Lennon's Subs and Tactics

I think we have to question Lennon's substitutes and tactics in the last two Champions League games.


1. Against Milan away from home, we are 0-0 with ten minutes to go and he brings on attacking players

2. Against Barcelona at 0-0, down to ten men, and with half an hour to go, he brings on attacking players.


The Conventional Wisdom would go in those circumstances to tighten the game up, bring on defensive minded players, and try and see the game out. Bear in mind we have lost both of those games consequently, and Lennon's decisions at these critical stages in both these games, contributed to both defeats.

Analysis please

 

There was nothing wrong with the barca subs at all, he brought Forrest on so Matthews could drop back in to defence and brought kayal on for stokes to replace brown.

 

Maybe he was playing to win the games.....would hate celtic playing for draws.....that's the dead clubs way not ours.
Only problem i have with Lennon subs is bringing on a striker when we need a goal and doing it with 5/10 mins to go.
Should be doing it with 20/30 mins to go

 

There was opportunities to win both games..

If stokes' free kick was a few inches lower we'd have beaten Milan.

If Forrest had scored his volley I think we'd have beaten Barca.

Fine lines and on another day we could've won both games.

 

I dont believe it was the substitutions that were incorrect. Against Milan it was blatantly obvious that we were sitting off of them. We should have been more "in their faces" in the second half. We should have taken all 3pts from hat game.
The players looked like they didnt know whether to stick or twist.Sit back or go for it.

Against Barca we gave them way to much respect from the first whistle. They had nothing to offer up front for 65mins. Again we just sat back and watched them play pretty football around their back line and midfield.

2 golden opportunities missed to lay down a marker in the CL

The team played with no spark and no urgency in either game. We've gotta close teams down from the front and put them on the back foot.

And bench Commons, he's contributed nothing in either CL game. Would rather we had started with Puki and Stokes in both games.

 

I'm more bothered by some of his substitutions in domestic games than I am in European ones, he usual gets those pretty spot on.

 

He certainly can't be blamed for substitutions especially on Tuesday they were spot on..

Milan was one of those where we were that much on the front foot that we went for the win when looking back maybe we should have been abit more cautious in the last 15..
It didn't work out in the end because of bad luck not bad management..


That goes for both games

 

The only thing I'd criticize Lennon for is the timing of subs at times really. Bringing on a striker with 5 mins to go when it's clear we need new legs 20 mins before that. Apart from that I can't fault him.

 

I think his initial striker choice for Barcelona was wrong. Pukki would be better suited to situations where we see little of the ball, rather than Stokes.

 

Yes, Stokes had that ˝credit/prestige˝ of being proven, although Pukki has shown exceptional ability to make something out of nothing. The first thing he did after entering on San Siro was to win a foul through persistence. I remember him forcing a yellow card against some SPL team too, he simply charged bravely at someone and forced a foul. I feel we could've done with more set piece chances against Barcelona.

 

His substitutions were fine.

 

It's because we already had all our defenders on the pitch,Matthews and Mulgrew playing in midfield.It's normally like for like subs.

 

Totally agree

He admitted himself in the post-match interview the reasons on these subs and it was because he would rather go down fighting to try and get a 1-1 draw while risk losing 2-0 at the same time, than just sit back and play out for a 1-0 defeat.

Absolutely nothing wrong with his decisions in the Barcelona game.

Actually, I don't really disagree with the subs for the Milan game either. Boerrigter would have been a straight swap for Matthews on the right (unless he tweaked it by putting Commons on the right, Boerrigter on the left and Sammy up front with Stokes); Pukki then came on for Commons so we would have had two strikers up front them, and then Biton was a straight like-for-like swap with Mulgrew.

Lennon was obviously wanting to try and play attacking football and try and go for it, and for me it was working until their fluke of a first goal in the 82' minute (we'd had two subs by that time). I think that has to be admired because he went to make a game of it rather than just parking the bus.

I don't think there was anything wrong with his decision's for either match.

 

I rarely find myself frustrated with Neil Lennon's decision making. He seems to get it right 9 times out of 10.

 

Probably the only time Lenny's got it wrong in the CL was the home game against Juve. He's been spot on every other game we've played. That's actually pretty * impressive for such a young manager.

 

Kayal was a bad choice, but Lennon can't be blamed. Kayal has had more than enough chances now to step up.