Rodgers, the wrong way round

[deep blue]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

hindsight is a wonderful thing ..... we played a similar game at Stamford Bridge and it worked out .....

We only drew when we should have won. How can you say it "worked out" when we dropped points unnecessarily?

[ozleicester]

#lessfear

[Lambert09]

I think the decision to play Gray actually makes sense. It shows the players that even if you are on the fringes, if you come on and take your chance you’ll be rewarded. 

 

Gray was fantastic when he came on against B’mouth. It’s just typical that he couldnt follow up that performance. 

 

The message that it sends to the whole squad is what’s important here. The feeling that you are only one good cameo away from a start keeps the squad motivated and in high spirits. I personally think it’s good management, even if on this occasion it’s not worked out. 

[Babylon]

8 hours ago, shailen said:

I think playing Hamza and wilfried wasnt what cost us. Playing away from home at a place like old Trafford, I dont care how good you are, you keep it tight for the first 20 minutes. Man city played fernandinho and gundogan last season from memory and nullified the crowd for the first 20 minutes. 

 

The goal was an individual mistake. That's it. There was no need to make a tackle like that when rashford was going nowhere. Apart from that United hardly threatened.

 

Our attacking play was just not cohesive enough. Vardy isolated, tielemens too slow, maddison ineffective, Gray over doing it, Chilwell and Pereira not really offering much.

The stuff you out about our attacking play is intrinsically linked to playing two DM’s though. It happens pretty much every time because the forwards lack support, Maddison is out of position, and it’s easy to shut down our one creative CM.

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, st albans fox said:

hindsight is a wonderful thing ..... we played a similar game at Stamford Bridge and it worked out .....

Did it? We should have been about three down in ten minutes and only drew the game. We only played well after Choudhury pushed forward a bit more second half and was eventually subbed anyway.

[m4DD0gg]

Today is a great example of why top 4 and probably top 6 is not going to happen this season. 

[m4DD0gg]

1 hour ago, Lambert09 said:

I think the decision to play Gray actually makes sense. It shows the players that even if you are on the fringes, if you come on and take your chance you’ll be rewarded. 

 

Gray was fantastic when he came on against B’mouth. It’s just typical that he couldnt follow up that performance. 

 

The message that it sends to the whole squad is what’s important here. The feeling that you are only one good cameo away from a start keeps the squad motivated and in high spirits. I personally think it’s good management, even if on this occasion it’s not worked out. 

No gray wasn't fantastic when he came on at Bournemouth. He does what he always does when brought on as a sub. Runs really really fast and produces no end product. 

[ThaiFox]

Posted this in the player ratings:

 

What a fantastic opportunity thrown away. Dreadful team set up again and BR still hasn't learnt the lessons from the Wolves game. We went there negatively, respecting the worst Man Utd team, ever, in the P/L instead of going there with a highly positive winning attitude and stamping our authority on the game. Far too many off their game today and I felt so sorry for Vardy. No supply and the one time he beat their defender and put in a dangerous cross there was not one LCFC player in the box. 

[adejo92]

10 hours ago, treer said:

I didn't see Rodgers on the pitch, and I watched the whole match

Where were you expecting to see him? Right mid? 

[The Year Of The Fox]

Grays wank

dunno if I’d have him in my Sunday league side 

[mozartfox]

10 hours ago, mod hero said:

Ashley Young had Dimi in his pocket.

 

 

Ashley Young

Along with Martin Atkinson...…………...

[mozartfox]

The 'Fail on Sunday' Match Report was written by Harry Maguire's Agent.  Great read.

[shailen]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

The stuff you out about our attacking play is intrinsically linked to playing two DM’s though. It happens pretty much every time because the forwards lack support, Maddison is out of position, and it’s easy to shut down our one creative CM.

Playing two DMs will limit our attacking play, agreed. But it doesn't mean we play rigid all the time. We play different formations when we attack and defend. The idea is that we have the personnel needed when we defend as otherwise it would be Tielemans doing the defensive work.

 

Hamza and N'didis roles in attack is to generally play it simple and give it to our more creative players and one of them go and join the attack. This is not so different from how we normally set up in attack albeit they dont offer the same threat.

 

Yesterday's issue was that our creative players just didn't create. Nothing to do with playing the two DMs imo.

[Ricey]

I don’t have an issue with playing Choudhury and Ndidi against Spurs because it makes more tactical sense.

 

I have an issue with playing them against a midfield of McTominay, Perriera and Matic. It was overkill and it hindered us badly.

[Oxfordfox83]

10 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Ill be surprised if Praet is seriously considered regularly  this year, possibly even this season. We will try and bed him in before chucking him in expecting immediate results  ( remember we were away today, to Manchester United)

That perception is the whole problem. We were playing a football game against a slightly above average side-we shouldn’t be changing our tactics and picking the wrong personnel for them. BR is still getting off lightly with this, if it had been Puel this place would have gone nuclear.

[foxfanazer]

9 hours ago, st albans fox said:

hindsight is a wonderful thing ..... we played a similar game at Stamford Bridge and it worked out .....

No it didn't. We could've been 3 or 4 nil down after 20 minutes. We played well when Barnes came on

[Babylon]

45 minutes ago, shailen said:

Playing two DMs will limit our attacking play, agreed. But it doesn't mean we play rigid all the time. We play different formations when we attack and defend. The idea is that we have the personnel needed when we defend as otherwise it would be Tielemans doing the defensive work.

 

Hamza and N'didis roles in attack is to generally play it simple and give it to our more creative players and one of them go and join the attack. This is not so different from how we normally set up in attack albeit they dont offer the same threat.

 

Yesterday's issue was that our creative players just didn't create. Nothing to do with playing the two DMs imo.

Difficult to create when you don’t get the passes and you are stood on your own marked by two people 30 metres from another player. 

