Regarding substitutions

by kurrelurisen45g, Jan 18, 2023

Hi!

I'm just curious to know how often do you make substitutions? I.E do you make all the subs at the same time or none at all?

I often sub like three at the same time arround 60th minute or so (unless ive got injuries before that). I usually save one sub in case i got at red om injuries later on.

0

Usually, I play in EPL so 5 substitutions is allowed there.

I make 4 subs around 60-65 minutes and I also save one sub un case or red or injury.

1

personally i am getting rid of tired players as soon as i can... becouse it effects players performance alot in this years ME. so player tiredness dictates substitutes all the time. And other thing in Evidence based football tests he finds that if you sub-in player after 70th minute it will slow down his potential growth... so i am trying not to sub young players after 70th minute.

1

In general I sub 1-3 players around 60 mins and then all the rest until 70th minute. Players don't get rating if they are subbed on after 75th and I think it's the same for expected playing time.

I don't save any for cases of injuries unless it's an important cup game or last couple of league games. I've played at least 10 seasons so far, the number of times I lost a player due to injury is 2 or 3. I do have to mention though that I'm very aggressive in keeping the guys fit. Anyone carrying an orange injury isn't selected in the team or is subbed off as soon as I notice it. I also don't play anyone that is "tired" before the game even though it shows nearly full fitness. Plus most of the subs I make are for fitness reasons - whoever is red on fitness at 60th and then 70th minute.

0

Usually I sub any player performing badly (6.3 or less). Then, if anyone is tired or has a yellow card, I give it some thought about changes. I try to make 3-4 changes at half time, and save at least one just in case of injuries.

0

ZaZ said: Usually I sub any player performing badly (6.3 or less). Then, if anyone is tired or has a yellow card, I give it some thought about changes. I try to make 3-4 changes at half time, and save at least one just in case of injuries.

Poor performance in the past doesn't mean a poor performance in the future.

I've seen many times how a poor performer in the 1st time becomes the man of the match in the 2nd half.

Also, how ratings works in the game is a joke. Looking at the rating you really can't say for sure whether the player is doing well or not.

That's why I always prefer subbing players exclusively on their Conditions because the Conditions level makes a huge difference - https://fm-arena.com/table/20-condition-morale-testing/

1

Poacher said: Poor performance in the past doesn't mean a poor performance in the future.

I've seen many times how a poor performer in the 1st time becomes the man of the match in the 2nd half.

Also, how ratings works in the game is a joke. Looking at the rating you really can't say for sure whether the player is doing well or not.

That's why I always prefer subbing players exclusively on their Conditions because the Conditions level makes a huge difference - https://fm-arena.com/table/20-condition-morale-testing/


Poor performance is a good indicator that players got a bad roll for consistency. They can obviously recover with a goal or some good moves, but I would rather switch then for someone with a possible better roll than keep then at the risk of having them in a bad day.

0

ZaZ said: Poor performance is a good indicator that players got a bad roll for consistency. They can obviously recover with a goal or some good moves, but I would rather switch then for someone with a possible better roll than keep then at the risk of having them in a bad day.

Nahh, I don't think it's about the consistency roll.

I've seen many times how 2-3 players had 5.8-6.0 ratings in the 1st half and then 7.5-8.0 ratings in the 2nd half.

It's just players might have a very bad RNG for their actions in the 1st half but in the 2nd half they might a very good RNG for their actions.

We all know even with a very good tactic sometime you can hit a bad run ( few loses/draws in a row ) but we don't change our tactic after that because we know it's good and it was just bad luck that happens. The same goes for the players in a match, they might have periods when they have bad RNG for their action but it won't last forever and as I said if a player did poorly in 1st half then he might do great in the 2nd half and subbing him you just take away his opportunity for a good RNG.

That's my philosophy. :)

1

Poacher said: Nahh, I don't think it's about the consistency roll.

I've seen many times how 2-3 players had 5.8-6.0 ratings in the 1st half and then 7.5-8.0 ratings in the 2nd half.

It's just players might have a very bad RNG for their actions in the 1st half but in the 2nd half they might a very good RNG for their actions.

We all know even with a very good tactic sometime you can hit a bad run ( few loses/draws in a row ) but we don't change our tactic after that because we know it's good and it was just bad luck that happens. The same goes for the players in a match, they might have periods when they have bad RNG for their action but it won't last forever and as I said if a player did poorly in 1st half then he might do great in the 2nd half and subbing him you just take away his opportunity for a good RNG.

That's my philosophy. :)


It might be a good way to end a run of bad results. Hard to know what is more efficient during a season.

0

I make 2 subs in the 55th min, 2 in the 65th and depending on risk or score, i make the final sub in the 75th-80th min. Subbing tired players usually.

0

ZaZ said: It might be a good way to end a run of bad results. Hard to know what is more efficient during a season.

I guess that's why people test tactics for thousands matches here to find out what is more efficient and not be distracted when a bad run happens in their saves

There's even an official hint in the game:

"Constantly changing your tactic and making dramatic alterations to the style of play will not help your players settle or find their rhythm and is likely to have an adverse affect on the team's performances."

Probably, by putting that hint into the game SI was trying to say that s*hit happens don't rush to change your tactic because it might be a very good tactic but bad runs happen and changing your tactic might do even worse.

I guess same goes for the players, if a player did poorly in 1st half then he might do great the 2nd half, I've seen that many times.

0

Poacher said: Nahh, I don't think it's about the consistency roll.

I've seen many times how 2-3 players had 5.8-6.0 ratings in the 1st half and then 7.5-8.0 ratings in the 2nd half.

It's just players might have a very bad RNG for their actions in the 1st half but in the 2nd half they might a very good RNG for their actions.

We all know even with a very good tactic sometime you can hit a bad run ( few loses/draws in a row ) but we don't change our tactic after that because we know it's good and it was just bad luck that happens. The same goes for the players in a match, they might have periods when they have bad RNG for their action but it won't last forever and as I said if a player did poorly in 1st half then he might do great in the 2nd half and subbing him you just take away his opportunity for a good RNG.

That's my philosophy. :)


8 times out of 10 the player that had a bad 1st half won't be that much better in 2nd. Even though I agree ratings can be kind of a joke sometimes.

0
Create an account or log in to leave a comment