Educate me

[Thracian]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

So despite Anish's barb about being "respected more" what you say pretty much confirms my own observations. You clearly explain that our lack of runners and people making themselves available for a positive pass once we got the ball was actually because the team had no ambition or real sense of purpose...by order.

It was a monumental cock-up by the manager and an Achilles Heel he's shown before.

I'm just surprised he refuses to learn from it because in this division we will have to win promotion rather than not lose it and, so far, we're dropping far too many points unnecessarily - and for similar reasons.

Pearson talks about having faith in his players so why doesn't he show it? And let them attack to the full extent that they are capable? Because, set up positively as in the first half against Watford, we can score goals and beat anyone in this division. But only if we press tight on people , break quickly in numbers and with intent.

And if that asks a lot of some players then we need to have the similar-standard deputies available to take over from them so that momentum is maintained.

[Daggers]

This was pretty much obvious to anyone who was at the game! See the above posts.

The question is not that these instructions were made, but why they were made, given that we have already shown this season that we do not have the faintest idea of how to defend a lead.

Once again we gave away points through poor tactical decisions, dis-organisation and lack of ambition. This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time it has happened this season.

And to think that some on this forum are happy with this.......

KIA.......Nice to see you back!

Three points from third spot in a division where (historically) everyone stutters to find a run of form aside from the one or two quality sides.

Not quite time for wrist slashing yet

[Thracian]

Agreed by and large, though I don't totally buy into the tiredness issue.

It seems from what Knowitall says that they some of them were actually made to look tired and to look as if they could no longer make the runs and offer proper support. Whether that was partly because Pearson didn't think they could maintain the pressure we'll never know.

[marbelladave]

Three points from third spot in a division where (historically) everyone stutters to find a run of form aside from the one or two quality sides.

Not quite time for wrist slashing yet

I am actually a huge optimist!.......

I genuinely believe that we have the players to be a real force in this division, we just need to find a way to make it happen.

I have pointed out many times the kind of changes we could make to see if we can find a better blend and was very pleased to see the three man midfield work out so well on saturday. (First half anyway)

Now all we have to do is sort out the defense........errrm and the attack too.....

[Corky]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

Well I can sort of understand this, try to see out Watford's early threat then take control of possession, but I felt if we came out and started the same way we ended the first half, we'd have got a third and that would've finished it off.

[harpendenfox]

Well I can sort of understand this, try to see out Watford's early threat then take control of possession, but I felt if we came out and started the same way we ended the first half, we'd have got a third and that would've finished it off.

I'd suggest we did start the second half well. Howard had two chances to make it 3-0 before Watford scored. One was hard, the other, from where i'm sitting, was straightforward. More damaging than any half time team talk in my opinion was the chaos that followed Wellens departure, both in terms of a King - Adams centre mid pairing, and too many players losing their positional discipline

[Thracian]

I'd suggest we did start the second half well. Howard had two chances to make it 3-0 before Watford scored. One was hard, the other, from where i'm sitting, was straightforward. More damaging than any half time team talk in my opinion was the chaos that followed Wellens departure, both in terms of a King - Adams centre mid pairing, and too many players losing their positional discipline

The very idea of Adams in central midfield is questionable. He's found it hard enough to make an impact as a winger never mind in the middle although it can't help that he never seems to be given the chance to settle into the job.

Not that I can understand why Dyer seems so out of favour. Yes, like others, he doesn't seem to have 90 minutes in him but he is a threat and, so far, has much greater end product than Adams.

[Babylon]

Whilst some seem to be hell bent on blaming the manager for losing the lead, can we not also spare a thought for the shite defending from our players. I'm pretty sure Pearson never instructed them to duck under crosses and cock up clearances etc.

[Edmund]

Whilst some seem to be hell bent on blaming the manager for losing the lead, can we not also spare a thought for the shite defending from our players. I'm pretty sure Pearson never instructed them to duck under crosses and cock up clearances etc.

This is what makes me laugh. Thracian seems to be having a field day with knowitalls information when at the end of the day the manager can only be partly blamed as he doesn't kick a ball. Fair enough he may have got it wrong tactically but like babs said the players still have a job to do.

[Daggers]

This is what makes me laugh. Thracian seems to be having a field day with knowitalls information when at the end of the day the manager can only be partly blamed as he doesn't kick a ball. Fair enough he may have got it wrong tactically but like babs said the players still have a job to do.

No one seemed to see it this way when Holloway was here though

[Dr The Singh]

This is what makes me laugh. Thracian seems to be having a field day with knowitalls information when at the end of the day the manager can only be partly blamed as he doesn't kick a ball. Fair enough he may have got it wrong tactically but like babs said the players still have a job to do.

I don't think the tactics were that wrong, you would expect at 2 - 0 up for a side to tighten and be MORE compact, I was expecting city to play a more of a counter attacking style. The failing was that we didn't play the tactic correctly and the defending was poor, the players as a unit didn't handle the watford onslaught very well at all!!!

