The Zungu substitution

Great white tadpole

Active Member
Arfield is injured so I don't really get yer point.

So who plays ahead of Aribo in midfield?

Weird to say he done nothing when he contributed massively in both
Mental. Aribo was class today and that’s playing in his least effective position.

The Zungu sub should’ve been made earlier so Aribo could play in Hagi’s position where he’s much more effective.
Why is it mental to have a different opinion than yourself ? , I think hagi scores and creates more goals than Aribo does and also takes more responsibility on the pitch that’s why I would play him in the more advanced midfield role over joe.
 
Why is it mental to have a different opinion than yourself ? , I think hagi scores and creates more goals than Aribo does and also takes more responsibility on the pitch that’s why I would play him in the more advanced midfield role over joe.
Quoted me when it wasn't me who said that.

You said you wouldn't have played Aribo because Arfield is better in that position, I replied Arfield is injured so I don't get your point. Who else would you have played ahead of Aribo in that position?
 

CaptainCourageous

Well-Known Member
Another appearance closer to helping us win '55.

Won a few headers, read the game well enough to break up play and stop a potential ball into the box.
 

Der Berliner

Well-Known Member
We had the option of 5 subs and used just one. Plan A essentially, time and again. When it was clear to see that our attack and midfield weren`t at it. Yet, we took Mr. Creativity off ... when we needed more, e.g. via Stewart (who can sure pick a good pass). Likewise, Itten and Defoe might just as well have replaced Kent and Morelos ... and we still could have one spare, with Zungu replacing Aribo ahead of Hagi. But what do I know ... we won.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Agreed should have been off for his part (or lack of it) at the Aberdeen goal.
It’s one thing replacing a struggling player, which, I don’t believe he was but, the idea of substituting a player because of a mistake is truly baffuls me.
Where do you go with this one?
Morelos for his first minute miss?
Balogun for his poor defending when the sheep broke away a minute or two later?
Goldson in the same move?
Kent for not getting past his man?
To paraphrase a well known movie quote “we’re going to need a lot of subs”.
 

Vince

Well-Known Member
It’s one thing replacing a struggling player, which, I don’t believe he was but, the idea of substituting a player because of a mistake is truly baffuls me.
Where do you go with this one?
Morelos for his first minute miss?
Balogun for his poor defending when the sheep broke away a minute or two later?
Goldson in the same move?
Kent for not getting past his man?
To paraphrase a well known movie quote “we’re going to need a lot of subs”.

What about replacing him with a more defensive midfielder before we loose a second goal. What so baffling about it?
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
What about replacing him with a more defensive midfielder before we loose a second goal. What so baffling about it?
How about retaining a more attacking player so that you create more opportunities for your own side and don’t invite the opposition to attack?
The answer, ultimately, is in the result of course.
I get that it can go wrong and your suggestion might have been proven correct but the management have earned the right to get first call.
 

Vince

Well-Known Member
How about retaining a more attacking player so that you create more opportunities for your own side and don’t invite the opposition to attack?
The answer, ultimately, is in the result of course.
I get that it can go wrong and your suggestion might have been proven correct but the management have earned the right to get first call.

Well they ended up with a more defensive player in to help. Hardly baffling and they still had a few forward players on the park.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Well they ended up with a more defensive player in to help. Hardly baffling and they still had a few forward players on the park.
I’m confused here, baffled if you prefer, with the use of “they”.
Does this mean Rangers?
Anyway, the defensive substitution was made much later in the game at a time you, maybe even most, might expect such a move to be made.
You know what really baffles me though?
That you haven’t manage to answer why you’d make a substitution because of one error whilst not for a player making another, potentially costly, error.
 

Vince

Well-Known Member
I’m confused here, baffled if you prefer, with the use of “they”.
Does this mean Rangers?
Anyway, the defensive substitution was made much later in the game at a time you, maybe even most, might expect such a move to be made.
You know what really baffles me though?
That you haven’t manage to answer why you’d make a substitution because of one error whilst not for a player making another, potentially costly, error.

I would have made the substitution because we ended up getting caught getting outnumbered at the back whilst playing 10 men. Shockingly I didnt fancy that happening again - as per Benfica. Look where Tavernier was at the goal. So if not wanting to get caught again I replace him with a player with a defensive mind in midfield at that point ..... allowing Tavernier to do what he does. Hardly controversial I would have thought ... hardly baffling.

Did I lose staunch points for saying ‘they’ whilst talking about the decisions of the management team? .... ohhh well
 
Top