Freekick. It wasn't panicked, he had all the time he needed. Did you even see the goal?
Match Day Thread Hull City v Blackpool
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Freekick. It wasn't panicked, he had all the time he needed. Did you even see the goal?
Quite right - immediately before the goal Christie was in open space on the right and was clearly calling for the ball. Rosenior was jumping up and down and calling for Ingram to play it long to Christie and was clearly frustrated by the decision to play the ball short. He turned away in disgust as the ball was lost.
I’d forgotten quite how bad that was yesterday. He’d do the hard part of claiming the ball too and then he’d stand there holding it for a good 30 seconds until they got back in there shape
There was 5 on 5 in our 3rd when Ingram had his brain fart. 5 of ours closely marked (pressed) by 5 of theirs.
Whether Woods was 10 yards or 30 yards out it makes little difference. It was clearly an attempt to play it out from the back.
The 5 in our 3rd (Jones & McL to the sides of Ingram, then Seri, Greaves & Woods) were all marked in their high press.
**** knows what Ingram was thinking, other than he obviously has it imprinted in his head to play the way Rosenior wants them to play out from the back. It's crystal clear that they are being trained to play it out from the back whenever possible.
One quick look would see that all 5 of our players have their players sat on them or ready to pounce. Yet still he first passed it to Jones who had a man near enough right on him. Crazy. Then he passed it out to Woods who similarly had a man near enough right on him. Double crazy.
Ingram rightly takes blame, but Rosenior must too. Why? Because if he is really saying to the players what he said post match to us fans (along the lines of play out from the back unless it isn't on) then the message clearly isn't getting across. Further, If they aren't bright enough or good enough to play that way then, as others have said, a good experienced manager would set them up to best play to their strengths (at least until they are bright enough or good enough to play that way), not have them do something they are not capable of. It's not a training game or a lab experiment, it's an important league game.
I'm getting McCann-like vibes of naivety and stubborness from Rosenior. Meaning, this is the way we play, irrespective of whether or not it best suits the strengths of the players or whether or not they are capable of it. No problem whatsoever in having a vision of, and a gradual evolution toward a preferred way of playing, but it's madness (naivety, stubborness) to do it before we have players capable of it.
The fact that he has tightened things up and we are conceding less is good. But that has nothing to do with the over emphasis on playing out from the back. It has everything to do with the team being more organised, especially in terms of defending set pieces & dealing with crosses. Conflating the two is a total red-herring. Also it has nothing whatsover to do with having players like Tetteh, Traore, the new Palace lad etc out. Having any of them on the pitch would not change one bit the 5 involved in this latest **** up.
I'm not at all against playing out from the back. I am against doing it with players who aren't up to it, and / or aren't able to understand when to do it v's when not to, and / or a manager who either has an obsession about it (leading to the players doing it when they shouldn't) or is not clear enough in his instructions about when to do it v's when not to.
Whether Woods was 10 yards or 30 yards out it makes little difference. It was clearly an attempt to play it out from the back.
The 5 in our 3rd (Jones & McL to the sides of Ingram, then Seri, Greaves & Woods) were all marked in their high press.
**** knows what Ingram was thinking, other than he obviously has it imprinted in his head to play the way Rosenior wants them to play out from the back. It's crystal clear that they are being trained to play it out from the back whenever possible.
One quick look would see that all 5 of our players have their players sat on them or ready to pounce. Yet still he first passed it to Jones who had a man near enough right on him. Crazy. Then he passed it out to Woods who similarly had a man near enough right on him. Double crazy.
Ingram rightly takes blame, but Rosenior must too. Why? Because if he is really saying to the players what he said post match to us fans (along the lines of play out from the back unless it isn't on) then the message clearly isn't getting across. Further, If they aren't bright enough or good enough to play that way then, as others have said, a good experienced manager would set them up to best play to their strengths (at least until they are bright enough or good enough to play that way), not have them do something they are not capable of. It's not a training game or a lab experiment, it's an important league game.
I'm getting McCann-like vibes of naivety and stubborness from Rosenior. Meaning, this is the way we play, irrespective of whether or not it best suits the strengths of the players or whether or not they are capable of it. No problem whatsoever in having a vision of, and a gradual evolution toward a preferred way of playing, but it's madness (naivety, stubborness) to do it before we have players capable of it.
