Why are we so s##t when we go a goal down?

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, tickler28 said:

I should say in complete contrast to this we are decent when we go a goal up.

 

I get that teams sit back if they're winning and come forward if they're losing but this has been an issue the last 3 managers haven't been able to resolve......surely there must be a change of approach? It' appears to me like we are beaten already when we go a goal down....have zero clues what to do and continue to play as if we were 1 goal up or it was nil nil.

The questions is actually why do you feel negative and frustrated about watching us when we are a goal down.  I feel it too!

[hejammy]

6 minutes ago, Always Next Year said:

If we got the ball forward quickly instead of playing about with it at the back we would not have to face a team sitting in a deep block.

Everton came with a plan to shut out our most dangerous players and it worked, did we have a plan for there’s NO we let them have the freedom to attack time and time again.

hmm I'm not convinced that Everton had the freedom to attack time and time again, can't remember them having too many chances except the goals to be honest.

[Mike Oxlong]

Re the thread title - hi or of ? 

[Babylon]

52 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

It's not about going behind, it's more our ability to break down a team sitting in a deep block.

 

 

It's times like that you HAVE to play quick ball so that they don't have time to get into shape. We were just too slow moving the ball and supporting others... again. 

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, Mark_w said:

We beat Man City and Burnley coming from behind, drew after being behind three times against Braga. Is there any scientific basis for thinking we're worse than the average when going behind? Or is this just a baseless reaction to us losing to Everton?

Man City are an attacking team. Burnley didn't have a first team defender on the pitch. Braga was a game without any pressure or meaning, and was also not Premier League anyway.

 

Sometimes stats can masquerade the truth.

[davieG]

There are games where we, sometiimes for no obvious reason lack the infamous intensity that Rodgers' is after. It's almost inevitable that they'll be the majority of games we fall behind in, last night was a case in point. Maybe it's becasue we'd just played on Sunday, Everton played Saturday, add in the Euro mid-week games and there's plenty of justification why we where lacking in that game.

 

A lot of our intensity comes from Ricardo, Castagne and even Soyuncu and in spite of how well we've done they've been sorely missed and have also severely restricted our ability to rotate.

[Scotch]

Makes a claim.... Is presented with facts that disputes this claim.

 

Adds stipulations to claim like " I meant at home".... Is presented with facts that dispute this claim and its stipulations. 

 

Adds more excuses like it was because of the opposition...... Is presented with more facts and figures that engulf the hole of last season which further proves he is talking guff...

[tickler28]

14 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Man City are an attacking team. Burnley didn't have a first team defender on the pitch. Braga was a game without any pressure or meaning, and was also not Premier League anyway.

 

Sometimes stats can masquerade the truth.

Allelujah!!! 👏

[tickler28]

4 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Makes a claim.... Is presented with facts that disputes this claim.

 

Adds stipulations to claim like " I meant at home".... Is presented with facts that dispute this claim and its stipulations. 

 

Adds more excuses like it was because of the opposition...... Is presented with more facts and figures that engulf the hole of last season which further proves he is talking guff...

It's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I'm pretty sure the last time I looked we were guff at breaking teams down sat deep

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, Mark_w said:

We beat Man City and Burnley coming from behind, drew after being behind three times against Braga. Is there any scientific basis for thinking we're worse than the average when going behind? Or is this just a baseless reaction to us losing to Everton?

[The whole world smiles]

1 hour ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...if I recall after seeing the chart regarding this, this season we have garnered 6 points from games we have gone a goal down!!!

  We may be 4th in a league in this respect but it is not a stat we really want to build a concensus around.

I don't know what you mean by 'build a concensus around'. But in my opinion the best way to gauge if a side is good or sh*t (the ops word not mine) at a specific aspect of the game is to directly compare them to other sides in the league. It's pretty black and white.

 

Like for instance Leicester have scored 9 goals in the last 15 minutes of games on its own that stat is pretty meaningless but if I tell you it's the most in the leauge then it's pretty impressive. 

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, tickler28 said:

I should say in complete contrast to this we are decent when we go a goal up.

