Massive win against West Ham

[urban.spaceman]

Priorise Stoke and Sunderland, rest key players against Everton and perhaps Palace; give players like Slimani, Gray, Chillwell, Amartey etc starts. 

 

Both Atletico games are now the biggest games in our history and we need to be strong for at least the second leg

[lcfcdamo]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Priorise Stoke and Sunderland, rest key players against Everton and perhaps Palace; give players like Slimani, Gray, Chillwell, Amartey etc starts. 

 

Both Atletico games are now the biggest games in our history and we need to be strong for at least the second leg

And the first leg because get beat to much away and the tie will already be over

[Legend_in_blue]

You play the strongest side no matter what comes next.

 

We've seen enough this season to take onboard exactly how it can all go to **** if we don't.

 

Ranieri said it wasn't possible to play a high pressing game constantly game in, game out and yet we did it before, we're doing it now and when we didn't, we lost.

 

Too risky to start prioritising this over that, everything is a priority, winning is a priority, regardless of the competition.

 

[ceredigion]

The real dilemma as I see it is that we are trying to do something that I don't remember any team trying to do before, i.e. going deep in the Champions League while at the same time fighting a relegation battle in the domestic league.

 

There isn't a blueprint for this scenario and to complicate matters the Athletico tie is winnable.

[st albans fox]

9 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

You play the strongest side no matter what comes next.

 

We've seen enough this season to take onboard exactly how it can all go to **** if we don't.

 

Ranieri said it wasn't possible to play a high pressing game constantly game in, game out and yet we did it before, we're doing it now and when we didn't, we lost.

 

Too risky to start prioritising this over that, everything is a priority, winning is a priority, regardless of the competition.

 

you're not alone with this viewpoint but I suspect you will end up in the minority. However, if we fail to take 4 points from our next two home games then that could change. Getting a good point at goodison with the first eleven and then conceding two late goals in Madrid as we run out of steam will not look such a good call. Especially as that same side will want to avoid defeat in a six pointer at palace a few days later. Perhaps go back to last year and look at the results when we played three times in one week. Without thinking too hard, Xmas and new year were dodgy when we played in quick succession. I appreciate that you can lose momentum but surely giving yourself the best chance to physically perform in what could be the biggest game of your career is paramount? 

[Wymsey]

It was a big result.

It also gives the team the confidence in that, despite West Ham having numerous attacks, the defence dealt with them effectively away from home -something that has a rarity in recent weeks and months.

[Thracian]

12 hours ago, Gerard said:

 

I don't agree with this in the slightest, according to many an opinion one of the reasons we won the league was because we were able to play one game a week.

 

We play six games in eighteen days, that's a game every three days. If we get wins against Stoke and Sunderland to get to 36pts I think Shakey would be irresponsible not prioritising the Champions League but flog the players by expecting them to play twice a week. You only had to watch the last half hour against West Ham to see the players were running on empty.

 

I think the vast majority of people think footballers perform better when they play once a week and have longer recovery time between games. If you think it doesn't effect players performances at all playing every three days then I can see why you would have that opinion but if you think there is as much as just a 1% drop off in performance and energy levels then it would be a highly stupid decision not to give ourselves the best chance of qualifying if we had 36pts after 30 league games.

 

There are strong arguments either way but, having seen both put into practice, I still favour continuity,

 .

Our own top clubs seem to prioritise but it hasn't worked for them. We seemed to get further in Europe in the past when squads weren't so big and prioritising wasn't so easy. This year's a prime example with Leicester being the only club left in the Champions League even at what is only the quarter-final stage.

 

We've done our own prioritising too and it's cost us in both the Premiership and the cup competitions. It costs us every time in the FA Cup which is a competition we should be contesting properly and winning...because it offers our best chance of  playing in Europe.

 

But instead we disrupt the team and too it has stayed disrupted when we've return to "priority" football as indicated by a considerable majority of  our results this season but not after the two games with Shakespeare in charge when we played our best available side.

 

Even against West Ham, while I entirely agree we were shattered in the last half-hour, we won what has been an historically difficult away game and it was the continuity of our football and desire that served to build us the two-goal lead that built the platform for victory. No-one looked shattered when our reserves played Millwall but we still lost, didn't score and lost again when we travelled to Seville with our first team, playing abyssmally for all but the last 20 minutes. 

