Our ‘Specific Substitution Ploy’

[jambonian]

When Woodburn went off, i would've thought that Walker was the able replacement. No-one has more derby experience than him and that could've been the difference between one point and three. Chances are he would've got a shot away at least. Not sure why we bothered signing McEneff either. He came with a box-to-box midfielder reputation but played mostly in the defensive midfield (surprise, surprise!) role.  I don't think Gnanduillet is in Neilson's long-term plans so i question that signing as well. I suppose we'll just have to see what happens.

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

File under don't believe everything you read in the papers. Long season, things will happen naturally, as they did Sunday, Smith struggling that will change the planned course.

 

However its one thing knowing how a team play, its how you stop it. In Scotland the element of surprise, well there isn't one, every team knows each other inside out anyhow. Its how you adapt in a game, win your battles and then use your superior ability to over power. 

 

Celtic and Rangers don't change much week to week, but try stopping them. Having 4 decent wingers is massive, pretty decent ploy if you ask me. How you deploy the third sub might be the key rather than the headline

[GinRummy]

6 minutes ago, jambonian said:

When Woodburn went off, i would've thought that Walker was the able replacement. No-one has more derby experience than him and that could've been the difference between one point and three. Chances are he would've got a shot away at least. Not sure why we bothered signing McEneff either. He came with a box-to-box midfielder reputation but played mostly in the defensive midfield (surprise, surprise!) role.  I don't think Gnanduillet is in Neilson's long-term plans so i question that signing as well. I suppose we'll just have to see what happens.

Ginnelly or McKay were preffered to Walker. I’ve not really got an issue with that tbh but Walker could have been the super sub we know he’s capable of so agree to an extent. 
 

McEneff clearly works best when he can get forward and help the attack as evidenced at the end of last season when he was part of a midfield containing 3 centre mids. For now I think Haring and Beni, who are better defensively than Aaron suit what Robbie is looking for better. 

Edited September 14, 2021 by GinRummy

[GinRummy]

8 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

This is the main issue for me. Boyce constantly plays too deep. Even if we get support up, which we rarely do and he’s managed to hold the ball up his passing isn’t great. His first touch is poor the majority of the time.

He’s an instinctive finisher playing like an extra midfielder at times. 
I really like him, despite those limitations he’ll graft and, given ammunition score goals. We aren’t scoring enough and if you don’t score you don’t win

Agree. He does a great job and puts a lot of good work in all over the park but ultimately he has to be used higher up. 

[Bazzas right boot]

This thread has went the same way  as others. 

 

Some folk must wake up with a ploy on how to moan and greet and have a bash at Robbie but also  try to come across like they aren't rabid and want to actually discuss football matters. 

 

That ploy for some isn't working. 

 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Smith's right boot

[Jim Panzee]

2 hours ago, Smithee said:

Sorry, I just need to say this again.

 

Barry Anderson is the only person that mentions a substitution ploy in that article.

 

We're not telling everyone what our plan is.

This ^^^^^ x a billion!

 

this thread's a great example of folk not reading posts carefully but firing headlong into replying with whatever's in their head.

 

 

[Nookie Bear]

2 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

This thread has went the same way  as others. 

 

Some folk must wake up with a ploy on how to moan and greet and have a bash at Robbie but also  try to come across like they aren't rabid and want to actually discuss football matters. 

 

That ploy for some isn't working. 

 

 

Sorry, but i genuinely only see people discussing the substitutions here.

[naeclue]

19 minutes ago, merrymac said:

When did we switch to a four?

Quote from Robbie -"Taylor Moore came on and we asked him to go and play right wing-back." 

We got worse cos Moore is no wingback, and it shows the lack of options in that area.

The stuff from Anderson is bollocks, 2 of 3 the subs were injury/fitness related.

A bit after the substitution, he sent a note on to Souter and the team was shifted to 4 4 2. Didn’t check the time, but think around 75, 80 minutes.

