Babylon Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 25 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Fair enough but if you've got an inferior defensive midfielder to what you'd like, it might be better to concentrate on what you're good at rather than what you're weak at, i.e go for another goal rather than sitting back and inviting us to be attacked. Right now we are more suited to you score 3 we'll score 4 than we are at pinching results, most certainly against the best clubs. Remember him getting slated for attacking Spurs in a dead rubber game when a goal down? Seems to me he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't unless we win the game. Not you, but I can't take others seriously who slated him for attacking Spurs but then slate him for being defensive against the better teams. People either want attacking football and you back them when doing so, or they don't.
Bunyip Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 4 hours ago, HighPeakFox said: I agree that in parts his touch was poor, but you must have missed him tackling Kante and sprinting upfield to give Mahrez an option having done so. In that respect, at least, he was NOT a passenger. SK4 being an echo chamber for you doesnt really count as evidence Nor does one moment of skill by him evidence that it resulted in nothing. Sk4 have a better-educated set of fans who have seen it and heard it all. Nothing like the callow youth in sk 1. We know a turkey when it clucks.
Bunyip Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 4 hours ago, Babylon said: Our style of play against those teams wasn't greatly different to any of the others. Stoke didn't try and attack united, they just sat back, low possession and tried to counter them. It worked better for them on the day. Just as sitting back and doing nothing worked better for them against Arsenal, where they barely attempted to get out of their own half. There is plenty of room for improvement, but we're also missing what will probably be the core of the team until January in Huth, Iborra and Iheanacho. Hopefully that means we take those chances more often, that we have created and keep concentration a bit more the other end. Yep, a good counter and agreed.
Bunyip Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 4 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said: True, wasnt much of an argument tbf was it? When he first came in for us he was scoring goals. We just need to play him like that again. Second half, getting on the end of crosses, thats how we need to use him. He's not a starter for us atm because of how we play When was the last time any prem team based its scoring on a striker who's sole attribute is scoring with his head? Shearer circa Blackburn? old fashioned and out of date. Modern defenders no longer let that happen too often. Ok in the league he played in here he's a dinosaur.
HighPeakFox Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 24 minutes ago, Bunyip said: Sk4 have a better-educated set of fans who have seen it and heard it all. Ha ha ha ha. What a load of self aggrandizing codswallop.
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 14 minutes ago, Bunyip said: When was the last time any prem team based its scoring on a striker who's sole attribute is scoring with his head? Shearer circa Blackburn? old fashioned and out of date. Modern defenders no longer let that happen too often. Ok in the league he played in here he's a dinosaur. Havent West Ham tried it with Carrol? I agree he's not one to base our scoring on.Think he's a good asset to bring on in certain situations. Not a starter
ARTY_FOX Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 Of course playing crosses for slimani will get him goals. How can anyone disagree with that? The only problem is we use him as a target man who lays it out wide and the wingers instantly cross it without allowing him anytime to get into the box. What use is that?
Ric Flair Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 3 hours ago, Babylon said: Remember him getting slated for attacking Spurs in a dead rubber game when a goal down? Seems to me he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't unless we win the game. Not you, but I can't take others seriously who slated him for attacking Spurs but then slate him for being defensive against the better teams. People either want attacking football and you back them when doing so, or they don't. Haha in a perverse way I actually enjoyed that Spurs game. It got embarrassing but that spell when we got the goal back we were mustard. I just don't think we are any good at containing the better teams, not sure gung ho is the answer either as it's often suicidal but as you say he doesn't seem to be able to win.
AlloverthefloorYesNdidi Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 1 hour ago, ARTY_FOX said: Of course playing crosses for slimani will get him goals. How can anyone disagree with that? The only problem is we use him as a target man who lays it out wide and the wingers instantly cross it without allowing him anytime to get into the box. What use is that? Not much use at all. Best to not do that and when we use him use him to good effect. Ranieri managed it ok. If it wasnt for Afcon and an injury Slim might have got 15 plus goals last season and Claudio could still be here.
Babylon Posted 14 September 2017 Posted 14 September 2017 1 hour ago, Ric Flair said: Haha in a perverse way I actually enjoyed that Spurs game. It got embarrassing but that spell when we got the goal back we were mustard. I just don't think we are any good at containing the better teams, not sure gung ho is the answer either as it's often suicidal but as you say he doesn't seem to be able to win. I'm happy with a middle ground, but it's far harder to strike that balance. I'm sure he'll learn as we go, so long as we're picking up points against the rest then it's fine to give him time to work that out, because results against the big boys shouldn't define your season.
Bunyip Posted 15 September 2017 Posted 15 September 2017 21 hours ago, HighPeakFox said: Ha ha ha ha. What a load of self aggrandizing codswallop. It was meant to be.
