New Manager

[PLT]

I don't get this obsession with that playing without a striker is negative.

Spain won Euro 2012 without playing a striker, Messi played as a false 9 and Man City won the Premier League in 2020/21 with playing a proper striker.

Yep, and most of our best games came with no 'natural' strikers on from the start. We scored loads in the last few weeks without starting with a striker.

On this issue, some people are more concerned with the almost religious devotion to players being in "correct" positions than they are with how it actually goes. Score 3 goals in consecutive games with Tufan and Carvalho as the front two? Doesn't matter, it's still wrong to start them apparently.

And as I've pointed out before, people wanted natural strikers, but they also wanted Tufan playing every game, and when you consider that Ömür, Carvalho and Philogene were nailed on starters, you simply can't fit all of these players in at once. It was impossible to pick a team that satisfied people's demands.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Yep, and most of our best games came with no 'natural' strikers on from the start. We scored loads in the last few weeks without starting with a striker.

On this issue, some people are more concerned with the almost religious devotion to players being in "correct" positions than they are with how it actually goes. Score 3 goals in consecutive games with Tufan and Carvalho as the front two? Doesn't matter, it's still wrong to start them apparently.

And as I've pointed out before, people wanted natural strikers, but they also wanted Tufan playing every game, and when you consider that Ömür, Carvalho and Philogene were nailed on starters, you simply can't fit all of these players in at once. It was impossible to pick a team that satisfied people's demands.

Someone earlier posted about a dozen questions, and one was 'why did Omur and Tufan keep getting dropped' and another was 'why didn't Ohio get more starts' like it can't be both! We don't get to start 13 players just because we've got lots of options.

 

[balkan tiger]

.

 

[PLT]

And on Ohio. Now that we know Acun was badgering LR to play certain players, I look back at that Stoke game where Ohio unexpectedly started, out of nowhere, when he'd never looked good enough and wasn't in favour, and then after that game he disappeared again for a few weeks until he later found some form, fitness, tactical understanding and became trusted by LR. Why did he play that one game in the middle of a long spell of not being fancied? Right after the three week break in Turkey. Now that we know Acun had been badgering LR to play him as well as others, it makes me wonder whether that played a part in him starting that game.

And this is the thing with owners being involved in the football side. It's never them that gets the blame for the outcome, always the manager. LR gets loads of stick for that Stoke game being ****. But Acun's man who Liam didn't fancy was leading the line...

 

[Newland Tiger]

Part of Acuns point was that Ohio was fit, and he was good enough to again get called up by and play for Holland U21s. You don't do that if you're unfit and crap.
He was raw but maybe he'd have come on rapidly had he been played? And for those that say Rosenior did so well developing young players including those on loan, I guess Ohio is one of those several examples that you choose to ignore. Can't have it both ways.

It's easy with hindsight isn't it ? if you were in the minority who thought Ohio should have been starting games
as soon as he joined the club then well done

 

[SydneyTiger14]

And on Ohio. Now that we know Acun was badgering LR to play certain players, I look back at that Stoke game where Ohio unexpectedly started, out of nowhere, when he'd never looked good enough and wasn't in favour, and then after that game he disappeared again for a few weeks until he later found some form, fitness, tactical understanding and became trusted by LR. Why did he play that one game in the middle of a long spell of not being fancied? Right after the three week break in Turkey. Now that we know Acun had been badgering LR to play him as well as others, it makes me wonder whether that played a part in him starting that game.

And this is the thing with owners being involved in the football side. It's never them that gets the blame for the outcome, always the manager. LR gets loads of stick for that Stoke game being ****. But Acun's man who Liam didn't fancy was leading the line...

I'd actually forgotten he started that game. Very good point..

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Part of Acuns point was that Ohio was fit, and he was good enough to again get called up by and play for Holland U21s. You don't do that if you're unfit and crap.
He was raw but maybe he'd have come on rapidly had he been played? And for those that say Rosenior did so well developing young players including those on loan, I guess Ohio is one of those several examples that you choose to ignore. Can't have it both ways.

What on earth? You absolutely can use Ohio as an example. He came in and developed and improved under Rosenior and he scored against Coventry and Ipswich as a result. Or have you forgotten those games? Ohio is a perfect example.

 

[Phinius T Bookbinder]

Why? Carvalho and Tufan played false 9 at times and scored goals. Who cares what their designated 'position' is?