 

Agree that we lack wingbacks, think Kingsley is our best one, but was played at centre back.

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Sorry, but i genuinely only see people discussing the substitutions here.

 

I think we should make  them, you? 

🤣

[BackOfTheNet]

14 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

If 

 

If Ginnelly had scored from Barrie McKay's inch perfect cross would it still have been the wrong substitution?

Without getting too into hypotheticals, we don’t know how Hibs would have reacted to going 1-0 down and if our formation in place would have coped if they stepped it up a gear. That’s the thing with hypotheticals, it’s like how long is a piece of string. I could of course ask, hypotheticals, what if Gnanduillet was on and not Ginnelly, would he have scored or been able to lay it back for Boyce? What if GMS had scored? Too many people get caught up in how a different player would have played if every other player played exactly the way they did, the point is Gnanduillet would have not only offered something different himself, he would have made the Hibs defence adapt and also made our players adapt how to get the ball up to him. The game required a change of approach, not just like for like personnel.

[Pasquale for King]

21 minutes ago, Smithee said:

Is that it? Jesus

What more proof do you need than his own words? Do the other players not run a lot, take physical challenges? No manager takes the same two players off every game leaving you with one other option. 

[Mikey1874]

Just now, Smith's right boot said:

 

I think we should make  them, you? 

🤣

 

I prefer no subs are made unless the game is won or we need to change something.

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, naeclue said:

A bit after the substitution, he sent a note on to Souter and the team was shifted to 4 4 2. Didn’t check the time, but think around 75, 80 minutes.

 

Agree that we lack wingbacks, think Kingsley is our best one, but was played at centre back.

I think Kingsley isn’t quite 100% to play wing back unfortunately, whether that will change is unclear. 

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, BackOfTheNet said:

Without getting too into hypotheticals, we don’t know how Hibs would have reacted to going 1-0 down and if our formation in place would have coped if they stepped it up a gear. That’s the thing with hypotheticals, it’s like how long is a piece of string. I could of course ask, hypotheticals, what if Gnanduillet was on and not Ginnelly, would he have scored or been able to lay it back for Boyce? What if GMS had scored? Too many people get caught up in how a different player would have played if every other player played exactly the way they did, the point is Gnanduillet would have not only offered something different himself, he would have made the Hibs defence adapt and also made our players adapt how to get the ball up to him. The game required a change of approach, not just like for like personnel.

 

Or Gnanduillet could be have been isolated and done nothing. Which has often been the case when he's played. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

What more proof do you need than his own words? Do the other players not run a lot, take physical challenges? No manager takes the same two players off every game leaving you with one other option. 

 

What do you think that's proving?

 

To me it's a manager that understands wingers often get niggles so you need to mitigate.

[Bazzas right boot]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

I prefer no subs are made unless the game is won or we need to change something.

 

So you are pro substitutions then?

 

[naeclue]

3 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

I think Kingsley isn’t quite 100% to play wing back unfortunately, whether that will change is unclear. 

Fair enough, and think GMS is short of fitness too, encouraging the substitution. If Ginelly could head his attempt across goal to Boyce it’s a tap in and we’re all happy.

Edited September 14, 2021 by naeclue

[BackOfTheNet]

1 minute ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Or Gnanduillet could be have been isolated and done nothing. Which has often been the case when he's played. 

Ah, so it’s not okay for people to question substitutions because it can be labelled as ‘Neilson bashing’ (I mean every manager at every club gets questioned by every fan that thinks a substitution was wrong for crying out loud) but it is okay to in a round about way say a player is not very good despite ample observational evidence to the contrary because you don’t like them. Got it. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, and I won’t label you as Gnanduillet bashing for doing so, even though I completely disagree with your post.

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

What do you think that's proving?

 

To me it's a manager that understands wingers often get niggles so you need to mitigate.

You said it was BAnderson making it up, Neilson said it himself giving away his tactics for anyone who needed to know that watching us twice wouldn’t tell them. 
All players get niggles, you can’t just say we’re taking two players off on the hour no matter what. 

