What had Ramsey done to show himself to be a brilliant coach? Sorry, there's a lot of crap being spouted about Ramsey.
Col put the results aside We have a team albeit a failed one He deserves a chance to build his own IMO Look what he has done with the misfits ... All excellent players brought by Harold but never ever a team because Harold thinks you just need to buy players and it works Ramsey galvanised a team to compete and even by his own words that meant not playing the clubs best players
I completely agree that he has got the players up for playing for him. But he has made just as many strange selections as Harry did. The football has continued to be hoof ball dire imo.
He remained singularly focused on 4-4-2 to suit Austin. He made very little use of Vargas and should have stuck with Isla when he was fit. His use of Henry on the left apart from the Chelsea game was a strange move in games we had to win. Suk-Young would have offered more going forward in those games also.
I prefer that we play 4 2 3 1, or 4 5 1 or 4 3 3, myself but much of the time Ramsey has been in charge it has seemed hard to see how it could work well with the players he had available. He played 4 2 3 1 at Sunderland when we did well and won, but then he lost Fer in the same game, who was key in the middle of the front 3, to injury. The players who could have done Fer's job there well, were for me Krancjar or Adel, but neither seems to have been fit enough. Phillips would have been a shoe in on the right side of the 3, but the left side was a problem as well. Vargas looked out of position there, and then got injured when he did come in, Hoilett rarely produces, Traore for me can't play midfield, though personally I'd prefer him to Yun or Clint (usually) at LB, but I'm not sure he is fit now either - not even in the squads lately. Kranjcar played left side, but he is way too slow for that position. and he and Adel are not fit enough as said. So we didn't really have anyone to fill 2 of the 3 attacking midfield positions in a 4 2 3 1, with the creativity, speed and product needed in these positions. So when he didn't have the material for 4 2 3 1, he was probably right to stick with 4 4 2 when he had Zamora and Austin (with Vargas in reserve until his injury) to play up front. Vargas off Zamora, seeing Austin's form drop may have been a better bet in retrospect, but it's hard to leave out your top scorer, and when the form drop really showed as of late, Vargas got injured too. I don't know that he should have stuck with Isla either, he's a better going forward than Ned, but he lost his left winger through lack of concentration about every game, and gave many goals away. Yun ?- he's done little right going forward when he's come on recently..
Oslo..............we have players that are far more suited to 4-2-3-1 than 4-4-2 (apart from Austin). So I do have some sympathy with Ramsey for persevering with it. However, he should have changed tactics once it was clear that Austin had gone off the boil and the hoof up to BZ simply wasn't working.
If anyone on here can make a case that we had a good cohesive enough midfield to play through premiership teams I will read it but it won't be right IMO We had Henry who game is about stopping Sandro who is similar but not as good as Henry and Barton who runs a lot usually after his own poor positioning or passing We have real talent in players but no team ... BZ and Austin were linking up well so why not it actually troubled other teams Our defence was not quick and any team running at us ... IMO looked like they could score I fully understand why CR had to play long ... Add up how many times we did damage to ourselves ? Trying to play under Harold? The season was littered by personal mistakes you lot should know you have talking about each one after every match I just watched the match v Liverpool and we looked poor but the effort and teamwork looked fine not hard to see how CR settled on how to play IMO Bloody clever bloke IMO hope we get to see him expand his ideas with his players
I identified above, as Dave has more clearly that Ramsey didn't have the players available to play well through PL teams in midfield, and no attacking players good enough on the left side. Who was going to play in the attacking 3 in 4 2 3 1, apart from Phillips on the right side, when Fer, Adel, Krancjar, Vargas, Toilet and Traore were injured (Fer and Vargas), not fit or injured (Adel and Krancjar), out position (which Vargas was on the left, probably central as well), or have repeatedly not been good enough there (Toilet and Traore).? In Phillips, Barton, Sandro and Henry he had the players who could shore us up centrally and down the left, and with Phillips attack down the right, and of course over the top, as he's done. But I don't see Sandro or Henry at least in an attacking 3, and in any case they were needed further back. Ramsey had the players to do what he's done, but hasn't for 4 2 3 1, at least once Fer got injured at Sunderland Ramsey made some smart moves, moving Henry out to the left side against Chelsea really reduced their threat there and very nearly got us a point. He's done well with his substitutions as well IMO.
No point in repeating myself. We'll agree to differ. Do you know what his ideas are? Not hoof ball I hope.
He played Henry on the left against West Ham too and didn't take all three defensive midfielders off all game, when we needed a goal. Look, we're both just repeating ourselves. Let's just agree to differ.
