Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

[Gazza]

People will think different things about Ange, that I get. But I just don't get seeing him as naive. I find it just about impossible to believe that he's come this far by being naive.

He seemed really disappointed post match. I think it's quite likely that he expected the players that started the game to be able to respond better to the adversity at the start of the second half than they did. Not sure if "snap out of it" would have been what he expected, but to find the willingness and ability to fight for everything and to regain their composure and belief in what they're supposed to do I think perhaps he did expect.

If so he was obviously wrong about that, for quite a few of the players at the very least.

I don't think he's naive. I think he's well aware of the risks involved with how we play. I think he's well aware of how games chang momentum with goals and other stuff going on. An assumption on my part is that how the players respond in these moments is something that's being worked on in training and conversations with the players.

I think an expectation on the players to respond better than they did is fair. He was wrong in this instance, they responded exactly as they actually did. Work to be done on that. But I also think it's good for him to expect more.

I hope the players will learn from this. I think that's where the learning is needed, not with Ange.

Appreciate the well thought out response first and foremost.

When I say Naive I mean I’m underestimating the opposition in creating and actually finishing their chances; and further to this to see a game out rather than just trying to continue to play the same way. Surely he would have been better to have seen out 10 minutes in the second half forcing Brighton to take more risk and the possibly to capitalise.

Playing the same way for 90 mins in a premier league it is there for all to see. I’m sure Ange sees it and an adjustment in the game is what a good manager does, especially if he sees that his players on the pitch are now not responsive. Make a sub at the very least.

 

[Grays_1890]

Appreciate the well thought out response first and foremost.

When I say Naive I mean I’m underestimating the opposition in creating and actually finishing their chances; and further to this to see a game out rather than just trying to continue to play the same way. Surely he would have been better to have seen out 10 minutes in the second half forcing Brighton to take more risk and the possibly to capitalise.

Playing the same way for 90 mins in a premier league it is there for all to see. I’m sure Ange sees it and an adjustment in the game is what a good manager does, especially if he sees that his players on the pitch are now not responsive. Make a sub at the very least.

I do somehow think the teams changing things tactically or making wow changes that change games tactically to be slightly overplayed (not by you BTW just in general). Brighton were maybe 10 years higher but just more about it the second half, we stopped pressing and got lazy in our battles, but they didn't our tactic us, for an example. I watched United v Villa and despite it being absolutely trash, for a game that close and really risk adverse, not one manager changed their approach once. Same for a number of games I have watched recently, there are no real obvious changes, I would say better players being better has been whats stood out in that respect, for us, it was those players drop in standard that killed us IMO more than tactically losing the game.

I am not saying tactics don't play a part either, but I think when the teams are on the ready line MOST if not ALL managers are relying on their core tactic to be enough on any given day

 

[Gazza]

I do somehow think the teams changing things tactically or making wow changes that change games tactically to be slightly overplayed (not by you BTW just in general). Brighton were maybe 10 years higher but just more about it the second half, we stopped pressing and got lazy in our battles, but they didn't our tactic us, for an example. I watched United v Villa and despite it being absolutely trash, for a game that close and really risk adverse, not one manager changed their approach once. Same for a number of games I have watched recently, there are no real obvious changes, I would say better players being better has been whats stood out in that respect, for us, it was those players drop in standard that killed us IMO more than tactically losing the game.

I am not saying tactics don't play a part either, but I think when the teams are on the ready line MOST if not ALL managers are relying on their core tactic to be enough on any given day

Fair enough if that’s your opinion. But that united game you mentioned was close enough not to change anything to warrant a drastic change.

We lost the energy in the second half and the motivation to stick with the plan. I have seen other managers take out key culprits sit deep, defend the lead and change the play to counter. We could’ve done with some players from the bench to make a difference. Our bench is not that bad and I feel that we had enough quality to see the game out and change the result.

I would add that this is not the first time that this has happened under Ange and it will most likely happen again which is the most frustrating part on my behalf.

We actually have a decent squad.

 

[nattenskonge]

Is it only me but aint this crazy?

Ange Postecoglou on if he was tempted to make substitutions earlier:

"Yeah I could have. But... all these things... are totally irrelevant to me. Substitutions and all those kind of things. If you're not competitive, it doesn't matter what you do, you're not going to get rewards, you don't deserve to win.

