Phillip Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Sheva came on late in the game, as our third substitute. When the extra time started, we had used our second substitute, bringing in Nico Anelka. After sleeping on it, I was thinking whether or not Avram was saving that third substitute to bring on Carlo to take the penalities, if there was no scoring in extra time? If so, it probably was a very wise move by Avram to keep that ace in his hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azz Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 It was definatley a god move to leave a sub till the end. However during Shevas substitution Babel scored and I think that Grant had to go through with the substitution. Anyway Sheva did well in taking the ball to the corner flag a few times. What odds on him scoring the winner in Moscow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted May 1, 2008 Author Share Posted May 1, 2008 Oh, once we scored in extra time, there was no possibility of "going to penalities", since away goals count double. I was happy to see Sheva get a few minutes out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 grant is a god. jose who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjd Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 Never. There is no way Carlo wouldve come on for Cech. Granted Carlo has a good record with pens but it wouldve been such a diss towards Cech. Sorry, i dont buy it one bit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loz Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 I'm not so sure BJD - in extra time of the League Cup final before Spurs scored Carlo was sent out to warm up which suggests to me it was being considered as a possible tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted May 1, 2008 Author Share Posted May 1, 2008 I was just exploring it as a possibility -- I have no idea if that was what Grant had in mind, but I give him credit if he was thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backbiter Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 If he was thinking about it implies he hasn't a clue how the away goals rule works, so I think you'd be giving him zero credit by suggesting that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phillip Posted May 1, 2008 Author Share Posted May 1, 2008 No, I was saying at the start of extra time, when Anelka came on, he still had one more sub to make, and he kept it in his pocket. Once we scored, that change keepers option no longer applied, but it did apply at the 91st minute up to when we scored the second goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icecoolguy22 Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 I thought it was a good sub at the time. The obvious choice in that situation would be a midfielder like Mikel or a defender such as Alex. However that will make us play even deeper, and long punts downfield as the only way out of trouble for the final few minutes. With Sheva on the field, we made their defenders track back, and additonal outlet to run the ball out of our half. I wouldnt call Grant a genius for doing it, but it beat putting Alex on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT26CFC Posted May 1, 2008 Share Posted May 1, 2008 yeah but he took kalou off, and if anything essien would move up to kalou's spot(or someone else w/e) but then who would play RB, carvahlo, alex himself? good substitution, we already had the game won so it didn't matter who came on at that moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youlots Posted May 2, 2008 Share Posted May 2, 2008 I too thought it was a good sub from the Panda and psychologically the right one as well. I mean if we'd put on another defender for example to stop them getting what would have been the critical/disastrous 3rd away goal it would've have just steeled the filth to really go for it by letting them think we we're just going to sit back and defend. By putting on Shev I think the Panda was trying to telegraph to the filth and Benitez that we were just going to keep attacking anyway and go for the 4th goal because we had them where we wanted them. And given Shev's great defensive play on the goalline the other day against Manure and he's ability as far as penalties are concerned it made sense for other reasons as well. So well done Panda! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballack13 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 I was just exploring it as a possibility -- I have no idea if that was what Grant had in mind, but I give him credit if he was thinking about it. Sometimes i don't know what goes through that mans head either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Sun Tzu Posted May 15, 2008 Share Posted May 15, 2008 I was just exploring it as a possibility -- I have no idea if that was what Grant had in mind, but I give him credit if he was thinking about it. Sometimes i don't know what goes through that mans head either It is likely that he has been told by Roman to make sure Sheva gets on the pitch so that should we win that particular trophy he will be eligible for a medal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts