Buzzell Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Excellent post once again. You seem to be one of the few people on here who has grasped what has happened to us and can write sensibly. It does seem now that NP has been given a stay of execution which sadly means the season is over.Like you I will be delighted to be proved wrong, but as others have said, Poyet will be as tactically astute tomorrow as Chris Powell was a few weeks ago. If he is worth his salt, NP has to prove he can deliver tactically tomorrow. We await with interest. Not necessarily. A win on Saturday will mean playoffs is back on track. Keep the faith boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 We do not have much pace up front and haven't had any all season, didn't stop us getting to the top of the table though did it....... The way we played back in the autumn gave us pace as a team, ie moving the ball quickly by using an aggressive passing game, meant that our front men did not need to be lightning as we were not hitting long balls for them to chase. We moved the ball quickly and played into feet, and it was very effective, despite a strike force consisting of Nugent and the apparently hopeless Vardy. We are now playing hoofball to the disinterested Nugent and the largely immobile Wood and you are complaining about their lack of pace when what you should be complaining about is why the hell are we playing hoofball....... Yes your right it didn’t, but were not top anymore and we’re trying to explain why we aren’t. I couldn’t agree more that we played better football in autumn, but its explaining why we are no longer successful and for me the lack of pace/ options up front and in the team is ONE of the reasons. We are playing hoofball because teams are pushing up high against us and flooding the midfield, hence there is no pass into the midfield so the only option is a hoof. Why are teams able to get away with this? The lack of pace we have up front, meaning they don’t have to worry about being caught over the top. Don’t get me wrong, there are other factors such as management, formation, form, confidence etc but there’s no denying this isn’t a reason for it. Maybe the lack of pace, and the poor form, is down to the other teams being aware of what a lethal combination Nugent and Wood actually are, and them employing tactics against them and Knocky, DD, Marshall etc. We have a very strong squad, other teams are desperate to beat us. I agree with this and it supports my point. Back in autumn when we were playing well, players like Knockaert were an unknown and I think teams gave us too much respect and space in the middle. It has since become common knowledge of how best to negate our strengths, and how much a threat Knocky is if given the time and space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 Excellent post once again. You seem to be one of the few people on here who has grasped what has happened to us and can write sensibly. It does seem now that NP has been given a stay of execution which sadly means the season is over.Like you I will be delighted to be proved wrong, but as others have said, Poyet will be as tactically astute tomorrow as Chris Powell was a few weeks ago. If he is worth his salt, NP has to prove he can deliver tactically tomorrow. We await with interest. I think we’ve been waiting for NP to deliver tactically for some time! Even if Pearson was better tactically, I just don’t think we have the variation in player at our disposal. Not having players with different attributes limits the different ways you can play and hence why we are so one dimensional. Wood, Nugent, Futacs, Waghorn, Kane are all not that different from each other in the way they play. All like the ball to feet and have no real pace. Even in midfield, King, Drinkwater, James are all similar. If we had an experienced ball winner in their this could possibly allow for a different formation or tactic. People have already commented on our midfield, and I think the same problem lies with us up front, no options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Yes your right it didn’t, but were not top anymore and we’re trying to explain why we aren’t. I couldn’t agree more that we played better football in autumn, but its explaining why we are no longer successful and for me the lack of pace/ options up front and in the team is ONE of the reasons. We are playing hoofball because teams are pushing up high against us and flooding the midfield, hence there is no pass into the midfield so the only option is a hoof. Why are teams able to get away with this? The lack of pace we have up front, meaning they don’t have to worry about being caught over the top. Don’t get me wrong, there are other factors such as management, formation, form, confidence etc but there’s no denying this isn’t a reason for it. I agree with this and it supports my point. Back in autumn when we were playing well, players like Knockaert were an unknown and I think teams gave us too much respect and space in the middle. It has since become common knowledge of how best to negate our strengths, and how much a threat Knocky is if given the time and space. Sometimes I really do think I must be writing in a foreign language, I have explained this time and time again...... We are not top anymore because when we were top we made a decision to stop playing the game that got us there, you remember, that quick passing, pressing style in favour of a more conservative 'containing' style. It didn't work, the time to change it was before Christmas before it did too much damage but we didn't, in fact we 're-enforced' our failure by buying a supposed target man to make the hoofball we were starting to play more and more often, effective. That didn't work either. By early february the rot had truly set in, NFP was chopping and changing to try and make hoofball work, changing everything bar the tactics themselves. The more this went on the less the players believed and judging by the other night, they not only do not believe, they don't much care either....