17 pts from 9 games if you expand that to being in charge all season so far his point per game would have us top.Maybe not as bad as a few have made out ay,and the Redferns not the answer gang,are they way off the mark ?.Well some of them like stats and proof,so how come none of them noticed this.
The sample size isn't big enough to provide meaningful data YET. However if he maintains that for another 20 games then the situation will have changed radically.
Add to that, he comes across well in interviews. None of the worn out bullshit cliches McD and warnock were great at
Just because I don't believe Redfearn is the right man for the job it doesn't mean I don't want him to succeed or me be proved wrong. I would love him to be just the ticket, if he fails I don't believe for a second he will walk back into the youth set-up, that was my biggest fear, he fails and we lose a coach and someone who was good developing the youngsters. We have had very little to cheer about in recent years, the only decent thing to come out of Leeds has been Redfearns youth development squad, I just didn't want to lose it and before Redfearns first spell in charge this season there were a lot of people saying he is not the right choice. Redfearn is lucky in a way, being successor to Hockaday, how could things have got worse. Glad we beat Derby glad we limited them to zero shots on target but one game at a time and hoping that in another 10 games you can say "see I told you so"
As i said redfearn and his knowledge of the championship will see leeds through and i believe redfearn is as good as any of the championship managers so far he has made the right substitutions and has a decent record in charge of leeds put it this way its alot better than so called experienced managers , warnock , mc dermott . darko who ? with redfearn in charge and cellino money leeds have a bright future , lets get behind them and leeds will have a great chance of getting promoted even this season
Until Saturday his substitutions have been too late or pretty poor, don't start posting bollix again.
I agree with Glory. If there was any criticism of Redfearn, #1 criticism would be his poor record of substitutions. You only have to look at the Blackburn game. If he had put on an additional midfielder with a bit of fight about him, we might have saved the victory instead of throwing it away. #2 ctiticism is linked to the above - playing out a match to maintain victory. Look at the Derby match - we were under the cosh for the last 20 mins. How many times did our players take the ball to the corner flag? Yip, you're right! A big fat zero. Total naivety & inexperience combined. He is far from the finished article, but hopefully him & his team will mature together.
Nah, it was because I was multitasking. I was typing with one hand & having a tug with the other whilst I looked at my pictures of Glory pinned on the wall.
I actually hate this tactic and I don't believe it works, you are only likely to keep it there for a max of 30 seconds realistically and even that is a HUGE amount of time to be able to keep it there. Then you end up giving the ball back to the opposition to have another attack at you. I'd prefer to keep clever short passes moving it side to side across the pitch just wearing the opposition out. Keep ball basically, think your more guaranteed to not concede. I definitely agree with the sentiment of what your saying though We are very naive in general as a team of what I have seen, we really are lacking a leader in the middle of the park but at the same time you don't really wanna take anyone out of there because it could postpone their development.
Redfearn has done brilliantly. Like others I fear it won't be as cut and dry as "if it doesn't work out he'll be back in the academy". Cellino is like any other football club executive, only he's a little more intense in his approach. Managers/coaches aren't seen as people, they are resources, and resources that don't perform get replaced with potentially better resources. Yaaay modern life.