 

My argument is based on continuity versus disruption and I strongly believe in the former. When a team gets into the habit of playing well together, their inbuilt understanding, comeraderie and belief in each other counts enormously. Indeed it was the foundation of our Premiership title winning season, our achievements under MON and our success in the 60s under Matt Gillies.

 

Disruptive selection has cost us dearly at other times. Millwall I've mentioned but there have been other dreadful results against teams like Burton Albion, Hull and so on. If the "disruption" case played out I'd happily mellow on the subject but I think it's cost us lot of potential success and given us very little.

 

Even in the Champions League this season we've progressed, yes, but with ordinary performances against ordinary opposition and at seemingly great cost to our Premiership momentum while latterly, playing our best team, we've given our best performance and won difficult league matches as well, by a considerable collective margin and by scoring a good many goals.

 

The idea of "shattered" players at the end of games bothers me as much as you but many fans, me included, believe we could have utilised our substitues better in this respect against West Ham.

 

Generally though, three games is enough recovery time, especially when it's usually no different for our opponents. It just means training can be spent attending to the detail of elaborate match-winning free-kicks rather than more intensive routine work!   

 

 

.           

 

 

[Gerard]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

you're not alone with this viewpoint but I suspect you will end up in the minority. However, if we fail to take 4 points from our next two home games then that could change. Getting a good point at goodison with the first eleven and then conceding two late goals in Madrid as we run out of steam will not look such a good call. Especially as that same side will want to avoid defeat in a six pointer at palace a few days later. Perhaps go back to last year and look at the results when we played three times in one week. Without thinking too hard, Xmas and new year were dodgy when we played in quick succession. I appreciate that you can lose momentum but surely giving yourself the best chance to physically perform in what could be the biggest game of your career is paramount? 

 

You don't even need to lose momentum. If it was up to me I would only decide to prioritise if we beat both Stoke and Sunderland to get to 36pts. If that happens and results go for us elsewhere we could be 11pts clear of the relegation zone. In those circumstances I would be fuming to see a first XI versus Everton and flog the energy reserves out of them. I'd be happy to see the first XI not even travel to Everton. Providing we get maximum points from Stoke and Sunderland I'd make the fixture list like this:

 

First XI

1st Stoke (h)

4th Sunderland (h)

12th Atletico Madrid (a)

18th Atletico Madrid (h)

Second XI

9th Everton (a)

15th Crystal Palace (a)

 

As you see there'd be no need to lose "momentum" as the first XI would be playing the three mid week games on the trot from Sunderland onwards.

[Gerard]

19 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

There are strong arguments either way but, having seen both put into practice, I still favour continuity,

 .

Our own top clubs seem to prioritise but it hasn't worked for them. We seemed to get further in Europe in the past when squads weren't so big and prioritising wasn't so easy. This year's a prime example with Leicester being the only club left in the Champions League even at what is only the quarter-final stage.

 

We've done our own prioritising too and it's cost us in both the Premiership and the cup competitions. It costs us every time in the FA Cup which is a competition we should be contesting properly and winning...because it offers our best chance of  playing in Europe.

 

But instead we disrupt the team and too it has stayed disrupted when we've return to "priority" football as indicated by a considerable majority of  our results this season but not after the two games with Shakespeare in charge when we played our best available side.

 

Even against West Ham, while I entirely agree we were shattered in the last half-hour, we won what has been an historically difficult away game and it was the continuity of our football and desire that served to build us the two-goal lead that built the platform for victory. No-one looked shattered when our reserves played Millwall but we still lost, didn't score and lost again when we travelled to Seville with our first team, playing abyssmally for all but the last 20 minutes. 

 

My argument is based on continuity versus disruption and I strongly believe in the former. When a team gets into the habit of playing well together, their inbuilt understanding, comeraderie and belief in each other counts enormously. Indeed it was the foundation of our Premiership title winning season, our achievements under MON and our success in the 60s under Matt Gillies.

 

Disruptive selection has cost us dearly at other times. Millwall I've mentioned but there have been other dreadful results against teams like Burton Albion, Hull and so on. If the "disruption" case played out I'd happily mellow on the subject but I think it's cost us lot of potential success and given us very little.

