johnny the fox Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 https://betting.betfair.com/football/premier-league/leicester-city/next-leicester-manager-betting-hiddink-is-to-be-avoided-050715-39.html? Tend to agree with this...
dayday Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 yeah some of it is down to the players some of it is down to caching, pearson was never a good posession manager. Sousa was a great possession coach, under him we had players who previously couldnt pass passing it around but of course we was woeful under him defensively and in the final third hence the results. But he is proof players can become good possession players with the right coaching. With that said, players like vardy thrive on counter attacking football not slow build up play, if guus is capable of coaching counter attack (maybe mixed in with posession to leave opposition teams guessing) then I am all up for it. That was our downfall under Sousa,trying to change the way the team played so quickly,Jack Hobbs especially was very uncomfortable with passing game. You could see the team were all at sea,it was no surprise he didn't last long,the Portsmouth game being the final straw.
gerrytaggart Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 Heres a link that'll make you think about guus hiddink. Wink wink. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Sport/Pix/columnists/2009/4/7/1239112541814/Guus-Hiddink-001.jpg
Captain... Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 Yes and no. Morgan (for example) would be an issue as he struggles when presented with the ball but our style has dictated how we approach possession. Getting men forward quickly means there isn't often an available close pass for the man with the ball . Our movement off the ball in the area where the ball is was woeful last year. That wasn't our tactic and therefore our possession stats weren't so good. Many clubs with worse players than us (technically) manage to play an attractive possession game. Take villa for example - they were one of the best sides to come to us last year if you were just looking at pretty patterns with the ball up to the final third. however, they were clueless in the final third. No intent and no idea. you need to be able to mix it up. We do have the personnel to do both. The first bit is spot on, so often we lost the ball trying to get it forward too quickly and not playing it short or not having an easy option to play to. The change in formation was ideal as there was an extra man back to give simple options the wing backs were deeper so the offered more support to the defence and midfield we had a deep sitting forward to give options to the midfield, and we still had the options of launching a quick attack with Vardy and Ulloa up front, but when the ball wasn't on for the quick attack we had the option of keeping possession. During our poor run too often the quick attack was the wrong option but we didn't have any others so we just conceded possession. 523 gave us the players in the right place to allow a more patient approach but also be able to spring a quick attack with Schlupp, Albrighton, Mahrez all able to get forwards quickly, but more importantly at the right time rather than every time. Fortunately Pearson found this formation just in time.
GaelicFox Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 The Dutch language contains short vowels and long vowels. Vowels are pronounced short when they are written in single (i.e. a, e, i, o, u) and when the word contains only one syllable or when the vowel is followed by at least two consonants. Furthermore, short vowels are never the last letter in a word. Their pronunciation is described below: a is pronounced as in ‘father’. e is pronounced as in ‘men’. However, when it is unstressed, it is pronounced as ‘uh’. i is pronounced as in ‘him’. o is pronounced as in ‘hot’. u is not a known sound in English. It is somewhat pronounced as in ‘her’, where the lips are rounded slightly. Long vowels are not only pronounced slightly longer than the short ones, but their sound actually changes. Vowels are pronounced long when they are written in double (i.e. aa, ee, oo, or uu) or when the word contains more than one syllable and the vowel is followed by only one consonant, which is not the final character in the word. Last, the vowel is pronounced long when the vowel is the last letter of the word. And exception is the long i, which is always written as ie. The pronunciation of long vowels described below: aa/a is pronounced as a, but it is pronounced longer and ‘lighter’. ee/e is pronounced as in ‘may’ when it is not followed by r. When it is followed by r it is pronounced as in ‘here’. When it stands at the end of a syllable, it is pronounced as ‘uh’. ie is pronounced as in ‘we’. oo/o is pronounced as in ‘no’ when it is not followed by r. When it is followed by r it is pronounced as in ‘more’. uu/u is not a known sound in English. The sound can be produced by pronouncing the short u, but by bringing the tongue and lips even more to front. Last, there are six vowel-combinations and one consonant/vowel-combination, which truly generate unique sounds. These sounds are characteristic for the Dutch language. It has to be admitted, that for non-natives this needs some practice. Remember that each combination should be pronounced as one single sound. ai is pronounced as the English word ‘ I ‘. It should be pronounced as one sound. ei is pronounced by pronouncing the sound as it appears in the English word ‘man’ followed by the Dutch sound ie. It should be pronounced as one single sound. ij is pronounced exactly in the same way as the Dutch ei-sound. eu is pronounced by pronouncing the Dutch short u directly followed by the Dutch long uu. However, when this sound is followed by an r, the sound it pronounced as the Dutch short u pronounced twice as long. oe is pronounced as in the English word ‘who’. ui is pronounced by pronouncing the sound as it appears in the English word ‘man’ followed by the Dutch long u. uw is pronounced by pronouncing the Dutch long u followed by the Dutch w. In order to indicate, that vowels which appear in combination with other vowels are pronounced seperately, a so-called trema is used on the final vowel of the combination. The trema are two dots ( ¨ ) which are written above the vowel. Thus whereas ie is pronounced as one sound, ië is pronounced by pronouncing each vowel seperately (i.e. i+e). Sometimes an accent ( ´ ) is written on top of the e (é). This usually appears on words of foreign origin, and indicates that the vowel in question is stressed. When a small accent (apostrophe) between a vowel and a consonant appears ( ‘ ), the vowel preceding the accent is pronounced long. It is a grammatical construction, which indicates the plural of a word. i.e if like German U with Umlaut - it's hard to explain but say goose really quick and you will be close enough well you did ask Steve McClaren write this ?