 

I get that teams sit back if they're winning and come forward if they're losing but this has been an issue the last 3 managers haven't been able to resolve......surely there must be a change of approach? It' appears to me like we are beaten already when we go a goal down....have zero clues what to do and continue to play as if we were 1 goal up or it was nil nil.

Do you not think that the circumstances of the game usually have a massive impact on the scoreline?

 

To put it simply...

 

We go a goal down, because we are playing sh!t or the other team are playing better. 
 

We go a goal up because we’re playing well or the other team are playing sh!t. 
 

It’s fairly simple really. A goal either way obviously just puts the good team (us or our opponents) even more in the driving seat. 
 

 

[The whole world smiles]

2 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

A different note, but isn't that a bit double-edged? If you go behind with more regularity, there's more chance to claim points from losing positions.

 

I'd sooner be down the arse end of that stat because we're going ahead and seeing ties out.

 

Yeah agreed mate I'm not cracking open the champagne because we are 4th on that list just using it to disprove the orginal point that we sh*t when we go a goal down. Actually we are above average. 

[Scotch]

4 minutes ago, tickler28 said:

It's your opinion and you're entitled to it but I'm pretty sure the last time I looked we were guff at breaking teams down sat deep

Bit that's not what you said. You said we were poor once we went behind. 

 

Again, your argument is changing to ensure that you are right (in your own mind). 

 

I am entitled to my opinion as are you but at least stick to your opinion and dont amend it everytime you are confronted by evidence of the opposite. 

[sacreblueits442]

42 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

I don't know what you mean by 'build a concensus around'. But in my opinion the best way to gauge if a side is good or sh*t (the ops word not mine) at a specific aspect of the game is to directly compare them to other sides in the league. It's pretty black and white.

 

Like for instance Leicester have scored 9 goals in the last 15 minutes of games on its own that stat is pretty meaningless but if I tell you it's the most in the leauge then it's pretty impressive. 

...stats are all very well, not really something I get hung up about!!!

 So far this season we have lost 4 games and being behind in 2 (which we came back to win), therefore in 6 games we were behind and came back to win 2, nothing to get excited about.

   9 goals in the last 15 but I would rather we were scoring early in the 4 games (to keep us in them), and we failed to trouble the score sheet and lost.

Edited 17 December 2020 by sacreblueits442

[deanolegend1989]

Man City was an absolute freak , we got a gift from Walker and we’re lucky a few occasions before that not to go 2 down.

They also took off Fernandinho which was very bizarre and didn’t have both Diaz or Laporte and also not Aguero or Jesus. That was an absolute freak result that all went into our favour that’s screwing people.

 

Burnley had none of their back 4, another lucky situation that we took advantage of.

 

Anyone whose actually watched every minute of us this season can see it’s a huge problem.

Its not just the fact we lose, but the manner of how we lose. Pathetic every game and never even look like knicking a draw.

BR management is to blame and He doesn’t gamble until it’s too late.

 

I also think it’s actually a problem the amount of times we concede first as well. Top teams don’t concede first that often as it’s harder to come back in general.

We need to improve in both manners because otherwise we’ll be mid table. 

[Leeds Fox]

1 minute ago, deanolegend1989 said:

Man City was an absolute freak , we got a gift from Walker and we’re lucky a few occasions before that not to go 2 down.

They also took off Fernandinho which was very bizarre and didn’t have both Diaz or Laporte and also not Aguero or Jesus. That was an absolute freak result that all went into our favour that’s screwing people.

 

Burnley had none of their back 4, another lucky situation that we took advantage of.

 

Anyone whose actually watched every minute of us this season can see it’s a huge problem.

Its not just the fact we lose, but the manner of how we lose. Pathetic every game and never even look like knicking a draw.

BR management is to blame and He doesn’t gamble until it’s too late.

 

I also think it’s actually a problem the amount of times we concede first as well. Top teams don’t concede first that often as it’s harder to come back in general.

We need to improve in both manners because otherwise we’ll be mid table. 

You make some good points there mate. 

[TWUKO]

We can and have recovered from losing positions to win.

 

I think the problem is going in at half time in a losing position, we never seem to recover, if we do go 1 down we seem to have to recover within 20 mins or its game over.