We didn't deserve on our second-half performance, irrespective of subs or anything else, to get something out of the game. But I think if you do get something out of the game, you're falsely rewarded and I don't want to get falsely rewarded."

 

[braineclipse]

Appreciate the well thought out response first and foremost.

When I say Naive I mean I’m underestimating the opposition in creating and actually finishing their chances; and further to this to see a game out rather than just trying to continue to play the same way. Surely he would have been better to have seen out 10 minutes in the second half forcing Brighton to take more risk and the possibly to capitalise.

Playing the same way for 90 mins in a premier league it is there for all to see. I’m sure Ange sees it and an adjustment in the game is what a good manager does, especially if he sees that his players on the pitch are now not responsive. Make a sub at the very least.

He's seemingly watched a lot of PL football. He's been here a year now, if he ever was naive about what opponents could do I don't think he would be any more.

I don't think we play the same way for 90 minutes, though some of the principles are the same. We certainly didn't play the same way from the start of the second half as we did from the start of the first. Brighton did play with quite a lot of risk, but we failed to make that risk translate into good play and chances for us.

Waiting so long for a sub seems strange from the outside. But I'm assuming he had his reasons for it.

 

[Grays_1890]

Fair enough if that’s your opinion. But that united game you mentioned was close enough not to change anything to warrant a drastic change.

We lost the energy in the second half and the motivation to stick with the plan. I have seen other managers take out key culprits sit deep, defend the lead and change the play to counter. We could’ve done with some players from the bench to make a difference. Our bench is not that bad and I feel that we had enough quality to see the game out and change the result.

I would add that this is not the first time that this has happened under Ange and it will most likely happen again which is the most frustrating part on my behalf.

We actually have a decent squad.

Surely in a game like that you make a subtle tactical change to grab the win when neither side looks totally threatening though, its just a case in point bout where I think its sometimes overplayed that managers make magical changes. I think even Salah or someone made this point about Klopp saying he rarely if ever changed anything mid game, his idea was you are grown ups, we are strong, you have to adapt as players and men in the game. BBC or somewhere that was.

Anyway I think like you we have a decent squad but I think as I have for years, we need players to step up as much if not more than some manager stardust on tactics.

 

[DeanoAustin]

Is it only me but aint this crazy?

Ange Postecoglou on if he was tempted to make substitutions earlier:

"Yeah I could have. But... all these things... are totally irrelevant to me. Substitutions and all those kind of things. If you're not competitive, it doesn't matter what you do, you're not going to get rewards, you don't deserve to win.

We didn't deserve on our second-half performance, irrespective of subs or anything else, to get something out of the game. But I think if you do get something out of the game, you're falsely rewarded and I don't want to get falsely rewarded."

I don’t think it’s crazy and I think people are taking this a bit out of context like when he apparently said he didn’t care about set pieces (which wasn’t what he actually said).

Ange sees some very glaring flaws in our mentality and team. He wants to focus on those as a priority because that gets him 95% of the way to where he wants us to be. It’s only when you get that far that things like set pieces and subs really make a big difference rather than just being sticking plasters.

For example, going back to set pieces, Woolwich are the best team at them right now. They’re lethal. But it’s a relatively recent thing. Maybe in the last 12-18 months? Arteta has been there for 5 years or thereabouts. Implementing what he wanted and eliminating the weak mentality was his priority for the first few years. I think Ange is driving at something similar.

I’m not saying I agree with his approach. It feels counter intuitive in a world where results are so important. But it is a valid approach so I’ll give him that rather than deeming it crazy. It’s just a different way of looking at things.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I’ve had massive doubts on Ange’s ability to be successful here in terms of trophies from very early on. But I fudging admire his approach and how he wants to do things. It’d be brilliant for football if he could be a success here.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don’t think it’s crazy and I think people are taking this a bit out of context like when he apparently said he didn’t care about set pieces (which wasn’t what he actually said).

Ange sees some very glaring flaws in our mentality and team. He wants to focus on those as a priority because that gets him 95% of the way to where he wants us to be. It’s only when you get that far that things like set pieces and subs really make a big difference rather than just being sticking plasters.

