Why can't we score

[Babylon]

"We never have any shots"

 

"We never counter attack"

 

From open play (you can include counters in that as they are still in open play really), we've scored 11 goals. Spurs have scored 13 to put that in context.

 

"We only score set pieces"

We've scored from 5 according to whoscored, Bournemouth have scored 10 and only scored 1 more form open play / counters.

 

 

Outside of the big boys, we're about what you've expect of a midtable team. We aren't going to be a Liverpool, Man city etc, so questioning why we aren't like them is nonsensical.

 

 

[joachim1965]

On 25/11/2018 at 07:47, mozartfox said:

Must be true then.

Just an observation, as I was at work was listening on the radio, he did mention one particular phase of play where we were on the attack and the ball was passed sideways, then sideways again and then back and it ended up with kasper. 

[mozartfox]

1 hour ago, joachim1965 said:

Just an observation, as I was at work was listening on the radio, he did mention one particular phase of play where we were on the attack and the ball was passed sideways, then sideways again and then back and it ended up with kasper. 

I would not be surprised if this was factual as Harry aside, neither Wes or Evans seem capable of playing any forward passes likely to instigate an attacking move.  If you watch Benkovic he for example seems capable of more than sideways and backward passed.  Roll on next season. 

[mancunianfox]

We play too slowly for a team that isn't very good at breaking down an organised defense. When we up the tempo we look a lot better, usually this happens in the second half but we rarely start games playing to our strengths.

[FoxNotFox]

6 minutes ago, mancunianfox said:

We play too slowly for a team that isn't very good at breaking down an organised defense. When we up the tempo we look a lot better, usually this happens in the second half but we rarely start games playing to our strengths.

It does seem as though we like to warm ourselves into a game. I don't know whether that's a deliberate tactical thing or not but it is evident. 

 

Equally so the patient build up play, looking/waiting until we pull the opposition defence out of shape. I can think it's too optimistic when some/most teams are so defensively well organised and just as patient as us. Maybe we simply lack decisive ball players; brave enough and capable enough of finding that killer ball to open defences. I really don't know but I too also believe we look much more threatening when we up the tempo.

 

More generally, I feel there's something going on in Puel's tactics that I don't understand. Not that I expect to but it baffles me none-the-less. He seems to have a preference to play an almost chess-like tactic, waiting for a defensive crack to exploit. He seems to want to shift the ball around to provoke that. He seems also to have a preferred kind of player for that. It's almost that he thinks goal scoring is something that any of his players ought be able to do, given the chance and given the defence having been breached. As if goal scoring itself doesn't need a special type of mindset/player. It's very tactical, perhaps too tactical. Perhaps he's not of the 'pump it into the box, create uncertainty and see what happens' school of thought. Whatever it is, I don't think I can honesty say that I know what's going on.  But, as I say, I don't expect myself to know. He's the manager, he has a vision that the club trusts him with so that's enough for me. It's still early days in this/his project.

[HighPeakFox]

What were the first 30 like against Burnley? 

[mancunianfox]

25 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

What were the first 30 like against Burnley? 

The exception that proves the rule? Hard to make a massive comparison because of the occasion but the shorter week due to the travelling to Thailand would have allowed less time for tactical work too. That might have been a good thing. I'm not against the manager by any means but there is still a lot of room for improvement in both the coaching and on the pitch. It will work eventually, it just isn't right now.

[l444ry]

Some good posts on both sides of the debate. You can make stats suit any argument. I prefer the evidence of my own eyes. We have played worse football under worse managers than Puel over the decades but I can't recall any more boring and mundane.

[whoareyaaa]

7 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Some good posts on both sides of the debate. You can make stats suit any argument. I prefer the evidence of my own eyes. We have played worse football under worse managers than Puel over the decades but I can't recall any more boring and mundane.

I can Craig Levien

[Babylon]

24 minutes ago, mancunianfox said:

The exception that proves the rule? Hard to make a massive comparison because of the occasion but the shorter week due to the travelling to Thailand would have allowed less time for tactical work too. That might have been a good thing. I'm not against the manager by any means but there is still a lot of room for improvement in both the coaching and on the pitch. It will work eventually, it just isn't right now.

Slow starts has been a feature here even under Pearson, I wish the Statto website was still around as it had great first half second half stats. I remember we used to have shocking first half stats and great second half. That's under a manager who was meant to be a good motivator and had everyone behind him.

[Babylon]

Just now, whoareyaaa said:

I can Craig Levien

Levein, Megson, Holloway, Kelly, Sousa.... anyone suggesting they preferred the football of any of these managers compared to now, can frankly jog their way onto the ignore list.

