Wolves Post Match 0-0

[Goober]

Those comparing today's performance with Puelball of last season are slightly wide of the mark for me. Spent a lot of the game probing away in their third and regularly won the ball back in their half. Never saw that under Puel. The majority of our possession under him was side to side rubbish on the half way line. I saw good intent in our passing and pressing today, just thought they defended very well. Plenty of room for us to improve too mind you. Not sure we got the personnel/system quite right. Do wish we'd bought that class out and out winger but then again Barnes was good when he came on - happy for us to put faith in him.

 

Soyuncu's performance the highlight by far. Wolves are a classy side, can tell they've been together for a while now and they know their system inside out. They'll be up around 7th again and I'm sure we will too.

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

I'm trying to understand something, having not watched the match. Are people calling our play Puel-esque because they feel there is still a hangover from his time with us, or because the players haven't got it in them to deal with a defensive set up, regardless of the manager? 

 

No problem with it, I just worry that subliminally, it's easy to make him the bogeyman in absentia by recalling his name. I hope the real problem was in the line up and the shape. 

For me a Puel performance was a game where we would dominate possession, but never look like scoring a goal, with Jamie Vardy isolated. Exactly what happened in this match! Someone posted that we currently lead the league in terms of passes made, yet it took until the 84th minute to have a shot on target. It was possession for possession's sake, and I doubt Nuno Santo was ever concerned about the lack of ball his team had, because we never looked like we were going to do anything with it! At least there wasn't so much side-to-side passing between two defensive midfielders, but the passing was too slow and static, and Wolves always had attacks covered and their defensive block was always correctly positioned to deal with any threat we posed.

 

Throughout the whole match we had tons of "nice" passing. Playing it out from the back, stroking it around (again very Puel-esque). But there were very few if any one-two's in the final third that looked like opening them up. Tielemans looked like the most creative player and the one trying to take a risk, but he had an average game and with very little movement ahead of him, there wasn't much he could do. You asked if this recurring problem is due to the players or the manager, and as of today we can't answer that question. Whilst I don't think the manager set us up in the best possible way to open up a team, he certainly wasn't helped by under-par performances from almost all of our attacking players. People saying we started with two defensive midfielders are wrong -  whilst Hamza Choudhury is less of a threat going forwards, we didn't play a double pivot like Puel did with Mendy and Ndidi so it wasn't a carbon copy of a Puel game.

 

What I think is disappointing is that in preseason, we looked like we had developed a real cut and thrust to our attack. Albrighton and Perez were really dynamic and joining as many attacks as possible, it looked absolutely awesome. Not starting Albrighton was IMO a mistake because it meant we had almost no movement up front. I can see what Rodgers did and why. We deliberately didn't play gung-ho up top and the high press we used throughout preseason was rarely used. That's because Wolves were sharper than us due to already playing a number of competitive matches and Rodgers feared that by going gung-ho they would beat the high press and get us on the counter attack. For the most part playing the way we did nullified Wolves, though on another day I think Jota would have made us pay for some sloppy give-aways. So the match ended as a real cancelling-out of each other's tactics. Wolves themselves did not create much other than through mistakes, but Leicester created very little because they didn't want to be brave enough up top and over commit men forward. Hence a very chess-like game and a classic 0-0.

 

Rodgers said after the match that this was the type of game that Leicester would use to lose, and I think he is right about that. But it helps when VAR comes to your rescue like in this case!

 

For me over the next few games it will be interesting and important to see if we can apply that attacking dynamic play from preseason to the Premier League. The problem with this match is that every roach scouting Leicester will look at it and quite simply think "I will let them have the ball and watch them do nothing with it for 90 minutes," the same problem we have had since winning the league! Hopefully Rodgers has the answer because if not, then it's probably 9th again for the third season in a row.

 

There is no need for panic or overreaction yet of course, but had we played like we did in the second had against Atalanta, the mood would be very different on here!

 

 

Edited 11 August 2019 by StriderHiryu

[Hack]

7 hours ago, Tuna said:

Can Praet take them?

Albrighton can.