[Bazzas right boot]

3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Or Gnanduillet could be have been isolated and done nothing. Which has often been the case when he's played. 

 

 

Unfortunately this has been the case more often than not. 

 

I do think he'll play v livi at home, Boyce might start v County. 

 

Unsure of the subs that I'd make, but I'll dissect that after the game with hindsight at my side. 

 

 

[Jamhammer]

1 minute ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

Unfortunately this has been the case more often than not. 

 

I do think he'll play v livi at home, Boyce might start v County. 

 

Unsure of the subs that I'd make, but I'll dissect that after the game with hindsight at my side. 

 

 

Perish the thought we play both of them 

Edited September 14, 2021 by Jamhammer

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, naeclue said:

Fair enough, and think GMS is short of fitness too, encouraging the substitution. If Ginelly could head his attempt across goal to Boyce it’s a tap in and we’re all happy.

He said that in his article, players all have little niggles, Woodburn was stretching, Smith was only going to last an hour, Ginnelly came on with a niggle. 
He didn’t score though. 

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

You said it was BAnderson making it up, Neilson said it himself giving away his tactics for anyone who needed to know that watching us twice wouldn’t tell them. 
All players get niggles, you can’t just say we’re taking two players off on the hour no matter what. 

 

 

Bob selling the state secrets. 

 

It's amazing how we've managed to score a goal this year, never mind win a game. 

 

Slow, shite rwb, Boycey isolated, Halkett still playing, shitey substitutions, too defensive, too scared to lose and now Bob is telling everyone our tactics. 

 

It's a shambles Tbh. 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

4 minutes ago, BackOfTheNet said:

Ah, so it’s not okay for people to question substitutions because it can be labelled as ‘Neilson bashing’ (I mean every manager at every club gets questioned by every fan that thinks a substitution was wrong for crying out loud) but it is okay to in a round about way say a player is not very good despite ample observational evidence to the contrary because you don’t like them. Got it. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, and I won’t label you as Gnanduillet bashing for doing so, even though I completely disagree with your post.

 

That's all just in your head.

 

You criticised the McKay substitution but he nearly created a goal. Personally I would have brought on Gnanduillet but mostly he's done nothing for Hearts.

 

Unless you meant to quote someone else. 

[Pasquale for King]

30 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

This is the main issue for me. Boyce constantly plays too deep. Even if we get support up, which we rarely do and he’s managed to hold the ball up his passing isn’t great. His first touch is poor the majority of the time.

He’s an instinctive finisher playing like an extra midfielder at times. 
I really like him, despite those limitations he’ll graft and, given ammunition score goals. We aren’t scoring enough and if you don’t score you don’t win

He needs a partner, whether it’s ahead of him or behind. Trying to play 9&10 is difficult, especially when he can’t play with his back to goal or run the channels. 

[Auld Reekin']

3 hours ago, The Old Tolbooth said:

You'd like to think that we're putting this out there because it's probably not what we're going to do, are we that clever? 

 

I find it difficult to believe that when Woodburn is 100% back to full match fitness, that he won't play the full game and will be rotated on the hour mark no matter what, that's just bonkers! Also, Mackey didn't come here on a 2 year deal just to be brought on as a sub for the last half hour of games, he wants to be part of it and wants a starting spot. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

You said it was BAnderson making it up, Neilson said it himself giving away his tactics for anyone who needed to know that watching us twice wouldn’t tell them. 
All players get niggles, you can’t just say we’re taking two players off on the hour no matter what. 

 

He didn't.

[BackOfTheNet]

Just now, Mikey1874 said:

 

That's all just in your head.

 

You criticised the McKay substitution but he nearly created a goal. Personally I would have brought on Gnanduillet but mostly he's done nothing for Hearts.

 

Unless you meant to quote someone else. 

