[Football] Why was Grealish subbed off after 20 odd minutes last night?

[Bry Nylon]

I know that there are plenty of people on here who are pretty adept at analysing games, understanding shapes, formations and tactics. I try to - but typically just end up getting lost in the ebb and flow of the game whilst the more technical and tactical aspects alude me.

So what was it that Southgate saw that led him to sub Grealish? Was it how he was playing / not playing or was it in response to a change by the Danes or to effect a tactical change of our own? I wish I'd paid more attention but would be grateful to read some analysis of what led to the decision.

 

[Biscuit]

Just tactical wasn't it?

Allowed us to play a flat back four, put Kane in midfield and use Sterling/Foden to provide a threat on the counter.

Grealish was on to help England get the goal, he did that, and it was time to come off.

 

[Mellotron]

I think it’s that he doesn’t press very hard, and Southgate likes to control games as much as possible. Another reason he’s more used in short bursts to ask different questions of a defence.

The Athletic have a decent article that backs this up with some stats. Also it was always going to be one of the front 3, and Sterling and Kane were both hard to take off at that moment.

 

[Icy Gull]

Tighten up the defence and go Hughtonesque with some very adept “keep the ball” tactics. I was shocked but tactically perfect

 

[KZNSeagull]

His Alice Band snapped

 

[AmexRuislip]

I know that there are plenty of people on here who are pretty adept at analysing games, understanding shapes, formations and tactics. I try to - but typically just end up getting lost in the ebb and flow of the game whilst the more technical and tactical aspects alude me.

So what was it that Southgate saw that led him to sub Grealish? Was it how he was playing / not playing or was it in response to a change by the Danes or to effect a tactical change of our own? I wish I'd paid more attention but would be grateful to read some analysis of what led to the decision.

I haven't stopped laughing when you said
'I know that there are plenty of people on here who are pretty adept at analysing games'

 

[Bakero]

We changed to a back 3 and an attacker needed to be sacrificed.

 

[Poojah]

We needed to score a goal and put him on to offer a greater / different attacking threat.

Then we scored, at which pointed we wanted to switch to a more defensive shape with more defensive personnel, which if there’s any flaw to Grealish’s game, it’s probably that aspect.

Was it more technically complex than that? I’m not sure, but that’s how I saw it.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Villa fan rang into Talksport last night having a right go at Southgate …would have rather we lost than have Grealish subbed

Tighten up defence ..we still had Foden..Sterling and Kane as a thread

 

[LamieRobertson]

I haven't stopped laughing when you said
'I know that there are plenty of people on here who are pretty adept at analysing games'

I’m sure he was referring to your good self

 

[Icy Gull]

Villa fan rang into Talksport last night having a right go at Southgate …would have rather we lost than have Grealish subbed

Tighten up defence ..we still had Foden..Sterling and Kane as a thread

Was is Crodo’s Villa friend? Sounds about right from what Crodo has imparted of his opinions

 

[AmexRuislip]

I’m sure he was referring to your good self

I owe all my knowledge to your teachings sensei

 

[peterward]

I know that there are plenty of people on here who are pretty adept at analysing games, understanding shapes, formations and tactics. I try to - but typically just end up getting lost in the ebb and flow of the game whilst the more technical and tactical aspects alude me.

So what was it that Southgate saw that led him to sub Grealish? Was it how he was playing / not playing or was it in response to a change by the Danes or to effect a tactical change of our own? I wish I'd paid more attention but would be grateful to read some analysis of what led to the decision.

Southgate said in an article why he did it........ When Denmark go behind they often push 4 attackers up top and lob balls in, so he wanted the extra defender and to effectively have a back 5 when Denmark attack.

 

[B-right-on]

Very good game management imo, take off an attacker, bring on a defender and see the game out.

Astute and spot on

 

[Machiavelli]

I think it’s that he doesn’t press very hard, and Southgate likes to control games as much as possible. Another reason he’s more used in short bursts to ask different questions of a defence.

The Athletic have a decent article that backs this up with some stats. Also it was always going to be one of the front 3, and Sterling and Kane were both hard to take off at that moment.

Yes, this.
-- Grealish doesn't press hard, if you watch him it's very obvious ...
-- ... I also suspect that he's carrying an injury and it's being managed
-- Grealish is also most useful when defences are sitting deep, as he's as good as they get at disrupting it with his brilliant dribbling skills -- and these skills were no longer needed
-- Southgate (and Holland, who was very prominent in tactical changes yesterday) wanted to move to a back 3 or, probably more accurately, 5
-- as others have helpfully said, Kane was also brought deeper allowing the swifter and fitter Foden and Sterling to attack the wide open spaces in their channels

 

[LamieRobertson]

Was is Crodo’s Villa friend? Sounds about right from what Crodo has imparted of his opinions

Lol..I’m not sure, but he was an annoying dickhead and fortunately not given too much airtime

 

[dazzer6666]

Southgate was interviewed by Talksport and said :

He explained: “Jack’s probably the least defensive minded of players there. You can’t take Kalvin Phillips off.”

And Southgate praised Grealish’s impact when he spoke to talkSPORT after the historic game, which saw England reach a first major final since 1966.

Jack had a brilliant influence on the game,” he said.

Denmark threw four forwards forward and we needed five [defenders] back.

“Raheem [Sterling] was such a threat that it was either going to be Phil [Foden] or Jack to get the solidity without the ball.

“We still needed to get that pressure up the pitch. We sank a little bit too deep for five minutes or so.

“We just needed to keep the ball and it took us five minutes to work that out. When we started to keep it, we were running the clock down with a lot less anxiety.”

Grealish did not appear to be too affected by getting the hook, though.

As Southgate tried to explain the decision to him afterwards, the Independent reports that Grealish responded: “Gaffer, it doesn’t matter. I’m not bothered. We’ve got to the final!”

 

[LamieRobertson]

Southgate was interviewed by Talksport and said :

He explained: “Jack’s probably the least defensive minded of players there. You can’t take Kalvin Phillips off.”

And Southgate praised Grealish’s impact when he spoke to talkSPORT after the historic game, which saw England reach a first major final since 1966.

Jack had a brilliant influence on the game,” he said.

Denmark threw four forwards forward and we needed five [defenders] back.

“Raheem [Sterling] was such a threat that it was either going to be Phil [Foden] or Jack to get the solidity without the ball.

“We still needed to get that pressure up the pitch. We sank a little bit too deep for five minutes or so.

“We just needed to keep the ball and it took us five minutes to work that out. When we started to keep it, we were running the clock down with a lot less anxiety.”

Grealish did not appear to be too affected by getting the hook, though.

As Southgate tried to explain the decision to him afterwards, the Independent reports that Grealish responded: “Gaffer, it doesn’t matter. I’m not bothered. We’ve got to the final!”

That last bit epitomises what seems to be a great team spirit ….which come August will revert to kicking lumps out of each other

 

[Sorrel]

It's a consequence of being allowed six substitutes (including extra time). You can do that kind of thing - a small way towards the American Football offence/defence players.

You can't blame the manager from taking advantage of the rules.

 

[CAPTAIN GREALISH]

I know that there are plenty of people on here who are pretty adept at analysing games, understanding shapes, formations and tactics. I try to - but typically just end up getting lost in the ebb and flow of the game whilst the more technical and tactical aspects alude me.

So what was it that Southgate saw that led him to sub Grealish? Was it how he was playing / not playing or was it in response to a change by the Danes or to effect a tactical change of our own? I wish I'd paid more attention but would be grateful to read some analysis of what led to the decision.

Really not difficult ??