The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

I didn't understand the need to bring Alfie on when we did. Give the lad a proper rest and bring Lance on. Was no need to use Alfie at all. We could have played until 11pm tomorrow night and Desborough wouldn't have scored.

Anyway, we won the game and that's the main thing. ;)

Watch the highlights for Starm's reasoning behind the formation switch.

a solid 2.0 win I thought, thought we defended well as a team all game, tonight's game is the sort of game where we have to be solid and dig in and get the win

3 points + Clean sheet

Well done lads in tricky conditions

On Twitter I get the feeling lance ain't happy.

The commentary made a valid point that it's rather stupid to just bring a player on for 30 seconds at the end of a match, especially since Lance could've just been brought on when the other sub was made 5 minutes earlier.

I have never really liked the idea of bringing a sub on with just seconds to go. I think it goes against the spirit of why subs were allowed in the first place, all those years ago.
For those too young to remember it was for injury reasons only but as ever it has been manipulated over the years into gamesmanship, which itself is a euphemism for cheating.

The squad is going to be very important over the next couple of months and I am sure Starms will rotate his squad. We were saying last night on the commentary that we have a very versatile squad and each individual brings something different to the team. As examples, Wisnieski, Liburd and Gearing, three quite different players.
Alfie can play on the wing or off Dunks (some of his best play is down the right).
The only player that is irreplaceable is Dunks. having said that Lance Allen always looks likely to score when he comes on. I am sure he will get more game time in the next few weeks.

Whatever you might think about King he is quite different to Sean and Brad, and tries to bring some originality to the team., and we always have the ever reliable Jake Gillingwater who always plays with passion wherever he is positioned (even reserve keeper if required).

Our two most consistent players are Joe and Sam but they need a rest as well sometimes.

The central defenders are interchangeable as has been shown in recent games.
Which only leaves Tom Cross, who has been virtually redundant in the past week!!

sussexdiamond wrote:I have never really liked the idea of bringing a sub on with just seconds to go. I think it goes against the spirit of why subs were allowed in the first place, all those years ago.
For those too young to remember it was for injury reasons only but as ever it has been manipulated over the years into gamesmanship, which itself is a euphemism for cheating.

The squad is going to be very important over the next couple of months and I am sure Starms will rotate his squad. We were saying last night on the commentary that we have a very versatile squad and each individual brings something different to the team. As examples, Wisnieski, Liburd and Gearing, three quite different players.
Alfie can play on the wing or off Dunks (some of his best play is down the right).
The only player that is irreplaceable is Dunks. having said that Lance Allen always looks likely to score when he comes on. I am sure he will get more game time in the next few weeks.

Whatever you might think about King he is quite different to Sean and Brad, and tries to bring some originality to the team., and we always have the ever reliable Jake Gillingwater who always plays with passion wherever he is positioned (even reserve keeper if required).

Our two most consistent players are Joe and Sam but they need a rest as well sometimes.

The central defenders are interchangeable as has been shown in recent games.
Which only leaves Tom Cross, who has been virtually redundant in the past week!!

I tend to agree. I can only think it was a case of taking Dunkley off, with the game won, to avoid risk of an injury-time injury for him, as there was no need to "kill time" or "kill the game" given the lead we had. I suppose it might have been so he could get the applause of the crowd for his performance and the two assists.

Even where a team has only a narrow lead, I'm not convinced the late substitution is a good thing, as often the refs will just play more added time.

The confusing aspect of the team selection is based around the missed opportunities when we can experiment with formation, players, partnerships etc. When we played Woodford, it was almost a guaranteed win for us from the day the draw was made. I intend no disrespect to Woodford, but, we are a better team. The managers had a great opportunity to use players in this match to try out a couple of things and to use players who need more minutes on the pitch and to raise their match fitness levels. Lance should have started up front, with Alfie, to see how it works and let them gel together. If Dunks gets injured or is not available, we have no tried and tested alternative. Wizz should have been started on the wing, but he was not around. Whybrow should have made his debut in goal from the start. It is these confusing decisions that cause a few concerns, because when an opportunity is presented to the managers to use 'unplayed' players, what is the use of giving them minimal time and we saw again last night, 1 or 2 minutes is pretty much demoralising to anyone. I would like to see more of Lance, Wizz and Sean..

FOOTYMAN wrote:The confusing aspect of the team selection is based around the missed opportunities when we can experiment with formation, players, partnerships etc. When we played Woodford, it was almost a guaranteed win for us from the day the draw was made. I intend no disrespect to Woodford, but, we are a better team. The managers had a great opportunity to use players in this match to try out a couple of things and to use players who need more minutes on the pitch and to raise their match fitness levels. Lance should have started up front, with Alfie, to see how it works and let them gel together. If Dunks gets injured or is not available, we have no tried and tested alternative. Wizz should have been started on the wing, but he was not around. Whybrow should have made his debut in goal from the start. It is these confusing decisions that cause a few concerns, because when an opportunity is presented to the managers to use 'unplayed' players, what is the use of giving them minimal time and we saw again last night, 1 or 2 minutes is pretty much demoralising to anyone. I would like to see more of Lance, Wizz and Sean..

Agree with all of the above.

I agree that it is a nonsense to bring on Alfie and Lance with just a few minutes to play. If Alfie was 'rested' then what was the point in bringing on Alfie in the 85th minute to risk potential injury?
I accept that managers like to use a late substitution(s) perhaps to run the clock down or protect a narrow lead but that was not the case last evening. Do our players actually need to be on the pitch to be paid their win appearance fee?