 

Never seems to be much of a response to going behind, it's just like they're told don't worry just keep playing the same, the goals will come.

[deanolegend1989]

7 minutes ago, TWUKO said:

We can and have recovered from losing positions to win.

 

I think the problem is going in at half time in a losing position, we never seem to recover, if we do go 1 down we seem to have to recover within 20 mins or its game over.

 

Never seems to be much of a response to going behind, it's just like they're told don't worry just keep playing the same, the goals will come.

Good point. As above I mentioned how that Walker gift gave us a chance. We needed It because we never come back in that game if it’s not balanced at HT.

Same vs Burnley, Barnes scored quick which gave us the impedance.

 

Whens the last time we came from behind to win when losing at HT? I’d guess Everton from memory last December? If so, as mentioned in another thread. That game it felt like we really went for it.

BR gambled, 2 up top, changed the system and went for it.

If we look at the West Ham, Fulham, Liverpool, Villa and Everton games, the one thing that’s constant is that he doesn’t change anything drastic until we’re 2-0 down. It’s too late and he needs to react quicker and support Vardy in games where teams can sit deeper.

The same problem remains, no bodies forward. We only have Vardy to aim for and he’s always heavily marked. Regardless of the quality, just having Nacho near him gives options. It’s worth the risk , even if it means we get hit on the counter and lose anyway.

 

I do think we need to actually score first more consistently as well as actually just being better WHEN we do.

We concede to many stupid goals to give us a harder task. Even those wins above at City and home to Burnley we conceded super early and made it harder. Arsenal away we conceded too super early but got lucky, Leeds Bamford missed a sitter which helped us too.

 

We need to be better all over the park and be a nastier. To be fair Wilf, Cags, Ricardo and Castange are 4 players we’ve missed a lot and they all have that pace, grit, power and physicality that is missed when we replace them with players nowhere near the same level.

[ARM1968]

Simple. No guts no glory. In the words of some old Italian dude, we need to fight. 

[purpleronnie]

1 minute ago, ARM1968 said:

Simple. No guts no glory. In the words of some old Italian dude, we need to fight. 

That's rich coming from an Italian.

[nnfox]

We are just too one-dimensional and predictable in our play.  Our game is based around the likes of Tielemans and Maddison playing through balls to Vardy and Barnes.  Most of our chances come from one on ones by either of those two.

 

We have some success against the bottom teams because, well, we're better than them.  We also have some success against the top teams because they don't tend to sit deep.  But there are a large chunk of teams that play us who are more than happy to defend a lead against us.  Our creative players can be out muscled which limits the supply to the front men.

 

In my opinion we need to develop different styles of play.  When you watch teams like Man City or Liverpool, they regularly have 5 or 6 players in or around the box giving options to the player on the ball.  We don't.  We're always trying to either play Vardy or Barnes in or, with Perez and Under, just run through a crowded box which rarely works.

 

We don't have a big centre forward that we can send crosses into the box.  We are even lightweight on set pieces when the defenders go up. We have no aerial threat, so it's difficult to mix it up.

 

Against a low block, Vardy, supported by willing runs from Barnes/Perez/Under is just too easy to defend against.  We need to get more players in the box and get the ball in their too.  I'd be inclined to take off one of Barnes/Perez/Under and get Iheanacho on and play two out and out strikers.  Both are quality poachers in and around the 6 yard box.

[ARM1968]

2 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

That's rich coming from an Italian.

The Roman Empire did ok. But I think that’s pretty much where it ended tbf. 

[Guest Hansifüx]

we are not a thread in set pieces

[tickler28]

In 2020 Leicester have been leading matches at home in the league 6 times and have won every match they were leading....not a single point dropped at home from a leading position.

 

In 2020 Leicester have been trailing at home 9 times.....of those 9 times they managed 4 points. 1 against Chelsea and 3 against Burnley this season. All the other 7 matches ended in a defeat.

 

Yes I probably didn't put my point across very well at the start and should have stated Home matches and for that I apologise but hopefully these stats I present......no points dropped all year from a winning position at home and yet only 4 gained from a possible 27 in losing positions highlights the original point I was trying to make.