See this is where you’re reading what you want to read and not how my posts are intended. I even said McKay played decent, so I’m not criticising McKay coming on necessarily. What I’m saying is the game was needing a change of approach from us rather than personell like for like changes, and Gnanduillet was the obvious change in that instance. The Gnanduillet has mostly done nothing thing is quite simply untrue. He’s scored and assisted plenty in the games he has played, when he’s come on against Celtic, St Mirren and Dundee United he’s helped us regain control of the game and put out defenders in the process (an argument could be had Celtic’s defence were worrying about him too much they took their eye off Souttar) and in the United game he tracked back the length of the pitch. If he has done nothing, then why would you want him to come on? That doesn’t make sense.

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

We didn't. Barry Anderson said it, no one else.

I think you should read Banderson's article again and pay particular attention to the parts in quotation marks.

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

The theory is fine.

 

The implementation however has to be flexible.

 

Robbie must know this.

 

Interestingly though I am fairly certain GMS had his best spell of the game just before he was subbed. I think a lot on here have mentioned this.

 

The question is: did that extra effort come from the fact he knew he only had a limited amount of time left to make an impact and would it have been sustained had he been kept on?

 

I don’t know the answer.

 

 

[XB52]

Maybe I'm going blind but I can't see anywhere it states that our policy is to bring on 2 wingers after 60 minutes?? It mentions bringing on pace late in the game which makes perfect sense but, if course, that will always depend on how the game is going 

[GinRummy]

18 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

That's all just in your head.

 

You criticised the McKay substitution but he nearly created a goal. Personally I would have brought on Gnanduillet but mostly he's done nothing for Hearts.

 

Unless you meant to quote someone else. 

That’s incredibly unfair on the big man tbh. He’s had 18 appearances (many of them from the bench  ) in all competitions and scored 6 as well as at least 3 assists that I can remember. 
 

He might look like he’s doing nothing compared to Boyce but, in my opinion, that’s largely because he tends to stay where a centre forward should be whereas Boyce goes deep looking for the ball. If he had the support through the middle or the crosses coming in he’d do even better. 

[GinRummy]

4 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Maybe I'm going blind but I can't see anywhere it states that our policy is to bring on 2 wingers after 60 minutes?? It mentions bringing on pace late in the game which makes perfect sense but, if course, that will always depend on how the game is going 

[ri Alban]

There's knowing what we're gonnae do , and having the ability to stop us. Once we are motoring, we'll be hard to stop. Whether you know how we play or not.

[The Old Tolbooth]

31 minutes ago, Auld Reekin' said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

30 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

He didn't.

So saying you need wingers that can play 60 minutes, and some that can play 30 minutes, then substituting both wingers practically every game after 60 minutes doesn’t prove it because he didn’t specifically say I’m taking both wingers off at 60 minutes. Semantics, and you know it. 

[HillmanHearts]

Great to have options to bring on.

Don’t agree with a rigid predetermined substitution plan. ( unless on the grounds of injury prevention )

Certainly don’t agree with instigating it when we have the other team on the ropes and the intended outgoing players are flying.

 

[XB52]

1 hour ago, GinRummy said:

So where does it say he wants to change 2 wingers on 60 minutes? Every one agrees that we have pace now and can bring on fresh legs after an hour or do but he's not going to change both wingers on the hour every game and he hasn't said that. 

[GinRummy]

2 minutes ago, XB52 said:

So where does it say he wants to change 2 wingers on 60 minutes? Every one agrees that we have pace now and can bring on fresh legs after an hour or do but he's not going to change both wingers on the hour every game and he hasn't said that. 

It doesn’t. I was just posting the quote I think led to the thread. It’s not much of a stretch to think the subs are pre-planned though. I said further up that there’s nothing wrong with planning subs. Things that happen during the game will inevitably change those plans thoug. 

[Tom Hardy’s Dug]

8 minutes ago, XB52 said:

So where does it say he wants to change 2 wingers on 60 minutes? Every one agrees that we have pace now and can bring on fresh legs after an hour or do but he's not going to change both wingers on the hour every game and he hasn't said that. 

