• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

Anyway the games a bad memory now hahahah onwards and all that stuff...
I wish it was. Woke up around 3.00am last night absolutely fuming with the result, and specifically Ange's decision not to change things on the pitch till it was too late. There was a game at the Lane (West Ham last year??) when ange annoyed the heck out of me for his inaction in the same way - I was yelling "make a sub" as it was clear that WHam had the initiative and we couldn't cope -but no, no subs till it was too late. Mr Gogolack is right, we don't know if putting Bissouma, Sarr on and changing the shape would have made any difference. But it's better than watching the car crash and then saying "the players didn't win their duels" and utter nonsense about not wanting to be falsely rewarded.
 
Reading "Ange Ball", a biography about Ange (well worth it, a really good read), it's clear he has talked to many people in the game over the years. But perhaps a perspective he could learn from is American football. One team to attack, one team to defend. Get the game won with the attacking set-up, then make changes to make the midfield more solid and play more defensively to secure the points. I admire Ange the man, and I love the way he is making us into a superb attacking team. But without a better balance towards defence, he will be just another failed football romantic like Ossie or Bielsa. We are starting to have a decent squad now, and whoever our manager is, he needs to be able to use them to see games out.
 
Mr Gogolak said:
Football has become increasingly tactical and relying on patterns of play. More often than not, even if you have a sound gameplan, the opposition will react to it and adapt.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the game is also now dependent on 16 players, not 12 or 13. We had players in the red-zone in that match even in the first half due to the recent fixture congestion. The only way their bodies cope with that stress is releasing endorphins, but that means the brain has to be telling the body to release them. However, if the brain is saying that there is another way i.e. conserving energy and not following Ange's intense system then we see what can happen.

Ange's annoyance was that his players in the red zone subconsciously rejected his system. They didn't want to go through the pain barrier again, proving they still think there are other ways to skin that cat and win games. The good news for Ange is that they lost, so their brains might go to his approach next time around.
 
lurker of old said:
Reading "Ange Ball", a biography about Ange (well worth it, a really good read), it's clear he has talked to many people in the game over the years. But perhaps a perspective he could learn from is American football. One team to attack, one team to defend. Get the game won with the attacking set-up, then make changes to make the midfield more solid and play more defensively to secure the points. I admire Ange the man, and I love the way he is making us into a superb attacking team. But without a better balance towards defence, he will be just another failed football romantic like Ossie or Bielsa. We are starting to have a decent squad now, and whoever our manager is, he needs to be able to use them to see games out.
Click to expand...
They literally swap the team though and are coached completely independent for the right reasons for that sport
People seem to think we should have gone defensive in the game but the issue was out defenders didn’t do the basics to defend. It’s real basics don’t forget. It wasn’t like they did some amazing play
Imo counter counter a team attacking you by going more defensive , you counter by giving tjem something to think about at the other end
And with the attacking players stopping the running (for what lever reason) we had no punch. Combine that with the defence not actually defending and it was like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back
 
Bedfordspurs said:
They literally swap the team though and are coached completely independent for the right reasons for that sport
People seem to think we should have gone defensive in the game but the issue was out defenders didn’t do the basics to defend. It’s real basics don’t forget. It wasn’t like they did some amazing play
Imo counter counter a team attacking you by going more defensive , you counter by giving tjem something to think about at the other end
And with the attacking players stopping the running (for what lever reason) we had no punch. Combine that with the defence not actually defending and it was like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back
Click to expand...
Our defenders didn't defend well individually but it really didn't take much for Brighton to be up against the defenders in individual battles. For me that's a problem of the system and the reaction to the approach Brighton had in the 2nd half. Defenders absolutely were poor but if you give the opposition such an easy approach then you leaving your defenders open to make those mistakes.
 
Bishop said:
Our defenders didn't defend well individually but it really didn't take much for Brighton to be up against the defenders in individual battles. For me that's a problem of the system and the reaction to the approach Brighton had in the 2nd half. Defenders absolutely were poor but if you give the opposition such an easy approach then you leaving your defenders open to make those mistakes.
Click to expand...
Personally, I thought on Sunday it wasn't really the system that was the problem. In other games, like Leicester and Saudi Sportswashing Machine, they've gotten chances or goals because of our shape and high line. On Sunday, that wasn't the case, it was just rank bad defending and all of the back 4 were culpable in some way or other.

You look at the last goal for example, we have 3 players around the ball before the lad crosses it and we have two in the middle one of whom (Romero) is asleep. That's not really tactics or systems. You could argue it's coaching or just players not doing their jobs.
 