You have just quoted the two main goalscorers who are very good players. Modern football is full of technical words and “ clever” ways of playing and I get that. I don’t care what their designated position is as long as they are goalscorers. However we and all clubs imo would by and large go with a striker/ forward call it what you want if they knew where the net was.

 

[Gone For A Walk]

It's easy with hindsight isn't it ? if you were in the minority who thought Ohio should have been starting games
as soon as he joined the club then well done

I didn't say I thought he should have been starting! I was simply posting about what Acun's said / what his point was and added a question.

 

[Jeff Lynnes PBCW™]

And on Ohio. Now that we know Acun was badgering LR to play certain players, I look back at that Stoke game where Ohio unexpectedly started, out of nowhere, when he'd never looked good enough and wasn't in favour, and then after that game he disappeared again for a few weeks until he later found some form, fitness, tactical understanding and became trusted by LR. Why did he play that one game in the middle of a long spell of not being fancied? Right after the three week break in Turkey. Now that we know Acun had been badgering LR to play him as well as others, it makes me wonder whether that played a part in him starting that game.

And this is the thing with owners being involved in the football side. It's never them that gets the blame for the outcome, always the manager. LR gets loads of stick for that Stoke game being ****. But Acun's man who Liam didn't fancy was leading the line...

That’s a huge leap that Acun intervened with no evidence.
Can I request that you are not my juror if the circumstances should ever arise that I’m in front of a jury.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

You have just quoted the two main goalscorers who are very good players. Modern football is full of technical words and “ clever” ways of playing and I get that. I don’t care what their designated position is as long as they are goalscorers. However we and all clubs imo would by and large go with a striker/ forward call it what you want if they knew where the net was.

But that's my point, we did go with forwards. Just because we didn't throw 38 year old Billy Sharp on didn't magically mean that Carvalho and Tufan were unable to score for us.

 

[Phinius T Bookbinder]

But that's my point, we did go with forwards. Just because we didn't throw 38 year old Billy Sharp on didn't magically mean that Carvalho and Tufan were unable to score for us.

I’m in a way in agreement with you. Not sure what the thinking was around Sharp in the first place. We went with what we had. Personally I would have liked to see a good natural goal scorer which we didn’t have. Anyway what’s done is done. Let’s see who comes in.

 

[Jeff Lynnes PBCW™]

Why are we still debating Liam? He's gone.

Something for the Liam "disciples" to consider.
He was a relatively inexperienced Manager.
Let's face it, he was a great defender for us but never a hint that any of the elite Premier League teams were interested in him as a player.

What qualifications does he have? A UEFA Pro license.
There are 383 other English coaches with the same qualification.
Phil Brown, Nigel Pearson, Mick McCarthy (now considered to be "less modern") all have the exact same qualification.

There isn't another secret course run by Pep / Klopp to teach the nuances of Tika-Taka and Gegenpressing.
Many coaches have just tried to study and then copy these tactics.

Liam is just following a play out from the back in possession, use high press when out of possession tactic.
The question is whether he can get the players to play in that style effective enough to win enough games.
He didn't. We move on.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Why are we still debating Liam? He's gone.

Something for the Liam "disciples" to consider.
He was a relatively inexperienced Manager.
Let's face it, he was a great defender for us but never a hint that any of the elite Premier League teams were interested in him as a player.

What qualifications does he have? A UEFA Pro license.
There are 383 other English coaches with the same qualification.
Phil Brown, Nigel Pearson, Mick McCarthy (now considered to be "less modern") all have the exact same qualification.

There isn't another secret course run by Pep / Klopp to teach the nuances of Tika-Taka and Gegenpressing.
Many coaches have just tried to study and then copy these tactics.

Liam is just following a play out from the back in possession, use high press when out of possession tactic.
The question is whether he can get the players to play in that style effective enough to win enough games.
He didn't. We move on.

I'm not quite sure I buy the argument that you have to be a great player to be a great manager, and quite often the opposite is true. Rooney was propped up by Rosenior.

 

[Jeff Lynnes PBCW™]

I'm not quite sure I buy the argument that you have to be a great player to be a great manager, and quite often the opposite is true. Rooney was propped up by Rosenior.

That is not my point.
Most great managers weren't great players.
The jury is still out for me on Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard as to whether any of them are in the elite league or can get there.

 

[Gone For A Walk]

What on earth? You absolutely can use Ohio as an example. He came in and developed and improved under Rosenior and he scored against Coventry and Ipswich as a result. Or have you forgotten those games? Ohio is a perfect example.

