Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

Bishop said:

I literally said in the match thread before they had scored that it was a very Spurs-esque performance from them so at least we saw that similarly.

I would like to have seen us re-gather ourselves and start passing the ball around well again but we just collapsed. I hear that they made changes and maybe fresh legs helped them to an extent but it wasn't just a case of them suddenly upping their game, we contributed by no longer believing and playing fearfully.

As I say the goals are what they are, goals happen but we need to be able to react better to a team getting a 2nd wind. For a possession side we too often have long spells where we just can't keep the ball. For me that's personnel related, quality and numbers.

Click to expand...

Indeed. They brought on fresh attacking subs.
Our keeper brain-farted. His confidence drained, you could see it. If Vicario makes that mistake, he starts shouting and clapping and whooping his arms, etc. Forster looked shell-shocked. So we have a veteran on the wobble, an 18 year old midfielder at LCB (doing a great job BTW), a youthful right-back at LB who hasn't player there much, a tiring central midfield, and precious few options off the bench.

WHY can't people apply context I wonder? And why can't they give praise for us gritting it out and going on to win the game? I think it's laziness myself, far easier to follow the pundits. Again, at 3-0 I only saw us slowing it down slightly and looking to be smart with our play; as @braineclipse said somewhere, during football matches whatever 'way' you play, passing back to the goalkeeper is part of the game, especially if you don't want to give back possession all the time!

monkeybarry said:

@glorygloryeze
@Grays_1890

Happy to elaborate.

He came across as not being serious. It sounded like the kind of interview I'd hear from a Lge 2 manager that had just caused an upset.

There was a complete dismissal of the being 3-0 up and cruising, then it collapsing. Just more of the "that's how we play mate", "I don't make changes".

I was left feeling that results are secondary for him. Of course he wants to win, but if he can't win playing "his way", then he doesn't care, as long as there was a bit of fun to be had. If it had gone 3-3 and we'd lost on pens, I don't get the impression he'd have been that bothered that we didn't manage the game and see it out; I got the impression it would have been "yeah, we lost mate. But we lost playing our way mate. But it was entertaining." Rather than get 3-0 up playing "our way", and when it goes 3-1 make tweaks to manage the game, to manage the emotion - that's both management and Management.

You can't do that at this level. You can't be blindly wedded to a certain tactic and just expect to beat the opposition - it's disrespectful.

It left me seriously infuriated and annoyed, and confirmed that his management style is little more than roulette. That works in inferior leagues. It doesn't work at the top. No one has made it work at the top - I see nothing to suggest Ange is some kind of football genius that will change that.

He's Bielsa with an Aussie accent. And was the antidote we needed post Mourinho and Conte - it has been a lot of fun, and has brought that back to the club; but the football isn't sustainable and won't achieve anything more than mid table and a cup run if luck is on our side.

Click to expand...

IMO it is worth watching again with the knowledge that -
a) amything he says will just lead to the same brick the following week
b) an awareness that pundits brush in broad strokes and don't bother with details

He is taking the tinkle. I implore you to block out the narrative and take a look even at the games since Forster's come in. We have made subtle changes and do not look to play through Forster as much as we do Vicario. We have also (recently) been starting to slow things down in second-halves without changing the general philosophy. We were on course for a Soton last noight before Fraser's errors. And it's OK, Fraser will be fine.
I just wonder if our supporters will be LOL...

thfcsteff said:

Chelsea? A combination of injuries, meeting a side with what, 400 million or so on the pitch and bench

Click to expand...

You piqued my interest, I reckon their first team that started against us was about £555m
Jackson 32
sancho 25
palmer 43
neto 54
enzo 107
lavia 58
cucurella 61
colwill 0
badiashile 35
caicedo 115
sanchez 25
and then on the bench they only had £258m of talent
Madueke 29
felix 45
nkunku 52
gusto 31
veiga 12
disasi 39
tosin adarabioyo 0
Jorgensen 20
Dewsbury hall 30

So spare a thought for Cheatski, they only had £813m of talent available on the day.

More than double your wild estimate.

Of course our gaggle of spotty teenagers should beat them. Come on man!

monkeybarry said:

@glorygloryeze
@Grays_1890

Happy to elaborate.

He came across as not being serious. It sounded like the kind of interview I'd hear from a Lge 2 manager that had just caused an upset.

There was a complete dismissal of the being 3-0 up and cruising, then it collapsing. Just more of the "that's how we play mate", "I don't make changes".

