Watford post-match 2-0 Puel out chit-chat

[turtmcfly]

35 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Yes it helped that Watford didn't park the bus and that they were profligate in front of goal.

We need to be cuter when teams sit back...and knocking the ball around slowly and side to side doesn't seem to be that effective.

I like us playing more uptempo, he'll win more fans over doing that.

Fulham won't sit back against us, we could do very well against them if the energy and dynamism is there again.

Cuter? Anyone with a coaching badge on here care to expand, cos I haven't got a scooby what that means?

 

As for the 'uptempo' comment... Is this of a piece with the cuter comment? Are you advocating an 'uptempo approach' to teams that park the bus? What would that look like? And if not, are you not just 'stating the bleeding obvious'? 

Show Replies

[UpTheLeagueFox]

6 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

you not just 'stating the bleeding obvious'? 

I always state the bleeding obvious. It's in my blood, sadly.

[Stoopid]

7 minutes ago, rachhere said:

I think it's very very different watching it when you know the final outcome. Watching it live it felt like time stood still seeing if he could maintain control to score. That was what was so special about it.

Yeah, I totally get that.  And tbf Stringer's such an irritating bleeder that I rarely pay much attention to what he says...

Maybe it's because I found JM's dive the week before so embarrassing. He's got a bit of ground to make up speaking personally.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Yes it helped that Watford didn't park the bus and that they were profligate in front of goal.

We need to be cuter when teams sit back...and knocking the ball around slowly and side to side doesn't seem to be that effective.

I like us playing more uptempo, he'll win more fans over doing that.

Fulham won't sit back against us, we could do very well against them if the energy and dynamism is there again.

i think he feels over committing men forward against sides siting back opens us up to a counter

 

i thought that if watford's tactics were to get beyond our lines then it worked well for them ……. play like we did on Saturday against spurs and it could be another 5-4 or 7-1, depending on us taking our chances …. 

 

its a conumdrum ! i don't think we changed our tactics on Saturday - they wanted to play and us scoring early meant they had no choice after that 

 

next home game where we will see what's what is Cardiff …….

[Jack1993]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's definitely just you

 Fair enough 

[Jack1993]

2 hours ago, Stoopid said:

Listening to Stringer's reaction on RL I thought it must be an absolute worldy. Slightly underwhelmed when I saw it later...

I mean it was ok but owed a bit to the defender as well. 

Not complaining though.

I thought the same, at first I thought he'd hit it high over the defender then whacked it home which would've warranted the reaction but it was the defender that tee'd it up... he took it well and I'm bloody happy he scored it but it's like others saw a different goal to me 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

[The Doctor]

22 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

Neither of the above. If you'd actually paid attention to how we've played, and Puels reaction in game, you'd see that sort of attacking is what he's been going for. The plan has always been clear, not to take away the fast attacking play, still to do that (hence why we've scored the most counter attacks in the division: https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/goal_fastbreak) but to be comfortable with the ball and move it around to create space when the counter attack isn't on. To be a multi-dimensional side. He'll no doubt be frustrated by how we wasted the ball at times in the second half (particularly through wilf) but generally that's been what Puel has been aiming for all season - and what we've produced for a spell in pretty much every game. The difference was we took our chances this time.

[bfox]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

i think he feels over committing men forward against sides siting back opens us up to a counter

 

i thought that if watford's tactics were to get beyond our lines then it worked well for them ……. play like we did on Saturday against spurs and it could be another 5-4 or 7-1, depending on us taking our chances …. 

 

its a conumdrum ! i don't think we changed our tactics on Saturday - they wanted to play and us scoring early meant they had no choice after that 

 

next home game where we will see what's what is Cardiff …….

Have to agree, fine margins. Maddison misses his and Gray bags his sitters and everything is very quickly different. I get the point of ifs and buts but imo we were ok on saturday, nothing more.

