What are subsitutions really for?

Having watched the England France match, the thought came to my mind as the game slipped away from France. Do coaches really know how to utilise a bench?

PSA made the call that Parra was missing vital kicks at goal and brought on Michalak. Problem was Parra and Trinh-Duc were playing well and France looked good with that combination. Michalak scored a penalty goal but threw some shocking passes and took some poor options. Similarly the scrum was going really well with Mas and then PSA rang the changes up front and the French ascendancy in the scrum was lost.

Now you could argue this was because the English changes helped England more or that hindsight is a wonderful thing. But too often I feel if a side is doing well, I don't see the reason for making changes just for the sake of making changes. If your side is struggling or a player like Farrell is injured then by all means make the change. If your team is behind on the scoreboard and you feel a certain player would add some value to the team in a certain area then by all means make the changes.

Robbie Deans has often been criticised for not using his bench when the side is behind. Part of that criticism comes from selections in the first place and part of it stems from the final score. But I think in many instances that misuse or lack of use of the bench has been justified. For years we had two halfbacks more or less taking a half each in the ABs but that in part has a lot to do with for years we had to contend with Cowan and Weepu who weren't good enough to last a whole game. But it's crept into Steve Hansen's thinking as well with Piri Weepu coming on for Aaron Smith. Aaron Smith has yet to convince in the AB shirt on a consistent basis and TJ Perenara will hopefully be added to the mix but why should halfback be so many times singled out in the backs as the need for a change? I can understand the props and the hooker or second or back row as they are making a lot more tackles and are expending a lot of energy in the scrums and lineouts. But Saturday was a prime example where PSA could have held off those substitutions in the pack a bit longer because France looked to be dominating in that area.

Generally we have four reserves in the forwards covering prop, hooker, lock and the backrow though Courney Lawes was covering lock in the squad which is considered a gamble when a player is covering a position on the park instead of on the bench. Halfback and flyhalf get covered in the backs and then one more utility back position either for the centres or the back three. Are they covering injury or are they there for defence or for attack? Or is it player management or developing a new player? Or all of the above? It depends on the players coming on and it depends on the coach and how they're reading the game.

Why do I get the impression though that some coaches look at the clock at 60 minutes and feel it's time to empty the bench because they'll be criticised if they don't? We can all recognise that the bench is there for injury cover. A fresh set of legs can be an advantage sometimes but too often after wholesale changes, I see continuity go and team cohesion breaks down. Can that ineffectiveness be avoided?

for finding the soap in the tubs after the game...

That's why Ronan O'Gara is walking like that today...

Substitutions are either driven by change on the pitch (e.g. guys getting knackered/ injured/ just playing awful) or the desire to instigate change.

For England the dynamism in the second half from Vunipola and especially Youngs was quite something. I dont think they would have been as effective if on from the start

Kia

It's interesting that Lancaster didn't empty the bench - made 3 changes in the pack quite early (iirc, was just after 50 minutes), with Haskell and Youngs in particular really freshening things up, then Care for B Youngs (who had taken a bang on the hand, although I think it was really a planned substitution) and Flood for the injured Farrell. No game time for Wilson (who is clearly seen as an injury replacement only), Waldrom (a bit the same) and 36 (not his type of match).

So England's limited number of substitutions really worked well, while France's emptying the bench was a negative - weakened at halfback and front row with the replacements.

Sibstitutions are a key part of the game - However they should strengthen your position of course. PSA took off his most effective players and replaced them with dross across the park - It was painful with even the english commentators asking what is going on - I almost felt for OGara when he came on against Scotland (almost) Too much changing for changing sake, even Wales emptied the bench with 10-15 mins to play when I would have preferred it if we just kept our shape etc. The game then just degenerated.

I liked the post so much I copied it twice, or maybe I've just brought a replacement on just in case

Sorry Guby but the changes have been pretty disastrous so far

Unless your team is well ahead and you start thinking about next week and resting your key players, then emptying the bench and potentially having almost half your team replaced is invariably going to be to the detriment of your team's performance, at least in cohesion.

I agree dummy SL's choices were much more astute and keeping certain players on the bench was a good move. Keeping a player on is sometimes much better than adding a fresh pair of legs.

England put themselves in an awkward position with Lawes. It was obvious that he was out of position and that the French had seen this and targeted him. However, he was also cover for the 2nd row, and if he was substituted and then an injury occured to one of the locks then the whole game might have changed. I don't think we'll see this mistake again.

As for Parra, this was madness. It was said that they wanted kicking cover as he had missed two either side of half time. However, the first kick was out of his normal range (a true punt to nothing); the second was a kick he shoudl have got. So the Trinh-Duc substitution was made on the back of one bad kick (by Parra). This really is muddled thinking.

Yep vs Ireland Youngs was doing so well in the conditions there was no point in putting Care on and SL didnt.

@sneaky I wonder if things were also driven by frustration. France had the edge (however slight) throughout the first half but only led by a single point, and that was down to the kind of individual brilliance/dumb defending you cant plan for/expect.

When things keep on going the same way, only with that small edge beginning to recede if anything, all the coach can do other than shout is to make the substitution. In other words PSA blinked - and potentially blinked too early.

The closeness of the score had nothing to do with the performance or energy of the players. Both sides were guilty of giving away silly penalties whenever they got an advantage. You can make substitutions for that sometimes but PSA could've taken his pick of ill-disciplined players to take off for that reason.