For example, going back to set pieces, Woolwich are the best team at them right now. They’re lethal. But it’s a relatively recent thing. Maybe in the last 12-18 months? Arteta has been there for 5 years or thereabouts. Implementing what he wanted and eliminating the weak mentality was his priority for the first few years. I think Ange is driving at something similar.

I’m not saying I agree with his approach. It feels counter intuitive in a world where results are so important. But it is a valid approach so I’ll give him that rather than deeming it crazy. It’s just a different way of looking at things.

Anyone who has read my posts knows I’ve had massive doubts on Ange’s ability to be successful here in terms of trophies from very early on. But I fudging admire his approach and how he wants to do things. It’d be brilliant for football if he could be a success here.

I think also, the more I listen to the overall point, Ange is saying that unless those on thr pitch improve with or without subs that the same outcome happens, unless everyone improves and raises up they just drag the subs into the same fight the original line up found themselves in

 

[Bishop]

Surely in a game like that you make a subtle tactical change to grab the win when neither side looks totally threatening though, its just a case in point bout where I think its sometimes overplayed that managers make magical changes. I think even Salah or someone made this point about Klopp saying he rarely if ever changed anything mid game, his idea was you are grown ups, we are strong, you have to adapt as players and men in the game. BBC or somewhere that was.

Anyway I think like you we have a decent squad but I think as I have for years, we need players to step up as much if not more than some manager stardust on tactics.

If you have the better players you can get away with the player quality winning out. Klopp had that, Jose has had that, Pep has had that. I don't think it's unfair to say Ange doesn't. That's where he has to gain a yard tactically and systemically. On the way up that's where and how managers stand out by getting the best from the resources they have available. Once he has some of the best players in the world then yes, sure he can rely more on their outright quality.

 

[Gazza]

I don’t think we have a problem with quality as much as we lack leaders in the whole squad currently all of our so called captains go missing regularly in games and throughout the seasons.

 

[Grays_1890]

I don’t think we have a problem with quality as much as we lack leaders in the whole squad currently all of our so called captains go missing regularly in games and throughout the seasons.

Absoooooolutely

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think also, the more I listen to the overall point, Ange is saying that unless those on thr pitch improve with or without subs that the same outcome happens, unless everyone improves and raises up they just drag the subs into the same fight the original line up found themselves in

I think it’s that simple

 

[glorygloryeze]

I think also, the more I listen to the overall point, Ange is saying that unless those on thr pitch improve with or without subs that the same outcome happens, unless everyone improves and raises up they just drag the subs into the same fight the original line up found themselves in

Ok....so...what made him decide to actually bring on the subs after all then?

Also, if the game was a cup knockout game, would that be the same approach, i.e. don't on a sub because they are so bad no subs will change anything?

And then, what about vs Coventry, when for much longer before we went a goal down we were playing FAR WORSE than on Sunday?

Just doesn't stack up for me at all..

 

[Bishop]

I don’t think we have a problem with quality as much as we lack leaders in the whole squad currently all of our so called captains go missing regularly in games and throughout the seasons.

I'm not saying we lack quality but I am saying we don't have the overwhelming excellence that Klopp has had over the years in the likes of Salah, Mane, VVD, Gundogan, Lewa etc that could allow him to once set with his system and structure allow the team and the results to play out without much interference. Which was what said about Klopp. We have some good players, but we don't have the best, 2nd best or even 3rd best 11 to try and get by solely on player quality.

Ange's coaching and system is what has gotten to the point that we can argue for the accolade for some of the most entertaining football in the PL and that's not down solely to player quality. It's him getting more from them in an attacking sense then their quality deserves.

Ok....so...what made him decide to actually bring on the subs after all then?

Also, if the game was a cup knockout game, would that be the same approach, i.e. don't on a sub because they are so bad no subs will change anything?

And then, what about vs Coventry, when for much longer before we went a goal down we were playing FAR WORSE than on Sunday?

Just doesn't stack up for me at all..

All really good rebuttals. I think there is an element of stubbornness but I do have agree some naivety in his in game reactions. Possibly for Ange the Coventry result was vindication of his belief that the superior quality of the team would eventually shine through. We were so poor in that game that doesn't seem a logical approach or takeaway though.

 

[harr1984]

Ok....so...what made him decide to actually bring on the subs after all then?

Also, if the game was a cup knockout game, would that be the same approach, i.e. don't on a sub because they are so bad no subs will change anything?