I was left feeling that results are secondary for him. Of course he wants to win, but if he can't win playing "his way", then he doesn't care, as long as there was a bit of fun to be had. If it had gone 3-3 and we'd lost on pens, I don't get the impression he'd have been that bothered that we didn't manage the game and see it out; I got the impression it would have been "yeah, we lost mate. But we lost playing our way mate. But it was entertaining." Rather than get 3-0 up playing "our way", and when it goes 3-1 make tweaks to manage the game, to mHere's the rest of anage the emotion - that's both management and Management.

You can't do that at this level. You can't be blindly wedded to a certain tactic and just expect to beat the opposition - it's disrespectful.

It left me seriously infuriated and annoyed, and confirmed that his management style is little more than roulette. That works in inferior leagues. It doesn't work at the top. No one has made it work at the top - I see nothing to suggest Ange is some kind of football genius that will change that.

He's Bielsa with an Aussie accent. And was the antidote we needed post Mourinho and Conte - it has been a lot of fun, and has brought that back to the club; but the football isn't sustainable and won't achieve anything more than mid table and a cup run if luck is on our side.

Click to expand...

Here's the embargoed part of Friday's press conference where he addresses your point about results being secondary about 8 minutes in.
There's more to the whole thing though, really liked hearing the bit about Gray apologising to Forster and Ange's discussion about his signing.

Ange has now made himself a meme for the rest of time. Well done mate.

Bullet said:

You piqued my interest, I reckon their first team that started against us was about £555m
Jackson 32
sancho 25
palmer 43
neto 54
enzo 107
lavia 58
cucurella 61
colwill 0
badiashile 35
caicedo 115
sanchez 25
and then on the bench they only had £258m of talent
Madueke 29
felix 45
nkunku 52
gusto 31
veiga 12
disasi 39
tosin adarabioyo 0
Jorgensen 20
Dewsbury hall 30

So spare a thought for Cheatski, they only had £813m of talent available on the day.

More than double your wild estimate.

Of course our gaggle of spotty teenagers should beat them. Come on man!

Click to expand...

Jesus, even worse than I thought. Great stats there.

Lilbaz said:

Do you not understand why we spent big on very young players and odobert?

Click to expand...

Yes it’s quite obvious Little Barry… do you not understand the need for players for the here and now also?

We've struggled all season to build any winning momentum, and week or two ago, the direction of travel was looking decidedly dodgy. We're in the middle of an uptick at the moment, and the last couple of results have been an effective pressure valve, but we've seen how that can turn on a sixpence, and I don't suppose too many would be shocked if we see it again Sunday, especially given the current absentee list. I expect him to get a pass if we lose that game, but there are more awkward fixtures coming up, not to mention the Cup semi — has he at last adapted sufficiently, or was the evidence we saw Thursday of attempts to manage a lead just another false dawn? I'd say we should be in a position to see by the end of January, beginning of February whether Postecoglou is going to be able to turn his Curate's Egg into a decent omelette or not. If instead, we still appear to be conceding the same goal multiple times every outing and he starts to nosedive into Christian Gross/Juande Ramos territory (as I have personally feared), the knives will be out again and the memory of these last couple of results won't be cutting any ice, never mind the entertainment value. Fingers crossed. One thing he definitely has going for him is that he hasn't lost the players.

mudshark said:

We've struggled all season to build any winning momentum, and week or two ago, the direction of travel was looking decidedly dodgy. We're in the middle of an uptick at the moment, and the last couple of results have been an effective pressure valve, but we've seen how that can turn on a sixpence, and I don't suppose too many would be shocked if we see it again Sunday, especially given the current absentee list. I expect him to get a pass if we lose that game, but there are more awkward fixtures coming up, not to mention the Cup semi — has he at last adapted sufficiently, or was the evidence we saw Thursday of attempts to manage a lead just another false dawn? I'd say we should be in a position to see by the end of January, beginning of February whether Postecoglou is going to be able to turn his Curate's Egg into a decent omelette or not. If instead, we still appear to be conceding the same goal multiple times every outing and he starts to nosedive into Christian Gross/Juande Ramos territory (as I have personally feared), the knives will be out again and the memory of these last couple of results won't be cutting any ice, never mind the entertainment value. Fingers crossed. One thing he definitely has going for him is that he hasn't lost the players.

Click to expand...

Interesting comparisons, because I would say that the issue with ramos was his inability to communicate, not his coaching, while Gross was definitely a case of Sugar getting the wobbles and losing his nerve, albeit the results were not going well. Gross went back to Switzerland and (yes different, weaker league etc) won 8 trophies in ten years, and has 16 trophies total in three countries, so he knows how to win.

