Now before you all start, let me say that I really enjoyed Saturday's performance v the scum and look forward to more of the same. But I was surprised to see just how far MH has moved us towards the kind of ball-keeping, slow build-up approach that typifies Barca and which is being seen as a role model for coaches world wide. If you look across the Premier League you can see this being repeated by the majority of the clubs now. Is this necessarily a good thing? I must admit I have been of the opinion that the reason the PL is the most watched domestic league in the world is because it has the cut and thrust that the likes of Spain and Italy have traditionally lacked. While some of our play on Saturday was very pleasing to behold (particularly for us who suffered so long with the aimless long ball game of the lower divisions), swashbuckling, pacy and adventurous it most certainly wasn't. Neither was Chelsea of course. Nor were the majority of games from this week's fixtures. And yet those are exactly the characteristics that have attracted those huge overseas audiences. Is this the best direction for the English game? Will you still love me tomorrow?
Best understatement of the weekend. Agree, too many PL games are becoming boring, We are becming boring. Way too cautious an approach.
I know it's sometimes unfair to talk about this kind of thing given rangers fans are spread across all corners of the world, but you wouldn't be saying we were boring if you were at the match. It was beautiful to behold at times! The link up play in the midfield was pacy and dynamic, against the premiership's form side and current champions of europe. Every thread i look at inevitably has a post from Oslo complaining about the performance at the moment, it's a right pain! Contrast saturday with the Norwich and Swansea games and we've come lightyears. There's absolutely no grounds for complaint. If we're gona moan when we've played well, and moan when we've played poorly, then this is gona end up a pretty depressing board..
I think some people like to pretend they're intelligent by being critical. Being critical makes you look like you have high standards. There are many tv pundits who do this and annoy me so much, such as Mark Lawrenson. He talks as if he's the most intelligent, knowledgeable person in the World of football but who is he? He does this by being hyper critical of even World class players if they miscontrol the ball once. It makes him seem like this amazing person who only has time for the best, like a connoisseur of fine wine. He gets on my wick! Another thing about Lawrenson (you can see I'm not a fan) is that he's really critical of the whole footballing system and all the money involved now. How much does he get paid? His whole livelihood is based on it!! Anyway, about the topic in hand, I think it's rubbish and it's fashionable to be critical of this elusive "new way of playing". There are plenty of teams being labelled as playing this "new football" when they're actually not. Since when is it new to pass the ball around a bit? It is only a good thing, if you're a manager, to get your team comfortable with passing rather than panic clearing, passing backwards all the time, or hoofing it up and hoping. I will agree that investors are trying to turn certain PL clubs into European style teams from the ground up, including the clubs image and philosophy. Man City and Chelsea sometimes seem like they don't want to be English clubs and want to distance themselves from English football, which is mad.
I have written many positive things about us Saturday, if you really have read many threads, particularly Ale and Granero, also Ferdinand (his best game ever in a QPR shirt for me) and Cesar, and the whole team's general performance. But exciting or adventurous football? I don't think so. I would have preferred to see us start the game like we meant to win it, rather than playing so safe from the start, possibly with the intention of bringing on Cisse, Adel or Hoillet later. If you don't want read my comments, put me on ignore.
100% spot on. Being in the stadium on Saturday was an electrifying experience, loved every minute. Completely riveted, and on our players - never gave the Chelsea players a second thought, including Hazard. Certainly no time to spot animals on the pitch, missed that completely.
Many have said they thought it MH's INTENTION to bring on Cisse, Adel or Hoillet late in the game. Obviously he was limited to just Cisse!
The injuries definitely would have ruined MH's game plan but two injuries early on would ruin any managers plan! Thought Mackie for Johnson was a strange one, considering Cisse was available?
I think he did it because the side had been doing well with the personnel on the pitch up until that point, and Mackie was the most like for like sub for Johnson we could go for. It would have been too early to stick on a non defensively-minded player after just 32 minutes, considering we'd been doing well with a defensive approach so far.
Mackie would chase back more, his plan was to play 442 but drop one of the forwards back into midfield when we dont have possession. Mackie is the better option in that case.
Very good point, Mackie offers far more to the team as a whole and works far harder than Cisse. Had it been 32 mins left it may have been different!
I agree. The dutch teams of the 70s were just doing the same thing. Barca/Spain have just adapted it to the modern era and it will persist until a) the opposition learn to counter it b) everyone copies it until it stagnates or c) it fades our of consciousness due to managerial changes at Barca and an inability to recreate it. Applied to us or the Prem just won't last. Although it is the target, it's an elusive geographical one. The reason that Spain can play such a measured, technical game (as have Brazil for 60 years) is due to the climate that reduces the opposition's ability to press for a full 90 minutes. With our temperate one, teams can press as a group for 90 mins (especially from October to March/April) and so it is less effective or shows up the bad days more. Our performance on Saturday was, first and foremost, an improvement on everything before it this season. Criticism of our ball retention has regularly been cited against the team. We were better in that respect. We haven't come so far yet that we can say that we're going to blitz a team like Chelsea but ball retention is the first foundation for further improvement. Perhaps the crazy close season has turned us into adrenaline junkies and we expect goals and performances but I have to say that Saturday's game had all the tension and competitiveness that makes our domestic leagues great. No goals but compelling viewing (like Stoke last year).
On the OP my only comment is FOR F*CK'S SAKE! How many times have we all been on here moaning that we can't string two or three passes together without giving the ball away? Now we've just drawn with the Champions of Europe having had more possession and you're f*ckin' bored! Beam me up...
Erm, I didn't say I was bored or even that I disliked the way we played in any way. I was simply asking the question about whether or not this style of play might in the long run affect overseas audiences who are largely responsible for delivering the revenues the PL uniquely enjoys. As ever, it seems we can't broach any even slightly controversial topics without people getting defensive.
