Amartey

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, sacreblueits442 said:

.. he was clearly being sarcastic!!!

Well done - top of the class. 

[Ryy]

£15 well spent 

[Oldblueyes]

I haven't read all the post on here and I apologise if somebody else has mentioned it but according  to the BBC Sport Web site, Armartey did not make 1 tackle or make 1 block in the match. Even our 2  goal hero completed 1 block and he is a forward.

 

Poor stats that.

[ozleicester]

On 12/04/2021 at 03:24, fuchsntf said:

Hes going to Score the winner in the FA.cup final...

So you HAVE transferred him  

[majaco]

1 hour ago, Oldblueyes said:

I haven't read all the post on here and I apologise if somebody else has mentioned it but according  to the BBC Sport Web site, Armartey did not make 1 tackle or make 1 block in the match. Even our 2  goal hero completed 1 block and he is a forward.

 

Poor stats that.

West Ham only had four shots all game to give it some context.  I think two were when Amartey was on the pitch.

 

He made a couple of really poor errors when passing back but he wasn't at fault for the goals.  

 

I didn't get why Schmeichel didn't dive for the first.  He was a bit unsigned but I think he left it as he thought it was going wide.  That was following Soufl being given far too much space repeatedly on their right.  

 

The second followed poor judgement from both Evans and Fofana.   The third was down to Iheanacho's poor first touch and then allowing too much space to about three of their players.

 

Amartey was one of several players who were guilty of sloppy errors.  In context, others made more costly errors than him.   

 

I think Rodgers was right to take him off.  I wouldn't be surprised if that is his past start for us this season.  Good news if it is as it would mean our better players are available.  However, if he does start again, I would not be too worried as he has done a lot for the team this season.

 

I like Amartey.  I also recognise that long term, we may be stronger if he is replaced in the squad.

[Col city fan]

5 hours ago, Oldblueyes said:

I haven't read all the post on here and I apologise if somebody else has mentioned it but according  to the BBC Sport Web site, Armartey did not make 1 tackle or make 1 block in the match. Even our 2  goal hero completed 1 block and he is a forward.

 

Poor stats that.

I’m surprised at Brendan sticking with his 3 CB’s malarkey. It’s not really worked very well and by definition, it means you have to play Amartey there at present. There’s so few other choices. 
Why we couldn’t have fielded a back four against West Ham and shoved an extra man in to bolster the midfield, I don’t really know. Is Mendy fit for instance? Having Tielemans shielded by both Mendy and Wilf would have given him more time on the ball to do his damage.

I was surprised at Rodgers going again with the 3 defenders as it meant we sat too deep and we had to play Big Dan.

[filbertway]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

I’m surprised at Brendan sticking with his 3 CB’s malarkey. It’s not really worked very well and by definition, it means you have to play Amartey there at present. There’s so few other choices. 
Why we couldn’t have fielded a back four against West Ham and shoved an extra man in to bolster the midfield, I don’t really know. Is Mendy fit for instance? Having Tielemans shielded by both Mendy and Wilf would have given him more time on the ball to do his damage.

I was surprised at Rodgers going again with the 3 defenders as it meant we sat too deep and we had to play Big Dan.

Talk me through this formation/system and the benefits over the 3 4 1 2.

 

I've been trying myself and really struggling to figure out anything other than a 4 1 2 1 2. Which would be possible once we have Perez/Madders available.

[HighPeakFox]

The reason he's sticking with the 3 Cbs is, as simply stated elsewhere, we have no fit wingers worth the description. 

[Col city fan]

32 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

The reason he's sticking with the 3 Cbs is, as simply stated elsewhere, we have no fit wingers worth the description. 

I think there’s lots of ways we could have played? Albrighton out wide from the start? Praet can come in from the flanks?

To be honest we could have even started with a 4-3-3 with Albrighton on the right and Vardy coming in from the left side. 
There were other options surely?

