Pirate55
The Last Man Standing 17/18
Lobbing in aerial crosses against a defence like West Ham's will never, ever work.
Where did I advocate that?
Lobbing in aerial crosses against a defence like West Ham's will never, ever work.
Lobbing in aerial crosses against a defence like West Ham's will never, ever work.
Where did I advocate that?
It would if you didnt have a midget up front.
The crux is - if youre going to be playing with out and out wingers like Townsend and Lennon - You dont negate their effectiveness by playing a midget and Ade isnt the best int here either. You got to play Soldado. Harry at times did the same too. Its not a sensible approach.
When you said you liked last night's approach. Last night's approach was to not think or plan or work out the opposition's weak points, it was just "running around a bit".
You can't really blame Sherwood for that, he only had a couple of days with the squad but the very last thing I want to see from our club is what we did last night.
It wouldn't work with a giant up front. Those defenders, coached by BFS will lap that **** up all day long.
Equally, playing out and out wingers is unlikely to do us any good as they're most effective when they (in John Barnes' immortal words) "get 'round the back". You can't "get 'round the back" if the opposition's defenders are on the edge of their own 6 yard box.
Agree on rest but not on ADE. He was looking fresh and not tired at all. He was running the channels, cutting in, holding up....just what we have been begging for. Wrong decision to bring him off. Gave the incentive to Spam as they had no fear of Defoe. Sherwood got that so so so wrong. Not the man for me.
On the train back from the lane now. The subs really changed the game for us. Ade was so good at holding the ball. What he was doing execptionally in the first half was providing an outlet to the midfield, he was running into centre mid holding off the defender taking the ball at feet and distributing it. We lost that when he went off. I really thibk defoe should have gone off. In that situation we needed a player who could hold onto tthethe ball and distribute. I would habe loved to see eriksen in that game. Someone who could have picked open a defence. Yes the players were kanckered but really felt ade should have continued.
Taking ade off was the game changer.
That sub says 'we are going to try and contain you in the middle 3rd instead of the final 3rd as we have done do far'
The problem with that is, if you get the better of us, you only have our defense to beat instead of mf and df
That's a risky strategy at any inny time.
With a fragile week and a patched up df, it's an idiots decisin
I said as soon as ade went offe
Last nights approach was to start the game with a high tempo, play attacking football and try and score goals. That is what I want from the team I support. I feel sorry for you if you want something different.
I think Townsend got round the back a fair bit and so did Lennon.
I dont advocate how gung ho we were yesterday, it seemed like there was no tactical game plan. But tactical doesnt neccessarily have to be boring (alas AVB) but also being exciting and playing good football doesnt have to be as gung ho 'school playground' type stuff (alas Tim yesterday). I do recognise though that Tim had about five hours to work with them so he was hardly going to be complex about it.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that AVB was intentionally not scoring goals? Really?
And even Sherwood managed to see that the high tempo was a part of what undid us later. I know you're more intelligent/perceptive than Sherwood!
I think if we continue in this way people will come to realise that it was no coincidence that we won record points under AVB and it wasn't just down to Bale. The fact that we kept clean sheets and gave Bale the platform to do what he did was not a coincidence either. We won games. We saw out a result. We kept the ball well.
Coming flying out of the blocks may look nice and get the crowd going a bit, but it leads to a lot more 'we played well we just didn't get the break, I don't know what more I could have done really' type games that were the mark of Harry's second half seasons in 10/11 and 11/12.
Coming flying out of the blocks against a team that has their maximum level of fitness and concentration before they have been worn down will see them clear a lot of opportunities and crosses that we put in, and will tire us out towards the end of the games and leave us far more open to sucker punches. I am so, so furious at our failure to back a manager that I am confident would have turned us into winners.
I think it's fine to come flying out of the blocks. You see that approach from some top teams at least from time to time. Look at Dortmund, look at City (at home at least), look at some of the United teams under Ferguson.
What you need though is the ability to rest with the ball and play through pressure at a later stage of the game. Changing the tempo to adjust to the changing game conditions, not be stuck on full tilt until you run out of energy.
It is fine, I think Southampton do it and it works for them. I just think that now we've sacked a manager and will now have to employ one that has different ideas and thus requires a different type of fitness from the players, that we are effectively writing off the season. It's a cluster****.
And I kind of think that playing in a controlled, intelligent manner is the sign of a top club. I'm sad that progress towards that end has been cut short, for seemingly no other reason than the idiotic expectations of our know-nothing owners who thought selling our best player would be a good precursor to the best season we've had for 50 years. macarons!
I think last night's was one of the most extraordinary games I've ever watched. We seemed in complete, total control until after we'd scored and Adebayor was subbed off, then the pinball started. It was like watching a school game at times, everyone chasing the ball, and once Wet Spam equalised, the headless chicken act really went into overdrive. I'm not sure Sherwood's rather facile analysis for the BBC really answered all the questions, but ho hum; all we can do is see where this ride takes us, I guess.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that AVB was intentionally not scoring goals? Really?
And even Sherwood managed to see that the high tempo was a part of what undid us later. I know you're more intelligent/perceptive than Sherwood!
See BrainEclipses answer.
You are really naive if you think that to come out of the blocks fast is a prerequisite to failing later. It is all about managing intensities. AVB ALWAYS started us slowly and this was the cause of some dire and turgid home performances IMO ..it is particularly important to get an early goal against a team sitting back. That is why I feel corners and set pieces could have given us that all important edge and AVB was idiotic to neglect them.
An early goal so changes the dynamic of games against park the bus teams. AVB seemed content to let the first half go by without much attempt at fast tempo attacking. For example, how many times did we score in the first half at home under him?
Yesterday, unfortunately the goal didn't come that our early play deserved. The subs were required due to injury and lack of match fitness. And the defeat was caused by our three best headers of the ball in defence not being available.
So when you use up all your energy flying out of the block and have little/nothing left, what then?
I'm really not comfortable throwing all our eggs into the "if we don't score in the first 20 mins we're ****ed" basket.
So when you use up all your energy flying out of the block and have little/nothing left, what then?
I'm really not comfortable throwing all our eggs into the "if we don't score in the first 20 mins we're ****ed" basket.