The fact that he has tightened things up and we are conceding less is good. But that has nothing to do with the over emphasis on playing out from the back. It has everything to do with the team being more organised, especially in terms of defending set pieces & dealing with crosses. Conflating the two is a total red-herring. Also it has nothing whatsover to do with having players like Tetteh, Traore, the new Palace lad etc out. Having any of them on the pitch would not change one bit the 5 involved in this latest **** up.
I'm not at all against playing out from the back. I am against doing it with players who aren't up to it, and / or aren't able to understand when to do it v's when not to, and / or a manager who either has an obsession about it (leading to the players doing it when they shouldn't) or is not clear enough in his instructions about when to do it v's when not to.
Players make mistakes in any system. Rosenior has us more organised and resolute and if you look T the past 3 games we've conceded once from playing out.
You had it right when you said he was asking players to play out where possible.
Where it isn't it needs to go long. It's. An error.
We've got to find a system. And stick with it. 8 weeks have shown improvement but they'll get better at it with experience, familiarity and understanding. No coach as a magic wand, changes to systems don't become second nature in a few weeks. Honestly think you're clutching at 1 incident to undermine a system that's got us out of free fall and given us a platform in games that was clearly lacking before.
I agree with the premise of what you’re saying, what I’d put to you is we have recruited poorly in midfield to play any other way. The midfielders who played yesterday made 2 tackles all game and both of them were made by Seri. If these players don’t have the ball, they’re not the types of players who are going to win it back. Slater/Woods really don’t contribute out of possession enough. We didn’t address this in summer and will need to in summer otherwise we will have to keep playing this way in order to get the best out of the players we have. Hopefully we start to find balance and stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
The reason we're looking for pace in forward areas is that it limits the opposition press. They can't commit so far forward without risking getting burned on the counter. It also means balls in behind become a more viable option.
Playing out from the back hasn't got us out of free fall. It's created accidents continually waiting to happen, like on Boxing Day where it cost us a potential, desperately needed victory. What has got us out of free fall is that to his credit he's got us more organised , specifically from set pieces & crosses, where previously our defending was at times nothing short of key stone cops shambolic.
Form table says different. We've actually tightened up at the back as the goals against stats attest.
I agree in as much as Woods and Slater aren't good enough, and that playing Woods alongside Seri (instead of as a back up to him) is crazy. However, the fact that he's playing Woods & Slater surely has absolutely nothing to do with us somehow "having to play this way in order to get the best out of the players we have"!! I'd go as far as to say, it's near to the polar opposite - meaning the way of playing is absolutely not getting the best out of the players we have.
Yet better than in the last 6 than at any other point this season.
It all points back to the unbalanced recruitment in summer and we’ve now played under 3 managers who’ve failed to consistently win games. We don’t have a squad capable of being consistent at this level because of a number of things. We are picking up points under Rosenior, and the league is so close this season that we are doing the bare minimum to likely stay up. With additions and trimmings in January I think we’ll pick up and stay up comfortably. Until then I accept that we are just going to be an inconsistent side.
How does it go? .... "... for the hard of thinking ...." wasn't it?
Suggest you read my post again (or for the 1st time).
But this way of playing suits them best. They aren’t ball winners are they? They aren’t really good enough at this level to begin with and that’s the fault of recruitment not Rosenior. If we don’t have the ball we don’t have the midfield capable of winning it back.
Also remember we're still having to rely on players that really should be backups as a lot of the marquee signings have been crocked.
Consistency relies on having a settled side and we've not exactly had that at any point as of yet.
I think that Rosenior's reactions on the touchline were consistent with his comments on playing the ball out from the back when possible. I think it's wrong to think that he's slavishly fixated on playing the ball out from the back.
I read. Itt fine. You're suggesting because we've conceded once in 3 when trying to play out from an individual poor decision then playing out from the back is a junk tactic and you've also said we're still in free fall.
How many clean sheets before and since Rosie took over? And at what other period this season were we only averaging 1 goal against over a 6 game period? How many runs where we've only lost 1 in 6?
I really haven't said those things!
Ok, I give up. I really do. Life's too short ....
You're missing the point that retaining posession (again as the stats attest) and having clear patterns of play is a big part of that organisation.
There’s nothing wrong with playing out from the back if you have an intelligent keeper. What Ingram did was lunacy under those circumstances.