Watford Game

[dandannieldanok]

There're no way we can start being glad of a draw at home.

Why not? They are a better team than us.

[Ric Flair]

We've got to treat them like Spurs, Villa or Fulham except for 90 minutes. There're no way we can start being glad of a draw at home.

We'll have a good chance of beating them. They'll come here for the win and won't sit back. We are always far more dangerous when teams come to The Walkers to actually play football and not defend deep.

Whether that's enough for us to get the win, i'm not sure. But we have enough in our team to hurt teams like Watford, if we play some positive football.

I think it's time for one of those games when Iain Hume rips in a couple of pearlers.

[Monk]

Afternoon all, its Wednesday so thought I'd start getting involved in a bit of Watford chat!!

Will be going down on saturday with me dad. First time I have been to 3 consecutive league games since 2000!!

Watford - 2 games, 6 points, 3 goals scored (1 pen,1 deflected free kick, 1 deflected volley), 1 conceded.

Watford boss after the 2 wins (src bbc):

"The most pleasing thing about the wins is that we have achieved them without playing to our full potential.

"There is still a lot of room for improvement, and we will not get carried away.

"I am going to be like (Reading boss) Steve Coppell, and not look at the league table."

-------------

Wolves were far better than us for much of the game and you can't brush that under the carpet. We all know there is a lot of hard work to be done.

"From my viewpoint, after the break I didn't think we expressed a winning behaviour. I thought we were far too open.

"On another day we could quite easily have lost that game."

------------

So in a nutshell, the boss reckons their 2 wins were pretty lucky and theyre not playing as well as they can do.

I'd like to think we can win this game on Saturday. Hoping Watford don't turn up in full force, and hopefully we can take advantage of set plays as we did on Saturday. If we can also play posession football like we did on Saturday, that should dampen their goalscoring threat.

Monk is reckoning on a 2 - 1 win.

[Thracian]

Why not? They are a better team than us.

At the moment a look at the table says there's a lot of teams better than us. So it's no use us waiting for "easy" fixtures cos they don't exist and if we start accepting draws at home we'll soon be fighting the wrong sort of battle.

[Wils]

We've got to treat them like Spurs, Villa or Fulham except for 90 minutes. There're no way we can start being glad of a draw at home.

I think your right. We do have a good chance of beating them,seem to improving each game so far and we normally rise to these sort of games. It really is a must win though even at this early stage.

[Joe.]

Thracian's right.

I think a draw could be seen as an acceptable result, but if we really want to be up there at the end of the season then we have to beat other teams who are going to be up there too such as Watford. Draws don't get you anywhere, as shown by the last couple of seasons work.

[dandannieldanok]

At the moment a look at the table says there's a lot of teams better than us.

Whether they were bottom of the table or not I still think I'd rather be picking players from the Watford squad than the Leicester squad, it's just personal opinion mind and I respect the belief of other supporters like yourself.

[TheBlinding]

We normally play better against good teams because they actually come and have a go unlike teams like Blackpool, Burnley, Hull etc when its normally 11 men behind the ball and we don't have enough quality to break them down. There is more space against the better clubs who actually come trying to win.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Thracian's right.

I think a draw could be seen as an acceptable result, but if we really want to be up there at the end of the season then we have to beat other teams who are going to be up there too such as Watford. Draws don't get you anywhere, as shown by the last couple of seasons work.

No offence mate but that doesn't really mean anything and neither does Thracian's post.

Yes we'd like to attack and score lots of goals and win every game even against opposition as good as Watford because we should fear nothing from any team in this division blah blah blah...

All good in theory but the practice is Alan Sheehan at left-back and Porter in a free role in midfield apparently.

[Thracian]

No offence mate but that doesn't really mean anything and neither does Thracian's post.

Yes we'd like to attack and score lots of goals and win every game even against opposition as good as Watford because we should fear nothing from any team in this division blah blah blah...

All good in theory but the practice is Alan Sheehan at left-back and Porter in a free role in midfield apparently.

I don't give a toss how MA organises our attacking line-up but what I've long said still applies whatever. If we don't score enough goals we've got no chance of achieving anything.

I don't know if you've ever seen Porter playing in central midfield or in a freer role but to me that's only like people being sceptical of Heskey playing centre-half - it's a sign of people's reluctance or fear of trying anything different.

Yes Porter can play out wide but I'd like to see him in places where he can make goals and score goals more often and he won't make that many from the flanks just now because we don't have the strikers to take advantage of crosses.

[Manwell Pablo]

We've got to treat them like Spurs, Villa or Fulham except for 90 minutes. There're no way we can start being glad of a draw at home.

No we really haven't. Spurs Villa and Fulham play football, Watford play hoofball, tatics should be drawn up accordingly,

[Linekaaaah]

We normally play better against good teams because they actually come and have a go unlike teams like Blackpool, Burnley, Hull etc when its normally 11 men behind the ball and we don't have enough quality to break them down. There is more space against the better clubs who actually come trying to win.

Yep, agreed. When we're up against teams who are open and try to win, we create more. Trouble is, these are the games we keep losing 'cos our defense isn't quite tight enough.

We've proved we can create chances ('specially the 2nd half against Palace - largely thanks to Hume) but getting in front's no good if we can't hold on to it.

I'll keep saying it: DJ and Hume up front, play it to feet, and shore up the defense! I'm sure i'm not the only one here who's said this x amount of times!