To be fair that is the implication from

what he is saying but I don’t think for a minute it is as rigid as suggested.

 

For example when fully fit Woodburn is unlikely to be unsubable, if he is on it. I can see GMS, McKay and Gino being subbed for each other more often than not.

 

But we also have to be flexible

enough to take off Smith for Gino say for the last 20 or keep GMS on but take Haring off for McKay for example. Keep two wingers on and play Nando up top with Boyle etc.

 

Its not as if we don’t have defensive cover to facilitate us playing 4 or 5 of our attacking players if the game requires it for the last 30-20 mins.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Tom Hardy’s Dug

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Pasquale for King said:

So saying you need wingers that can play 60 minutes, and some that can play 30 minutes, then substituting both wingers practically every game after 60 minutes doesn’t prove it because he didn’t specifically say I’m taking both wingers off at 60 minutes. Semantics, and you know it. 

 

"you can’t just say we’re taking two players off on the hour no matter what" is what you said, it's bollocks. 

[Pasquale for King]

19 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

"you can’t just say we’re taking two players off on the hour no matter what" is what you said, it's bollocks. 

He does it every game 🙈. 

[jambonian]

I remember the days there was only 2 substitutes and they were only used if someone was injured or to change the shape if someone was sent off. Now it's 30 minutes here, 20 minutes there. All these niggly injuries....how young men between the ages of say 22 and 32, professional sportsmen as well can't keep fitness levels up for 90 minutes is a mystery to me. The "Dad's army" team of the early-mid 80s we had would've been shaking their heads at them and telling them to build their stamina and fitness up and getting them down the Gullane sand dunes. That's why the likes of Sandy Jardine played on to around 38-ish and the likes of Donald Park and Jimmy Bone weren't far behind him. Now we hear (last season anyway) that GMS or Halliday are finished at 29/30. They should be at their peek at that age. Players are all too pampered. Look at Walker, 27/8 years old and not (apparently) capable of playing a 90 minute game of fitba once a week. Substitute numbers have gone up and up over the years as has the idea of tinkering from managers. Football is a simple game made difficult by tinkering constantly with the team. There's the first 11 for the game, get on with it.

[XB52]

32 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

He does it every game 🙈. 

Hhhhhmmmmmmm. All the subs so far this league season. If you could point out where we bring on 2 wingers on 60 minutes every game that would be good. Or you could just continue your relentless anti-Robbie campaign

 

Gnanduillet 64'minutes
McEneff      76'minutes
Henderson. 89'minutes
Walker.        75'minutes
Henderson  90+3'minutes
McEneff.     78'minutes
Moore.         82'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet  68'minutes
Moore.         66'minutes
McKay.         71'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet. 77'minutes
Haring.         68'minutes

[BackOfTheNet]

10 minutes ago, jambonian said:

I remember the days there was only 2 substitutes and they were only used if someone was injured or to change the shape if someone was sent off. Now it's 30 minutes here, 20 minutes there. All these niggly injuries....how young men between the ages of say 22 and 32, professional sportsmen as well can't keep fitness levels up for 90 minutes is a mystery to me. The "Dad's army" team of the early-mid 80s we had would've been shaking their heads at them and telling them to build their stamina and fitness up and getting them down the Gullane sand dunes. That's why the likes of Sandy Jardine played on to around 38-ish and the likes of Donald Park and Jimmy Bone weren't far behind him. Now we hear (last season anyway) that GMS or Halliday are finished at 29/30. They should be at their peek at that age. Players are all too pampered. Look at Walker, 27/8 years old and not (apparently) capable of playing a 90 minute game of fitba once a week. Substitute numbers have gone up and up over the years as has the idea of tinkering from managers. Football is a simple game made difficult by tinkering constantly with the team. There's the first 11 for the game, get on with it.

