Of all the games to blame on late subs, this one makes the least sense.
The team is in a month long slump where only one player has scored.
We gave up 2 goals by minute 32 due to a patched together back line and had no defensive depth. I don't think anyone believes we should have made subs before we gave up those goals and once we did, we had, at best probably a 10-20% chance of winning given how little we score lately no matter how, when, or who Ronnie subs. I mean, sure, I could maybe get behind making a couple of subs at halftime to shake things up. Why not? But it's not a freaking cure-all and it sure as hell ain't the reason we lost. In any given game he players who start are generally the best ones available for that game and the earlier you sub them out the less they play. It's not some miraculous cure-all. But when your favorite tool is complaining about late subs I guess everything looks like a nail, or something.
Five people complained about late subs in this game. This game. Five.* In a game where the late sub complaint probably was less relevant than in any game this season. The forum makes the same damn complaints every game regardless of what actually happened. But "late subs" is this year's model, so have at it, I guess.
* There was one on an earlier page I didn't include on my previous post.
I appreciate the work on providing objective analysis regarding substitutions and timing. It does have me revisiting my position that Deila is too slow to make changes.
That noted - with acknowledgment as to it being subjective - my frustration with substitutions this year, as opposed to previous years, is threefold:
1) The schedule seems to be more congested this year. If so, it follows that the need for rotation is more important.
2) The team has more depth, especially on attack, this season. Substitutions are only good if there will be improvement, and there are more options for improvement with this squad’s depth. In past years, was bringing on Berget worth it?
3) Related to the above, the difference in ability between attackers is less pronounced. With Villa or Harrison there was less impetus to substitute when games were tight since 65% Villa was still better than 100% Mendoza. This year, however, there are games when it is clear Medina doesn’t have it and there is a faster Thiago or stronger Magno available to change an approach without loss of quality.
Beyond the above, and accepting my inherent bias, I believe earlier substitutions against Nashville - down 2 goals against a team missing its best defender - was worth the roll of the dice. Against Columbus earlier this year, with a gassed Gudi and Jasson (!) at fullback/wingback, I believe earlier substitutions would’ve prevented tired fouls leading to Zelarayan free kicks. The list goes on, but at some point when I smell smoke, I’m looking for a fire.