 

[theessexfox]

1 minute ago, Goober said:

Those comparing today's performance with Puelball of last season are slightly wide of the mark for me. Spent a lot of the game probing away in their third and regularly won the ball back in their half. Never saw that under Puel. The majority of our possession under him was side to side rubbish on the half way line. I saw good intent in our passing and pressing today, just thought they defended very well. Plenty of room for us to improve too mind you. Not sure we got the personnel/system quite right. Do wish we'd bought that class out and out winger but then again Barnes was good when he came on - happy for us to put faith in him.

 

Soyuncu's performance the highlight by far. Wolves are a classy side, can tell they've been together for a while now and they know their system inside out. They'll be up around 7th again and I'm sure we will too.

I just don't think that's true re Puel, a massive whitewashing of history for me - in a lot of the games he got slated for, I remember very similar patterns to today - decent passing around the back, getting to decent areas in the final third but having too many bodies in front of us to make that killer pass. Too often, both then and today, I think we were too slow in transition and didn't play the ball quickly enough to make the most of the times that their players were out of position. But I don't think it's fair on Puel to say that the frustrations we had under him were any different to what we saw today. I think it's generally quite difficult to break down well-organised teams who sit back well, and if we don't make the most of the rare times we catch them on the break, we're not going to create very much. 

[Raw Dykes]

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

Wolves dirty gold shirts are the second worse in the Premier League. Only beaten by Watford. Truly awful kit.

 

So glad we play in Royal Blue.

Our blue is hands down the best colour.

 

I disagree about the worst, though. Villa, West Ham and Burnley. Claret and blue. It's awful. Was probably fashionable for about a week in the 1930s or something. I think it's really depressing to look at.

 

Watford's half and half shirts are rubbish, as well, though.

[Goober]

13 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I just don't think that's true re Puel, a massive whitewashing of history for me - in a lot of the games he got slated for, I remember very similar patterns to today - decent passing around the back, getting to decent areas in the final third but having too many bodies in front of us to make that killer pass. Too often, both then and today, I think we were too slow in transition and didn't play the ball quickly enough to make the most of the times that their players were out of position. But I don't think it's fair on Puel to say that the frustrations we had under him were any different to what we saw today. I think it's generally quite difficult to break down well-organised teams who sit back well, and if we don't make the most of the rare times we catch them on the break, we're not going to create very much. 

Playing both Ndidi and Choudhury obviously hampered us in regards to breaking them down but I definitely think we showed more positive intent on and off the ball than we did in the majority of games under Puel.

 

Frustrating performance at times today and if not for VAR it probably would've followed the same general pattern of all those games last season, but I was encouraged more by what I saw today than by the vast number of poor home performances I saw under Puel.

 

If performances like today continue then we can start getting worried again but in the context of it all today was a decent enough start.

[Deeg67]

7 hours ago, Claridge said:

Poor team selection, Barnes must start, especially at home. Chilwell needs a right foot

Can you imagine the furore if Claude had started that lineup with the other options available?

 

The only real question for Chelsea should be whether to start Praet or Barnes in Choudhury's place.  I can see a case for both, but if Praet is fully integrated in the system by then I'd go that route.

[Blue ROI]

In 2 minds about the result.

 

On the one hand Wolves were one of the form teams of 2018/19 and learned from conceding 5 goals to us last season. Given that we are both fancied to be vying for 7th or higher then maybe a draw was not a bad thing.

 

It would have been nice to start off with a win mind. It was one of many things we got right under MON. Often we would have 4 points out of 6 from the first 2 games or at least 1 win. To possibly hit the higher end of the table today feels like a bit of a setback. And a possible Chelsea backlash next week.

 

Can't help but feel it's more 2 points lost today.

[Gamble92]

Brendan Rodgers post match interview laugh when he said he's a big fan of VAR after today 

[LCFCSOULBOY]

41 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

I just don't think that's true re Puel, a massive whitewashing of history for me - in a lot of the games he got slated for, I remember very similar patterns to today - decent passing around the back, getting to decent areas in the final third but having too many bodies in front of us to make that killer pass. Too often, both then and today, I think we were too slow in transition and didn't play the ball quickly enough to make the most of the times that their players were out of position. But I don't think it's fair on Puel to say that the frustrations we had under him were any different to what we saw today. I think it's generally quite difficult to break down well-organised teams who sit back well, and if we don't make the most of the rare times we catch them on the break, we're not going to create very much. 

