dave the caveman Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 The immediate and pronounced recoiling as soon as we take a lead is becoming a feature of our time under Sven. He clearly prefers defending any lead over continuing to attack even if we look like scoring more and even when it is obvious that if we try to defend the lead we will concede.. It's nothing short of bizarre, in my book, and if it continues I believe we will be sorely punished over the course of the season. Especially when you consider how abysmal our defence is at present and the fact that Sven has shown no signs of any ability to improve it, either by actual tactical/man management or by opening his cheque book. The defence has simply continued to get worse the longer Sven has been in charge. Our attack, meanwhile, looks dangerous and sharp. And yet he chooses to use it as rarely as possible. A great and much needed win, but absolutely mind boggling management.
leicesterseddon Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Look. If you have to score 4 goals at home to be confident of victory (and I can tell you, at 3-2 I wasn't that confident of victory in the last 20 mins), you have a problem with your defence. And we do. We really need to sort it out.
ozleicester Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Darius, great poachers goal. Wellens... pure quality and class finish Sol... umm, if we think Konchesky was mugged last week...
Wymsey Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Kasper was class - Shame the balls he kicks are wasteful.... Bamba - One of those players that like to show off with the ball and worries us. Konchesky - Very average so far, but his up-front movement and actions are better than his defensive qualities so far this season. Schlupp - Think he will be good, but he's still a 'rookie.' (And will take time to adjust) Wellens - Love it when he plays well like he did today. King - Some good passes, nearly scored with individual effort, but perhaps again anonymous. Vassell - No problems, bit too slow perhaps when they were on the break. Mills - Maybe not performing well as he can due to him being under pressure to play well? Support - More noise at football matches on Victoria Park, when L1 (only ones I could hear actually singing) are quiet. Formation = Sven needs to understand 4-4-2 best for us and not to put certain players out of position. Saw Nugent on crutches whilst walking up the stand. Hope he will recover fully during the international break.
Corky Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 So much better than the first two home matches, in the first half we were quick, used possession well and created many chances. Three goals, three excellent saves from Davis and a shot just wide from Danns. Wellens' goal was lovely after a good passing move. We gave away two soft goals which again is worrying, and sat back on our lead too much. Half-time probably arrived at the wrong moment, as were getting control of the game back. Still, three very welcome points and a much-improved performance at home.
kylestyle06 Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Jesus we win a game and most people find something to moan about ! Go celebrate and be happy ffs.
Lillehamring Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Soton fans reckon we got lucky today - they are LIVID that the third goal stood! well, we know how it feels cause the same thing happened to us against forest, what can you do. anyway, i've given up this thread - if i have to read one more post saying sven fucked it up tactically... we conceded a soft goal playing 442, and the goal we conceded in 451 was from a corner, so nothing to do with the formation - do you people seriously believe that southampton only dominated the 2nd half because of our formation change? madness, they're a very good, very organised team who came out and threw everything at us to try to get a result and - gasp - they caused us problems...sadly for them our terrible tactical change prevented them from even sneaking a point. sometimes you need some luck, a great performance from the keeper or just not giving up until the final whistle - sometimes you get all three, we did today and we got 3 points. that's a good thing.
Babylon Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 If saints fans think we are lucky perhaps they should look at their keepers 3 great saves first half as well as kaspers second half.
Lillehamring Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 It was an error because it neither improved our defence or attack. It created more space for them and reduced space for our attack. but as sven remarked, how much of that was because the players did not take advantage of the formation, with some very poor distribution. maybe i'm wrong but it sounded like a lot of hoofing up to vassell rather than short passing to the wide men or utilising the extra man in midfield, that's not bad tactics, that's bad football and we should be looking at mills as the real scapegoat here, apart from being a hoofmeister, as the captain he has to get the team organised on the field and playing the right outlet balls. do people really think sven switched to 451 and then told them to just hoof it up field, in his interview he says that the distribution was the real problem, i'm happy to accept that because at reading and bristol our distribution was absolutely shocking. 442 clearly improves our passing play, but come on, these players should be able to play any formation.
whitlock Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Leicester fans are fcking ****** half the time, like many have said, saints are a good team that have been playing well and are full of confidence since their promotion. We beat them, dnno if many fans have actually realised that yet! Jeeeeeeez just celebrate the win and have a good evening! Boom ting
Corky Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 We were lucky? No way. Our first half was better than their second.
Gforce19 Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Bottom line is we won. It will take a while for the team to gel together so it is a good result. Southampton and Brighton are similar to Norwich last year in the fact that they have kept a similar team to the one thaty got them promoted so their players know each other well. We are going to take a while but the good news is when we get it right no one will be able to live with us in this division.