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phillo Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Tactics thats the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 Sometimes I really do think I must be writing in a foreign language, I have explained this time and time again...... We are not top anymore because when we were top we made a decision to stop playing the game that got us there, you remember, that quick passing, pressing style in favour of a more conservative 'containing' style. It didn't work, the time to change it was before Christmas before it did too much damage but we didn't, in fact we 're-enforced' our failure by buying a supposed target man to make the hoofball we were starting to play more and more often, effective. That didn't work either. By early february the rot had truly set in, NFP was chopping and changing to try and make hoofball work, changing everything bar the tactics themselves. The more this went on the less the players believed and judging by the other night, they not only do not believe, they don't much care either....... Rubbish! Despite the doubts we have about Pearson, do you honestly think for one second he deliberately started to play hoofball? After all the hard work of getting us to play how we were? The hoofball comes from the lack of confidence and lack of ideas that currently reside in the team. Reasons why we have stopped playing the quick passing game is a mixture of different reasons, and one of these reasons is that teams are now actively plotting against our strengths and we are not afforded the space and time in the middle of the park. Wood was brought in because of his scoring record and he was available, not because he’s over six foot so we can lump the ball forward to him. You honestly may as well be writing in Thai. Would probably make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Dennis Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Nugent is very quick, one of the quickest forwards in the league id wager (i wouldnt, gambling's for mugs!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Lack of pace? No chance. De Laet, Dyer, Nugent, Schlupp and Knockaert are all quick. There's no point having pace if there's no substance to it, pace is easy to defend against if you've got a footballing brain. I'd say our main weaknesses are strength in the midfield and playing direct football, in which we were so much more effective when we played on the floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Teams often play so deep against us that it does not matter how much pace we have. Playing a pacey striker can be just as one dimensional as playing a target man. Instead of launching it long to the head of Wood, you would be launching it over the top for the run of nugent. Neither have worked in recent weeks. What is missing though is the individual brilliance of some of our creative individuals, at the start of the season knocky looked dangerous every time he had the ball, now he looks like he is gonna trip over it. We needed someone more creative in january, as drinky, kingy and james are 'retainers' of the ball, not creators of chances. I have said this time and time again this year, bring Lee Tomlin in over the summer, he will give some of what we are missing. Agree with this entirely, although not overly sure on Tomlin. I said he was over-rated at the time they bought him, but George Boyd would've been the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Fox Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 We need by definition a central midfield playmaker someone like Koren, McGugan etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munshi Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Definitely george boyd. Hull are lucky to have him on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 Lack of pace? No chance. De Laet, Dyer, Nugent, Schlupp and Knockaert are all quick. There's no point having pace if there's no substance to it, pace is easy to defend against if you've got a footballing brain. I'd say our main weaknesses are strength in the midfield and playing direct football, in which we were so much more effective when we played on the floor. Pace UP FRONT. Schlupp has hardly played and is favoured more as a midfielder/ left back and Nugent is quick (sort of) but not blistering, which is what I’m talking about. Knockaert in similarity to Nugent is quick, but is he blistering? Would he keep up with dyer? We need a striker with the pace to worry defenders but who also poses a goal threat. I’m not saying pace will solve everything, but it’s something we are certainly lacking up front as an option. And I agree we are also lacking in the midfield as we have all talked about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ely fox Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Definitely george boyd. Hull are lucky to have him on loan. Why didn't we sign boyd, maybe we tried and he didn't want to come here , more stability and a better chance of playing in the top league with hull maybe. Or clueless just didn't even try ....... believing falsely that danny drinkwater would pull the strings in midfield and we would go up, im leaning more on the latter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Rubbish! Despite the doubts we have about Pearson, do you honestly think for one second he deliberately started to play hoofball? After all the hard work of getting us to play how we were? The hoofball comes from the lack of confidence and lack of ideas that currently reside in the team. Reasons why we have stopped playing the quick passing game is a mixture of different reasons, and one of these reasons is that teams are now actively plotting against our strengths and we are not afforded the space and time in the middle of the park. Wood was brought in because of his scoring record and he was available, not because he’s over six foot so we can lump the ball forward to him. You honestly may as well be writing in Thai. Would probably make more sense. Careful Ash, I think you need to read my posts again, sorry...... I have never said that NFP 'deliberately started to play hoofball', not ever. What I have said, quite clearly, on several occasions and in some detail is that hoofball was the direct consequence of our negative and deeply conservative setup that we adopted in late october. Keeping it brief, I have said that restricting our fullbacks and wingers has removed most of our options in transition so that we can no longer move the ball quickly out of defence, so give the opposition the opportunity to close us down and force the hoof. Deliberate, no, but resulting from a deliberate change in setup and tactics, yes......... By and large teams were unable to cope with us before we made the change, so your other points are moot. Wood was bought to supplant Nugent as the man leading the line, whether the plan was to use him as the target for the hoof is open for debate, but that he has become that is indisputable. Sorry for the delay, computer issues...