Please just stop it. You make yourself look ridiculous.

For the record, here's the facts:

Millwall. Sub (74 mins)
Swansea. Unused sub.
Rotherham. Sub (79 mins). Oooh, a goal (and quite a neat, strikers finish it was too)
Huddersfield. Sub (45 mins)
Southampton. Not in the squad.
WBA. Not in the squad.
..... development going well ....
PNE. Unused sub.
Birmingham. Sub (79 mins)
Leicester. Unused sub.
Stoke. Starter (subbed 71 mins)
Leeds. Unused sub.
.... development going really well......
Cardiff. Unused sub
Middlesboro. Not in the squad.
.... development off the scale ....
QPR. Yep. Not in the squad.
Watford. You guess it. Not in the squad.
... now we're getting desperate for goals and wins due to only 2 wins in 10 ....
Coventry. Sub (78 mins). Oooh, Goal
Ipswich. Sub (even earlier, 74 mins). Ooh, another goal.
... maybe now a starter in a must win game, due to 2 in 2 from about 30 mins on the pitch ....
Plymouth. Nope, sub for 2nd half (when we were chasing the game, playing **** and basically ****ed it up).

If you can see 'development by Rosenior' there then I'd suggest to stop taking the pills. All I can see is him hardly getting a chance, but on the odd occasion he did get a chance he tended to score. Bit like Oscar really; it's almost as if Rosenior didn't like goal scoring CF's? He was with us for 18 games. Made 8 appearances. Scored 3 goals in those 8 appearances, in spite of being only a second half sub on 7 of those occasions, usually coming on in the last 15 mins.

Btw, I'm not saying he should have started every game with us. I'm just expanding on Acun's point, and countering nonsense about Rosenior supposedly having so clearly developed him!!

 

[originallambrettaman]

Please just stop it. You make yourself look ridiculous.

For the record, here's the facts:

Millwall. Sub (74 mins)
Swansea. Unused sub.
Rotherham. Sub (79 mins). Oooh, a goal (and quite a neat, strikers finish it was too)
Huddersfield. Sub (45 mins)
Southampton. Not in the squad.
WBA. Not in the squad.
..... development going well ....
PNE. Unused sub.
Birmingham. Sub (79 mins)
Leicester. Unused sub.
Stoke. Starter (subbed 71 mins)
Leeds. Unused sub.
.... development going really well......
Cardiff. Unused sub
Middlesboro. Not in the squad.
.... development off the scale ....
QPR. Yep. Not in the squad.
Watford. You guess it. Not in the squad.
... now we're getting desperate for goals and wins due to only 2 wins in 10 ....
Coventry. Sub (78 mins). Oooh, Goal
Ipswich. Sub (even earlier, 74 mins). Ooh, another goal.
... maybe now a starter in a must win game, due to 2 in 2 from about 30 mins on the pitch ....
Plymouth. Nope, sub for 2nd half (when we were chasing the game, playing **** and basically ****ed it up).

If you can see 'development by Rosenior' there then I'd suggest to stop taking the pills. All I can see is him hardly getting a chance, but on the odd occasion he did get a chance he tended to score. Bit like Oscar really; it's almost as if Rosenior didn't like goal scoring CF's? He was with us for 18 games. Made 8 appearances. Scored 3 goals in those 8 appearances, in spite of being only a second half sub on 7 of those occasions, usually coming on in the last 15 mins.

Btw, I'm not saying he should have started every game with us. I'm just expanding on Acun's point, and countering nonsense about Rosenior supposedly having so clearly developed him!!

So you'd played Ohio ahead of who in those earlier games, Carvalho or Tufan?

'Plymouth. Nope, sub for 2nd half (when we were chasing the game, playing **** and basically ****ed it up)' - So you'd have started Ohio ahead of Delap?

 

[SydneyTiger14]

That is not my point.
Most great managers weren't great players.
The jury is still out for me on Rooney, Lampard and Gerrard as to whether any of them are in the elite league or can get there.

I'm not quite sure why you raised the fact elite PL clubs weren't interested in him then.

 

[SydneyTiger14]

Please just stop it. You make yourself look ridiculous.