 

Even in the Champions League this season we've progressed, yes, but with ordinary performances against ordinary opposition and at seemingly great cost to our Premiership momentum while latterly, playing our best team, we've given our best performance and won difficult league matches as well, by a considerable collective margin and by scoring a good many goals.

 

The idea of "shattered" players at the end of games bothers me as much as you but many fans, me included, believe we could have utilised our substitues better in this respect against West Ham.

 

Generally though, three games is enough recovery time, especially when it's usually no different for our opponents. It just means training can be spent attending to the detail of elaborate match-winning free-kicks rather than more intensive routine work!   

 

 

 

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Assuming we have 36pts after the Sunderland match I think it would be highly irresponsible to make the players play Saturday and Tuesday and then a not so important game away at Everton on the Sunday, get home late that evening so they can catch a plane on Monday, train on the Tuesday and expect them to be 100% for Atletico for their fourth game in twelve days.

 

Surely you're not telling me playing away at Everton on the Sunday is better preparation for the Atletico match than not having played for eight days previous?

 

We had ten days off previous for the Sevilla home match and the players were flying.

[Babylon]

10 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said:

winning is a priority, regardless of the competition.

It is... but sometimes resting players give you a better chance of winning one of the games. It's common sense.

 

I'm amazed people can actually argue against resting a few players after Saturdays game. West Ham have been absolutely woeful of late if you ask their fans, but they absolutely battered us in the second half because the players were out on their feet. Athletico Madrid aren't going to be as forgiving, if we want any chance of progressing we need our players at the top of their powers.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

14 hours ago, Thracian said:

It's not the way I read it. Everton is no more a pre-determined loss than Liverpool, Sevilla or Athletico Madrid. Indeed, if our club starts pencilling in assumed defeats on their fixture list they might as well resign from the league and reform as a cross country walking club.

 

We won two matches before Sevilla....Liverpool and Hull. And after we sapped all our strength in beating Sevilla, we breathed in deep, restored our resolve and beat West Ham away as well.

 

Start playing reserve teams or unfamiliar groups and you invite trouble and the loss of all the momentum you've gained through winning game after game.

 

We had quite enough of Ranieri playing Tinkerman with our style and personnel without encouraging it in Shakespeare.

 

If Shaky can motivate our shattered team to beat Sevilla, I'm quite sure he can do the same against Stoke, Sunderland and Everton without in any way compromising our performance, or desire, to beat Athletico or Palace for that matter.

 

There's three constant "givens" concerning professional footballers. They don't like losing, they don't like being dropped and they sure don't like their team losing as a result of anyone being unnecessarily dropped, including themselves.

 

So why create problems which have no need to exist? If we keep winning, the team should select itself barring injuries. As I've said countless times - one game at a time, and the best available team plays....every time.

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

 

 

Totally this

[Thracian]

36 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Assuming we have 36pts after the Sunderland match I think it would be highly irresponsible to make the players play Saturday and Tuesday and then a not so important game away at Everton on the Sunday, get home late that evening so they can catch a plane on Monday, train on the Tuesday and expect them to be 100% for Atletico for their fourth game in twelve days.

 

Surely you're not telling me playing away at Everton on the Sunday is better preparation for the Atletico match than not having played for eight days previous?

 

We had ten days off previous for the Sevilla home match and the players were flying.

I don't assume we'll have 36 points after the Sunderland game and won't until they're on the board. My thoughts would all be on the Stoke match for now.

 

What I'd do for the Atletico away game would depend entirely on the situation then in relation to injuries, availability, player's form, any tactical plan for the next match and so on.

 

My aim would still be to maintain continuity and concerns about four games in 12 days for people would depend on individual reaction to the previous efforts.

 

Your mention of the Sevilla home match only emphasises what a brilliant win it was at West Ham (after 3 instead of 12 days break) for all that the players were spent at the end.

 

Truth is it's sometimes harder to play at high intensity after a 12-day break and then recover for another game a few days later.

 

Many players would find it easier to adapt to playing every three days. For me the 12-day break and only 3-day break for the next match would have been so hard, mentally and physically, But our players had the character to manage it, despite the late drama. 

 

There's no certain answers to the question we're debating - you may as easily be right as me. When I was a manager I hated making changes. I only ever wanted my best team out there on the pitch because I always believed we'd win then, whatever.                