It seemed harsh on Parra as finally the French halves were looking composed and the backline looked threatening for once this 6N with players in their correct positions.

SneakySideStep wrote:England put themselves in an awkward position with Lawes. It was obvious that he was out of position and that the French had seen this and targeted him. However, he was also cover for the 2nd row, and if he was substituted and then an injury occured to one of the locks then the whole game might have changed. I don't think we'll see this mistake again.

As for Parra, this was madness. It was said that they wanted kicking cover as he had missed two either side of half time. However, the first kick was out of his normal range (a true punt to nothing); the second was a kick he shoudl have got. So the Trinh-Duc substitution was made on the back of one bad kick (by Parra). This really is muddled thinking.

Against Ireland we ended up with Haskell in the 2nd row and Waldrom at 8 (after Lawes crocked himself as the 2nd row sub), so there is a contingency. Agree though that we won't see Lawes starting at 6 again for quite some time (ever?)

Your assessment of Parra is spot on - the kick in the first half was a bit of a 'shot to nothing', as it was beyond his normal scope, so only the second one was a poor miss: was at least an 8/10 kick for an international kicker, he just made a bad strike - it happens, even Farrell made an iffy kick on the touch-line conversion. Certainly not enough to justify taking off FT-D, who was causing us problems in midfield (a couple of fantastic little chip kicks in the first half, plus controlling the game fairly well), especially as Michalak is a bit of a flaky goal kicker (to go with being a generally flaky player).

lostinwales: I'm sure frustration had a lot to do with it, but it was misplaced in being centred on Parra. Yep he missed 6 possible points, but in reality half of those were beyond him. They needed to look at the silly penalties they gave away in rucks for why the scoreline remained close. Also Joubert's refereeing of the scrums didn't give France the dominance they deserved.

France always change their front row at around the 60th minute mark anyway and most of the time it's effective (note that clermont and toulouse do as well): this time it wasnt effective because the english subs were better, full stop..
the parra change that also forced trinh duc out was a bad gamble. he could have put michalak at 9 and keep TD, he would have been less of a nuisance there. TD missed 2 passes in 1 hour while Michalak missed 4 in less than 20 minutes, says it all. the worst thing is PSA already told he will keep him in his 23 men squad...

I tend to think that substitutions say a lot about gamemanagement nour from the coahing set up.

You can't judge coaches by one game, because anyone who coaches knows that sometimes you go 3/4/5 games in a row without getting the chance to impliment your sub strategy, due to injuries, players tiring, game focus etc...

At the higher levels these strategies are so much more immportant however, and certain poor coaches have a tendancy to think 60 mins should mean changes, or that players who have certain fitness reputations can only last 10 mins after half time etc

I prefer to have signs given by players when they are starting to struggle, they make the sign and I can dictate wether they need replacing or not.

For me the best teams don't necesarily mean starting your best 15, sometimes certain players just run absolute ragged off the bench, and the best coaches use their bench in a very clever way, proved by Holwer doing the old 'Games won everyone get on the pitch and have a jog about' garbage!!!

I think as well as having a strong bench, England have been using it really well in general. Almost every player coming on has made a positive impact and there's certainly no worry about a downturn in performance. England are finishing strongly at the moment and it makes it less worrisome if they're behind on 50-60 minutes.

bluesman, I'm not sure there are many players who would give a 'sign' that they're knackered. Injured, yes, but I can't imagine many would admit to being tired and needing to come off.

You'd be surprised Cyril, some players would never consider giving the signal, others give it 5 minutes into the 2nd half when theyve had enough, although I can concede there wouldn't be any professional players willing to do so.

According to the papers Parra had taken a knock which affected his kicking so Mickalak came on for kicks at goal but with hindsight he should have gone to SH. I think globally the French fitness isn't up to England's level and they would have lost regardless of the substitutions.The English bench substitutions made England stronger Vanapula,Young Haskell,Care and Flood all improved the team

I always thought the point of substitutions was to stop Wasps going uncontested in the scrum?

Metal Tiger wrote:I always thought the point of substitutions was to stop Wasps going uncontested in the scrum?

Sorry... just had a flashback to the old days.

It was interesting listening to Kingsley jones on Scrum V last night. He is a close friend of St Andre and he did to a degree try to defend him by saying that if you pick players on the bench then you have to have faith in them and that they are good enough to come on.

Unfortunately it looked like he got that call wrong as they weren't. He also mentioned that when he has spoken to St Andre then he (st Andre) has criticised the French league for me to power orientated and not producing the finnesse and fitness levels required for the top level.

Another reason players might be swapped after 60mins is by a pre-planned rotation where they were told to expect that. "Do your utmost for 60 minutes cos your definitely coming off then" kind of thing. That in itself is a good tactical approach- some players dont need to perform for the full 80. Lets say you have a prop and a hooker who know 100% theyre coming off in 10 minutes up against a prop who, as far as he knows, is there for the next 30.

I'd say there'd be a huge difference in effort in effort in that 10 minutes. Theyd want to stuff the front row up before they left for the incoming replacements to finish off.

Its a risk in that it assumes you know your players well enough to trust that process regardless of the score. With the tight five you could probably assume a fair bit though, especially if you have good replacements. Thats why the Mealamu Hore tag team works well- you get more out of two than one.