For the record, here's the facts:

Millwall. Sub (74 mins)
Swansea. Unused sub.
Rotherham. Sub (79 mins). Oooh, a goal (and quite a neat, strikers finish it was too)
Huddersfield. Sub (45 mins)
Southampton. Not in the squad.
WBA. Not in the squad.
..... development going well ....
PNE. Unused sub.
Birmingham. Sub (79 mins)
Leicester. Unused sub.
Stoke. Starter (subbed 71 mins)
Leeds. Unused sub.
.... development going really well......
Cardiff. Unused sub
Middlesboro. Not in the squad.
.... development off the scale ....
QPR. Yep. Not in the squad.
Watford. You guess it. Not in the squad.
... now we're getting desperate for goals and wins due to only 2 wins in 10 ....
Coventry. Sub (78 mins). Oooh, Goal
Ipswich. Sub (even earlier, 74 mins). Ooh, another goal.
... maybe now a starter in a must win game, due to 2 in 2 from about 30 mins on the pitch ....
Plymouth. Nope, sub for 2nd half (when we were chasing the game, playing **** and basically ****ed it up).

If you can see 'development by Rosenior' there then I'd suggest to stop taking the pills. All I can see is him hardly getting a chance, but on the odd occasion he did get a chance he tended to score. Bit like Oscar really; it's almost as if Rosenior didn't like goal scoring CF's? He was with us for 18 games. Made 8 appearances. Scored 3 goals in those 8 appearances, in spite of being only a second half sub on 7 of those occasions, usually coming on in the last 15 mins.

Btw, I'm not saying he should have started every game with us. I'm just expanding on Acun's point, and countering nonsense about Rosenior supposedly having so clearly developed him!!

I'm making myself look ridiculous? You don't even know what point you're trying to make. You suggested that the people pointing to Rosenior's record of improving players falls flat when looking at Ohio when it's the opposite. He was unfit and struggling with ball retention through his first few games (despite you and others trying to claim he was looking promising and even good in a couple of games) had a poor performance against Huddersfield and dropped out of the squad until Stoke, where he didn't look any better, and then supposedly put his head down and got to work according to LR and by Coventry he was up to speed and made an impact when coming on.

You can be as sarky and ignorant as you want, it doesn't change the facts he was a noticeably better player in his last three appearances than at any point prior (goal against Rotherham aside). His all round play was markedly better. That's sort of the definition of improving a player, no?

 

[Ernie Shackleton]

Please just stop it. You make yourself look ridiculous.

For the record, here's the facts:

Millwall. Sub (74 mins)
Swansea. Unused sub.
Rotherham. Sub (79 mins). Oooh, a goal (and quite a neat, strikers finish it was too)
Huddersfield. Sub (45 mins)
Southampton. Not in the squad.
WBA. Not in the squad.
..... development going well ....
PNE. Unused sub.
Birmingham. Sub (79 mins)
Leicester. Unused sub.
Stoke. Starter (subbed 71 mins)
Leeds. Unused sub.
.... development going really well......
Cardiff. Unused sub
Middlesboro. Not in the squad.
.... development off the scale ....
QPR. Yep. Not in the squad.
Watford. You guess it. Not in the squad.
... now we're getting desperate for goals and wins due to only 2 wins in 10 ....
Coventry. Sub (78 mins). Oooh, Goal
Ipswich. Sub (even earlier, 74 mins). Ooh, another goal.
... maybe now a starter in a must win game, due to 2 in 2 from about 30 mins on the pitch ....
Plymouth. Nope, sub for 2nd half (when we were chasing the game, playing **** and basically ****ed it up).

If you can see 'development by Rosenior' there then I'd suggest to stop taking the pills. All I can see is him hardly getting a chance, but on the odd occasion he did get a chance he tended to score. Bit like Oscar really; it's almost as if Rosenior didn't like goal scoring CF's? He was with us for 18 games. Made 8 appearances. Scored 3 goals in those 8 appearances, in spite of being only a second half sub on 7 of those occasions, usually coming on in the last 15 mins.

Btw, I'm not saying he should have started every game with us. I'm just expanding on Acun's point, and countering nonsense about Rosenior supposedly having so clearly developed him!!

Early games for us the criticisms of Ohio were poor first touch and poor positional awareness.

His goal against Ipswich 2 months later showed that he's thinking much more as the game unfolds. The cross from the freekick goes to the back post, way over his head, he doesn't follow it, he drops back anticipating the knock back. Meanwhile his marker and the other defenders have moved towards the goal line leaving him with plenty of space when the ball comes back over.

His technique to finish was good; although it went in off the underside of the crossbar.

If he'd have put it over the bar people would be berating his poor finishing. It's really fine margins.


He definitely improved with us. Whether that's enough for a contract, possibly not.