 

But not everyone will agree and many have shown there's other ways of doing things. I completely respect your argument - and others with a similar viewpoint - while not in any way pretending to be certain of my own.

 

I've just outlined my thoughts on the matter. And not even mentioned, for instance, the potential problems that might, in reality arise, from key people being injured or the potential consequence of players having being out of action/involvement for too long.

 

Again, all that stresses, is the wisdom of taking one match at a time. Because there's no guarantees from the Stoke visit. Either in relation to the result or the consequences of that game.         

[Gerard]

16 minutes ago, Thracian said:

I don't assume we'll have 36 points after the Sunderland game and won't until they're on the board. My thoughts would all be on the Stoke match for now.

 

What I'd do for the Atletico away game would depend entirely on the situation then in relation to injuries, availability, player's form, any tactical plan for the next match and so on.

 

My aim would still be to maintain continuity and concerns about four games in 12 days for people would depend on individual reaction to the previous efforts.

 

Your mention of the Sevilla home match only emphasises what a brilliant win it was at West Ham (after 3 instead of 12 days break) for all that the players were spent at the end.

 

Truth is it's sometimes harder to play at high intensity after a 12-day break and then recover for another game a few days later.

 

Many players would find it easier to adapt to playing every three days. For me the 12-day break and only 3-day break for the next match would have been so hard, mentally and physically, But our players had the character to manage it, despite the late drama. 

 

There's no certain answers to the question we're debating - you may as easily be right as me. When I was a manager I hated making changes. I only ever wanted my best team out there on the pitch because I always believed we'd win then, whatever.                

 

But not everyone will agree and many have shown there's other ways of doing things. I completely respect your argument - and others with a similar viewpoint - while not in any way pretending to be certain of my own.

 

I've just outlined my thoughts on the matter. And not even mentioned, for instance, the potential problems that might, in reality arise, from key people being injured or the potential consequence of players having being out of action/involvement for too long.

 

Again, all that stresses, is the wisdom of taking one match at a time. Because there's no guarantees from the Stoke visit. Either in relation to the result or the consequences of that game.         

 

For the record I'm not assuming we will beat Stoke and Sunderland either and if we fail to take maximum points then I accept that we can't prioritise the Champions League over our Premier League survival.

 

I think it would be a great extra incentive for the players to highlight that if we do take 6pts then we have the legroom to 100% focus on the Atletico away match and give ourselves every opportunity in a tie we're already big underdogs. I'll be spitting feathers if we look all but safe after the Sunderland match and we play the first team against Everton and then watch the players die on their feet against Atletico on the hour mark as they did against West Ham and effectively lose the tie in that last half hour.

 

Also we're not talking about "12-day breaks" the gap between Sunderland at home and Atletico away is 8 days, ideal preparation time between matches and the Everton game in between can only be detrimental to our chance of progressing in the Champ[ions League.

[foxy boxing]

Clearly getting the "we haven't won away yet in the league" off our backs is a massive lift and will also help psychologically with the players believing more and more and winning our last four games the players will want to keep the run going and push up the table as far as they can, so the result in that respect was absolutely massive as well as being crucial to the rest of the season.

[Thracian]

18 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

For the record I'm not assuming we will beat Stoke and Sunderland either and if we fail to take maximum points then I accept that we can't prioritise the Champions League over our Premier League survival.

 

I think it would be a great extra incentive for the players to highlight that if we do take 6pts then we have the legroom to 100% focus on the Atletico away match and give ourselves every opportunity in a tie we're already big underdogs. I'll be spitting feathers if we look all but safe after the Sunderland match and we play the first team against Everton and then watch the players die on their feet against Atletico on the hour mark as they did against West Ham and effectively lose the tie in that last half hour.

 

Also we're not talking about "12-day breaks" the gap between Sunderland at home and Atletico away is 8 days, ideal preparation time between matches and the Everton game in between can only be detrimental to our chance of progressing in the Champ[ions League.

Doubtless reality will focus the debate even more intensely as our league results unfold. But there's no way we should risk losing Premiership points due to our thoughts drifting towards Champions League possibilities.

That attitude has arguably caused enough damage as it is.

Our priority is to maintain our league status. and that probably means taking another 9 points from 10 games with no "givens" and a potentially increasing amount of pressure if something goes wrong.