[Webbo]

Strange how none of you could see this from the perspective of your opponents. Have any of you stopped to consider what the odds were of Watford clawing back a two goal deficit? I'll tell you now - about one in three.

They don't call a two goal lead the most deceptive in football for nothing - particualrly when it is 0 - 2 at half time. The home team on the balance of probabilities will come out in the second half with a feeling that they have nothing to lose by adopting a policy of all out attack. And for a number of reasons this policy was a certainty in Watford's case - they are a good team with high expectations and by all acounts a higly motivated coach.

Most away teams in your position on Saturday would have asked themselves do we stick or twist? Do we carry on playing the same way or put up the shutters? It is this uncertainty that is exploited by the new found certainty of the losing home team (who have the added psychological advantage of defending their territory and being encouraged by their larger support).

Statistically the correct approach when leading 2 - 0 away from home is to sit deep and close down the centre. But that's only half the answer. The space that is created behind the home team as they throw men forward must be exploited by swift counter attacking thrusts. The opposition will be particualrly vulnerable to one touch raids, as their midfielders will be moving and on the wrong side of the ball - that's how Newcastle beat you

By the sounds of it, your players didn't think they had the match won at half time. In fact ithey almost certainly didn't think that - they were just unsure how to play the game out. If anyone thought they had the match won it was Watford when they took the lead. But they didn't gamble on the last gasp stab of the dying man.

The fact that your team could recover to do that is a testament to their character.

You see, when you're not being a condescending arsehole you can make sensible points.

[Babylon]

No one seemed to see it this way when Holloway was here though

Perhaps because he was a clown of the highest order.

[Edmund]

Perhaps because he was a clown of the highest order.

Again my thoughts exactly. I cant see where the comparison between Holloway and Pearson came from

[Webbo]

I cant see where the comparison between Holloway and Pearson came from

I thought it was a fair point. If we don't win under Pearson it's the players' fault, if we didn't win under Holloway it was his fault. You can't have it both ways.

[Edmund]

I thought it was a fair point. If we don't win under Pearson it's the players' fault, if we didn't win under Holloway it was his fault. You can't have it both ways.

I never solely blamed the players. I said that both parties were to blame including the manager partly due to the tactics.

Holloway was a different ball game altogether as was Levein as was Peter Taylor. There all different cases on the own merit and does not bring any relevance up at all.

[Babylon]

I thought it was a fair point. If we don't win under Pearson it's the players' fault, if we didn't win under Holloway it was his fault. You can't have it both ways.

Who's having it both ways? They are both to blame, Pearsons tactics invited pressure. But the players couldn't defend easy balls either. Some people though are only interested in blaming Pearson solely.

Holloway has bugger all to do with it, he and the players all got stick for their performances. We were shit long before he ever took over.

[marbelladave]

Who's having it both ways? They are both to blame, Pearsons tactics invited pressure. But the players couldn't defend easy balls either. Some people though are only interested in blaming Pearson solely.

Holloway has bugger all to do with it, he and the players all got stick for their performances. We were shit long before he ever took over.

As always the reason is not quite that simple.

The decision (if that is what it was) to go on the defensive was a management decision, that is, it was considered as the best way to hold on to all three points.

This was despite the evidence of earlier games which showed us to be poor as a team when trying to hang onto a lead and a defense that becomes panicky under pressure and invariably resorts to hoof ball.

Furthermore the chaos in midfield that followed Wellens' departure was partly a management issue as once again the players did not know where to play, who to pick up etc and partly a lack of onfield leadership. It is harsh to blame individual players as it was a systemic failure of the defense (including the midfield) that caused our problems and the errors that let in the goals could have been made by anyone.

However hats off to Watford, they took the initiative we gave them in both hands and were unlucky not to get the 3 points.

[cecchini]

Its all about a lack of fitness.

We burned a lot of energy taking th egame to them in the first half, we went for it and it worked.

This left us in a weakened state in the second, half - they came at us and it worked for them too.

By the end of the second half they were also shagged and the two Leicester players with fresh legs went forward and scored.

simple

[Daggers]

I thought it was a fair point. If we don't win under Pearson it's the players' fault, if we didn't win under Holloway it was his fault. You can't have it both ways.

I'm glad at least one person understood.

[Thracian]

This is what makes me laugh. Thracian seems to be having a field day with knowitalls information when at the end of the day the manager can only be partly blamed as he doesn't kick a ball. Fair enough he may have got it wrong tactically but like babs said the players still have a job to do.

I said early in the debate that there was collective responsibility for defeat. However Pearson came out with his comment about not feeling charitable concerning the defending - and there's no arguing with that - but he should be looking at his own performance first and the instructions he gave at half-time.

Surely no-one is suggesting the players would willingly ignore the instructions of our manager of all people. You've only got to see what's happened with DJ and Porter to know that he's the last guy anyone would wish to get the wrong side of so I'm afraid that the notion that the players are somehow independent of the manager is misleading.