[1969]

Add Mclintock, Pleat, Hamilton, Lee, Mcghee, Taylor, Worthington, Allen to that list just as a few more! 

[Saxondale]

We spent a couple of years playing high-octane, fast-paced counter-attacking football. At our best (i.e. the title winning season), we were unstoppable. That era has gone and we're having to find our feet doing things a different way.

 

Puel's methodology appears to be possession-based, slow build-up, wearing the opposition down. The problem is that there are some bloody good defences in the Prem. Even the shakiest of teams are incredibly well disciplined and well organised. 

 

As for the answer: I just don't know.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

4 minutes ago, 1969 said:

Add Mclintock, Pleat, Hamilton, Lee, Mcghee, Taylor, Worthington, Allen to that list just as a few more! 

The football under McGhee was pretty good I thought.

[mancunianfox]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Levein, Megson, Holloway, Kelly, Sousa.... anyone suggesting they preferred the football of any of these managers compared to now, can frankly jog their way onto the ignore list.

Stoke at home under Megson is the worst game of football I have ever seen. So many throw ins and he played a front three of Mark De Vries, DJ Campbell and Carl Cort with DJ through the middle and the other two providing 'width'. Sousa was dreadful as well.

[turtmcfly]

25 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Some good posts on both sides of the debate. You can make stats suit any argument. I prefer the evidence of my own eyes. We have played worse football under worse managers than Puel over the decades but I can't recall any more boring and mundane.

Absolutely. For example, I firmly believe you can use stats showing how many goals we score to settle a 'how many goals do we score' argument. 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

15 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Levein, Megson, Holloway, Kelly, Sousa.... anyone suggesting they preferred the football of any of these managers compared to now, can frankly jog their way onto the ignore list.

Just because its been worse does that discount any hope that it could be better?

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

The football under McGhee was pretty good I thought.

Aimless though. He introduced a passing game instead of going long and we learnt to keep the ball on the deck allied to the fact that Draper did well for us before leaving for Villa. McGhee definitely took us forward, but it wasn't that attractive or actually much different to watch from now. 

[FoxNotFox]

4 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

I firmly believe you can use stats showing how many goals we score to settle a how many goals do we score' argument. 

Oooh, contentious.

[Babylon]

21 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Just because its been worse does that discount any hope that it could be better?

No, but that wasn't what was being discussed was it?

[RumbleFox]

6 hours ago, Babylon said:

"We never have any shots"

 

"We never counter attack"

 

From open play (you can include counters in that as they are still in open play really), we've scored 11 goals. Spurs have scored 13 to put that in context.

 

"We only score set pieces"

We've scored from 5 according to whoscored, Bournemouth have scored 10 and only scored 1 more form open play / counters.

 

 

Outside of the big boys, we're about what you've expect of a midtable team. We aren't going to be a Liverpool, Man city etc, so questioning why we aren't like them is nonsensical.

 

 

Was going to post similar but I am too lazy and not clever enough.  In terms of shots/goals/conceded/position in the table we are, pretty much, exactly where we would expect to be given our resources.  We could be 1 or 2 places higher but, given half the threads on here, you would imagine we were bottom 3.  X

[jayfox26]

We do need another striker to compete with Vardy and Iheancho and another creative player to help Maddison. We dont have a great deal of creativity and most of our best stuff comes through Maddison and chilwell. Albrighton is good for whipping crosses in but pointless when we don't have any big strikers. We seem to struggle to break teams down that are in the bottom half of the table, especially at home. When teams sit in against us we really struggle. 

[l444ry]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Levein, Megson, Holloway, Kelly, Sousa.... anyone suggesting they preferred the football of any of these managers compared to now, can frankly jog their way onto the ignore list.

Who said *preferred*?  Straw man argument again. 

[HighPeakFox]

13 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Who said *preferred*?  Straw man argument again. 

It isn't a straw man... It means people have both very short memories and/or very short attention spans. 

[Babylon]

10 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Who said *preferred*?  Straw man argument again. 

You seemed to be suggesting his football is more "boring and mundane." than anyone else you remember? Ergo, you found the football of the others less boring and mundane, meaning you would find it preferential to what you're watching now. Doesn't compute, sorry. Not when we've finished 15th, 16th, 19th and 22nd, 13th, 15th, 13th, 22nd in the championship / old league one and the football that got us there. It was horrific mind numbing stuff.

 

The football could be better, there have been flashes of it but not enough so far. That would be a fair argument, saying it's the most boring when we're been relegated to league one whilst barely getting a kick at goal just seems like bluster. Like the other fella suggesting he's worse than Peter ****ing Taylor.