HighPeakFox Posted 15 September 2017 Posted 15 September 2017 49 minutes ago, Bunyip said: It was meant to be. Sometimes sarcasm fails via typing
Bunyip Posted 15 September 2017 Posted 15 September 2017 1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said: Sometimes sarcasm fails via typing Always fails via understanding.
vanity Posted 15 September 2017 Posted 15 September 2017 On 9/12/2017 at 21:55, Rabray said: Against Arsenal we were winning. Shakes decided to throw the game away by taking off a striker and replacing him with a midfielder. Arsenal man marked Vardy and sent everyone else upfield. We lost. Shakes realised his error and put a striker back on. Too late. We lost. Why change at all? Against Sheffield Utd he did the same. Striker off. Midfielder on. We soon conceded a goal. Fortunately Sheffield are not a Premiership side or it could have been worse. Against Man Utd looking at a point, very nice at Old Trafford, the same tactics. Striker off. Midfielder on. Then, Slimani replaces Vardy??? We lost. Against Chelsea he paired Vardy with our worst striker whose main asset was missing sitters. So he did. Eventually he removed him and guess what? He replaced him with a midfielder with Ulloah and Iheanacho rotting on the bench. Iheanacho on 9 minutes from the end. What‘s he supposed to do in 9 minutes? We lost. Do we see a pattern here? Apart from the fact shakes loves Slimani. These are the negative tactics that Pearson used to drag us to the bottom of the Premiership for 14 weeks. Finally realising his mistake he went on the attack. The result was the ‘Great Escape’. Who was whispering in his ear? Shakespeare. Who is now dragging us down? Shakespeare. Who was really responsible for those 14 weeks at the bottom? Pearson or Shakespeare? Where are we now? In the relegation zone. Who put us there? Huddersfield will be the decider. As a preliminary matter, as soon as you suggest Ulloa should ever see the field before Slimani, you lose all credibility. Setting that aside, Shakey made great moves at times last season. Certainly many of us were pleasantly surprised at his excellent in-game decisions. Yet this season we've not seen the successful outcomes of last season. You believe it is his tactics, and at times, I agree, like with the Arsenal game. You ask why make a change at all? Arsenal's substitutions were overrunning our midfield, which led to the adjustment. If we didn't adjust, they looked very likely to score in open play. As it was, I agree that wasn't the right move, as it took us out of an attacking mindset in a game we were finding good chances when we pushed the ball. We shut down the attack for the night, and couldn't flip the switch back on. But I have to ask, what was the right move? We needed midfield support, and Drinky and Iborra were unavailable. We were down to our 5th or 6th string MF, without choices that would've solved the problem Arsenal's substitutes were causing us. And it wasn't that the strategy backfired in open play, it was on corners where players failed to communicate. So what was the right move? Bring in Iheanacho, and allow Arsenal to keep dominating play and hammering shot after shot, while hoping for a counterattack? That strategy ignores the enormous problem Wenger's subs we're causing. Realistically, we needed better MFs in the game, but we didn't have any, plus Wes looked a step slow that game as he shook off the rust. We needed to adapt to Arsenal overloading our MF, and we needed to manage more possession. In retrospect, this is a difficult problem to solve with our personnel. Shakey went with a CB/CM hybrid in Amartey, but with the benefit of hindsight, I think Andy King was the better choice. Yes, we lose Shinji, but we gain a player in the MF so there isn't a player running free all the time, and King is the closest thing to an AM we had on the bench, so he might allowed us to continue coming forward a bit, plus he helps with possession more than Amartey. Realistically, with James worn out, we needed Iborra, who is a bigger, stronger, more talented King. His experience could've helped keep order on set pieces, he's excellent on the ball, and between him and Maguire and Ndidi and our wings, we might managed to get forward a bit more. It is always easy to complain when things go wrong, but realistically, with our MF being what it has been, Shakey has been coaching each game with a major disadvantage. Against the elite sides, we don't always have a counter-move on the bench that makes sense. If we can get healthy and get Silva in, Shakey will suddenly seem a much improved coach to many, no question in my mind.
HighPeakFox Posted 15 September 2017 Posted 15 September 2017 1 hour ago, Bunyip said: Always fails via understanding. I suspected it, but it wasn't obvious.
Bunyip Posted 16 September 2017 Posted 16 September 2017 15 hours ago, HighPeakFox said: I suspected it, but it wasn't obvious. That's how proper sarcasm works. lol
HighPeakFox Posted 16 September 2017 Posted 16 September 2017 1 minute ago, Bunyip said: That's how proper sarcasm works. lol Well, if you want to risk being misunderstood, I guess so. Anyway, no harm done - in retrospect, it was funny.
foxinsocks Posted 16 September 2017 Posted 16 September 2017 Shakeys tactics a driven by his objective.... ie. to keep his job He will achieve this by avoiding a battering..... always giving room for improvement We need a chant to demand that we play with verve
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.