game subs being correct at seeing out the game
-2 for not taking off Casemiro immediately after the 2nd goal and giving Sabitzer 30 minutes and the freak red card doesn't happen. Hard to predict, but Ten Hag continually trying to get every minute out of Casemiro and Eriksen, while understandable, has now cost us twice.
+3 for fixing the club to where Sabitzer wanted to come here badly and Rashford can win us games like this consistently.
Click to expand...

So that's a +2 overall then,was strange we didn't see Sabitzer straight after red card. He said in pre match presser that could even start so why the hesitation to bring him on then.
 
croadyman said:
So that's a +2 overall then,was strange we didn't see Sabitzer straight after red card. He said in pre match presser that could even start so why the hesitation to bring him on then.
Click to expand...

My guess is generally Ten Hag likes order and won't be an early sub guy in general expect for fitness reasons or the game is a mess.

Next year we might have Eriksen as a backup 10 for Bruno so it will be interesting to see if he brings him on with 20 or 30 to go at times to help us keep the ball more, and if Sancho gets back to even 80% of his best Dortmund form he'll be an option in several spots, as well as Garnacho. Also we might even sign someone like Timber and have a 2nd formation we can go to, so it's too early to say. Ajax fans probably know better.

He's definitely pushing everyone who's fit, but maybe he figures that Rashford, Bruno and Antony are in their primes so can play 50 games anyways and Casemiro and Varane get rest once we've secured top 4, hopefully with 2-3 games left to go. And next year he'll have an RCB he likes more than Maguire and a DM option he likes more than McTominay. Rashford will be able to come off the bench at times once we have an actual #9 and Garnacho or Sancho is hopefully playing at a higher level (not that Garnacho has been bad, but he's 18) at LW, and Bruno can be rotated for Eriksen.
 
Sancho for Weakhorst needs to happen at HT. We've got zero spark in attack.
 
Why the desperation to make this thread a thing?
 
Make a sub? There's nothing on the bench.

This is exactly why you can't rely on Martial.
 
Rashford needs to go left or central sancho needs to come on for wout and AWB for Dalot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.