In orchestral terms Pearson is rather like Ferguson in that he's a Simon Rattle of management. With some managers - Sir Bobby Robson, Sir Matt Busby, Joe Royle etc you could imagine the players having considerable licence. But I've never seen any indication of it with Pearson. Apologies if I'm wrong but it seems to me they do things his way or not at all.

[Edmund]

I said early in the debate that there was collective responsibility for defeat. However Pearson came out with his comment about not feeling charitable concerning the defending - and there's no arguing with that - but he should be looking at his own performance first and the instructions he gave at half-time.

This I agree with (collective responsibility) and im sure he knows that he got it wrong but one can only hope he will learn from this and make sure it doesn't happen in the future. Only time will tell.

Surely no-one is suggesting the players would willingly ignore the instructions of our manager of all people. You've only got to see what's happened with DJ and Porter to know that he's the last guy anyone would wish to get the wrong side of so I'm afraid that the notion that the players are somehow independent of the manager is misleading.

In orchestral terms Pearson is rather like Ferguson in that he's a Simon Rattle of management. With some managers - Sir Bobby Robson, Sir Matt Busby, Joe Royle etc you could imagine the players having considerable licence. But I've never seen any indication of it with Pearson. Apologies if I'm wrong but it seems to me they do things his way or not at all.

Im not as such saying that the players ignored the instructions but what I am saying is Pearson isn't the one kicking the ball. Yes his tactics were wrong but surely if the players actually performed to the managers tactics which knowitall said we wouldn't have conceded and walked with three points. In theory his tactics would have worked as we were shutting up shop and frustrating the opposition by doing so, just like many teams have done to us at the Walkers.

I think your right in comparing Pearson to Ferguson in some aspects but you have to have a happy medium. We saw what happened under the media friendly Holloway and Allen (well in terms of buying players). Sometimes having your players respect you is fundamental in a strong squad. I am one of those who wants to see DJ given a second chance but it's not going to happen as I think Pearson's management only works with players with the same mentality. Hence why players like Kisnorbo were shipped out. Well thats my theory anyway.

[Radovan's Caravan]

You see, when you're not being a condescending arsehole you can make sensible points.

Condescension is often in the mind of the beholder (NB Mr Dagger). I must fess up though, that unlike poxy Ingerland, I don't bear your club any ill will. However, I am not altogether sure about your coach.

In some ways he is what I would consider to be good 'Olde English'. He appears to be a steady man-manager and something of a motivator. His wheeling and dealing in the transfer and loan markets shows that he is quite astute too. Unfortunately when it comes to tactics...

In 20 dreadul minutes on Saturday your team conceded three goals in a game for the first time this season. LCFC boosted their own goals against column by 60% in under 3% of total playing time. And all this in a match where they had been leading (and largely dominating by all accounts) 2 - 0 for nearly an hour. If we accept the information that has been passed on to this board then the coach must take the lion's share of the responsibility for the unsatisfactory, but not disastrous, outcome.

Pearson is a solid enough coach but a DULL and PREDICTABLE one in the way that almost all British coaches are. For them, outside the bog standard Anglo Saxon attack/defend paradigm nothing else exists. In Britain, the counter attacking option is only usually considered by coaches when their teams go down to ten men or when the main strike force has been laid low by knob rot.

Invariably when the tactic succeeds (which statistically it does) they put it back in its box again for use in some unforeseeable eventuality many seasons hence. It never seems to occur to them to repeat the experiment in the next game or even to ask why the system works.

Well, I'll tell you why it works - it's a greater leveller than the glue pots of the 1970's.

[lavrentis]

Condescension is often in the mind of the beholder (NB Mr Dagger). I must fess up though, that unlike poxy Ingerland, I don't bear your club any ill will. However, I am not altogether sure about your coach.

In some ways he is what I would consider to be good 'Olde English'. He appears to be a steady man-manager and something of a motivator. His wheeling and dealing in the transfer and loan markets shows that he is quite astute too. Unfortunately when it comes to tactics...

In 20 dreadul minutes on Saturday your team conceded three goals in a game for the first time this season. LCFC boosted their own goals against column by 60% in under 3% of total playing time. And all this in a match where they had been leading (and largely dominating by all accounts) 2 - 0 for nearly an hour. If we accept the information that has been passed on to this board then the coach must take the lion's share of the responsibility for the unsatisfactory, but not disastrous, outcome.

Pearson is a solid enough coach but a DULL and PREDICTABLE one in the way that almost all British coaches are. For them, outside the bog standard Anglo Saxon attack/defend paradigm nothing else exists. In Britain, the counter attacking option is only usually considered by coaches when their teams go down to ten men or when the main strike force has been laid low by knob rot.

Invariably when the tactic succeeds (which statistically it does) they put it back in its box again for use in some unforeseeable eventuality many seasons hence. It never seems to occur to them to repeat the experiment in the next game or even to ask why the system works.

Well, I'll tell you why it works - it's a greater leveller than the glue pots of the 1970's.

[marbelladave]

It may be boring but sad to say it is also largely true.

Despite the deliberately provocative phrasing.