weller54 Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 1 hour ago, foxile5 said: Vardy is out of form and we don't have any other natural goal scorers at the club. Our decision to let Slimani leave loojs baffling in hindsight. Yes, our striker options aren't loojing good.
splinterdream Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 we play with a slow passing build up game and don't have skillful enough players in the final third to create decent challenges, we are short a Mahrez
l444ry Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 13 minutes ago, Guest said: Which stats would they be, out of interest? I'd love to see them. Charles Hughes and his kind were presumably slagged off big time because they were a huge reason why English players were traditionally so poor technically compared to their foreign counterparts Suggest you google and research Charles Hughes for yourself and not go by his reputation. Can't see how he can be blamed for English players being "technically poor" but if and when you do research Hughes you'll understand why.
yorkie1999 Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 Cos we’re playing a system with wingers and wingbacks whose job is to attack the wings and put a ball into a 5 foot tall striker. Fairly obvious we’re on a loser. Even though he’s a gyro and no one likes him we should sign andy Carrol and then we might start scoring.
Stadt Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 We don't create good chances consistently enough and we haven't been taking the relatively few that we've made. Losing Mahrez is a huge blow and Maddison hasn't replaced his creativity in open play unfortunately. Those three shots that came near the penalty spot were all from set pieces, the other two are from very wide positions that are difficult to score from.
Stadt Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 15 minutes ago, l444ry said: Suggest you google and research Charles Hughes for yourself and not go by his reputation. Can't see how he can be blamed for English players being "technically poor" but if and when you do research Hughes you'll understand why. Hughes based his theories on Charles Reep's work which was debunked by Jonathan Wilson in Inverting the Pyramid "Reep's work has been heavily criticised by, among others, the writer Jonathan Wilson. Wilson points out that Reep's analysis shows that 91.5% of moves in the games he studied had 3 passes or fewer and that logically, this would mean that 91.5% of all goals should come from moves with 3 passes or fewer. However, Reep's analysis found that fewer than 80% of goals came from moves with 3 passes or fewer.[2] Therefore, Reep's own work shows that moves with 3 passes or fewer are less effective than those with 4 or more. "And these figures do not even take into account the goals scored when long chains of passes have led to a dead-ball or a breakdown or even the fact that a side holding possession and making their opponents chase is likely to tire less quickly, and so will be able to pick off exhausted opponents late on. It is, frankly, horrifying that a philosophy founded on such a basic misinterpretation of figures could have been allowed to become a cornerstone of English coaching. Anti-intellectualism is one thing, but faith in wrong-headed pseudo-intellectualism is far worse.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Reep
l444ry Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 14 minutes ago, Stadt said: Hughes based his theories on Charles Reep's work which was debunked by Jonathan Wilson in Inverting the Pyramid "Reep's work has been heavily criticised by, among others, the writer Jonathan Wilson. Wilson points out that Reep's analysis shows that 91.5% of moves in the games he studied had 3 passes or fewer and that logically, this would mean that 91.5% of all goals should come from moves with 3 passes or fewer. However, Reep's analysis found that fewer than 80% of goals came from moves with 3 passes or fewer.[2] Therefore, Reep's own work shows that moves with 3 passes or fewer are less effective than those with 4 or more. "And these figures do not even take into account the goals scored when long chains of passes have led to a dead-ball or a breakdown or even the fact that a side holding possession and making their opponents chase is likely to tire less quickly, and so will be able to pick off exhausted opponents late on. It is, frankly, horrifying that a philosophy founded on such a basic misinterpretation of figures could have been allowed to become a cornerstone of English coaching. Anti-intellectualism is one thing, but faith in wrong-headed pseudo-intellectualism is far worse.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Reep Leicester City won the Premiership with little possession and goals scored with direct play. Can't say anything more than that. Hughes was a direct play proponent not long ball Wimbledon style. He became an easy bogeyman unfortunately.
Stadt Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 44 minutes ago, l444ry said: Leicester City won the Premiership with little possession and goals scored with direct play. Can't say anything more than that. Hughes was a direct play proponent not long ball Wimbledon style. He became an easy bogeyman unfortunately. Sides with more possession in games win something like 60% of the time. The best sides in the world all typically post a short, possession focused game. The reason we were so lethal on the counter was that teams underestimated and gave us the space. It’s not as if we won the league and decided not to counterattack anymore, in 2016/17 we flogged a dead horse and teams wisened up to us. Possesion football isn’t the issue, Puel’s coaching if it is. We’re unorganised in possession and there’s a lack of movement, players don’t make good enough supporting runs or decisions on the ball.
