Dougie Freedman - Ten Months On

[LeverEnd]

I think the whole substitution genius thing is a myth on the whole. You can do a bit but the way Reading were playing and the momentum they had then a couple of personnel changes weren't likely to make much difference. I think if a manager changes the flow of a game through subs it's often to do with the opposition more than him. Sometimes a team has been on top and starts to tire, then the opposing manager changes things and his team gets on top, he looks great. A lot of luck involved if you ask me.
Not to say it's not worth trying but I wouldn't hail a manager it works for too much, nor berate Dougie or anyone else. Since thebish brought him up, Coyle's problem was not changing from game to game , rather than during a game.

[Lord Kangana]

I remember Sam bringing on Gudni at 2-0 down against West Brom in he play offs (it was for a striker wasn't it?) and dramatically changing the game tactically. End result 2-2. I'm not convinced that what's being argued here is more to do with the quality of the manager, not the hypohetical ability to change a game.

[BWFC_Insane]

I remember Sam bringing on Gudni at 2-0 down against West Brom in he play offs (it was for a striker wasn't it?) and dramatically changing the game tactically. End result 2-2. I'm not convinced that what's being argued here is more to do with the quality of the manager, not the hypohetical ability to change a game.

I remember him starting!

[Lord Kangana]

After the lesson in semantics from Pru, I'm surprised you didn't see the point. He took Holdsworth off for Frandsen or something didn't he?

Anyway, you've been saying for long enough that a manager should influence a game, so it'd be hypocritical of you to now to take the opposite stance.

[Prufrock]

I wasn't saying subs, tactical changes and the like can't or don't change games, just that it's miles away from 'this sub= this result'. A game of football is organised chaos. Over time, you'll see whether managers get it right more than they get it wrong, but you can't judge it off individual subs or games. To bring it inevitably back to Coyle, over a period of time it became obvious that 'take Muamba off, then lose' was a shit idea. That doesn't mean that that would always be a mistake, or that it didn't sometimes produce an improvement.

You might think we're having a lot of the ball but not creating much so stick on some wide players to get balls into the box. That could work, or it could mean you lose the ability to keep the ball in the first place and so get worse. There are a myriad of factors which could determine which way it goes, and I'm not sure it's anything more than educated guesswork. Dougie's approach seems to tend towards the cautious 'if it's going OK, don't risk changing it for the worse. Sometimes that'll mean you keep points you would have lost, sometimes it will mean you lose two points you might have won. The only fair way to judge is long-term. I think he's got it right more than he's got it wrong so far.

[BWFC_Insane]

After the lesson in semantics from Pru, I'm surprised you didn't see the point. He took Holdsworth off for Frandsen or something didn't he?

Anyway, you've been saying for long enough that a manager should influence a game, so it'd be hypocritical of you to now to take the opposite stance.

Can't expect a manager to make a game changing sub every time. Sometimes you can't change a game. For every change Allardyce made that turned a game round, there will be 3 that didn't.

The better the players you've got the more likely they are to be able to make something happen. But I don't think it indicates any tactical genius.

Had Le Fondre scored on Saturday for example I'd not be praising Adkins, who is a very good manager anyway, for some masterstroke. He bought a goalscoring striker on who comes off the bench often and scores. Wouldn't reflect a brilliant game changing decision anymore than Le Fondre missing indicating Adkins made a mistake.

[thebish]

The verbal chicanery is all very nice, but it's clear he meant basically powerless to change a game [in a positive way]. Deciding not to bother with a keeper would be a fairly easy way to drastically alter a game, but it goes without saying that isn't what he meant.

I'm not saying I agree, but I do think people wildly overestimate the direct, knowable extent to which managers affect things during the game itself. I think substitutions do greatly affect things, but in a way that involves a lot of chance. The only fair way to judge someone on that is over a long period of time. Unless it's truly nuts, say Klas off v Hull, I don't get folk pinning their judgements on individual subs.

The way some people talk it sounds like they think it's as easy as swapping a midfielder for a striker and suddenly you'll create more chances, or sending someone on with the plan B worked on in training. 'Alex pass it to Jay. Jay to Andre. Andre to David. David score'.

hmmmmm.... BWFCi has often said how crucial it can be to have or not have the right formation 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 or some bespoke variation thereof.

this can be changed during a game by use of substitutions, or simply switching positions of the players currently on the field.

either it makes a difference or it doesn't - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - but what it can't be is both!

you can't on the one hand moan at coyle for not making a difference (or for making a difference negatively) with subs and formations - and then claim that when it's Freedman, it's pretty hard for the manager to make such a difference because once they start playing it's pretty much out of his hands and simply down to the ebb and flow of the game...