deep blue Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 To increase possession in games you need the right players,we don't have them. The operative word is "yet". Still time to improve our squad in that respect, especially with a couple of technically gifted midfielders.
foxychik Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 Steve McClaren write this ? I'd tried to block that out of my memory.... :-/
SecretPro Posted 5 July 2015 Posted 5 July 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/jul/04/guus-hiddink-premier-league-managers-brendan-rodgers-roberto-martinez
Dickov22 Posted 6 July 2015 Posted 6 July 2015 Yes and no. Morgan (for example) would be an issue as he struggles when presented with the ball but our style has dictated how we approach possession. Getting men forward quickly means there isn't often an available close pass for the man with the ball . Our movement off the ball in the area where the ball is was woeful last year. That wasn't our tactic and therefore our possession stats weren't so good. Many clubs with worse players than us (technically) manage to play an attractive possession game. Take villa for example - they were one of the best sides to come to us last year if you were just looking at pretty patterns with the ball up to the final third. however, they were clueless in the final third. No intent and no idea. you need to be able to mix it up. We do have the personnel to do both. Villa were far and away the worst side to come to our ground last season. Absolutely woeful and they gave the ball away more than any side I saw
Bagworthblue Posted 6 July 2015 Posted 6 July 2015 well no news is.................. just that I suppose.........no news
st albans fox Posted 6 July 2015 Posted 6 July 2015 Villa were far and away the worst side to come to our ground last season. Absolutely woeful and they gave the ball away more than any side I saw They had nothing in the final third - no intent, nothing but their possession play in the first 2/3 was good. There were worse teams at the KP this year. If lambert had stayed, they would have gone down as they wouldn't have won enough games Guess it depends how you judge a teams performance. Clearly not trying to score isn't going to give a great assessment!
BigMicky Posted 6 July 2015 Posted 6 July 2015 They had nothing in the final third - no intent, nothing but their possession play in the first 2/3 was good. There were worse teams at the KP this year. If lambert had stayed, they would have gone down as they wouldn't have won enough games Guess it depends how you judge a teams performance. Clearly not trying to score isn't going to give a great assessment! 100% agree, Villa retained the ball very well but had nothing in the final 3rd.
Dickov22 Posted 6 July 2015 Posted 6 July 2015 They had nothing in the final third - no intent, nothing but their possession play in the first 2/3 was good. There were worse teams at the KP this year. If lambert had stayed, they would have gone down as they wouldn't have won enough games Guess it depends how you judge a teams performance. Clearly not trying to score isn't going to give a great assessment! That Sanchez they had in centre mid gave the ball away almost everytime he had it. I don't think they kept posession well at all
ozleicester Posted 7 July 2015 Posted 7 July 2015 Interesting little article about Guus in todays "paper" http://indaily.com.au/sport/2015/07/07/a-decade-on-hiddinks-legacy-remains/ Despite his part-time status, Hiddink succeeded in immediately giving the Australian team better structure. He also kept the players on their toes. There were few changes to the extended squad but no one was guaranteed a spot in the starting eleven. Indeed, there were selection surprises in nearly every match the Socceroos played under him.
Chrysalis Posted 7 July 2015 Posted 7 July 2015 That was our downfall under Sousa,trying to change the way the team played so quickly,Jack Hobbs especially was very uncomfortable with passing game. You could see the team were all at sea,it was no surprise he didn't last long,the Portsmouth game being the final straw. I dont disagree with you, he changed too much too quickly. Ideally the new manager should be someone who has a similar style to pearson.
indierich06 Posted 7 July 2015 Posted 7 July 2015 That was our downfall under Sousa,trying to change the way the team played so quickly,Jack Hobbs especially was very uncomfortable with passing game. You could see the team were all at sea,it was no surprise he didn't last long,the Portsmouth game being the final straw. Jesus, I'd managed to completely remove that game from my memory, why did you have to remind me?!
Nick Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.fcupdate.nl/voetbalnieuws/279804/leicester-city-denkt-aan-hiddink-als-supervisor/&prev=search
Fridgechef Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-City-rumours-Guus-Hiddink-offered-role/story-26860856-detail/story.html?
Fridgechef Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leicester-City-rumours-Guus-Hiddink-offered-role/story-26860856-detail/story.html? Guus Hiddink offered supervisor role to work with younger coach (rumor)
Foxymcoxy Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Wtf is a supervisor? We don't need to make up a job for him, if he doesn't want to be manager then **** him.
Max Power Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Great, whatever. Who's the 'younger coach' then, thats the important bit.
Stevosevic Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 Great, whatever. Who's the 'younger coach' then, thats the important bit. Exactly - Hiddink will be irrelevant. The young coach will be the important person to the players and will ultimately be responsible for the results. Unless Hiddink is the manager, what's the point? Especially considering the kind of money he will probably want
Ric Flair Posted 8 July 2015 Posted 8 July 2015 I'd suspect he'll turn this down as it's a nothing role. Otherwise it'll be a disaster, when does stuff like this really work?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.