Bishop said:
Our defenders didn't defend well individually but it really didn't take much for Brighton to be up against the defenders in individual battles. For me that's a problem of the system and the reaction to the approach Brighton had in the 2nd half. Defenders absolutely were poor but if you give the opposition such an easy approach then you leaving your defenders open to make those mistakes.
Click to expand...
Again I didn’t see many individual battles in those goals
I mean last goal had 8 defenders and 2 attackers and they won
The second goal they had 4 attacking and walked through our 7 players
We outnumbered them on the first goal too
 
DeanoAustin said:
Personally, I thought on Sunday it wasn't really the system that was the problem. In other games, like Leicester and Saudi Sportswashing Machine, they've gotten chances or goals because of our shape and high line. On Sunday, that wasn't the case, it was just rank bad defending and all of the back 4 were culpable in some way or other.

You look at the last goal for example, we have 3 players around the ball before the lad crosses it and we have two in the middle one of whom (Romero) is asleep. That's not really tactics or systems. You could argue it's coaching or just players not doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
I don't think the issue was like you say a high line, but take the first goal, no pressure on the ball before it gets to Mitoma and then no real pressure on Mitoma and boom he's swinging a very dangerous cross past our box and forces the error. If the team defending was better in that instance maybe Mitoma doesn't get a free run at Porro and maybe the quality of the cross is decreased.
 
Bishop said:
I don't think the issue was like you say a high line, but take the first goal, no pressure on the ball before it gets to Mitoma and then no real pressure on Mitoma and boom he's swinging a very dangerous cross past our box and forces the error. If the team defending was better in that instance maybe Mitoma doesn't get a free run at Porro and maybe the quality of the cross is decreased.
Click to expand...
The issue was well before Mitoma got the ball
Defending from the front….badly
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Again I didn’t see many individual battles in those goals
I mean last goal had 8 defenders and 2 attackers and they won
The second goal they had 4 attacking and walked through our 7 players
We outnumbered them on the first goal too
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point I'm making. The ease with which they were allowed to attack leads to the mistakes imo. Why weren't there any individual battles? Just think to when we are attacking and it's the opposite, every attack we make is hard fought and well won, but defensively that wasn't the case.
 
Bishop said:
That's kind of the point I'm making. The ease with which they were allowed to attack leads to the mistakes imo. Why weren't there any individual battles? Just think to when we are attacking and it's the opposite, every attack we make is hard fought and well won, but defensively that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
I agree we needed more battles
But the defenders were really really bad
 
Gazza said:
Sure this is valid but what do you do when you see the same game management and patterns of goals conceded and not being addressed. Some managers are swift in implementing a change and making it count. So far it seems obvious that we don’t know how to see out a game and have such a leaky defence when we have some really good players that could make a difference. It’s not all down to Ange and it’s not all on the players, so something has to give if things are to change; I’m not talking about sacking the manager or dropping players … just thinking that perhaps a more cautious approach when we are winning could see us get a return on points rather than just playing hung ho for 90 mins
Click to expand...

Fair points and i can understand and agree that we may have to be more cautious at times.
 
harr1984 said:
That's fair, and I think it is more accurate to question our game management more than it is to look into why Ange didn't make subs. But, I personally think Ange's ethos will never have us seeing games out, whether that ends up being the right or wrong way some fans just don't want to accept it but I don't think he's going to change so I am not going to complain about it when we come unstuck because I certainly revel in it when it does come off.

It's about us learning to do what he wants better, we are still relatively early in his tenure - I'd rather see what he can do for a good period yet once further embedded his values and see how it all pans out rather than join the managerial merry go round for the umpteenth time believing someone else is the messiah until he gets here and we realise he's not. But that's just how I see it......
Click to expand...

That is excately my point as well we have to stop wanting to change managers, all it means is another period of unstability, players in,players out and if it does not work within a year or so the cry goes up WE NEED A CHANGE. we have just seen before the Brighton game a run of wins and we seem to have thought it was going to be perfect.

It is still a work in progress and without a doubt we have seen some really good signs, however we still have to become more consistent and the only way we will do that is to give both the manager and players time to do that.
 
parklane1 said:
That is excately my point as well we have to stop wanting to change managers, all it means is another period of unstability, players in,players out and if it does not work within a year or so the cry goes up WE NEED A CHANGE. we have just seen before the Brighton game a run of wins and we seem to have thought it was going to be perfect.

It is still a work in progress and without a doubt we have seen some really good signs, however we still have to become more consistent and the only way we will do that is to give both the manager and players time to do that.
Click to expand...

Exactly this for me, we want the players standards to improve, not to be vindicated by sacking a manager once their standards drop, thats part of th issue here (yes sometimes managers are the wrong fit). But if you want higher standards you create once voice who sets them and enforce the message by backing that person, within reason. We are still within that reason
 
billyiddo said:
Making changes doesn't necessarily mean to go defensive - the changes I think I've seen most called for would have been ones to allow us to maintain/regain control of the match
Click to expand...

They may have
We don’t know
But the suggestion we’re all players who are more defensive
I think if Ange had more experienced attacking options he may have used them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back