It's more about control. We actually did take it into the corner a couple of times against Derby, but for the most part the situation didn't call for it. We were "under pressure" in the last 20 minutes, but not any real pressure. The most they could muster was a fairly decent move where a brilliant last ditch effort by Warnock saved us some embarrassment, and the follow up was fired into row Z. Other than that they didn't come at us with anything where we actually looked in any real danger. It was the kind of pressure we used to put on teams in the last 15 minutes when we were chasing a game under Warnock, a lot of huff and puff without any real threat. The only time this tactic is ever called on is when the losing team has the initiative in a game and the winning team doesn't feel in control. It's an easy tactic to execute, it's relatively low risk and it is effective. Your claim is that playing keep ball along the back four is more effective on the basis that it results in loss of possession significantly less often. I agree with your basis, but not with your claim. Statistical analysis has revealed that possession amount (defined as time on the ball) as a statistic is weak at best and irrelevant at worst. It almost never has a direct correlation with the result. I will use Liverpool vs Chelsea in April as an example. Liverpool did nothing other than comfortably dominate possession, enjoying 73% of it over the course of 90 minutes. That's the kind of possession you only see in games involving Barcelona, and that was against a title rival at the time in Chelsea. Yet they lost that game, and in losing that game they lost the title. It is fair to say that the game and the title were both lost on the outcome of a mistake in the defense by Steven Gerrard. As big as an event it was I'm not going to insult you by assuming you don't know what happened or how it happened, it will go down in Premier League folk lore, especially among Man City fans. However the details are relevant to my point. The circumstances are slightly different in that the score was 0-0 at the time, but this actually helps to further reinforce my point. Liverpool were passing the ball around the back four, patiently waiting for an opportunity to get the ball forward, using possession in the way you suggest to frustrate and tire the opponent. Out of absolutely nowhere, under no pressure whatsoever, Gerrard fails to trap the ball, Ba pounces on the mistake and finds himself 1 on 1 with the goalkeeper, from which point the job is easy. Now, imagine that same situation, except the team holding possession are a goal or 2 ahead with 10 or 15 minutes to go. They have been under a little bit of pressure from an opposition who are determined to get something from the game, and they are now attempting to slow the game down, keep hold of the ball, frustrate and tire their opponent and see the game out. If they were to continue playing that game, in the manner you suggest, they are very unlikely to lose possession. They are professional footballers capable of executing safe passes which are, by nature, just that - safe. If you eliminate getting forward and scoring again as an objective, it is also fairly easy to keep up this style of play, forcing the opposition to chase the ball. But there's too much to go wrong: - The tactic requires movement, inviting the opposition to do the same. Should you lose possession, your opponents are already mobile and ready to act on it. - Precise passing is key. One misplaced pass can result in a massive gap that is easy to exploit. - There's nobody behind to cover for any mistakes - You're defending in your own half, which is a negative tactic. Humans are territorial animals, we play these games as civilised ways to express our animalistic tendencies. As a result, our emotional responses are often similar. You're holding something that they want in your own territory, essentially inviting them to "invade", something which is likely to trigger a "retreat" response, when you have nowhere to retreat to. The resulting panic makes us prone to mistakes. You're essentially trying to defend using methods that are more suited to attacking. In the result of a change of possession you're vulnerable. Now, we'll look at the alternative - take the ball into the corner and guard it with the biggest, scariest, ugliest motherfucker you've got. It's ugly, it's boring, it's frustrating for both sides. It is also more likely to result in a loss of possession than your method of keep ball. However, playing hold the ball by the corner flag is more effective simply because there's very little to go wrong. Yes, you're more likely to lose possession, but the consequences of doing so are practically non-existent - Very little movement is required. Once the ball is by the corner flag, all players not involved stop moving. This gives the defending team a moment to regroup and rebuild their shape, meaning they are less likely to be caught off guard. The attacking side are also required to build any momentum from scratch should the ball break free. - Your entire team is behind you. If you lose possession in this position, your entire team is on hand to make sure it doesn't get very far. - Guarding the ball with one or two strong players results in more physicality being required to wrestle possession away. More physicality increases the likelihood of a free kick, which wastes a bit of time and drains more momentum from the game. - The position of the ball means 50% of the directions it can go result in it immediately going out of play. If the ball breaks, it's probably going to go out for a throw in, goal kick, or if you play it right, a corner. A throw in for the opposition by their own corner flag is the definition of a set piece that poses no danger. A corner is an opportunity to repeat the whole process and waste more time. A goal kick is the worst you can expect, and it usually takes a monumental **** up to concede from a goal kick. - Despite being a defensive tactic, you're still defending from the front. On that grounds, it is a positive tactic. You're defending in the oppositions half, leaving your own half as somewhere to "retreat" to if something goes wrong. This fosters a sense of safety and security and thus leaving players less prone to mistakes. I realise I've gone into a lot of detail about something that was a bit of an off-the-cuff remark about a defensive tactic, but I actually quite enjoyed analysing the tactics and providing a comprehensive comparison. It's taken me a couple of hours to do when I should be sleeping, so I will be retiring to bed now. Way past my bed time!
