Yes, 'game management'. Maybe a gulf is an exaggeration, but we should be able to better manage the outcome from 2-1 (arguably from 1-0) up. Roma were never out of the game and clearly looked capable of scoring more than the 2 they finally got. Most accept that the defence performed well enough, but the opposition were able to maintain a hold and got a deserved equaliser very late on. It was those last 5-10 minutes where we looked and felt the most vulnerable, which is exactly the time when the best teams control outcomes. You could just blame Bissouma for falling asleep, but the team as a unit allowed that pressure to build and didn't seem to have a plan to close the match out.
Oh, c'mon! You can hide behind stats (although I would suggest we also remember that it was this unit that last brought silverware to WHL...) but from a purely technical and/or aesthetics perspective, based on their current, not potential abilities, I would prefer to watch all of the following week in week out: Robinson is a better all round keeper than Vic, Benny > Udogie, King >>> than any of our CB's, Daws a more consistent defensive performer than Romero, Keane and Berbatov >>> Solanke and Pigeon Boy. There's even a case for Lennon over Werner or Johnson, although the latters goalscoring levels probably just wins out. Will this list change by the next season? I bloody hope so. In fact I would hope that a few of the present team would have secured their berth by the end of this one, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Seriously? You wrote..."Apparently chaotic draws or defeats are better than boring wins" That ain't what he said and that's what I challenged. You deliberately twisted his words cos you don't rate him. That's fair enough...you could be right but he didn't say that. I ain't said you or anyone else has misunderstood his quote
Robinson always had an issue facing long range shots...G. Marcotti (not sure if spelling is right), the Italian journalist said that coaches believed he would use his lower arm to reach shots which shortens his reach. Robinson, from early 2000 to when he left had some truly horrific performances which cost us dearly. Dawson is nowhere near as good or consistent as VDV and is behind Romero IMHO. Keane and Berbatov were way better than what we have now. Think BAE was good but not as good as Udogie. Think there's a bit of nostalgia in some of your choices
I think Ekotto’s consistency after his injury issues was insanely good in my opinion, he rarely had a bad game and was such a complete FB being good defensively and offensively. I think Udogie has a massive ceiling and in time will likely become one of the best FBs in Europe and probably join City/ Madrid but right now I don’t think he’s performing better than Ekotto at his peak. I agree RE Robbo though, I loved him as everyone else did but I’d take Vic over him on ability, a much better shot stopper. Robbo really did have some launch on his kicks though. Same for Daws, absolutely loved him but Romero and van de Ven would edge him on quality/ ability, both have more to their games.
Are you confusing Robbo with Ian Walker? Robbo only joined us in 2004! please log in to view this image (If so, I agree 100%) I did make certain aspects of their game the reasons for my choices and not just for pure 'ability'. That's why I'd take Daws over Romero. He possessed one of the things this current crop lacks: leadership and outright passion. Cuti is technically a better footballer, but which would I prefer? Sorry, its Daws every time for me. BAE was at this stage of Udogies development the better all round full back, although like DH I think Destiny has the potential to be a top player.
Walker is the GK coach for the top Shanghai side in the Chinese League..... They must have some bloody good defenders, that's all Ill say!!
Even take away my quote of chaotic draws or defeats are better than boring wins and you can still interpret it as he puts entertainment over wins. I didn’t say it because I don’t rate him, I said it because I think it’s another weird thing that he’s said. When he does well I’ll give him credit (like the city game) but when Spurs throw away a win by conceding in the 91st minute then I’ll give my opinion on the manager coming out with stuff like that.
Do you actually watch games or do you just look at the stats after them? Game management doesn’t exist?
Comes from the manager, he won’t ever park the bus. It’s why Spurs at 2-0 against City got the third and fourth. It’s also why they can always concede a late goal.
I think we're agreeing basically, although I think that goals 3 and 4 were more about the City attitude implosion and the ability of our lads to break really fast.
I think that the debates on here are great so hope every carries on giving their opinion. As for Thursday, the players, particularly Solanke is to blame. Had he taken his chances we'd have won and had he had a better first touch we'd have been able to create more chances. They had 3 disallowed goals but that shows IMHO that we got a lot right defense wise. We hit the woodwork 3 times so there was a touch of misfortune on our part. I think he (rightly or wrongly) is trying to instill a way of playing across the club. The under 19s play the same style for example. He takes that seriously (unlike all of our managers since Jol) and is using the media to stress that. Really reminds me of Burkinshaw in his early years. Never got carried away with great results and not too down about us being battered. I could be absolutely wrong but think we are moving in the right direction. I loved the match on Thursday and so did the rest of the crowd. Shame about the draw but our inexperienced younger players are still learning. Am really looking forward to tomorrow
I rarely post on here during games because I want to watch them without distraction. Stats are important to understand what happened better. Game management might work if you are two up with 10 mins to go. Other than that I see little evidence
I don't think that they imploded, they just had a massive space in the middle of the park for the whole game. Virtually their entire team had an average position there, but as soon as we broke out from the back it evaporated. Nobody was protecting the back four and they got overloaded repeatedly. I thought that we did something comparable to City with our late subs against Roma, specifically Bergvall for Bentancur. He did surprisingly well in the air when defending set-pieces, but we basically gifted them possession with our attacking lineup. Bissouma became the only player in there that could tackle or win the ball back. They were allowed far too much space.
I've seen no evidence that it works. It's fairly obvious that we can play in a way that at least slightly reduces the chance of the opponents scoring but that will almost inevitably reduce the chance of us scoring too. Sometimes they will score a worldy or we will make a mistake and concede anyway. The reduced chance of scoring will sometimes cost us the points in that case. It also means that we will have to practice playing in a different style so will have less time to practice our normal style. It's not at all obvious that it's a net benefit...but if it is, there should be statistical analysis that supports it. I can't find any.
Is that not game management to change things when you’re winning so you reduce the chances of opponents scoring to cost you the win?