Unfortunately we ‘defended’ using an extra defender, thus basically losing the midfield. Tielemans as we all surely know by now is better when he has time on the ball. Our midfield set up gave us no time and we were swamped in that area 

Edited 13 April 2021 by Col city fan

[deanolegend1989]

7 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I think there’s lots of ways we could have played? Albrighton out wide from the start? Praet can come in from the flanks?

To be honest we could have even started with a 4-3-3 with Albrighton on the right and Vardy coming in from the left side. 
There were other options surely?

Unfortunately we ‘defended’ using an extra defender, thus basically losing the midfield. Tielemans as we all surely know by now is better when he has time on the ball. Our midfield set up gave us no time and we were swamped in that area 

Another spot on post. Someone actually sees what I see.

He could of played a 433 easily. Praet a bit deeper to control the middle and Marc wide right.

He was negative and we tried to win 1-0. Soon as Lingard scored first it was done.

[Jimmy]

the idea of playing Vardy on the left wing is almost as dumb as the idea of dropping him to the bench on Sunday

[HighPeakFox]

Trying something like 433 is a great idea in theory. But trying this for the first time just after the disruption might not have been clever. 

 

As I said, there are no out and out wingers available, so I can understand why he chose the way he did. We just snoozed first half. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

Talk me through this formation/system and the benefits over the 3 4 1 2.

 

I've been trying myself and really struggling to figure out anything other than a 4 1 2 1 2. Which would be possible once we have Perez/Madders available.

I think it is basically a choice between those two unless you stick either Ricardo or Praet on the wing and go with what would essentially be a 4-4-2, all of which would make more sense than shunting our horrendously out-of-form striker out wide to force us into a 4-3-3. I'm also pretty confident that if we had gone with Ndidi and Mendy shielding the back four as has been suggested above he'd have been slaughtered for being negative anyway.

 

If anyone else has an alternative system in mind that a) takes into account the fact we've got one fit winger and b) gets Iheanacho playing off another striker and also c) isn't completely moronic then it'd be very interesting to hear all about it

[Beachyboy]

I'm keen to see a bit more of Leshabela, Tavares was given the chance when we were out of attacking midfielders, even when Barnes returns we still need another winger with a bit of pace, why not give him a bit more of a chance? 

[ronnup]

1 hour ago, Col city fan said:

I think there’s lots of ways we could have played? Albrighton out wide from the start? Praet can come in from the flanks?

To be honest we could have even started with a 4-3-3 with Albrighton on the right and Vardy coming in from the left side. 
There were other options surely?

Unfortunately we ‘defended’ using an extra defender, thus basically losing the midfield. Tielemans as we all surely know by now is better when he has time on the ball. Our midfield set up gave us no time and we were swamped in that area 

 

Hang on. You want us to play, Albrighton and Praet as our two wingers? 

 

Er..... 

Edited 13 April 2021 by ronnup

[orangecity23]

I think the only half workable 4 at the back options we have at the minute is some kind of 442 using Albrighton and Ricardo as wingers, with Castagne and Thomas as the full backs behind them, or a diamond midfield. The problem with the diamond is it would have required somebody to play at number 10, and the 2 most obvious players for that role were the unavailable party boys. Think we really need Barnes back before 4 at the back can be seen more regularly, and can we play wingers whilst still finding a way to get Nacho and Vardy in the team up front?

[Dahnsouff]

5 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

I think the only half workable 4 at the back options we have at the minute is some kind of 442 using Albrighton and Ricardo as wingers, with Castagne and Thomas as the full backs behind them, or a diamond midfield. The problem with the diamond is it would have required somebody to play at number 10, and the 2 most obvious players for that role were the unavailable party boys. Think we really need Barnes back before 4 at the back can be seen more regularly, and can we play wingers whilst still finding a way to get Nacho and Vardy in the team up front?

Think is a fair summary, and does much to imply the current level of Brendan’s trust in young Thomas in important games.