Guest Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 1 hour ago, l444ry said: Suggest you google and research Charles Hughes for yourself and not go by his reputation. Can't see how he can be blamed for English players being "technically poor" but if and when you do research Hughes you'll understand why. I've done more than enough research on him to understand what his impact on English football was mate. Do you have those stats you mentioned to hand or do they not exist?
Trav Le Bleu Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said: Cos we’re playing a system with wingers and wingbacks whose job is to attack the wings and put a ball into a 5 foot tall striker. Fairly obvious we’re on a loser. Even though he’s a gyro and no one likes him we should sign andy Carrol and then we might start scoring. Is that why he scores so many headed goals, cos he can hover in the box?
Max Wall Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said: Cos we’re playing a system with wingers and wingbacks whose job is to attack the wings and put a ball into a 5 foot tall striker. Fairly obvious we’re on a loser. Even though he’s a gyro and no one likes him we should sign andy Carrol and then we might start scoring. We would probably score in the one game a season Carroll plays for most of his clubs right enough.
Wymsey Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 2 hours ago, StanSP said: Do goals count more if they're scored from open play? And how about penalties?..
Freeman's Wharfer Posted 24 November 2018 Posted 24 November 2018 It's because we have the most cautious manager in the league. If you offered Puel a 70% chance of a 0-0 or a 50% chance of a 2-0 then he'd take the safety of the 0-0 every time.
HighPeakFox Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 8 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said: It's because we have the most cautious manager in the league. If you offered Puel a 70% chance of a 0-0 or a 50% chance of a 2-0 then he'd take the safety of the 0-0 every time. You're making stuff up.
Freeman's Wharfer Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 9 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said: You're making stuff up. Sorry. Show me the free-flowing adventurous attacking performances this season that I must've missed then...
worthosoriginals Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 5 hours ago, foxile5 said: Vardy is out of form and we don't have any other natural goal scorers at the club. Our decision to let Slimani leave loojs baffling in hindsight. when he was playing... many here said he's shit, get rid.
ozleicester Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 2 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said: It's because we have the most cautious manager in the league. If you offered Puel a 70% chance of a 0-0 or a 50% chance of a 2-0 then he'd take the safety of the 0-0 every time. but this doesnt include the 80% chance of a loss factor that in and make your decision
Guest Col city fan Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 Is someone on this thread genuinely suggesting Andy Carroll? ‘When fit, for sure..but I’m struggling to think of any other player who has made such a fortune from football by playing in a handful of games throughout his career.
reynard Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 10 hours ago, Bert said: But we’ve only scored three once this season. Two goals in 4 games, 1 goal in 7 games and 0 goals once. The Southampton game is the only game where we’ve scored more than once without any goal not being from a set play and although the first wolves goal wasn’t a set play, that was an own goal. We create chances but are not clincial enough. It’s rare we’ve got more than one player in the box. We don’t commit enough people forward when building possession attacks. Pretty much sums it up tidily. I would add that at times we simply don't move the ball quickly enough, usually because there isn't enough movement off the ball. The top sides keep the ball well but the transistion phase to attack happens far more quickly than it does with us. Also I really don't think we have that many goal scorers on the pitch. We're far too dependant on Vardy to score and at the moment on Maddison to create. I think he's done well this season, yesterday excepted, but in terms of experience of playing at this level he is raw and it was always going to be a big ask to play to the very high standards of the start of the season all the time. Both these players need more help from others within the squad.
mozartfox Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 11 hours ago, Royston. said: Dont concede many you dont have to score many. But when we do concede is often an absolute shocker. WTF was going on with our CB’s. when Murray headed that in? So much money spent in that area in the last window and yet absolutely nothing has improved, apart from Celtic’s defence. We need to hire a specialist defensive coach and may be bin off some others on the coaching team that are not adding much value.
joachim1965 Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 10 hours ago, StanSP said: Do goals count more if they're scored from open play? Yes, each goal scored in open play is worth 1.5 goals in your goals scored column.
Matt Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 Sideways, sideways, backwards, sideways, backwards for the most part of matches, that is why.
joachim1965 Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 2 minutes ago, Matt said: Sideways, sideways, backwards, sideways, backwards for the most part of matches, that is why. Ian stringer said as much in comentary yesterday.
SkidsFox Posted 25 November 2018 Posted 25 November 2018 Just my opinion, but my concern is our habit of conceding a goal in the first 20 minutes. Happening far too often..
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.