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Sometimes I really do think I must be writing in a foreign language, I have explained this time and time again...... We are not top anymore because when we were top we made a decision to stop playing the game that got us there, you remember, that quick passing, pressing style in favour of a more conservative 'containing' style. It didn't work, the time to change it was before Christmas before it did too much damage but we didn't, in fact we 're-enforced' our failure by buying a supposed target man to make the hoofball we were starting to play more and more often, effective. That didn't work either. By early february the rot had truly set in, NFP was chopping and changing to try and make hoofball work, changing everything bar the tactics themselves. The more this went on the less the players believed and judging by the other night, they not only do not believe, they don't much care either....... I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with so much you're saying here, and it really is unforgivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hankey Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 The "problem" to my mind is a lack of desire on part of the players and a lack of inspiration from the manager. Pearson, to me, seems unable to inspire and get his players, the ones he selects, fired up for the fight ahead. It is as almost as they have given up. Pearson knows he'll probably be on the way come the summer irrespective of where we end up so why bother. I think they call it; going through the motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 I hate to say it but I find myself agreeing with so much you're saying here, and it really is unforgivable. Try lying down in a darkened room..... Personally I find some Joy Division helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 Careful Ash, I think you need to read my posts again, sorry...... I have never said that NFP 'deliberately started to play hoofball', not ever. What I have said, quite clearly, on several occasions and in some detail is that hoofball was the direct consequence of our negative and deeply conservative setup that we adopted in late october. Keeping it brief, I have said that restricting our fullbacks and wingers has removed most of our options in transition so that we can no longer move the ball quickly out of defence, so give the opposition the opportunity to close us down and force the hoof. Deliberate, no, but resulting from a deliberate change in setup and tactics, yes......... By and large teams were unable to cope with us before we made the change, so your other points are moot. Wood was bought to supplant Nugent as the man leading the line, whether the plan was to use him as the target for the hoof is open for debate, but that he has become that is indisputable. Sorry for the delay, computer issues...... You really are a confusing one aren’t you. In your previous post you stated “NFP was chopping and changing to try and make hoofball workâ€, whilst I’m saying he wasn’t. Your implying that rather than try and eradicate it, he was changing players etc to try and make ‘hoofball’ successful or effective. He wasn’t at all. I agree with you that particularly away, we sometimes set up too deep which can lead to not getting out and therefore just thumping it up the pitch. Due to the lack of pace up top, defenders can then get tight to Wood and Nugent without the fear of them spinning in behind and burning them for pace. When we do set up deep for whatever reason, we don’t have the forward players to counter attack with, which is the point I have been making all along. Most of what you say about the restrictions on our full backs and wingers are unfortunately the pitfalls of a 442 that Pearson persists with. Whether Pearson has placed further restriction on these positions is debatable. The real point of the this thread is to highlight the lack of pace in our strike force which is undeniably important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 Pace UP FRONT. Schlupp has hardly played and is favoured more as a midfielder/ left back and Nugent is quick (sort of) but not blistering, which is what I’m talking about. Knockaert in similarity to Nugent is quick, but is he blistering? Would he keep up with dyer? We need a striker with the pace to worry defenders but who also poses a goal threat. I’m not saying pace will solve everything, but it’s something we are certainly lacking up front as an option. And I agree we are also lacking in the midfield as we have all talked about. Far harder to get than people think. It's one aspect that we arguably lack but there are far bigger reasons for our plight than lack of pace, and I think Dave's about covered them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 Far harder to get than people think. It's one aspect that we arguably lack but there are far bigger reasons for our plight than lack of pace, and I think Dave's about covered them. I’m not saying it’s all down to pace or that it’s a huge factor, but a factor nonetheless. Most other teams have pace up front, why don’t we after all the millions we’ve spent? A pacey striker should have been bought or loaned in the summer or January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 You really are a confusing one aren’t you. In your previous post you stated “NFP was chopping and changing to try and make hoofball workâ€, whilst I’m saying he wasn’t. Your implying that rather than try and eradicate it, he was changing players etc to try and make ‘hoofball’ successful or effective. He wasn’t at all. I agree with you that particularly away, we sometimes set up too deep which can lead to not getting out and therefore just thumping it up the pitch. Due to the lack