Why Rodgers ignored four subs with exhausted players in the sun

Leicester City failed to defeat Brentford in a 2-2 result at the King Power stadium. Brendan Rodgers has commented on his subs decisions during the tie.

Going 2-0 up before the 60th minute is a great place to be in. For any team, this usually means you can just see out the game, defend well, and come away with the points. For the King Power side, this was not the case.

Leicester City’s wayward decision

Rodgers made the decision to sub off goalscorer Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall for Zambian striker Patson Daka as ‘The Bees’ altered their shape and gameplan to try and get back into the fixture. This was the only substitution.

It would leave the midfield lacking in energy and creativity, and created a massive gap. There are multiple reasons: first, they had been working on a completely different shape in pre-season, so sans Harvey Barnes and the Foxes lacked an understanding of their system.

Further to this, ‘KDH’ has been an integral part of that midfield during the match and whole of pre-season. In removing him for a striker, the midfield stopped ticking as expected. It also left Wilfred Ndidi to be the only real ball-winning talent.

This is strange since the gaffer did have another four substitutions he could have called upon. Players such as Dennie Praet, Ayoze Perez, Papy Mendy, Caglar Soyuncu, Marc Albrighton, and Kelechi Iheanacho could have changed the shape and regained control of the match. The tactical shift was really strange.

Rodgers defends decision

As per LeicestershireLive, the Norther Irishman made interesting comments on his substitutions decision. We shall analyse what he has said and whether or not they are merely excuses or genuine.

"“We’re disappointed with the goals, the first one was a lack of concentration and organisation… it can change the momentum of the game, they can throw everything at it”"

Leicester could have performed better for both of Brentford’s goals. It is certainly not the case Rodgers had a terrible team on the pitch during that time. However, the shape and formation of the side was unexpected. They should have done better and he is right.

"“I did think about it (making more substitutions). Looking at the game… it was really a case that our back-line was in control for most of the game. With them putting the extra bodies up front, we stay on that and keep the numbers there.Wilf is very important for us defensively, he could have been crisper and clearer with the ball today but defensively he is important for us. Youri and James are experienced now and you are hoping they can manage the game while having that threat up front”"

The gaffer explains his reasoning for a lack of additional substitutions as simply this: we had a good team on the pitch. In essence, the most basic form of man management is to choose your best XI and just play those. Rodgers only hoped the Foxes could regain control.

This is where our head coach chose poorly. By simply deciding to look at the rest of the game, and say ‘well, we do not need to change’ is to ignore the elephant in the room. The Bees completely changed their shape. Thomas Frank changed their game, so we should have adapted ours. That is how you see out a game, you get ahead and then react to positive changes.

Rodgers looked at the players he had, and decided they were already the best available to gain control, and possible score another goal. Whereas Leicester could have done with a slightly different shape: wider, more dynamic, and a little more regressive with possession.

‘Ayo’, Praet, and Albrighton should have all come on. Switch to a front three, four in midfield, and three in defence. I would also have preferred seeing Caglar Soyuncu come on for the slow and tactically weak Daniel Amartey.