Lillehamring

I respect that that's your reading of the game, but it doesn't tally with reality - if that really was the focus/mentality we'd have GF/GA/GD stats like man u, but we don't we've scored more than almost anyone in all 4 leagues this season. What we should be saying is - how have we managed to score so many and conceded so few? And the answer is by sticking to the system whether it's 0-0, 1-0 or 5-0

it's almost like we didn't, immediately before, have a 5 game run where we posted figures of P5 W5 D0 L0 GF 15 GA 2

well not really - if we accept that maresca is using a significant percentage of players he'd rather not have then regardless of where we play next season, he's going to want to replace as many as possible. if we don't go up, we'll sell and replace with cheaper players that enzo wants; if we go up we'll sell and replace with slightly more expensive players that enzo wants. Either way, as long as enzo stays it's clear that he's building a system to fit a team to (a project, if you will) rather than building a team and adopting a system purely to get promoted (needs must, if you will).

Becasue Maresca has made it clear that he sees building a team as a three year project so the tactics are established then the players fitted to that system. Creating a system around the players you have is as short term as the contracts of the players.

But the problem is it's easy to say 'keep the pressure on' but in reality it's hard to do. In the first 13 minutes (up to the goal) sunderland sat back and we had 70% possession and created 5 shots on goal. In the 10 minutes after we scored, sunderland responded and doubled their possession to 60%. (for what it's worth we still had 2 shots to their 1) There's only so much of a change that you can attribute to a side 'easing off', especially so early in the game, and a team, especially a home team, 'adopting a plan B' - to jump from 30% to 60% suggests that this was more to do with a change from sunderland from letting us have the ball to trying to dominate the ball themselves

But in most games we don't sit back - we just carry on playing the same patient considered football that we play during most phases of most matches. Because our way of playing doesn't appear urgent or high-energy it's easy to mistake it, when leading, for us sitting back and not trying to extend our lead, but it's just that low-key steady way of playing that has seen us dominate games and get the results that we have been getting most of this season. If you score after 13 minutes you don't have to suddenly turn into Ipswich and go all out attack. Maresca favours the approach of controlling the ball, controlling the clock, breaking teams down and taking our chances when they come. That's why in the 33 league games that we've scored, 22 times we've managed to score again, only 11 times have we failed to, and even in those 11, we've only lost 4 games (one of which was the cov game). It's how we play, and it's generally been very successful - i think people here are just looking to find fault as usual, they need to find a reason why we've lost 3 games in a row - so the popular explanation seems to be blaming it on the style of play, rather than blaming it on the real cause - our finishing (let's not forget - the other 3 losses are where we failed to score despite having bucket loads of chances)

QPR - 18 shots 5 on target - that is the players failing. Leeds - 16 shots 5 on target (two sitters) - players fault Boro - 24 shots 2 on target - players fault You can't dominate games to that extent and be accused of not trying to kill off the game, the reality is that we have tried and failed to kill off games. That isn't sitting back and defending a lead, that's creating chances but not taking them. Even the sunderland game, there's no proof that maresca has ordered them to defend the lead, it's not like he brought Souttar or Nelson on. Perhaps it was simply that Sunderland, after going 1-0 down, realised that they weren't going to get anything sitting back with the 30% possession that they'd had up to that point and decided to adjust to the way they played against us last time and increased their possession to 53% post-goal. Yes, we can question how Enzo reacted to that change in sunderland's play, but it's not as simple as suggesting that he decided to park the bus.

This is frankly a silly argument: firstly, salary is no indication of quality and secondly, perhaps being on those higher salaries adds additional pressure. Whilst players coming up against us on lower salaries will feel like they have something to prove. Furthermore, most of the players that are on high salaries were bought to play against PL teams, not EFL teams - so, whilst they may earn a lot, they aren't necessarily suitable for this level.

I read it completely differently to that - i didn't see arrogance, i saw fear - the fear of conceding, the fear of throwing away the rest of our head start. I think you do this team a great discredit - put yourself in their place and try to the imagine the pressure on them. fans complaining and saying they're shit despite being in a race for promotion. The repercussions of failure are enormous, but they know they're capable they just need to get the confidence back - people are quick to forget how sensationally and successfully we played in the games before the three losses.