Could not agree more. We were just so slow in transition like under Puel. Was way too conservative for my liking. 

[yorkie1999]

Frustrating the amount of corners we had today with hardly any threat on the goal, think Ndidi has to step up to being the target.

[Finley Parsons]

Was class to see Top before the game and during half time clearly emotional however, fantastic to see him filling the role of his father💙

[LCFCSOULBOY]

Can anyone explain to me how come Maddison's efforts are so bad from the field. He is our set piece expert but cannot hit a barn door from just outside the box. His attempts today we're atrocious. Mind you the whole couldn't hit anything?

 

[Tanya]

OI wasn't able to watch this live so I got up early and feel a little cheated by this lacklustre performance. Like most of you I dislike the diamond and thought we loved better when we had actual wingers on. Slow drab buildup play. Hamza and Wilf Playing boring sideways passes. Not great.

 

Chillwell was probably the worst player for us. Just dreadful. Wasteful but strangely timid. Madison was poor too but at least he was trying to make something happen. Youri was a ghost. 

 

Cags was a massive, massive plus. So pleased it went so well for him. 

[Deeg67]

Tielemans was hurt the most by the negative setup. Wolves sagged off the CBs and holding mids and smothered Tielemans.

 

I have no issues with Nuno setting up defensively - for them it made sense. They’re coming off a European match, tired, and on the road - a draw is a good result for them. Plus they’re dangerous enough on the counter that they always have a chance to steal a goal, and in fact with decent finishing should have had at least one or two.

Edited 12 August 2019 by Deeg67

[spacemunky]

I enjoyed the match, but I was hoping you guys would come away with the win.

 

I liked seeing Hamza and Wilf playing, but like you guys, I'm not sure that's the most effective idea. Certainly not against teams set up to defend.

 

I think you and Wolves are going to be stuck together in the table all season. Which isn't a bad thing.

[Dan LCFC]

My bizarre observation of the day is that we've only got one left footed player in the side. I think it makes us a bit predictable. It also means Chilwell is the only player on our team who can take an in-swinging corner on that side.

 

To be honest the art of scoring from corners in general I think is dying. We didn't come close to scoring from a single one of them. We do lack that aerial threat somewhat.

[Dan LCFC]

3 hours ago, theessexfox said:

I just don't think that's true re Puel, a massive whitewashing of history for me - in a lot of the games he got slated for, I remember very similar patterns to today - decent passing around the back, getting to decent areas in the final third but having too many bodies in front of us to make that killer pass. Too often, both then and today, I think we were too slow in transition and didn't play the ball quickly enough to make the most of the times that their players were out of position. But I don't think it's fair on Puel to say that the frustrations we had under him were any different to what we saw today. I think it's generally quite difficult to break down well-organised teams who sit back well, and if we don't make the most of the rare times we catch them on the break, we're not going to create very much. 

Also got this fear that teams are just far better prepared for it now simply because you've got teams like Man City and Liverpool who are the masters of it at the minute, therefore playing against us and trying to stifle us just isn't that hard.

Edited 12 August 2019 by Dan LCFC

[spacemunky]

2 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

My bizarre observation of the day is that we've only got one left footed player in the side. I think it makes us a bit predictable. It also means Chilwell is the only player on our team who can take an in-swinging corner on that side.

 

To be honest the art of scoring from corners in general I think is dying. We didn't come close to scoring from a single one of them. We do lack that aerial threat somewhat.

Seems like other than at LB, left footed players are at a premium in the PL. I know that mostly from playing Fifa. 

 

Most wingers on the left are right footed and the ones on the right are also right. Salah and Townsend are exceptions.

[Dan LCFC]

2 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

Can you imagine the furore if Claude had started that lineup with the other options available?

 

The only real question for Chelsea should be whether to start Praet or Barnes in Choudhury's place.  I can see a case for both, but if Praet is fully integrated in the system by then I'd go that route.

