The theory of double-impact

[CanadaSaint]

When dealing with injuries in team selection, I'm not sure we pay enough attention to the theory of double-impact: Be very reluctant to move a key player out of his regular (and best) position to cover an injury, just because you think he might be better there than the natural back-up. By doing so you can adversely impact the team's performance in two areas of the pitch.

 

Examples where we might have done this are playing Ramirez wide on the left when Lallana was first injured, and now playing Corky at RB to cover Clyne's injury. Ramirez looked out-of-place there and we lost the big threat he poses when drifting in behind the striker(s). Corky is too short on pace to play at RB, especially against fast-attacking teams with width like Chelsea (although Arsenal failed to exploit it), and we really miss all his work in the middle; the thing that saved us against Arsenal was that Davis played his best game for us, but he was (I fear) back to his normal standard today - albeit against a real quality midfield.

 

I'm wondering if we'd be better to just play the natural back-up and try to handle the resultant challenges rather than move a key guy and risk adversely impacting two areas. It's not an issue for the big teams with quality-in-depth but it certainly is for us.

[sotonist]

Had the same problem in the old days with Baird being our best back up at centre midfield and centre back.

[jampot]

Dont know why Richardson didnt play unless he has an injury....

[Thedelldays]

is richardson injured..?

 

got to be better than having cork out of position

[lambertsrightleg]

Richardson is nowhere near good enough

[woodsaint]

When dealing with injuries in team selection, I'm not sure we pay enough attention to the theory of double-impact: Be very reluctant to move a key player out of his regular (and best) position to cover an injury, just because you think he might be better there than the natural back-up. By doing so you can adversely impact the team's performance in two areas of the pitch.

 

Examples where we might have done this are playing Ramirez wide on the left when Lallana was first injured, and now playing Corky at RB to cover Clyne's injury. Ramirez looked out-of-place there and we lost the big threat he poses when drifting in behind the striker(s). Corky is too short on pace to play at RB, especially against fast-attacking teams with width like Chelsea (although Arsenal failed to exploit it), and we really miss all his work in the middle; the thing that saved us against Arsenal was that Davis played his best game for us, but he was (I fear) back to his normal standard today - albeit against a real quality midfield.

 

I'm wondering if we'd be better to just play the natural back-up and try to handle the resultant challenges rather than move a key guy and risk adversely impacting two areas. It's not an issue for the big teams with quality-in-depth but it certainly is for us.

 

Arsenal did have a go down cork's side of the pitch but he had an excellent game, was motm on sky. He cant be excellent every week but i do feel he gives us much needed stability in centre midfield

[Barry Sanchez]

Rather than the "double impact" and whatever that means, I would rather we, Adkins and Cortese think about the lack of a Premership squad we have and how we will rectify before we roll over and submit ourselves to the Championship.

[SaintNeil90]

Cork has been quality at right back. He was pivotal in our goal.

 

Davies, Schneiderlin & Ward-Prowse are good enough to do a job at centre mid but we played Chelsea FFS.

 

Nobody mentioned using Cork at right back when we outplayed Arsenal.

[Barry Sanchez]

Arsenal were crap that day truly woeful, we have this season been at the very very best and even with Adkins positive deflections slightly ****e and our signings have been ****ter.

[Saint Charlie]

Richardson is nowhere near good enough

 

This. Cork was MOTM on Tuesday and I would play him over FR any day. Problem is the squad players aren't up to it which is why other first team players get shifted instead.

[david in sweden]

When dealing with injuries in team selection, I'm not sure we pay enough attention to the theory of double-impact: Be very reluctant to move a key player out of his regular (and best) position to cover an injury, just because you think he might be better there than the natural back-up. By doing so you can adversely impact the team's performance in two areas of the pitch.

 

Examples where we might have done this are playing Ramirez wide on the left when Lallana was first injured, and now playing Corky at RB to cover Clyne's injury. Ramirez looked out-of-place there and we lost the big threat he poses when drifting in behind the striker(s). Corky is too short on pace to play at RB, especially against fast-attacking teams with width like Chelsea (although Arsenal failed to exploit it), and we really miss all his work in the middle; the thing that saved us against Arsenal was that Davis played his best game for us, but he was (I fear) back to his normal standard today - albeit against a real quality midfield. I'm wondering if we'd be better to just play the natural back-up and try to handle the resultant challenges rather than move a key guy and risk adversely impacting two areas. It's not an issue for the big teams with quality-in-depth but it certainly is for us.

 

 

I agree with the main theme of your post, but there have been exceptions of players who have the ability to play different roles and do/did it well.

 

I go back far enough to be able to rave about Jimmy Gabriel and Nick Holmes and David Peach who successfully played in diff. positions ..not just in an emergency, but from season to season.

 

In more recent times, we had players like Claus Lundekvam.who began as a LB before become CB, and Rory Delap (who got an immense amount of abuse from a certain part of the fan base) he played all over the place when " the manager of the day" had a problem and asked him to DAJFU..and he got no thanks for it. Jo Tessem had a good goals/games ratio for a midfielder and scored some vital goals, but was badly treated by some fans for failing to deliver, when asked to cover up front for an in-form, but injured James Beattie.....who was pushing for an England place at the time....

 

Few of our players have really adapted well to life in the Prem. and few of that sort are around at present.. .and loss of form and the latest injuries haven't helped the situation.

As we can only buy players in a " small window " every six months ....such disruptions make life even worse, when there is no adequate replacement to cover.

 

Even when playing our " strongest side " (whatever that is )...being 17th in the table obviously says they're not really good enough, and looking at the bench every week...I'm glad we don't have to use them all too often.

Saturday's game shows that " the manager of the day " at Chelsea can virtually pick his team by drawing names from a hat... and still has a bench that looks just as strong, whereas almost half of our " 25 squad " are just there to make up the numbers and are never serious contenders for a regular spot........except in extreme emergencies.

 

If we have to go as far as playing someone out of their natural position... it just shows the gap that exists between the strength of " the Chelsea's " in this League ..and the rest of us.

Edited 6 January, 2013 by david in sweden

[david in sweden]

Arsenal were crap that day truly woeful, we have this season been at the very very best and even with Adkins positive deflections slightly ****e and our signings have been ****ter.

 

 

I heartily agree with that part but to be fair to Saints, we went a long way towards" not letting them play", and none of their " expensive line-up " actually scored against us - did they ?

 

The OG (not blaming Guly too much either)....robbed us of three points that we thoroughly deserved.