A slightly off topic issue, but there definitely is something to be discussed about the conditioning of football players in general. Look at cup ties, they go to extra time and half the pitch are cramping up. Yet you watch someone play, say, tennis - no match is the same time. So they have to be fit enough and conditioned to play for anywhere from 2/3 straight sets for an hour or so or 3/4/5 sets for anywhere up to 4/5/6 hours at times. So there may be something to what you’re saying, about players getting little bits here and there. But all players at every level seem to not know how to cope when going past 90 minutes seemingly.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

"you can’t just say we’re taking two players off on the hour no matter what" is what you said, it's bollocks. 

 

58 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

He does it every game 🙈. 

 

24 minutes ago, XB52 said:

Hhhhhmmmmmmm. All the subs so far this league season. If you could point out where we bring on 2 wingers on 60 minutes every game that would be good. Or you could just continue your relentless anti-Robbie campaign

 

Gnanduillet 64'minutes
McEneff      76'minutes
Henderson. 89'minutes
Walker.        75'minutes
Henderson  90+3'minutes
McEneff.     78'minutes
Moore.         82'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet  68'minutes
Moore.         66'minutes
McKay.         71'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet. 77'minutes
Haring.         68'minutes

 

Thank XB, as I was saying, absolute bollocks from top to toe.

[Cut The Crap]

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

Hhhhhmmmmmmm. All the subs so far this league season. If you could point out where we bring on 2 wingers on 60 minutes every game that would be good. Or you could just continue your relentless anti-Robbie campaign

 

Gnanduillet 64'minutes
McEneff      76'minutes
Henderson. 89'minutes
Walker.        75'minutes
Henderson  90+3'minutes
McEneff.     78'minutes
Moore.         82'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet  68'minutes
Moore.         66'minutes
McKay.         71'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet. 77'minutes
Haring.         68'minutes

 

Those pesky facts. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

Hhhhhmmmmmmm. All the subs so far this league season. If you could point out where we bring on 2 wingers on 60 minutes every game that would be good. Or you could just continue your relentless anti-Robbie campaign

 

Gnanduillet 64'minutes
McEneff      76'minutes
Henderson. 89'minutes
Walker.        75'minutes
Henderson  90+3'minutes
McEneff.     78'minutes
Moore.         82'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet  68'minutes
Moore.         66'minutes
McKay.         71'minutes
Ginnelly.       62'minutes
Gnanduillet. 77'minutes
Haring.         68'minutes

Yeah I knew I was on thin ice when I typed it, did on Sunday though after practically admitting he would. Ginnelly on after 62 minutes seems to be a thing, Henderson was 94th minute. 
I will continue my relentless anti-Robbie campaign, thanks for your permission 👍🏽. 

[XB52]

2 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Yeah I knew I was on thin ice when I typed it, did on Sunday though after practically admitting he would. Ginnelly on after 62 minutes seems to be a thing, Henderson was 94th minute. 
I will continue my relentless anti-Robbie campaign, thanks for your permission 👍🏽. 

Sadly I'm sure you will, no matter what our results or performances. At least you admit you were talking rubbish on this thread though so that's a start

[Pasquale for King]

1 hour ago, BackOfTheNet said:

A slightly off topic issue, but there definitely is something to be discussed about the conditioning of football players in general. Look at cup ties, they go to extra time and half the pitch are cramping up. Yet you watch someone play, say, tennis - no match is the same time. So they have to be fit enough and conditioned to play for anywhere from 2/3 straight sets for an hour or so or 3/4/5 sets for anywhere up to 4/5/6 hours at times. So there may be something to what you’re saying, about players getting little bits here and there. But all players at every level seem to not know how to cope when going past 90 minutes seemingly.

It’s more games and a quicker pace now, sports science also tell them when a player might break down if they play over 70 minute like Smith in Sunday for instance. 
The heat in a game like Aberdeen at home doesn’t help, quite a few players on Sunday came over for water when ever there was a stoppage in the game.