Says the man whose spelling and grammar makes people lose thousands of brain cells trying to decipher every post...Huddlestone
- Thread starter tigerpants54
- Start date
-
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
-
Says the man whose spelling and grammar makes people lose thousands of brain cells trying to decipher every post...
I think this has been one of the better threads of late, just a pity the board seems to have developed an uber-class of pedantry and grammar police.
I think it's always good to have a close look at your players and the opinion swapping has done that.
I have said elsewhere, over the last few weeks, that I think SB has got it a tad wrong, but he has also got it a tad right; let me explain what I think.
We had developed a defensive frailty, we scored goals, we took charge and then we lacked the ability to hold on and defend that lead - whether that was by continuing to attack or, the other option, by taking up a deeper defensive wall - not necessarily parking the bus, but you know what I mean. One of the things I thought SB did was to get TH to play deeper and offer more defensively - I think this was right and I think it achieved what SB was looking for. But football is cruel and we took hits on our Gkeepers and back four; this was unsettling to the team, but I believe we coped manfully. Jak and Macca came in and did okay - I'm not really too sure what some posters expected of them both on coming back into the team after long layoffs.
What did happen (forget Burnley for now) is we played Arsenal, Liverpool and a barnstorming Soton, who were the handful we expected. Possession was poor, defending was deep and Hudds played his role according to instruction (IMO); the problem being that Hudds was now defensive and not higher up causing and creating a threat - that was the job of others. In those three games I think it is difficult to find too much fault with the overall defence - I count Hudds into that.
What I do know is that, especially at this level, you have to defend from the front and SB has left Hernandez isolated and vulnerable so that he can square his defensive frailties, but, effectively, this neutralized Hernandez as an asset, doing their defence a huge favour. Diame, who SB would have pinned a lot of hope on (wouldn't you after his start with us?) has been taken out of the game as a big threat as the opposition made him a very clear target. Livermore has done the yards, but has not offered a threat, Meyler might as he has before. I think Brady is yet to show if he really has it and Elmo needs more support and targets; SB will play Robertson when he is fit and ready (and hopefully a little better defensively). Aluko is a tricky player but I thinks he beats himself more than his marker - I no longer see him as a useful asset to our style of play. Overall I would say we are simply short (once again) of holding the ball up to create threat and this I believe is the mistake SB has made; he needs to get Sagbo back in to cover for Jelly. Hernandez needs a foil and Aluko isn't it.
Back to Burnley, it was dire, the team selection, the injury disruptions, the clear lack of wanting-to, was a bloody big wake-up call at a point in our season where we can adjust and recover. For me, how we proceed is down to how SB addresses our attacking threat.
I think it's always good to have a close look at your players and the opinion swapping has done that.
I have said elsewhere, over the last few weeks, that I think SB has got it a tad wrong, but he has also got it a tad right; let me explain what I think.
We had developed a defensive frailty, we scored goals, we took charge and then we lacked the ability to hold on and defend that lead - whether that was by continuing to attack or, the other option, by taking up a deeper defensive wall - not necessarily parking the bus, but you know what I mean. One of the things I thought SB did was to get TH to play deeper and offer more defensively - I think this was right and I think it achieved what SB was looking for. But football is cruel and we took hits on our Gkeepers and back four; this was unsettling to the team, but I believe we coped manfully. Jak and Macca came in and did okay - I'm not really too sure what some posters expected of them both on coming back into the team after long layoffs.
What did happen (forget Burnley for now) is we played Arsenal, Liverpool and a barnstorming Soton, who were the handful we expected. Possession was poor, defending was deep and Hudds played his role according to instruction (IMO); the problem being that Hudds was now defensive and not higher up causing and creating a threat - that was the job of others. In those three games I think it is difficult to find too much fault with the overall defence - I count Hudds into that.
What I do know is that, especially at this level, you have to defend from the front and SB has left Hernandez isolated and vulnerable so that he can square his defensive frailties, but, effectively, this neutralized Hernandez as an asset, doing their defence a huge favour. Diame, who SB would have pinned a lot of hope on (wouldn't you after his start with us?) has been taken out of the game as a big threat as the opposition made him a very clear target. Livermore has done the yards, but has not offered a threat, Meyler might as he has before. I think Brady is yet to show if he really has it and Elmo needs more support and targets; SB will play Robertson when he is fit and ready (and hopefully a little better defensively). Aluko is a tricky player but I thinks he beats himself more than his marker - I no longer see him as a useful asset to our style of play. Overall I would say we are simply short (once again) of holding the ball up to create threat and this I believe is the mistake SB has made; he needs to get Sagbo back in to cover for Jelly. Hernandez needs a foil and Aluko isn't it.
Back to Burnley, it was dire, the team selection, the injury disruptions, the clear lack of wanting-to, was a bloody big wake-up call at a point in our season where we can adjust and recover. For me, how we proceed is down to how SB addresses our attacking threat.
Good post and sums up for the most part my view of the situation. One thing to add which I am yet to finally decide which is the reason for the goals drying up.
1. Changing from 442 to 352, since doing this, apart from Arsenal we have found goals hard to find. I feel this is because both Elmo and Brady have been given a defensive frame of mind rather than an attacking one. In a 442, with say Rossy behind him, Elmo get forward more and get more crosses in. Whereas in a 352 he seems more intent on being defensive.
Or
2. Has the lack of goals just been purely down to Jelly missing?
Probable a combination of the two.
If you play conservatively against teams near the bottom then you can expect to end up near the bottom with them.
Hahahaha... Grammar nazis and keyboard warriors all out now on a thread about football.
Why don't we all go back to the post about Huddlestone?
Why does someone who's posted 18,000+ times or have "Sir" at the start of their username mean they know more than someone who has posted 4 or 5 times? It's like saying Saurez is a worse player than Nicklas Bendtner because he's had less games (get the drift?)
We all have opinions hence why we write them on a forum. So that people see things and angles that maybe miss.
At the end of the day something needs changing. Surely we ALL agree on this?
Back to Tommy H. As Tigerpants54 he has 1 good game in 15. This is awful form. Stats don't lie. They don't live on someones rep either.
One or the other for me (LIVERMORE or HUDDLESTONE, not both) For me Livermore but that's my opinion. I think leaving them a few games can't hurt, as it can't get much worse than Burnley and it'll give these 2 and a few others a kick up the arse!!!!
Why don't we all go back to the post about Huddlestone?
Why does someone who's posted 18,000+ times or have "Sir" at the start of their username mean they know more than someone who has posted 4 or 5 times? It's like saying Saurez is a worse player than Nicklas Bendtner because he's had less games (get the drift?)
We all have opinions hence why we write them on a forum. So that people see things and angles that maybe miss.
At the end of the day something needs changing. Surely we ALL agree on this?
Back to Tommy H. As Tigerpants54 he has 1 good game in 15. This is awful form. Stats don't lie. They don't live on someones rep either.
One or the other for me (LIVERMORE or HUDDLESTONE, not both) For me Livermore but that's my opinion. I think leaving them a few games can't hurt, as it can't get much worse than Burnley and it'll give these 2 and a few others a kick up the arse!!!!
Is that Sauron's Spanish cousin? He ran one ring round the opposition. Then to celebrate he got completely Legolas.