[BWFC_Insane]

The verbal chicanery is all very nice, but it's clear he meant basically powerless to change a game [in a positive way]. Deciding not to bother with a keeper would be a fairly easy way to drastically alter a game, but it goes without saying that isn't what he meant.

I'm not saying I agree, but I do think people wildly overestimate the direct, knowable extent to which managers affect things during the game itself. I think substitutions do greatly affect things, but in a way that involves a lot of chance. The only fair way to judge someone on that is over a long period of time. Unless it's truly nuts, say Klas off v Hull, I don't get folk pinning their judgements on individual subs.

The way some people talk it sounds like they think it's as easy as swapping a midfielder for a striker and suddenly you'll create more chances, or sending someone on with the plan B worked on in training. 'Alex pass it to Jay. Jay to Andre. Andre to David. David score'.

hmmmmm.... BWFCi has often said how crucial it can be to have or not have the right formation 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 or some bespoke variation thereof.

this can be changed during a game by use of substitutions, or simply switching positions of the players currently on the field.

either it makes a difference or it doesn't - maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - but what it can't be is both!

If teams are walking through the centre of your midfield time and time again and you carry on playing the same weak midfield and even weaken it further by throwing more attacking players on then that reflects that you haven't got a fecking clue what you are doing.

Dougie does not let that happen.

There are sometimes obvious issues that can be changed. If you continually don't change them or make them worse then you're a mentalist like that last bloke.

On saturday there were no obvious issues that Dougie had it in his power to solve from the bench.

[CAPSLOCK]

If you set yourself up well to start with, your options for improving through in game changes are less than if you select a team through performance in the table tennis comp

[Prufrock]

It does make a difference, but it's not as simple as do A get X result.

As an illustration, these football management games where people get ratings out of 20. Crudely simplified, a guy who has 20 for pace will beat a guy who has 18 for pace 20 times out of 38. By picking the right team, in the right shape with the right subs, you affect your likelihood of winning, but not to the extent that some would have you believe in that 4-4-2=win 4-5-1= lose or vice-versa. Of course, your decisions before a game, when it's still 0-0 and there are 90 minutes to play will usually have a greater effect than those in game, with far less time, and a variety of things which have already happened. Managers affect things, in small, but important ways. That's why it's not fair to judge people on isolated incidents, but take a look over time and put it in context.

[thebish]

It does make a difference, but it's not as simple as do A get X result.

i don't believe anyone was claiming it was that simple, were they?

[LeverEnd]

If you set yourself up well to start with, your options for improving through in game changes are less than if you select a team through performance in the table tennis comp

Very true. Dougie's most effective substitution was against Blackpool, also his worst starting selection (well, apart from Brighton away in his early days).

[CAPSLOCK]

If you set yourself up well to start with, your options for improving through in game changes are less than if you select a team through performance in the table tennis comp

Very true. Dougie's most effective substitution was against Blackpool, also his worst starting selection (well, apart from Brighton away in his early days).

Can I throw in the mix 'you don't know what you're doing' when he took Lee off - was it against Cardiff?

That was a game changer

[LeverEnd]

If you set yourself up well to start with, your options for improving through in game changes are less than if you select a team through performance in the table tennis comp

Very true. Dougie's most effective substitution was against Blackpool, also his worst starting selection (well, apart from Brighton away in his early days).

Can I throw in the mix 'you don't know what you're doing' when he took Lee off - was it against Cardiff?

That was a game changer

Why not. Good old Daveed!

[Prufrock]

It does make a difference, but it's not as simple as do A get X result.

i don't believe anyone was claiming it was that simple, were they?

Constantly. Like, constantly.

[Lord Kangana]

So far it appears that the argument is "it works when its someone we like, but is a completely random thing when it doesn't". Well worth the typing.

[Prufrock]

Who has put forward that argument?

[LeverEnd]

Not me!

[Lord Kangana]

Who has put forward that argument?

The Blackpool comment wasn't a dead giveaway? C'mon Pru, second gear man.

[thebish]

It does make a difference, but it's not as simple as do A get X result.

i don't believe anyone was claiming it was that simple, were they?

Constantly. Like, constantly.

^not true!

what has happened here is that BWFCi has put forward the general argument that managers can't really change a game once it has started - which he is now not-so-subtly pretending was a specific argument that Dougie sets the team up so perfectly at the start that it would be impossible to make it any better given the resources he has...