[Bptiger]

At least Thomas goes forward and just not backwards all the time , the kid is going to be a very good player .

[hejammy]

17 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I’m surprised at Brendan sticking with his 3 CB’s malarkey. It’s not really worked very well and by definition, it means you have to play Amartey there at present. There’s so few other choices. 
Why we couldn’t have fielded a back four against West Ham and shoved an extra man in to bolster the midfield, I don’t really know. Is Mendy fit for instance? Having Tielemans shielded by both Mendy and Wilf would have given him more time on the ball to do his damage.

I was surprised at Rodgers going again with the 3 defenders as it meant we sat too deep and we had to play Big Dan.

I think the problem is to accommodate Nacho, we really need to play with 3 CBs. It's really a tricky one because how can he drop our in form striker but to get him into the team we need to play a certain formation. 

[TJB-fox]

14 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I think there’s lots of ways we could have played? Albrighton out wide from the start? Praet can come in from the flanks?

To be honest we could have even started with a 4-3-3 with Albrighton on the right and Vardy coming in from the left side. 
There were other options surely?

Unfortunately we ‘defended’ using an extra defender, thus basically losing the midfield. Tielemans as we all surely know by now is better when he has time on the ball. Our midfield set up gave us no time and we were swamped in that area 

 Come off it you lot. Pure hindsight.
Before the game did you genuinely think we should bin off the 352 formation that’s helped us get to 3rd in the league and an fa cup semi final in favour of playing Vardy effectively left wing. 
The formation wasn’t the issue on Sunday 

[volpeazzurro]

14 hours ago, Jimmy said:

the idea of playing Vardy on the left wing is almost as dumb as the idea of dropping him to the bench on Sunday

Nobody has said play him on the left wing, you really don't have to play with wingers. Someone suggested play him on the left of a 433 which is something quite different and a role he's very capable of. 

[volpeazzurro]

9 minutes ago, TJB-fox said:

 Come off it you lot. Pure hindsight.
Before the game did you genuinely think we should bin off the 352 formation that’s helped us get to 3rd in the league and an fa cup semi final in favour of playing Vardy effectively left wing. 
The formation wasn’t the issue on Sunday 

Yes many people including me really did, and it's been openly sited on here. It's been poor for a long time. With the exception of a useless Sheffield and a good particularly second half performance against Man United, we've been extremely fortunate not to be two or three goals down at halftime even against the poorer sides. Improvement every time has come in the second half when Rodgers has changed it, as it did against West Ham. The 5 doesn't suit us, we look vulnerable, we lose our midfield, Ricardo struggles and looks frustrated, you nullify two of the potentially best fullbacks in the Premiership. Whatever the table says, we've played poorly and been incredibly lucky to scrape some of the results we have. 

[Babylon]

12 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Nobody has said play him on the left wing, you really don't have to play with wingers. Someone suggested play him on the left of a 433 which is something quite different and a role he's very capable of. 

Who's doing his tracking back then? He'd last about 15 minutes in that position at the age of 34. 

[TJB-fox]

9 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Who's doing his tracking back then? He'd last about 15 minutes in that position at the age of 34. 

I’ve seen this volpeazzuro pipe up every time we get beat saying we should’ve done this and should’ve done that. Yet never seen him say anything before the game that is tactically useful or comes to fruition. 

I think majority of fans aren’t the biggest supporters of the 352 system but it’s clearly being used to get all our best players on the pitch. Plus, we have **** all wide options. 
 

Coming on here after games we’ve lost saying 352 is shit doesn’t make anyone look particularly tactically aware I’ll be honest. 

[moore_94]

27 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Nobody has said play him on the left wing, you really don't have to play with wingers. Someone suggested play him on the left of a 433 which is something quite different and a role he's very capable of. 

So basically have our left side full back completely isolated with no cover ahead of him, making him an easy target for the opposition?