[st albans fox]

40 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

Number 1 is partly correct 

 

number 2 is nonsense .... that’s simply how the game panned out 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

41 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

3. Either or/ both/ Who cares?  A win, 3 points and a goal to get you off your seat

 

 

 

 

[blaaklint]

The problem with counter-attacking is we can only really play it when the opposition let us - when teams come and attack with their own spells of possession, or when we’re already winning so the other team has no choice but to attack.

 

This is all well and good but if the other team sits back, the onus is on us, as the “better” team, to go and score: a draw suits Southampton etc. when they play ua, but we should really beat them. Similarly, if they score first, we are the ones who have to do something. That’s why we can’t always play on the counter. Counter-attacking only really works if the opposition think they are better than us, or that they need to beat us.

 

Having said, we’re not very good at possession football yet. I think we are getting better: Gray’s shot against the post is a good example if how to play from defence forward when the other team is entirely behind us.

[bfox]

to get that possession thing to work as well as turning over a high number of chances you need high quality players. Especially in the middle. Ndidi needs a kick up the arse, he struggles to do anything of note offensively. 

[Foxesmints]

1 hour ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

It doesn't matter to you anyway does it? I thought you didn't waste your time going?

[turtmcfly]

1 hour ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) utilising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

You forgot;

 

  0. The number of people who claimed Puel was some kind of genius after Saturday's game

 

You really are unreal. The concept that most teams in the league won't actually let us play a counter-attacking game (because they too have spotted we're quite good at it) seems beyond you. To my knowledge you have never explained how we should play in those situations. Wonder if you can do any better than 'be more cute'? 

 

If you have explained, can you explain again for this dumb-ass? While you're at it, can you remind me who the club has been remiss in not employing instead of Puel?

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

So just trying I clarify, you consider a team outplaying the other as having more posession whilst not registering a single shot on target in 90 minutes.

 

Becuause I'm fairly sure when it's the other way around you don't think that.

[Foxxed]

4 hours ago, Dickov22 said:

 

He actually gave us his word he would be signing for us. Then changed his mind last minute after Watford gave him a massive new deal.

Damn snake! He would have fitted in perfectly.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

1 hour ago, Foxesmints said:

It doesn't matter to you anyway does it? I thought you didn't waste your time going?

I don’t.

 

Just trying to draw a bit of an argument on a Monday 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

So just trying I clarify, you consider a team outplaying the other as having more posession whilst not registering a single shot on target in 90 minutes.

 

Becuause I'm fairly sure when it's the other way around you don't think that.

?

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

3 hours ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What really happened then on Saturday? 

 

You lot who think Puel is some kind of genius.

 

1. We were outplayed (38% possession) ustiising Claude’s preferred possession tactics, but managed to win due to the counter attacking prowess within the squad which has been with us for 3 or 4 years.

 

2. Claude actually realised he’s been pissing in the wind for the last 12 months and decided that he had got things all wrong and at

last decided to play to our attacking strengths ?

You weren’t there were you ? 

 

How did we look on the radio ? 

 

 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

20 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

You weren’t there were you ? 

 

How did we look on the radio ? 

 

 

We are long past the days of the wireless, we can now get moving pictures you know.

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

We are long past the days of the wireless, we can now get moving pictures you know.

Thought you’d boycott that too on the basis that watching Puel’s brand of football makes your eyes bleed. 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

Just now, Mike Oxlong said:

Thought you’d boycott that too on the basis that watching Puel’s brand of football makes your eyes bleed. 

I wear some special glasses I have had especially made to protect myself, so I’m safe.

 

Thanks for your concern ?

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

I wear some special glasses I have had especially made to protect myself, so I’m safe.

 

Thanks for your concern ?

Glad to know you’ve gone to such lengths to watch your team. Claude would be proud of you ?

[HighPeakFox]

22 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

We are long past the days of the wireless, we can now get moving pictures you know.

Do you not object to the rise of the machines?