If Rodgers is still doing it in about February then patience will be tested. Rodgers has been here about 12/13 games. Puel had about 60.

[inckley fox]

4 hours ago, sdb said:

Just seen the VAR decision. I'd be raging if that were us. Christ knows how many goals will be disallowed this season for the most minor infringements.

It will be interesting to see how it affects the total number of goals scored in the league. It might balance out in terms of the number of penalties given.

 

I'm not a fan of the handball rule change either, regardless of whether a combination of that and VAR won us a point today. The authorities already muddied the waters by putting terms like 'hand to ball / ball to hand' into the rule book, or debating what is and isn't going on in a player's head to constitute 'intentional'. We've now added a new complication - the consequence of a handball. If handball occurs in a move that leads to a goal then certain things are handball which aren't at other times... which in itself is going to lead to debate. When does the build-up to a goal start? If you handball accidentally to win a corner and score from the corner, should that be any less handball than if it bobbles off you in the box without you knowing? For me it needs simplifying as a rule rather than repeatedly complicating... So, do we allow pretty much any handball unless there's a clear, visible attempt to connect with the hand? Or do we follow Lineker's suggestion and simply call handball for everything that touches the hand? One or the other for me.

 

As for VAR, it's wrong to diminish that moment when you celebrate the ball hitting the back of the net. Tempering that with the agonising wait that follows may create a different type of excitement, and may make the game more precise, but it detracts massively from one of the most important elements of the game as a spectacle: the euphoria of a goal. And above all else, football has to be a spectacle. That's what makes them all so filthy rich in the first place! I'm in favour of using VAR to help settle yellow/red cards, for goal-line and even touchline decisions, and for penalties. But its use for offside and especially the verification of goals has the danger of taking away from that spectacle. I know we want everything to be as perfect as it can be, but a degree of human error is necessarily part of the game.

 

In time I'm sure they'll figure out a way to introduce technology to help in those sorts of decisions too, but until that point they should focus on using it where it works. And if we're so desperate for everything to be 100% spot on, I have no idea why we don't worry ourselves a little more about the standard of the referees themselves, which has slipped over recent years in the EPL.

[MIAMI_FOX]

I’m concerned by the lack of height we have in both boxes.

we offer no threat for our corners 

[Deeg67]

7 minutes ago, MIAMI_FOX said:

I’m concerned by the lack of height we have in both boxes.

we offer no threat for our corners 

The problem wasn't the lack of height, it's that the corners were almost all crappy.

 

Also, Soyuncu had a far-post knockdown on one of them that could easily have resulted in a goal.

[Guest BlueBrett]

27 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

It will be interesting to see how it affects the total number of goals scored in the league. It might balance out in terms of the number of penalties given.

 

I'm not a fan of the handball rule change either, regardless of whether a combination of that and VAR won us a point today. The authorities already muddied the waters by putting terms like 'hand to ball / ball to hand' into the rule book, or debating what is and isn't going on in a player's head to constitute 'intentional'. We've now

 

As for VAR, it's wrong to diminish that moment when you celebrate the ball hitting the back of the net. Tempering that with the agonising wait that follows may create a different type of excitement, and may make the game more precise, but it detracts massively from one of the most important elements of the game as a spectacle: the euphoria of a goal. And above all else, football has to be a spectacle. That's what makes them all so filthy rich in the first place! I'm in favour of using VAR to help settle yellow/red cards, for goal-line and even touchline decisions, and for penalties. But its use for offside and especially the verification of goals has the danger of taking away from that spectacle. I know we want everything to be as perfect as it can be, but a degree of human error is necessarily part of the game.

Agree with this. 

Your team scores after a was he wasn’t he offside moment, quick nervous glance at the lino and it’s instant jubilation or disappointment. Now it’s like you celebrate briefly then everything quietens down while the review takes place then maybe 90 seconds later it’s relief or deflation. Definitely takes something away from the game. It’s almost like another crowd control mechanism

[shailen]

We had a lot of possession but created very little with it. We need someone like albrighton/barnes in the team who is willing to be direct more often, otherwise we are trying to play the ball through an eye of the needle.