Hard to Argue with the Subs Decision

To be fair, you can see why people are irritated — the game felt flat and neither side offered much. They had Aurojo, Trusty and Scales standing out, and Hatate looked uncomfortable but effective in that different role. That left the match feeling like a low-quality draw, and composure from the spot made the difference when it mattered.

Why the subs weren’t outrageous

Looking at the changes, I don’t think they were crazy. Diomande had been booked and looked off the pace, so taking him off made sense. Chukwuani came on and did a job; he injected a bit of movement when we needed it. Rommens and Sterling were clearly spent — sometimes you’ve got to accept legs are gone and switch them before they become a liability.

Who else could have gone on?

There weren’t many obvious alternatives. You mention Aasgaard and Miovski not used — and I get the frustration — but you can also see why the manager stuck with what felt safest in the moment. Moore carrying an injury explains his absence from the late push, and I’m with you in assuming Djiga picked something up, because otherwise it’s hard to justify some of the choices. Tav and Gassama as a gee-up? Maybe for spirit, but it’s doubtful either would have transformed a game that lacked tempo and rhythm.

Small positives, bigger worries

Bajrami did alright and had our only shot on target, which is telling. Tav delivered the only decent corner we produced all game, so set-piece quality was sparse. Truth is, the squad feels thin in places and options from the bench haven’t always offered the required spark. I’m not calling for heads to roll — just pointing out that on nights like this we need better impact from substitutes and a bit more invention in the final third.

In short: sensible subs given the state of play, a few players did their jobs, but the overall performance left plenty to be desired. We need better solutions off the bench and a sharper tempo when the game is flat.

Written by wslgers4ever: 5 April 2026