of pace up top, defenders can then get tight to Wood and Nugent without the fear of them spinning in behind and burning them for pace. When we do set up deep for whatever reason, we don’t have the forward players to counter attack with, which is the point I have been making all along. Most of what you say about the restrictions on our full backs and wingers are unfortunately the pitfalls of a 442 that Pearson persists with. Whether Pearson has placed further restriction on these positions is debatable. The real point of the this thread is to highlight the lack of pace in our strike force which is undeniably important. Poor choice of words, I should have been more careful and said system. NFP appeared to be quite determined to make his change to a more defensive system work, so tried a number of different options, but none worked and all resulted in the hoof...... To my mind our lack of a counter attacking threat is because neither our fullbacks nor our wingers get forward quickly enough, they are more concerned with their defensive duties so when we do break from the back we have no options, no runners to hit and wingers rigidly in position to keep our shape. Hence the long ball, there are literally no other options. Having more pace to chase the longball is not a worthwhile solution in my view, we need to pass through midfield and play into feet, something we have rarely done in the last 4 - 5 months. I dislike 4-4-2 with a vengeance, but the system is not the main problem, we got forward quickly enough early season but then stopped as we tried to 'tighten up' our game. That was the primary error, everything stems from there...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 I don't see it changing either, I can see Pearson telling the players not to let in a goal tomorrow in case we lose rather than telling them to go all for a goal in the hope of winning the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 I don't see it changing either, I can see Pearson telling the players not to let in a goal tomorrow in case we lose rather than telling them to go all for a goal in the hope of winning the game. In a nutshell, right there..... We needed to get back to our passing a pressing game back before Christmas when it was obvious our new cautious setup was not working, it is far to late now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 5 April 2013 Author Share Posted 5 April 2013 Poor choice of words, I should have been more careful and said system. NFP appeared to be quite determined to make his change to a more defensive system work, so tried a number of different options, but none worked and all resulted in the hoof...... To my mind our lack of a counter attacking threat is because neither our fullbacks nor our wingers get forward quickly enough, they are more concerned with their defensive duties so when we do break from the back we have no options, no runners to hit and wingers rigidly in position to keep our shape. Hence the long ball, there are literally no other options. Having more pace to chase the longball is not a worthwhile solution in my view, we need to pass through midfield and play into feet, something we have rarely done in the last 4 - 5 months. I dislike 4-4-2 with a vengeance, but the system is not the main problem, we got forward quickly enough early season but then stopped as we tried to 'tighten up' our game. That was the primary error, everything stems from there...... I’m not saying we should just play the ball over the top for a striker to run onto, I’m saying having a pacey threat up front would make the opposition drop a bit deeper quicker to take away the space in behind. Pace up front would stretch the pitch, allowing more space for us to play it quickly into the midfield and also allowing the full backs and wingers to get forward more effectively. Obviously this isn’t the sole solution but it would certainly help. I agree with you that playing to feet is the best option for us with the players we have, however when this isn’t working during a game, it would be good to have someone on the bench with some blistering pace to change things up. The opposition will then have to adjust to this and it just gives them something else to think/ worry about. Having someone with different qualities to Wood etc would enable us to be able to play differently if we had to and react better to in-game situations. We will never know what has gone through Pearson’s head. Whether he purposely ‘tightened’ things up remains to be seen. What is apparent though is that it’s a variety of factors and problems that has led to our downward spiral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbelladave Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 I’m not saying we should just play the ball over the top for a striker to run onto, I’m saying having a pacey threat up front would make the opposition drop a bit deeper quicker to take away the space in behind. Pace up front would stretch the pitch, allowing more space for us to play it quickly into the midfield and also allowing the full backs and wingers to get forward more effectively. Obviously this isn’t the sole solution but it would certainly help. I agree with you that playing to feet is the best option for us with the players we have, however when this isn’t working during a game, it would be good to have someone on the bench with some blistering pace to change things up. The opposition will then have to adjust to this and it just gives them something else to think/ worry about. Having someone with different qualities to Wood etc would enable us to be able to play differently if we had to and react better to in-game situations. We will never know what has gone through Pearson’s head. Whether he purposely ‘tightened’ things up remains to be seen. What is apparent though is that it’s a variety of factors and problems that has led to our downward spiral. Fair comment Ash, I would place the emphasis somewhat differently but we have pretty much done the subject to death...... More importantly, do you feel NFP can do anything to arrest the slide over the next 6 games? Personally I can't see it, I think we will be lucky to get more than 6 out of the 18 points available, do you have a view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.