Hartley,s Choice Of Subs

[mainstand]

Hi,

happy ney year everyone.

Jist got a few thoughts on the subs in the derby.

Personally,i thought he weakened the team wi his subs!

Don,t know if he thought GGH wis getting tired but wis it  no a chance tae bring on Loy tae stop United pushing up the pitch and putting us under pressure.

When GGH went off,it left Hemmings isolated up front.

Also thought it wid hae been great for morale if Calder had come on for Low,and given United something more tae worry aboot!

Thought Irvine coming on for Kerr wis unnessessary too.Infact he wis a bombscare waiting tae happen!

Always have thought the best form of defence is tae play in the opponents half.

If United had scored, ah wonder whit the comments wid hae been like ?

No meaning tae sound negative,but the last half hour wis torture tae watch.

This wis a chance tae go fir the jugular and they were doon tae 10 men!

[DundeeDaft]

I disagree with you about Thomson coming on for Harkins. I thought we were much more comfortable in midfield from then on. We did struggle to keep the ball up front but it was all about seeing the game out which we did well.

However, I agree with you about Gary Irvine. He should not have been brought on and certainly not put into the back 4 as he was a bombscare! Gave away a few dangerous freekicks for no reason!

Also yes if they score then you could question his subs but they didn't 😃

[JoeCovenant]

Hi,

happy ney year everyone.

Jist got a few thoughts on the subs in the derby.

Personally,i thought he weakened the team wi his subs!

Don,t know if he thought GGH wis getting tired but wis it  no a chance tae bring on Loy tae stop United pushing up the pitch and putting us under pressure.

When GGH went off,it left Hemmings isolated up front.

Also thought it wid hae been great for morale if Calder had come on for Low,and given United something more tae worry aboot!

Thought Irvine coming on for Kerr wis unnessessary too.Infact he wis a bombscare waiting tae happen!

Always have thought the best form of defence is tae play in the opponents half.

If United had scored, ah wonder whit the comments wid hae been like ?

No meaning tae sound negative,but the last half hour wis torture tae watch.

This wis a chance tae go fir the jugular and they were doon tae 10 men!

They were only down to ten men in the 82nd minute!  

[Pablothedee]

I see where your coming from Mainstand but it worked so I'm more than happy. At the time I was looking for Loy to come on for Hemmings instead of Irvine for Kerr just because Hemmings had out in a power of work and was tiring where Loy could stretch them with his pace again.

[Mr Gandosaur]

I thought his management of KT on Saturday was spot on tbh. Maybe not fit to start but having him on the bench to bring on if we were winning, knowing that United lack goal threat and that Demel was so knackered he could barely walk was huge for us seeing out the game in comfort. 

Irvine had a bit of a nightmare but I can see why the sub was made - a bit of experience to see out the last 15 minutes. Putting him and Mcginn out wide, and Low and Holt working together on the left really helped cut out the lack of balls into our box which was crucial as they had no penetration at all. The only way they were scoring was going to be by lumping it into our box and hoping something dropped for Mckay but we managed to limit the crosses especially in the 2nd half. We done a great job at cutting off his oxygen supply. 

Edited 4 January 2016 by Mr Gandosaur

[Ivan Drago]

I thought his management of KT on Saturday was spot on tbh. Maybe not fit to start but having him on the bench to bring on if we were winning, knowing that United lack goal threat and that Demel was so knackered he could barely walk was huge for us seeing out the game in comfort.

Irvine had a bit of a nightmare but I can see why the sub was made - a bit of experience to see out the last 15 minutes. Putting him and Mcginn out wide, and Low and Holt working together on the left really helped cut out the lack of balls into our box which was crucial as they had no penetration at all. The only way they were scoring was going to be by lumping it into our box and hoping something dropped for Mckay but we managed to limit the crosses especially in the 2nd half. We done a great job at cutting off his oxygen supply.

Tbh I didn't understand the Irvine sub. Kerr was still full of running and I actually thought it would have been more defensively minded to swap Hemmings for Loy as nothing was sticking as Kane had run his race by that time.

Minor gripes though and I think we have improved immensely by moving the ball forward more quickly

[Gedee]

Playing against 10 men, would affect manager's decision, as to who is going to bring on and what tactics to employ.

More so when there is only a goal in it. PH, and other managers have no always got this right, Sometimes deciding

to sit-in & hing on to what they've got. Other times, push up the field for the extra goal cushion. However he reached

his decision, it all worked out right in the end. To be honest they never looked like scoring. Pretty diabolical. DOON

[Frank Grimes]

I wasn't daft with the subs.

We were well on top when he took of Harkins for KT. That pretty much killed our attacking ambitions and there was still 20 to go. If Harkins was knackered I'd have rather brought Loy on and then KT for Hemmings in the last 5-10 if it was still 2-1.

The subs made us stronger defensively but meant that we had to defend for most of the last 20. And Gary Irvine needs to learn the phrase 'nae daft fouls'.

[Ludo*1]

I thought the substitution of KT for Harkins was an excellent one tactically. It was the right move for me, even if as a fan I'd have rather have seen us go for the jugular. Bringing KT on put us in complete control.

[Dark Blue Dee]

I agreed with the subs when Hartley made them, not so much when I saw what Gary Irvine had turned up lol. Bringing on an experienced defender for a raw one made sense on paper (although Kerr had played midfield), it's just unfortunate Irvine had us looking through our fingers on more than one occasion. KT for Harkins instantly made me feel more secure that the points were staying at dens. I was also not forgetting that we were 2-1 up the week before and completely collapsed to be beaten.......well we know how that turned out. All in all, I agreed with the safety first approach.

[barkblue]

I wasn't keen on the substitutions as they happened, I thought it gave out a "we've settled" message. However we actually looked more likely to hit them on the break and score another than we had with Harkins on.

As for Irvine's introduction, it seemed a little unnecessary, but Kerr was gubbed after the shift he'd put in, so can see why it happened. However I think it might have made more sense to have kept McGinn at FB and put Irvine in midfield. 

Hartley does seem to have a thing about us defending a lead. It's bit us a few times this season (Hamilton away being a prime example), but it worked a treat on Saturday and they never got a sniff once the changes had been made.

[Dark Blue Dee]

Yeah I get what your saying. If we were on a fine run of form then I'd be all for pushing for more goals but because we are so unpredictable, I think "settling" for the three points was the right way to go. I was 50/50 with Irvine coming on at right back or right mid but in hindsight right mid prob would have been for the best as he was a bit of a bombscare. I put it down to McGinn being better in attack, but then again, he's also better in defence lol