Babylon Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 but as sven remarked, how much of that was because the players did not take advantage of the formation, with some very poor distribution. maybe i'm wrong but it sounded like a lot of hoofing up to vassell rather than short passing to the wide men or utilising the extra man in midfield, that's not bad tactics, that's bad football and we should be looking at mills as the real scapegoat here, apart from being a hoofmeister, as the captain he has to get the team organised on the field and playing the right outlet balls. do people really think sven switched to 451 and then told them to just hoof it up field, in his interview he says that the distribution was the real problem, i'm happy to accept that because at reading and bristol our distribution was absolutely shocking. 442 clearly improves our passing play, but come on, these players should be able to play any formation. Why even change formation if you're on top? If it's not working why not go back to something that was? And people were hoofng it because our forward options vanished due to them being stuck in no mans land out wide.
MPH Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 It was an error because it neither improved our defence or attack. It created more space for them and reduced space for our attack. it would of been an error if we had lost the game.. Lallana is a bloody class act, Premier League teams must be sniffing around to get him. nah... by the time we are promoted, we'll of moved on to better things.. I said they played well, I said they were a good team, but we were better first half without doubt. We then changed formation and created nothing and let them create numerous chances. Of course it can't be proved that it caused their good second half, but in my eyes it did a lot to cause it. I think quite often football really is a game of two halves. We have played so many games where we have kept the same formation, walked the first half and been taken apart in the second half. or played badly first half and walked the second... Coupled with the fact, as you say, Southampton are a good team and came into this game full off confidence then i wouldnt put it down to the change in formation.
Fox1651 Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 We were lucky? No way. Our first half was better than their second. simple facts are Leicester scored 3 goals they only scored 2. Leicester won. Leicester got 3 points. boo hoo southampton
syston_fox Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 I think we were lucky in some respects. That third goal should never have stood to be honest and I believe that with two other keepers on the pitch today we could have been looking at 6-6. Thoroughly entertaining game though and cannot believe that people managed to leave early from it - I was on the edge of my seat right till the final whistle.
Machinesoul1 Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 well, we know how it feels cause the same thing happened to us against forest, what can you do. anyway, i've given up this thread - if i have to read one more post saying sven fucked it up tactically... we conceded a soft goal playing 442, and the goal we conceded in 451 was from a corner, so nothing to do with the formation - do you people seriously believe that southampton only dominated the 2nd half because of our formation change? madness, they're a very good, very organised team who came out and threw everything at us to try to get a result and - gasp - they caused us problems...sadly for them our terrible tactical change prevented them from even sneaking a point. sometimes you need some luck, a great performance from the keeper or just not giving up until the final whistle - sometimes you get all three, we did today and we got 3 points. that's a good thing.
Machinesoul1 Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 That's by a long way, the most sensible and accurate post in this thread
Charl91 Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 From what I'v heard, we've been poor most of the season, except Forest (4-4-2) and the first half of this game (also 4-4-2). Why not just stick with it
Babylon Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 it would of been an error if we had lost the game. But for sheer luck we'd have drawn it. I'm no moaner about the team, but it was a huge error today and conceded anything positive we had.
Corky Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Was the challenge on Vassell a penalty? I thought the one on Schlupp got the ball, the Vassell incident looked very close to being a spot-kick.
Babylon Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 anyway, i've given up this thread - if i have to read one more post saying sven fucked it up tactically... we conceded a soft goal playing 442, and the goal we conceded in 451 was from a corner, so nothing to do with the formation Were you there? We conceded from a corner in the second half granted, but they were all over us. This isn't so much about how we defended, but how we neglected to attack. It just meant they could come at us over and over again. Unlike the first half where we actually gave them something to think about. Chirst, if me of all people is sounding like bloody Thracian then I'd say there was definitely a problem!! Great result, but I (and many around me and in the pub after) walked away a bit annoyed at what had gone on.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 wasnt at the game today as at work for over 11 hours, couldnt even listen sadly, but hurray for a Leicester City win at last (at home) i am however concerned we conceded 2 goals again for the 5th consecutive game?
Guest Col city fan Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 Were you there? We conceded from a corner in the second half granted, but they were all over us. This isn't so much about how we defended, but how we neglected to attack. It just meant they could come at us over and over again. Unlike the first half where we actually gave them something to think about. Chirst, if me of all people is sounding like bloody Thracian then I'd say there was definitely a problem!! Great result, but I (and many around me and in the pub after) walked away a bit annoyed at what had gone on. The point for me is that Sven went into defence mode when we were on top and still creating chances. Bizarre timing five mins before half time... And you are right it didn't work
Babylon Posted 27 August 2011 Posted 27 August 2011 The point for me is that Sven went into defence mode when we were on top and still creating chances. Bizarre timing five mins before half time... And you are right it didn't work If they had started to dominate I could understand the change somewhat, but to do it when you're the better team made no sense to me.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.