System Tinkering

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Stevoldinho said:
andrew taylor
Click to expand...

I would add to that Eikrem and Zaha.

Eikrem - get the ball stop, turn around and pass to the more congested area. Lessons in midfield play from Steve Macphail?

And even OGS by sticking Noonie on the left when Daehli came on. It blunted what had been a promising first half down the right despite Rosenoir having a good game. In fact it can be argued that Rosenoir became more effective getting forward second half as he didn't have None to worry about. The same happened in the Sunderland game when Noone got subbed.

Daehli and Noone seemed to get in each other's way on the left and it was only when Noone came back on the right that we looked like breaking them down.

We frequently had the ball in midfield, looked right and there was no one there or Fabio had another 20 yards to catch up.
 
BluefromBridgend said:
I would add to that Eikrem and Zaha.

Eikrem - get the ball stop, turn around and pass to the more congested area. Lessons in midfield play from Steve Macphail?

And even OGS by sticking Noonie on the left when Daehli came on. It blunted what had been a promising first half down the right despite Rosenoir having a good game. In fact it can be argued that Rosenoir became more effective getting forward second half as he didn't have None to worry about. The same happened in the Sunderland game when Noone got subbed.

Daehli and Noone seemed to get in each other's way on the left and it was only when Noone came back on the right that we looked like breaking them down.

We frequently had the ball in midfield, looked right and there was no one there or Fabio had another 20 yards to catch up.
Click to expand...


As we found on the other thread we probably wont agree on this but the main reason we looked less effective with the introduction on Daehli is the removal of Zaha. The shape was an issue but Zaha is a threat and he demands close attention from defenders. You just can't ask him to defend. If he was willing to work a wing hard and get up/down the pitch he'd be playing for Utd or at least on their bench. His flaws are why we've got him, but his ability could be the difference for us still.

Asking Zaha to be a hard working midfielder is like expecting Marshall to score goals <whistle>
 
And the problem is? Lol!!!

No worries Steve we can't agree on everything but al least we can be reasonable with each other. Unlike that foul mouthed troll Sparkey. <yikes>
 
I can be reasonable, but don't push it pal. Anymore of that sort of name calling on here and I'll get the big boys onto you. Not so much of the "troll" pal - foul mouthed I can take in my stride.

Talking about big boys.........you called?............<laugh>

.......and another thing, I've heard Ole is playing Zaha at left back on Sunday to keep Lennon quiet.
 
Why?

Is he going to talk him to death?

Joking aside, the whole thing is a bloody mess. If OGS rings the changes that will be another side that's not played together before and if he adopts, for instance, 3 5 2, that will further confuse the issue. It really will smack of desperation when we need a settled team and system.

We need one good solid game on which to build a foundation but I can't see where that is coming from.
 
The only hope I have is that he could get forced into a system/selection by being away at a top 6 club that might work for us in future games.

I know I'm repeating myself but we need to shore up the back then try and score 1 maybe 2 to win. This all out attack selection builds pressure on us as we get sucker punched then try to recover leaving bigger and bigger spaces. If we do that v Spurs they might sort their poor goal diff out against us.
 
Oldsparkey said:
If that's the case, you could argue that his petulant swipe at the back of De Guzman's head will cost us our place in the Premier League.
Click to expand...





It could do, or he could well be focused now to fight to the bitter end for you, which is what I think will happen, he's your only player at this level that has the experience of banging them in, surely Ole can setup play around him!....................<ok>
 
Swamp said:
talk about scapegoating. if he was the only one who had a mare we would have won that 4-0, not lost 4-0....
Click to expand...

Directly responsible for 3 goals is a bad day in my book. If he'd done his job properly 3 times we'd have had a chance in that game. Eikrem made a big mistake also for the first goal and Fabio was dodgy but not directly responsible for any of the goals. Goals change games and he was directly at fault for the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Even Liverpool at home could only bail their defence out of jail for 3 goals and they're the top scorers in the league.

The 2nd goal was poor defending all around but hard to isolate 1 specific error that led to the goal.

FC was our worst player going forward imo he ran his socks off but his touch was horrendous.
 
How was Taylor at fault for the third Steve? Fabio stood off Rosenior and let him cross. Jelavic then split our cb's to head In.

Did I miss something?
 
Conceding 4 goals is unacceptable, but almost irrelevent if we can't score.
The defense need to buck up and so do the strikers





And the midfield while I'm thinking about it.
 
BluefromBridgend said:
How was Taylor at fault for the third Steve? Fabio stood off Rosenior and let him cross. Jelavic then split our cb's to head In.

Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Yes. You missed one of the worst things I've seen a professional footballer do. I'd have been dropped from Sunday league for it.

Basically as roseignor is about to cross (ball at his feet) Taylor was 2 yards from Jelavic. If he steps forward and jumps with him it's a difficult chance because he's under pressure. He turns to Caulker who is 10 yards away points at jelavic and runs off back to the left back position. Leaving jelavic to his free header. Jelavic was Taylor's man no question about it. PL strikers don't miss from 6 yards unchallenged. Caulker had no hope of getting there. It was a ridiculous decision and the type of **** play that sees teams score against us at will.

I'll add I only saw it on MOTD (not live) and replayed t about 10 times because I couldn't really believe it!
 
SBFF said:
Conceding 4 goals is unacceptable, but almost irrelevent if we can't score.
The defense need to buck up and so do the strikers





And the midfield while I'm thinking about it.
Click to expand...

I agree in part but we'll never score enough if we defend like that!
 
"I'll add I only saw it on MOTD (not live) and replayed t about 10 times because I couldn't really believe it!"

Thanks Steve, I couldn't bring myself to watch MoTD having suffered enough in the afternoon. Fabio stood off Rosenior though and should have closed him down to prevent an easy cross.
 
just watched back the match on MOTD and how steve basically blamed the loss on taylor is beyond me. he was at fault for goal 3, though no pressure was put to stop the cross. goal 4, yes he gave the ball half way up the pitch but thats a different phase of play, you said 'directly responsible' but that isnt being directly responsible.

if you're intent on blaming people for the loss then why not apportion blame to those that missed chances?

if we create that many chances a game for the rest of the season and shore up the defence we'll stay up. fabio must be dropped as he isnt suited to a relegation battle where we need reliability. we looked very open with two up front but OGS went for it against hull and got caught on the counter whereas malky would have gone 4-5-1 and hoped for a 1-0 at best. hopefully he'll learn from that and we can do better against fulham.
 
Goal 1 was caused in part by Eikrem passing to a Hull player. However there was still a lot of play before the ball reached Huddlestone. Who was supposed to have been tracking him?

Goal 2 could have been prevented by better closing down on firstly the player who crossed it and again the actual goal scorer.

Goal 3 was embarrassing. The crosser had so much space and time to cross and the central defenders position was just amateur.

Goal 4 was caused in part by Taylor passing it but the intended recipient was also at fault but who (like the first goal) was supposed to be tracking and marking Livermore?

In short all 4 goals were capable of being stopped earlier in the moves leading to the final effort. That is rank bad team organisation and application of what we assume they do in training.
 
agree ninian, its lazy to point the finger at one player, who by the way was our second best player last season to marshall....
 
no **** sherlock, but at the moment he's the best LB in our squad and doesnt deserve to be unfairly singled out, especially given that he's given his all and been one of our best players in our 2 championship seasons.......<ok>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back