In-game decisions: the impact of substitutions

[bosox4283]

I'm curious to know if there is any research or statistics about the use of substitutions in a match and how the use of the three subs increases (or not) the probability of winning. 
 
I thought of this question last night as Atletico lost 2-1 to Real Sociedad. Simeone used all three substitutions: he was forced to put on a left-back for a defensive midfielder after the starting left-back was sent off after two yellows; then, Simeone put on the other two substitutions in the 85th minute, effectively for garbage time. There is talent on the bench: Griezmann cost 30M euros this off-season, Cerci is talented, and Cebolla Rodriguez has pace and plays aggressively. 
 
I immediately complained about the lack of substitutions. But then I realized that I really have no idea what I'm talking about.
 
Intuitively, a manager can use substitutions to inject fresh legs into a match or to change strategies. Are there are statistics to support the idea that fresh legs or improved statistics lead to better outcomes?

 

[bosox4283]

This link looks at the substitutions made at half-time. 
http://www.optasportspro.com/fr/a-propos/blog-doptapro/posts/2014/blog-throwing-the-kitchen-sink-efficiency-of-half-time-substitutions.aspx
 
Here's a paper by some Spanish economists on this topic:
http://www.iseg.utl.pt/departamentos/economia/wp/wp0042007de.pdf

 

[cjdmadcow]

Like a lot of things in football - read 'most' - the use and success rate of substitutes is probably more anecdotal than statistical, though it's an interesting area and certainly merits discussion.
 
There are only 3 reasons WHY a substitution is made:
- a player is injured and cannot continue
- a player is playing so badly that a like-for-like change needs to be made whilst keeping to the original team formation
- the manager needs to make a tactical change to the team and formation - still with 11 players or maybe to change formation to allow for a sending-off
 
In reality, there is all of the above plus the additional use of what can euphemistically be called a 'tactical' substitution where the process itself is used as a method to break-up play, to waste time or to generally disrupt the opposition. There is no logical reason a sub is needed, but everyone knows that the 30 secs supposedly added onto time at the end is rarely done - certainly not while the referee is the arbiter of time.
 
I like seeing managers' think differently - in most games you can almost guarantee that the first change will come between the 55-65 minutes - though some have a penchant for using it as an opportunity to show how clever they think they are *cough cough...Jose*. Some players entire reputations have been built on being an impact player from the bench - David Fairclough at Liverpool in the 70's was a prime example - whilst others seem to consider it a demotion and have little effect when brought on.
 
Most professional teams now consider it to be a 14-man game and the timing and use of substitutions is an important skill for the manager to have. Is it possible that the successful use of subs is reflected in the overall success of their team? 
 
This is the sort of project that needs to be run from the start of a season so it would be difficult to do now, but some contemporary analysis of subs would be quite interesting.
 
Having said that, Sam Allardyce probably has all this on his laptop.

 

[Senator Donut]

I've been mildly intrigued by this topic ever since the Champions League Final. Simeone effectively gave away one of his three substitutions when he started an injured Diego Costa who was replaced in the ninth minute. Athletico led 1-0 after ninety minutes, but Real scored the final four goals of match. Although such a large disparity cannot only be attributed to having three fresh players instead of two, I have always wondered what impact it had.

The reason I'm bumping this thread is Simeone and Allegri did not use a single substitution during this afternoon's Champions League match. Any idea what the strategy behind that was? Obviously, both managers knew a 0-0 result would be a desireable outcome for each side.

 

[soxfan121]

I've been mildly intrigued by this topic ever since the Champions League Final. Simeone effectively gave away one of his three substitutions when he started an injured Diego Costa who was replaced in the ninth minute. Athletico led 1-0 after ninety minutes, but Real scored the final four goals of match. Although such a large disparity cannot only be attributed to having three fresh players instead of two, I have always wondered what impact it had.

The reason I'm bumping this thread is Simeone and Allegri did not use a single substitution during this afternoon's Champions League match. Any idea what the strategy behind that was? Obviously, both managers knew a 0-0 result would be a desireable outcome for each side.

 
Ye olde "let's just finish this 0-0" was in effect. A substitution by either would have signaled "game on". 

 

[Senator Donut]

 
Ye olde "let's just finish this 0-0" was in effect. A substitution by either would have signaled "game on". 

I'm not sure about that. 1-0 Juventus would have also won the group for Athletico, so I think the 0-0 result can be better attributed to Simeone parking the bus to assure Juventus didn't score twice. Juventus dominated possession, especially early in the match, although they were obviously content to play at a slow place and limit the scoring chances for both teams.

If anything, I'd expect time-wasting substitutions from both teams.

 

[soxfan121]

Why? If the "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" gentleman's agreement is in place, why would anyone waste time in a match that was already agreed to be 0-0? 
 
This happens all the time, though no one (Italian) would ever fix a match.

 

[Schnerres]

I agree, if both coaches thought their players don´t have any fitness trouble and will get through the match (which they usually do, because you can only change 30% of players in the outfield), it doesn´t make sense to make time-wasting changes, because a change does also add time and probably isn´t time-wasting in itself. It brings fresh guys and breaks the rhythm of the game and wastes a few seconds but not much, if at all (depending where the guy is and how slow he trots off).

Additionally, both coaches were probably happy about the result. Simeone had his result to win the group after defending like hell. Allegri had his result to make it to knockout stage, after dominating the game, but Atletico also hit the post. So both were kind of in danger of losing what they wanted to achieve and Atleti could have finished in 2nd place (and face the group winners in knockouts) and Juve were in danger of dropping out if they had lost (3-2 and 0-1 vs. Olympiacos would have dropped them behind them).