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, deep blue said:

We only drew when we should have won. How can you say it "worked out" when we dropped points unnecessarily?

thr plan against the ‘top six clubs plus West Ham, wolves and everton’ is not to lose (especially away from home). 

 

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Did it? We should have been about three down in ten minutes and only drew the game. We only played well after Choudhury pushed forward a bit more second half and was eventually subbed anyway.

The plan was to survive the initial onslaught that was likely given the circumstances of franks first home game.  

 

16 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

No it didn't. We could've been 3 or 4 nil down after 20 minutes. We played well when Barnes came on

Agree that we rode our luck early on. we made tactical changes which gave us forward impetus second half. 

 

Rodgers is a pragmatist- he isn’t a gambler. He isn’t Kevin keegan .....he wants to be a winner. In his world, you concede no goals and that gives you the best chance of winning. Worst way you take a point.  Against a competitor  that’s a bigger tick on the pragmatic side. 

 

planning for yesterday wasn’t so easy considering the players probably didn’t all come in for training until Thursday and they travelled up to Manchester fri pm.  And yes, Pogba didn’t play but would we have planned for that weak yanited side? V unlikely, especially given what I wrote above re BR’s approach.  

Small margins again - madders chance early on goes in and it’s such a different game. Cags doesn’t make a silly challenge and that game would easily end 0-0 and there would be far more chances for us to get beyond their lines second half as they would feel the need to push on more. 

 

given how little they created, you couldn’t say that Rodgers approach failed  - we got sucker punched by a pen and Brendan will really not be pleased about that.  

 

We we shouldn’t have lost yesterday ..... most of you think we should have ‘gone for it’ but that simply isn’t the managers style. expect the same next Saturday and again at Anfield. 

[filbertway]

Playing Maddison out wide is mental. Stop doing it. Maddison Tielemans then one of the other 3. Then play two genuine wingers to support Vardy 

[Oldblueyes]

4 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

I think the decision to play Gray actually makes sense. It shows the players that even if you are on the fringes, if you come on and take your chance you’ll be rewarded. 

 

Gray was fantastic when he came on against B’mouth. It’s just typical that he couldnt follow up that performance. 

 

The message that it sends to the whole squad is what’s important here. The feeling that you are only one good cameo away from a start keeps the squad motivated and in high spirits. I personally think it’s good management, even if on this occasion it’s not worked out. 

Consistency is what you need from individuals as a manager and knowing their strengths and weaknesses helps. Never asking individuals to do tasks that you know they are not  capable of performing. Which then makes it strange when managers play people out of their comfort zone to fit a system, then are surprised  when it don't work.

[ThaiFox]

55 minutes ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

That perception is the whole problem. We were playing a football game against a slightly above average side-we shouldn’t be changing our tactics and picking the wrong personnel for them. BR is still getting off lightly with this, if it had been Puel this place would have gone nuclear.

Agree.

 

Except for the point of Man Utd being a slightly above average side. 

 

They are not. They are a very average mid table side with no world class players, an out of his depth manager, totally out of confidence, and a stack of injuries. They create very little, and man for man I don't think I'd pick any of those Man Utd players in a LCFC Man U combination. 

 

We went there with a negative set up, which led to a negative performance. I'm afraid it was 100% down to Rodgers. They players look confused in their roles. Sideways passing, backward passing, it's all so obvious and predictable. We had TWO on target shots against a makeshift team we should have stamping our authority on from the start. Our star, in form, striker had no support or supply whatsoever. He must have wished Puel was back!

 

And as for Puel, his rating after that set up and performance would have been around 5%.

[Fox92]

I said it after Chelsea game but Maddison wide is annoying me now. We look so much better when he's in the middle. Vardy was absolutely isolated yesterday, especially first half. I was disappointed we never once got the ball down and ran at Maguire or Young.

[shailen]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

Difficult to create when you don’t get the passes and you are stood on your own marked by two people 30 metres from another player. 

In attack I highly doubt it was the plan to leave vardy that isolated up on his own. I think our players were not able to quickly support him on transition when we won the ball back.

 

I dont think the set up was wrong yesterday as we were effective in keeping United quiet apart from the penalty which should have been the game plan. our attacking players were ineffective - you could blame team selection as Gray was poor but so were Maddison and Tielemans as well as our full backs. There was one moment where vardy and gray linked well 30 metres from goal and he shot when he had 10 yards to run into it. That imo has nothing to do with formations but individual decision making.

[Manwell Pablo]

8 hours ago, Oxfordfox83 said:

That perception is the whole problem. We were playing a football game against a slightly above average side-we shouldn’t be changing our tactics and picking the wrong personnel for them. BR is still getting off lightly with this, if it had been Puel this place would have gone nuclear.

 

Well no it’s not, in fact I think the selling short of team that’s clearly weaker than it was under a Sir Alex but has only finished outside the top six once in the immediate aftermath of him leaving and has still managed to keep a reasonable influx of trophies as “slightly above average” is symptomatic of someone who thinks we are much better than we actually are.  

 

The performance could of certainly of been better and it wasn’t exactly my ideal starting line up either, I’m not a fan of the holding double act but plenty of successful teams have done it.  That said we restricted them quite well, created a couple of opportunities which we didn’t take which you have to if your going to play the way we did, and we’re in the game from start to finish. Plus after five games having played two of the traditional top six away from home we sit nicely in the mix around the European places. So it’s pretty hard to go after the manager after one defeat at Old Trafford.

Edited 15 September 2019 by Manwell Pablo

[That_Dude]

15 hours ago, st albans fox said:

hindsight is a wonderful thing ..... we played a similar game at Stamford Bridge and it worked out .....

It worked out because Lampard played his team of newbies too high and fell into our hands.