[Thracian]

Yep, agreed. When we're up against teams who are open and try to win, we create more. Trouble is, these are the games we keep losing 'cos our defense isn't quite tight enough.

We've proved we can create chances ('specially the 2nd half against Palace - largely thanks to Hume) but getting in front's no good if we can't hold on to it.

I'll keep saying it: DJ and Hume up front, play it to feet, and shore up the defense! I'm sure i'm not the only one here who's said this x amount of times!

Often that's our mistake --- trying to hold onto a lead instead of trying to score again.

Psychologically a team that has just conceded is likely to commit more men to attack and that is just when they are vulnerable IF you are prepared to take advantage.

But too often we've been tempted to try to simply defend that lead or, if it's later in the game, we try to play out time. To me that always gives the opposition a chance whereas by continuing to attack you can break the opposition's will completely.

[BartonFox]

Often that's our mistake --- trying to hold onto a lead instead of trying to score again.

Psychologically a team that has just conceded is likely to commit more men to attack and that is just when they are vulnerable IF you are prepared to take advantage.

But too often we've been tempted to try to simply defend that lead or, if it's later in the game, we try to play out time. To me that always gives the opposition a chance whereas by continuing to attack you can break the opposition's will completely.

Because when we conceed one while pushing forward everyone would accept that.

It's a myth that all of a sudden a team sits back, it all depends on what the opposition do, you can never, at the level we play, dictate for 90 minutes. No one issues instructions to sit back, it's human nature to protect what is yours.

[Thracian]

Because when we conceed one while pushing forward everyone would accept that.

It's a myth that all of a sudden a team sits back, it all depends on what the opposition do, you can never, at the level we play, dictate for 90 minutes. No one issues instructions to sit back, it's human nature to protect what is yours.

You're quite right about instructions and Martin Allen referred to that at Kilworth Springs. But the point is they should get instructions on exactly what tactics to use if they go ahead or go behind.

It's about attitude. Fans don't accept sitting back and conceding either.

If defending high and denying the opposition time, space and territory exerts pressure and results in a lead, why change that tactic?

[Fez of Mahrez]

Because when we conceed one while pushing forward everyone would accept that.

It's a myth that all of a sudden a team sits back, it all depends on what the opposition do, you can never, at the level we play, dictate for 90 minutes. No one issues instructions to sit back, it's human nature to protect what is yours.

We've been trying to get this through to him for years now.

[The People's Hero]

If defending high and denying the opposition time, space and territory exerts pressure and results in a lead, why change that tactic?

Because Marlon King is a tadge quicker than any of our defenders?

That high line doesn't work when your back line is as immobile as ours.

[Thracian]

Because Marlon King is a tadge quicker than any of our defenders?

That high line doesn't work when your back line is as immobile as ours.

An excellent point.

And I hope you're not imagining "defending high" to mean a flat back four all pressing upfield at the same time.

That would be a recipe for disaster with far slower players than King.

No the press would be on the side play develops and, if possession were lost, the back line would work on a pivot with the full-back on the far side moving around the back of the outside centre-back. The line could be tight as you like but each player would work from roughly 30-45-degrees off the other, if that helps explain, and probably each within 10-15 yards of the other.

You're nevertheless right about our immobile backline and I've lost count of the times I've said we should have faster defenders - for exactly the reason you've highlighted - only to be told N'Gotty, Kisnorbo, McAuley are too good to be dropped.

I don't know about Clarke but it's one of Mattock and Sheehan's weaknesses too - they're not fast enough. Full-backs, for me, should be among the fastest players on the pitch.

[Manwell Pablo]

Marlon King isn't THAT quick

[Manwell Pablo]

An excellent point.

And I hope you're not imagining "defending high" to mean a flat back four all pressing upfield at the same time.

That would be a recipe for disaster with far slower players than King.

No the press would be on the side play develops and, if possession were lost, the back line would work on a pivot with the full-back on the far side moving around the back of the outside centre-back. The line could be tight as you like but each player would work from roughly 30-45-degrees off the other, if that helps explain, and probably each within 10-15 yards of the other.

You're nevertheless right about our immobile backline and I've lost count of the times I've said we should have faster defenders - for exactly the reason you've highlighted - only to be told N'Gotty, Kisnorbo, McAuley are too good to be dropped.

I don't know about Clarke but it's one of Mattock and Sheehan's weaknesses too - they're not fast enough. Full-backs, for me, should be among the fastest players on the pitch.

Leaving possible the easiest ball on the planet to be played on the break with the full backs playing the striker on-side.

[Thracian]

Leaving possible the easiest ball on the planet to be played on the break with the full backs playing the striker on-side.

Another reason for having mobile centre-backs of course and I wouldn't be keen to play offside against people as fast as King anyway.

[General Smuts]

Everybody on the street - LFF has some BREAKING NEWS.

He shall be sitting in the Kop 4 rows from the back just to the right of the goal, as he is going to the game biatches!!!

GET INNNNNNNNNN.

Did someone say tickets for Forest, oh yes ill have me some of that aswell. Ticket Office at Citteh is the sex.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Another reason for having mobile centre-backs of course and I'd never try to play offside against people as fast as King anyway.

Erm, like Mablo says, he's not that quick. I wouldn't even say he was far quicker than Kisnorbo.

[Thracian]

Erm, like Mablo says, he's not that quick. I wouldn't even say he was far quicker than Kisnorbo.

Well, we'll doubtless see Saturday.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Well, we'll doubtless see Saturday.

Well, we doubtless will.

*gives evil eye in a faux-serious style*