Analyzing yesterday's subs

[palos]

I must admit I was puzzled when after going down a goal (84th minute or so), why we didn't immediately sub an offensive player in.  When we eventually made the subs, it was in the 88th minute.  On top of that, the first sub was Christopher Birchall...defensive midfielder.  Initally didn't make sense to me.

So I tried to reason why the subs were made when they were made and the decision making behind who came on.

I still can't answer why we didn't sub immediately after going down a goal.  Maybe the coaching staff felt who was already out on the field gave us the best chance of scoring a goal.  But if that's the case, why make any subs at all?

There's the argument that we lacked quality on the bench that could effectively make any difference so why sub? When I look at the sus bench, there were scarce alternatives in truth.

In hindsight, I believe the reason why Birchall and Carter were the subs are the following:

Our best chance of scoring would come from good delivery into the box for Kenwyne in particular to make something happen.  Birchall is a good crosser of the ball.  Carter is a winger who could go to the flanks and whip the ball in.

[KND2]

I think the plan was to bring on birchal and push keon up in attack

carter to provide some push

Hart was indecisive I think part of him was thinking he could have left the men on the field as they had the best option to score on the field

I think the team as a whole did not approach that last 5 mins with desperation

Why not throw abu bakr or cyrus or power up front and launch balls into the box

especially with kenwayne up there

only forward we could bring on was Gay and he did not seem to have done well enough in the 3 previous games to say he would score.

it was a tough situation

a lot of what ifs

Monday moring quaterback situation

I blame more the players that the coach

No leader on the field

[Flex]

I think the team was playing to good to make any subs too early and when you look on the bench there was not much attacking options. But on the flip side, we were loosing and needed some fresh legs.

So yes, the timing of the subs was questioned.

And this was my only problem I had with yesterdays game vs Mexico.

We needed to score, Roberts and especially Edwards were perfect candidates to make way for new players.

We had Carter and Gay on the bench, we could have adapted the 433 formation and throw Gay in attack with Glen and Jones.

Then Birchall for Daniel to tighten things up in central.

[dinho]

From about the 55th minute i was calling for a Birchall for Daniel because Daniel was not looking good doing the hard graft in the middle and he was getting closed down with the high pressure in midfield.

But as the game opened up and he got more room, he became much more effective collecting from defence and distributing.

Its the one criticism I have of Hart this tournament, he seemed to be unwilling to make early subs to fix obvious problems. Anybody and their dog could see who was failing us in the El Sal and Haiti games, yet no action.

[spideybuff]

I think they had thrown in the towel and just wanted to give Birchie a sweat...while hoping he could put in a last minute bullet like against Bahrain.

[Deeks]

All those questions are valid. But we still have to give the coach the benefit of doubt.

[OutsideMan]

I haven't read through all the comments here so please bear with me.  I, like most people here, had some questions also about the late subs.  But I pretty much figured that SH is de coach, and probably had his own reasons for taking the risk and subbing so late in that Mexico game.  He must've had some inside info that most of us were not privy to, in order to make a decision like that.

I suppose sometimes you have to be willing to take some risks, especially when you're dealt certain hands.  The fact is, regardless of the outcome, and regardless of how much we were out-shot by Mexico, we still put ourselves in an opportunity to win that game on Saturday. 

We were not dominated by Mexico at all.  Anyway, 1 year from now, I believe we'll be seeing a much more potent well-oiled machine of a team running on almost all cylinders....and the 'late-sub' decisions of the Coach will not be one he will need to employ down-the-road, because at that point, I believe he will have all his players focussed, goal-orientated (no pun intended), and well aware of their specific duties on the team during each match.

We won't be seeing much 88th min subs in the future, except to probably take time off the clock to protect a lead.  At least that's my hope and humble opinion. 

[FF]

From about the 55th minute i was calling for a Birchall for Daniel because Daniel was not looking good doing the hard graft in the middle and he was getting closed down with the high pressure in midfield.

But as the game opened up and he got more room, he became much more effective collecting from defence and distributing.

Its the one criticism I have of Hart this tournament, he seemed to be unwilling to make early subs to fix obvious problems. Anybody and their dog could see who was failing us in the El Sal and Haiti games, yet no action.

true talk

[fordy]

well me and others watching the game were calling for subs as early as the 70th minute. Not because players were playing badly but more so that the constant pressure was tiring on some, especially Daniel and Boucaud. It probably wasn't noticeable from the tv but birchall was on the sideline about to come in when the goal was scored, and when Mexico scored, they pulled him from the touchline. at first i thought they were going to change their option but then they sent back birchie. at that point i felt another offensive option might have been better, but agreed with an earlier poster saying the service to KJ might have been the best option for an attack for us.

[Sando]

T&T did very well considering they were missing 4 starters, Hoyte, Hyland, Molino and Joevin Jones.