Wagstaff for Racon was exactly what I wanted at the time. Didn't want Reid tbh
I would've put Shelvey on for Forster, but I understand the call.
Solly for Sam was a strange one at the time, but again I understand the call
There was a job, and that job was done. We can't live in 'ifs' for when we drop points, so why should we live in 'ifs' when we win matches? The fact is that we needed to hold on against Colchester's attempted bullying, and we did that.
Subs should normally be "horses for courses" and can be in 2 ways:
1) To replace an injured or ineffective player, like for like, position for position - minimal disruption to team shape or gameplan
2) To make a tactical move or introduce a player with different qualities.
Racon was clearly losing effectiveness and we were lacking that bit of pace on the counter attack. With Waggy's introduction as we entered the later stages and the game opened up - Parky clearly decided that on the left Waggy's industrious qualities would both enhance protection for Borrowdale at a time we were under increasing pressure - and at the same time, on the quick breakaway would run at the defender with pace, cut inside and shoot right footed.
Reid doesn't generally give the full back the same protection, and while he can be pacy, direct and with a good shot similar to Waggy - he'd normally do it left footed, taking him on the outside of the defender, and perhaps out of effective shooting range with a poor angle.
So Reid didn't fit the gameplan as the match unfolded, I assume - otherwise he would have been brought on.
Mooney for Forster was an obvious choice, as he can generally hold up play and show footballing intelligence.
Forster had done his job, and there's another key match on Saturday.
Solly - well, as we were under the cosh, no doubt the thinking behind that for the final few minutes was to add extra defensive contribution, and for Solly to harrass opponents and deny time and space on the ball, and add protection for Richardson - in effect clog up the midfield, and help protect that slender lead.
If you think about it, you can understand the reasoning behind each of the subs last night.
No complants about the subs last night, Forster was shattered so no surprise he came off whilst Waggy is usually reliable from the bench to put in a shift.
Even Solly did well to block a cross last night and like Waggy works his socks off.
Parky imho has bit a little hit and miss with his subs this season, especially in the week when they worked to perfection v Hartlepool and then were as ineffective as I have seen v Orient but last night they were sensible and effective.
Comments
I would've put Shelvey on for Forster, but I understand the call.
Solly for Sam was a strange one at the time, but again I understand the call
There was a job, and that job was done. We can't live in 'ifs' for when we drop points, so why should we live in 'ifs' when we win matches? The fact is that we needed to hold on against Colchester's attempted bullying, and we did that.
1) To replace an injured or ineffective player, like for like, position for position - minimal disruption to team shape or gameplan
2) To make a tactical move or introduce a player with different qualities.
Racon was clearly losing effectiveness and we were lacking that bit of pace on the counter attack. With Waggy's introduction as we entered the later stages and the game opened up - Parky clearly decided that on the left Waggy's industrious qualities would both enhance protection for Borrowdale at a time we were under increasing pressure - and at the same time, on the quick breakaway would run at the defender with pace, cut inside and shoot right footed.
Reid doesn't generally give the full back the same protection, and while he can be pacy, direct and with a good shot similar to Waggy - he'd normally do it left footed, taking him on the outside of the defender, and perhaps out of effective shooting range with a poor angle.
So Reid didn't fit the gameplan as the match unfolded, I assume - otherwise he would have been brought on.
Mooney for Forster was an obvious choice, as he can generally hold up play and show footballing intelligence.
Forster had done his job, and there's another key match on Saturday.
Solly - well, as we were under the cosh, no doubt the thinking behind that for the final few minutes was to add extra defensive contribution, and for Solly to harrass opponents and deny time and space on the ball, and add protection for Richardson - in effect clog up the midfield, and help protect that slender lead.
If you think about it, you can understand the reasoning behind each of the subs last night.
Even Solly did well to block a cross last night and like Waggy works his socks off.
Parky imho has bit a little hit and miss with his subs this season, especially in the week when they worked to perfection v Hartlepool and then were as ineffective as I have seen v Orient but last night they were sensible and effective.