And then, what about vs Coventry, when for much longer before we went a goal down we were playing FAR WORSE than on Sunday?

Just doesn't stack up for me at all..

There is quite an obvious difference with Coventry, we had a much weakened team in that game so making subs we were clearly strengthening the team bringing on Maddison, Kulu etc....

 

[glorygloryeze]

There is quite an obvious difference with Coventry, we had a much weakened team in that game so making subs we were clearly strengthening the team bringing on Maddison, Kulu etc....

We also had a potentially tired team on Sunday, subs can and often do help with that too...unless we are saying whenever we are playing a superior team to us, we should never make subs because, you know, what's the point??

 

[parklane1]

I personally think he made the wrong decision in not reacting but I do think like yourself that he thought the team would wrestle the game back considering how well they played in the first half.

Seeing the press had dropped it would have possibly and I admit we don't know how it would have turned out but changing the personnel might well have galvanised the side. Sitting and waiting certainly didn't.

Again though if he uses that as a lesson and going forward he adjusts to the situation then it's a lesson well learned.

This is the main point, i know they are some fans who think he should have sorted our problems by now but we are still a work in progress. Lets see how we end up at the end of the season before we start think about another manager AGAIN.

 

[harr1984]

We also had a potentially tired team on Sunday, subs can and often do help with that too...unless we are saying whenever we are playing a superior team to us, we should never make subs because, you know, what's the point??

If only Ange had your insight in that subs were the answer eh - He must have been wracking his brain to think what could stem the tide and making subs was such a difficult solution for him to figure out it really would require an armchair fan such as yourself to come up with that complex solution.

Fact is Ange has all the data at hand, none of which you are close to being privy to and he has made changes in plenty of other games - it only took 4 minutes for him to make subs after we went behind to the Goons for example. So forgive me if I don't buy your basic just make a few subs and everything will change theory.....

 

[glorygloryeze]

If only Ange had your insight in that subs were the answer eh - He must have been wracking his brain to think what could stem the tide and making subs was such a difficult solution for him to figure out it really would require an armchair fan such as yourself to come up with that complex solution.

Fact is Ange has all the data at hand, none of which you are close to being privy to and he has made changes in plenty of other games - it only took 4 minutes for him to make subs after we went behind to the Goons for example. So forgive me if I don't buy your basic just make a few subs and everything will change theory.....

Shiver me timbers, shall we only ever discuss what our club and coaches do when we have all the same details ourselves?
I suppose you must have never questioned any of our previous manager's decisions, line-ups etc...i bet you LOVED Sherwood, Nuno and Christian Gross because, after all, you would never have known all the data they did eh?

The fact is, i'm saying i couldn't understand why fresh legs weren't brought on earlier because Brighton had played far less games than us and it seemed more than anything that we tired in the second half, which was understandable given our recent workload compared to theirs.

I didn't say that automatically making subs would have made a difference, like they ultimately didn't in the Arsenal game. But, like in that Arsenal game, it seemed obvious that it was worth a try, even just for the fatigue issues that seemed to be playing.

I hope that is ok and basic enough; if not, please forgive me and my 'complex solution'

 

[harr1984]

Shiver me timbers, shall we only ever discuss what our club and coaches do when we have all the same details ourselves?
I suppose you must have never questioned any of our previous manager's decisions, line-ups etc...i bet you LOVED Sherwood, Nuno and Christian Gross because, after all, you would never have known all the data they did eh?

The fact is, i'm saying i couldn't understand why fresh legs weren't brought on earlier because Brighton had played far less games than us and it seemed more than anything that we tired in the second half, which was understandable given our recent workload compared to theirs.

I didn't say that automatically making subs would have made a difference, like they ultimately didn't in the Arsenal game. But, like in that Arsenal game, it seemed obvious that it was worth a try, even just for the fatigue issues that seemed to be playing.

I hope that is ok and basic enough; if not, please forgive me and my 'complex solution'

It's quite simple, you're guessing that the players were tired - Ange has the data to know this and I really doubt he is keeping tired players on the pitch, he's often commented on subbing a player because of fatigue. Ange has demonstrated previously he makes subs if he believes will change the game, on this occasion he didn't think that to be the case until later on. Sometimes subs have an impact, sometimes they make things worse - it's really not worth dwelling on it to the extent that you are....