THAT double substitution

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

You’re definitely in the minority there Dunge. Also most fans would say that while his intentions may not have been negative, it was a key moment in the game shifting further away from us

Albrighton doesn’t have the legs to press - and he didn’t really impact the game in that way. Choudhury has the legs but doesn’t have the brain - we needed to arrest control of the midfield - bringing Choudhury on never achieved that.

You still haven’t answered the point on the fact that neither player would have been exhausted had they have been introduced in either of the previous games

To have other fans texting me asking what was going on with those subs perhaps illustrates the point that those looking at us from the outside are able to see issues even more clearly than us.

comment by *GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
Rodgers has a very strange thing where when he first arrives, the players obviously completely buy into what he does. We saw it at Liverpool and Celtic fans saw it too. There is a very clear way of playing. The players obviously enjoy playing for him and everything looks great. Then something happens. I don't know if there isn't enough variety in training to keep things fresh for the players. Or whether it is Rodgers himself but there is always a point where form drops off, tactics become more negative and players look disinterested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You raise a point that Leicester fans on this site are choosing to ignore. They just can’t face up to it mate, you won’t get a response from any of them on Rodgers

Regarding whether Praet or Perez would have been exhausted if they'd played against Brighton:

Firstly, both have seemingly had knocks in "pre-season". Perez didn't play in the warm-up matches and Praet didn't make the bench in the first match (and he would have done if fit). They're both further behind in match fitness than the rest of the squad, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't last as long.

Second, regarding previous matches, Perez was given twenty minutes against Brighton, but he couldn't be using the Watford and Brighton matches to give people a run-out. If we had gone 3-0 up then there would have been the opportunity to do that, but we were trying to win those matches. Unsuccessfully as it turned out, but even so. If he had made changes just to get them minutes in tight league matches at this point, I think that would be a far more genuine criticism of his tactics than not giving them those minutes. What I suspect is that Rodgers was using this match to give them minutes and prioritising the league.

Third, I don't know the exact stats, but it has occurred to me that neither Perez nor Praet have lasted 90 minutes this season even when they were fit. The difference between the Chelsea match and the usual time both are usually replaced was around 10 minutes at most. It came as no surprise to me when their numbers came up on the substitution board because they almost always do.

*neither have lasted 90 minutes very often, I mean. I'm sure there have been instances but I don't see those instances as the norm.

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Regarding whether Praet or Perez would have been exhausted if they'd played against Brighton:

Firstly, both have seemingly had knocks in "pre-season". Perez didn't play in the warm-up matches and Praet didn't make the bench in the first match (and he would have done if fit). They're both further behind in match fitness than the rest of the squad, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't last as long.

Second, regarding previous matches, Perez was given twenty minutes against Brighton, but he couldn't be using the Watford and Brighton matches to give people a run-out. If we had gone 3-0 up then there would have been the opportunity to do that, but we were trying to win those matches. Unsuccessfully as it turned out, but even so. If he had made changes just to get them minutes in tight league matches at this point, I think that would be a far more genuine criticism of his tactics than not giving them those minutes. What I suspect is that Rodgers was using this match to give them minutes and prioritising the league.

Third, I don't know the exact stats, but it has occurred to me that neither Perez nor Praet have lasted 90 minutes this season even when they were fit. The difference between the Chelsea match and the usual time both are usually replaced was around 10 minutes at most. It came as no surprise to me when their numbers came up on the substitution board because they almost always do.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It came as no surprise to you that their numbers came up on the board after 56 minutes? We’re not talking 70 mins here

That was a pivotal point in the game - Chelsea were getting the upper hand, lampard had made effective subs and you’re saying that because Brendan started with 2 players that clearly weren’t fit - he left himself in a situation whereby regardless of how the game was planning out he had to bring them off anyway

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If neither were fit then it makes sense to bring their fitness up to speed through continued sub appearances not start them against Chelsea. Praet could have come on against Brighton for example and continued his fitness recovery through a second half sub

What appears to have happened then, by your explanation, is that 2 unfit players started who couldn’t last the course and that meant 2 subs had to be used up on just replacing like for like?

I understand Brendans options were a little limited - but it’s not exactly the first time he’s made subs that we questioned

I still don't see that as a particular issue given the options that were available to him. He started with the strongest team he could, knowing that two of them were likely to be subbed like-for-like on or around 60 minutes. He could have changed formation then, but there were risks in that too. There was no clear ideal option, and he figured Choudhury and Albrighton would at least be able to provide fresh legs. It wasn't the worst of ideas. Granted it didn't change much, but there weren't many options around /to/ change things significantly. He could have started Choudhury with the thought of bringing on Praet after 60 minutes or so, but then we see more of a worse player who hasn't played much himself either. I really don't see this sub as a big deal given the situation and the options available.

And regardless, I still think the match at the weekend was used almost as a training match to try to get rid of some of the ring-rust, with the league matches being treated with much more importance because Rodgers can see as well as the rest of us that things are wrong. The only question left unanswered is why he didn't bring Iheanacho on. He could even have done a straight swap for Vardy around the time he brought Gray on and still have a sub left.

comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 25 minutes ago
I still don't see that as a particular issue given the options that were available to him. He started with the strongest team he could, knowing that two of them were likely to be subbed like-for-like on or around 60 minutes. He could have changed formation then, but there were risks in that too. There was no clear ideal option, and he figured Choudhury and Albrighton would at least be able to provide fresh legs. It wasn't the worst of ideas. Granted it didn't change much, but there weren't many options around /to/ change things significantly. He could have started Choudhury with the thought of bringing on Praet after 60 minutes or so, but then we see more of a worse player who hasn't played much himself either. I really don't see this sub as a big deal given the situation and the options available.

And regardless, I still think the match at the weekend was used almost as a training match to try to get rid of some of the ring-rust, with the league matches being treated with much more importance because Rodgers can see as well as the rest of us that things are wrong. The only question left unanswered is why he didn't bring Iheanacho on. He could even have done a straight swap for Vardy around the time he brought Gray on and still have a sub left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think Lampard saw it as a fitness exercise, put it that way. Two managers heading in quite different directions currently

I certainly agree with that. And he didn't need to of course; Chelsea have come back flying out of the blocks. And that initial momentum, coupled with our lack of it, carried them through at the weekend. They pretty much queued up after the match to say how poorly they played, yet they still got through.

Quite why we've been so slow on the restart, I don't know. I recall we played Aston Villa twice as warm up matches and they've started like snails as well. Perhaps there simply wasn't enough intensity in those matches.