So dissimilar due to the amount of contact, but similar in every other respect - player running into the box, contacted from behind, player perhaps makes a meal of it, referee decides to give the defender the benefit of the doubt

I think also you can add to this that we are playing in a way that is more likely to be sustainable at a higher level, it allows us to add (when funds allow) better players without having to change the system. Whereas Ipswich is all about 'win today and worry about the future when it happens'.

Probably wouldn't have done anywhere near as well as he's done with ipswich - they're an ongoing project with bags of momentum. we were a train wreck in need of a complete rebuild. I think an awful lot of our fans (not directing this at you, John) - massively underappreciate what Maresca has done, given the mess he inherited, practically and psychologically.

Feel like it was similar to the one not given on KDH? So at least there's some consistency there...

Said it before but i'm sceptical of classing anything as a 'masterplan' when it involves surviving 18 shots on goal. Unless that 'master plan is: hang on for dear life, pray that their finishing is woeful and if we do miraculously manage a shot, make sure it goes in'.

...and that's the last day i'm visiting this forum for a bit. I get that it's a bit worrying, i get that we're not happy - but so many posters on here, talk about bottling it. Unbearable listing to you lot of entitled bitches.

Really disappointing - another game that we've completely dominated without really testing the keeper, in fact the only real quality came from the free kick and the goal, and even that wasn't exactly a clean strike. I feel like Maresca needs to make some changes for the next game - our wingers were atrocious today and i lost count how many times justin put it into touch (surely he had to bring Doyle on?), daka just isn't composed enough for these sort of games. i'd say even KDH could do with replacing but there's not really any other option - god knows why the #8's were inverted it just didn't work - on the left yunus and mavididi were on a different wavelength and playing on top of each other, on the right, we were stuck with two player perpetually turning back on to their left feet and into the overcrowded central area. I'd say this is the most disappointing outing from Maresca. As for the players, can't fault their effort but the quality from too many just wasn't there. What happened to 'get men in the box, get the ball in the box'? Just, very very disappointing.

Sure, but the more stats you factor in the clearer the overall picture is.

Oh, come on, you know better than to post stats like that - a classic example of why these things can't be taken at face value is the wednseday game, where he comes on and we drop 2 points. You can't say we lost that because of his presence anymore than you can say we win more because he's playing. Or the first game of the season, with him we trail coventry 1-0, praet comes on to provide a more attacking edge and we win 2-1; or cardiff ndidi comes off at 1-1 casedai comes on and bags the winner. There's simply no way to say how crucial his presence or absence actually is. That's not to say I don't believe we are better when he plays, i understand his influence and i'm not unhappy when he does play, I just feel like sometimes i'd rather us go with someone more attacking to try limit these close games by giving us more goalscoring and creativity early in games.

He completely miss-controls the ball and then, i beg your pardon, it bounces off a west brom player, after which he makes an unpressured routine but decent pass. Describing his pass as 'superb' is more indicative of agenda building than me correctly pointing out that he was clumsy in the build up. I have no problems with nacho when he plays well, but it's become apparent that he's simply not good enough often enough

If people can't understand what i've written, then it behoves me to spoon feed my point to them so that they can see it. It's borne of displeasure in someone clearly not reading what i've put but seeing the chance to get a few 's because they think, incorrectly, that they're smart.

Trouble with citing that as an example is that we all know he almost fell over the ball, which then bounced off his knee....

Or we should completely disregard it because they are, according to Enzo, playing in a completely different way now. IF anything, it sounds like they've started actually playing some football, which could benefit us as opposed to the 20% possession they had last time.

he's just so inconsistent 12 games under 6.5 is not great especially that run of games since swansea. The run of games where he scored: 14 minutes, 28 minutes, 6 minutes - that says something about the kind of player he is, same in the bournemouth game. The only games he's had 'good games' are Burton, Norwich and Stoke. I know this doesn't really factor in off the ball stuff, but as far as his general play and his end producct is concerned, he's not exactly undroppable.

I'm inclined to think Vardy would disagree.

It can be - at other times he looks like either a) he's wearing rubber boots, b) he's not sure what team he's playing for, c) the actual geography of a football pitch, d) he just isn't interested or e) all of the above. Arguably the most frustratingly and spectacularly inconsistent player i've ever seen in a city shirt.