I genuinely feel that the board have decided to bide their time with Ange. We could well finish 14th this season but if they see buy in from the squad, and in the cups we get to finals or win one, I honestly believe they will recognise that we are just not the finished article yet.

The bottom line is we need more quality in our squad, and depth, and if the board won't fund doing that in one window they need to own the shortfall in league position while we recruit the players we need.

If he has the l squad he wants and can't get a consistent tune out of us, then Ange should rightly be toast.

Surfless said:

Interesting comparisons, because I would say that the issue with ramos was his inability to communicate, not his coaching, while Gross was definitely a case of Sugar getting the wobbles and losing his nerve, albeit the results were not going well. Gross went back to Switzerland and (yes different, weaker league etc) won 8 trophies in ten years, and has 16 trophies total in three countries, so he knows how to win.

I genuinely feel that the board have decided to bide their time with Ange. We could well finish 14th this season but if they see buy in from the squad, and in the cups we get to finals or win one, I honestly believe they will recognise that we are just not the finished article yet.

The bottom line is we need more quality in our squad, and depth, and if the board won't fund doing that in one window they need to own the shortfall in league position while we recruit the players we need.

If he has the l squad he wants and can't get a consistent tune out of us, then Ange should rightly be toast.

Click to expand...

I still feel the direction of travel is good though with Ange and this squad. If we roll back one year, we were only just recovering from the 1 point in 15 and getting some players back in December. We didn't have a 3rd stalwart defender like Dragusin as he hadn't appeared until Jan. I think he's been immense in the last month or so, even though others like Davies and Gray may have got the attention. Ditto with Solanke and Sarr as other unsung heros in the side.

I always have this dilemma between the words depth and quality though. There is no doubt in my mind that we can always get more quality, but I'm not sure we ever get much bigger a squad than we have now. Numerically, we might only get one, if not two max, more warm bodies to manage a season with. This might happen organically as those young centre halves get involved, as 4 centre halves is not enough to manage 4 competitions. Utility players are great but you still deplete other positions when they move around. That's happened with Gray not being available as a midfielder or Davies not able to give Udogie a rest. The biggest challenge for Ange though has been the Richi / Odobert scenario. It's a long time to be without 2 of your main attacking options.

I guess the important thing is for Ange to have rotation options he feels comfortable with. We know he's a stubborn whotsit and won't leverage what say Reggie could have given him all season. He's also cautious with the younger players and that will naturally go away over time as they mature. Arguably, he has made his own squad smaller than it actually is.

We need to give Ange as long as it takes to plateau as a manager. I think that probably means 3 seasons, but we will have more indications by this time next year. If that inconsistency that thing Mudshark talks about is still prevalent, then I think we have reasons to be concerned. I don't think it will be apart from the odd bad day at the office.

Muttley said:

We need to give Ange as long as it takes to plateau as a manager. I think that probably means 3 seasons

Click to expand...

Like Bon Jovi, he’s halfway there. I think we’ll need to see quite a bit more consistency over the next 18 months if he’s to get beyond 3 seasons (assuming be gets that far).

Gazza said:

Yes it’s quite obvious Little Barry… do you not understand the need for players for the here and now also?

Click to expand...

If it's quite obvious. You'd understand why buying 18 year olds was more important than buying ready made players.

You'd also remember the last few windows we did bring in ready made players.

The only people who overestimate the importance of what's said in press conferences more than fans are the journalists writing about it.

braineclipse said:

The only people who overestimate the importance of what's said in press conferences more than fans are the journalists writing about it.

Click to expand...

And its a close call between who purposely adds stuff or misinterpreted stuff on purpose

Surfless said:

Interesting comparisons, because I would say that the issue with ramos was his inability to communicate, not his coaching, while Gross was definitely a case of Sugar getting the wobbles and losing his nerve, albeit the results were not going well. Gross went back to Switzerland and (yes different, weaker league etc) won 8 trophies in ten years, and has 16 trophies total in three countries, so he knows how to win.

I genuinely feel that the board have decided to bide their time with Ange. We could well finish 14th this season but if they see buy in from the squad, and in the cups we get to finals or win one, I honestly believe they will recognise that we are just not the finished article yet.

The bottom line is we need more quality in our squad, and depth, and if the board won't fund doing that in one window they need to own the shortfall in league position while we recruit the players we need.

If he has the l squad he wants and can't get a consistent tune out of us, then Ange should rightly be toast.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to draw a comparison between the underlying issues with the three, mate, just points-on-the-board performance. I should have made that clearer. Both the others had squad engagement issues, shall we say, whereas AP, to his credit, doesn't face that problem, at least at this stage.