I think we're already in that future where a lot of teams play that way. It doesn't lead to less shots though, the opposite in fact. I can never understand why people think building from the back is defensive or negative. In fact, I'm sure everyone used to consider it progressive and attacking when it was just foreign teams that did it and Britain hadn't caught up yet.
Perhaps we are. I will happily be proven wrong if you or someone can find evidence of it leading to more shots. It often takes us forever to get our first shot on target these days.
What proof do you have of that? We've often created good attacking chances from quite early in games.
Why are you so obsessed by what was presumably a throw away comment in an interview considering I have no recollection of it. I guess you've had to move on from 'Rosenior doesn't want any senior players to question him' so you're one rung down your list of gripes.
Just because you don't have recollection of it doesn't mean it wasn't said. It didn't come across as a throw away comment. I didn't start the comments about Rosenior not wanting senior players to question him, it came from a couple of other sources and has since been re-raised by several. I'm not obsessed about what Rosenior said about his playing style being different to what others are doing; I didn't start the discussion about playing styles, etc. It was a genuine question following posts from others about evolution of playing styles and others supposedly now copying us. Seems to me that it's you that has some weird obsessions.
Theres only one thing that will lead to absolute panic of the opposition... Pace, transition. That leads to opposition mistakes. We have Philogene who has caused that on our left, we need someone similar o9n the right and not just Delap, then and this is th key, we have to get it to them quicker... much quicker. As someone said yesterday, as hard as it is to watch, TWS do it brilliantly and so do Leicester, even Ipswich do it, so its not totally down to expensive personnel.
Ok then can you clarify or provide context as I have no memory of it? I didn't say you started it, but you mentioned it every chance you got.
What we should do, like, is get a more experienced manager in. That way, we'd be winning every week and ahead of Leicester in the table. For example, Guardiola, biggest budget, best squad, and a very experienced manager, which is why Man City are running away with the PL, cos he doesn't make mistakes, see, what with him not being inexperienced. Obvious really.
As said several times, I don't remember the full conversation, I just remember him clearly saying that his style of play was different to what anyone else was doing. I guess he was wanting to make the point that he wasn't simply copying Man City or Brighton or xxx but had his own philosophy.
If you don't remember it why continue to cite it when you could be entirely misremembering the context or what was said? Feel free to put up the link to the interview or desist. As you now qualify, there was clearly a meaning beyond literally having a unique style.
Obvious, it's why Leicester are doing so well with such an incredibly experienced manager. We should have just copied them innit??
I do remember it! I just don't remember verbatim. I don't save links. If I remember right, somebody else did re-post the actually wording some time back. And I'm not qualifying anything! The clue is in the word 'guess', As I said, I'm just guessing that at least part of the point he was wanting to emphasise was that he wasn't copying Pep or Brighton or whoever (that he had his own philosophy which was different & unique). Maybe now back to the actual question, has anyone fathomed yet what is different / unique about our way of playing?
That's what qualifying means. You guess. You think maybe what he really meant was not copying certain clubs, rather than the hard line you've always maintained of "lol what's unique about us omg Rosenior's a liar". The actual question is irrelevant because it's built on a false premise unless, once again, you can provide the basis for the premise. Otherwise move on. It was boring about ten times ago when you asked it.
Wow! I'm trying my best to bite my tongue as it's Xmas. 'Guessing' doesn't qualify anything, other than perhaps in your make-believe world. The hard line I've always maintained of "lol what's unique about us omg Rosenior's a liar"?? In actual quotation marks too. WTF? I've NEVER said that! Stop making stuff up. The actual question is relevant as that's what he said. There's no sense in disputing it as it was said, not a 2nd or 3rd hand whisper or rumour, but what he actually did say publicly; I just don't remember the wording verbatim.
Using Sky Sports commentary (app), I have worked out: From the last 7 games, we have taken 9.6 minutes on average to take our first shot. Our opposition have taken 8.7 minutes. If I had the time, I’d check for the season and I do believe results would show a similar conclusion. It’s something I always take note of when watching. In my opinion, apart from goals, shots on target is the only other start which shows how a team has performed.
