Why do we always use all three substitutes?

[kwsaint]

Not necessarily a bad thing but I have noticed a number of teams we've played against only use 1 or 2 whereas we pretty much use all three every week. Just an observation.

[DuncanRG]

We demand a high level of fitness, and have good options on the bench.

[doubleonothing]

If we didn't use them there would be some questioning why we didn't use all 3.

 

It's not necessarily the use of 3 subs that is an issue, it's the actual change that need looking at? Did MP take off the correct players today? From what I've read Lallana shouldn't have come off.

[Saint Charlie]

Usually both teams use all three in the vast majority of games you will see.

[Bearsy]

I feel your pain. It is natural in the face of personal tragedy to seek meaning. When your cat gets cancer you say, Lord, I knew I shouldn't buy that dodgy Russian kitty food they sell in unmarked cans at Y&Z mini market. When you go for a dump at a motorway service station and find a globule of cum on the door handle, you say to yourself, why did I not go before I left the house? When Southampton lose a football match you think, did we make too many substitutions? Or not enough? Did we need more Puncheons?

 

Resist these dark thoughts! No good will come of them! You are not to blame. The football Gods work in mysterious ways, but they have a plan for Southampton. It may not include winning at Carrow Road, but there is something waiting for us, I promise you that, something special for all Southampton fans that no amount of substitutions can defile. Put your faith in Baby Pochettino! Do not blaspheme Him with doubts and criticism, and He will lead you to Salvation.

[Patrick Bateman]

Not necessarily a bad thing but I have noticed a number of teams we've played against only use 1 or 2 whereas we pretty much use all three every week. Just an observation.

 

Because we don't have 2 subs, or 4. Perhaps that's why we use 3.

Christ on a bike.

[max_saints]

lol weirdest match reaction thread hands down, even weirder than the one still debating if free kicks are dead ball situations! a defeat really drives us insane eh

[david in sweden]

Not necessarily a bad thing but I have noticed a number of teams we've played against only use 1 or 2 whereas we pretty much use all three every week. Just an observation.

 

Many clubs may not have the options we have. I should think there is a lot of competition at SMS just to get a place on the bench, let alone be one of the starting 11.

 

I think a lot of fans have the mentality that " anyone who doesn't start and sits on the bench is second best", when in fact many substituitions are either tactical , or to help players conserve fitness/ energy.

 

Most subbing follows a basic pattern. Aside from injuries, midfielders are first to be changed out, they cover more ground than most other positions, and need not wear themselves out for no reason.

Lallana is first choice (at present) and certainly puts in his share (as does Schneiderlin), but I'm not unhappy seeing Steve Davis or Ramirez come on, and it's to Lallana's credit that he can keep a £12 million signing out of the side.

 

If a striker isn't scoring then you have to try an alternative, but I 'm not going to pre-judge Osvaldo (despite his fee) but I'm happy seeing Jay Rod up front, too.

 

Likewise, if you are winning, or comfortably in control, it's a good time to introduce a set of fresh legs for those who have battled throughout the game, and give the sub. a feel of the game and a little encouragement for the future.

 

The introduction of a sub.in the 90th minute is accepted as a "legitimate ", if rather annoying tactic - to use up some of the remaining time when you want to hold on to a result.

 

When I started watching football 50-plus years ago ....the 11 you started with was all you were allowed to use (rule changed in 1966).....and then the ONE sub.was only allowed in cases of " serious injury "

 

I've watched games where teams were " unfairly " reduced to 10 men through injury, (and in one Saints' game in the mid 1960's ---down to 9 men). Where players who'd taken a bad knock were left to hobble out the game out on the left wing, and even goalkeepers carried from the pitch to be replaced by an outfield player with little or no experience of playing between the posts.

It added unnecessary tension to the game, does nothing to improve the fairness of a result and the players who suffered injuries often made it much worse by being forced to continue.

 

Using substitutes wisely can be a worthwhile tactic in the modern game. In Saints' promotion season from the Championship, ELEVEN players scored goals after they came on as sub..

 

It would be nice to think one could win a game comfortably and play out 90 minutes with the same start 11, but it's unnecessary nowadays.

Edited 1 September, 2013 by david in sweden

[saintalan]

...because we cant use all 7?

[ladysaint]

I don't mind using 3 subs as long as he doesn't take off the two most effective players yesterday. Adam and Morgan were the only two trying to play the ball on the ground, very disappointed with his subs yesterday and the whole team pperformance.

[Turkish]

Because of contractual obligations we have to fullfil that certain players have to play a guaranteed amount of minutes when available.