One game at a time - and maximum commitment to that game - is the only attitude we can afford at this time.       

[Ric Flair]

Chilwell, Amartey, Gray and Benalouane have shown they can be relied upon which will give some of our most important players a break. It's leading the line where it's hard to give Vardy a rest as Slimani and Musa are in horrible form. If Slimani does play then it's crucial we have Albrighton and Fuchs in which are two players who have ran themselves in to the ground in recent weeks. All about managing which players get a rest and at what times. There's stilla slight worry we aren't as fit as we were last season but the hearts and desire of these players will dig in deep and see us right. If we get through the quarters then it gets relentless for the lads. That's why these next two home games are huge, we win those and we're pretty much safe. That is monumental for our champions league dream. Imagine it.

[justfoxes]

I see Mahrez's super strike v Hammers didn't make the Premier league goal of the week  competition?

It was a wonderful meant to score strike on goal wasn't a cross honestly !!

[Thracian]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Chilwell, Amartey, Gray and Benalouane have shown they can be relied upon which will give some of our most important players a break. It's leading the line where it's hard to give Vardy a rest as Slimani and Musa are in horrible form. If Slimani does play then it's crucial we have Albrighton and Fuchs in which are two players who have ran themselves in to the ground in recent weeks. All about managing which players get a rest and at what times. There's stilla slight worry we aren't as fit as we were last season but the hearts and desire of these players will dig in deep and see us right. If we get through the quarters then it gets relentless for the lads. That's why these next two home games are huge, we win those and we're pretty much safe. That is monumental for our champions league dream. Imagine it.

 

 

That's a generous assessment of the first four mentioned but then they perhaps need and deserve some backing and belief .

 

But Benny's only played the once in recent Premiership fixtures while Chilwell, Amartey and Gray while undoubtedly both promising and progressing are still short of being completely reliable. They're good but show their naivity and inexperience at times. 

 

Our trip to Millwall showed the problems we have fielding a weakened team not only in losing the game but in dominating much of it, still failing to score and then conceding such a late and soft goal I really did wonder how much we wanted to go through at all.

 

Please don't think I'm dismissive of the idea of "resting" people before the Atletico away game IF we've won the next two league games.

 

But it bothers me to even be talking about it before those two league results are known and it also concerns me that the rhythm and confidence our virtually unchanged team has generated under Shakespeare might somehow be disrupted if we go to Everton with a Millwall-type team.

 

Worse still,  yet not at all impossible, if we've not won the Stoke/Sunderland games can we even imagine playing a weakened team against Everton given that the chasing pack at the bottom of the table would surely be closing on us?

 

For me it's just folly to get ahead of ourselves. The time for Champions League thinking is a long way off just now.      

[Koke]

If we beat Stoke and Sunderland then IMO it'd be irresponsible to play the first 11 vs Everton. Against West Ham the players looked totally shattered. They were out on their feet. The Sevilla game took a lot out of them. Considering Atletico are a cut above Sevilla it'd be stupid to flog them against Everton few days before. With 36 points we'd be practically safe. The Everton game becomes almost irrelevant when you consider the biggest game in our history is a few days after.

 

West Ham battered us in the 2nd half. It was a siege. An onslaught. Atletico will annihilate us if we aren't 100% fresh.

[Johnthefoxrayner]

9 hours ago, Bob Weasel Fox said:

Totally this

Well said. Everything you said spot on

[Bob Weasel Fox]

4 hours ago, Johnthefoxrayner said:

Well said. Everything you said spot on

Yeah well said

 

[Ecdysiast]

On 3/19/2017 at 12:21, Mark_from_USA said:

The biggest.  Tremendously big. We need our stamina for the Champions League.

Bigly..Even the Russians tell me its bigly + plus i saw it on Fox news..Tremendously bigly

[Realist Guy In The Room]

On 19/03/2017 at 22:51, ceredigion said:

The real dilemma as I see it is that we are trying to do something that I don't remember any team trying to do before, i.e. going deep in the Champions League while at the same time fighting a relegation battle in the domestic league.

 

There isn't a blueprint for this scenario and to complicate matters the Athletico tie is winnable.

Agree with this.  It would have been much easier to know where to prioritise if we'd have drawn Barcelona.