West Brom's tactics

[Captain...]

Personally I thought West Brom's tactics were disgusting on Saturday, they slowed the ball down constantly, took ages over every dead ball, committed numerous fouls, should have had at least 3 clear cut bookings, got in the officials faces, feigned injury, played negative football, never looked like scoring and won.

 

So the question is would you be happy if we did that?

 

If we set up against Southampton as 451 (I know they say 4231, but really 10 West Brom players on that pitch had no intention of attacking), deploy Vardy how they deployed Berahino, off the shoulder of the defender and just constantly chipped balls over for him to chase hoping the linesman misses the blatant offsides, while the rest of the team defend for 90 minutes. To be honest I wouldn't mind using Vardy like that, especially if we kept him up when defending corners, always looked a worry with Berahino on the halfway line when we had a corner. It was the rest of the negative play that pissed me right off, especially Foster, just wasting so much time, forcing the forward to chase him down to pick the ball up, then Vardy or whoever is offside if we win the ball back and want to launch a counter.

 

But should West Brom be applauded for these tactics, pure gamesmanship, but got the home fans and the players riled up, frustration set in and we lost any composure we had. Should we play like that? I'm thinking of the Burnley game, had we played like that then we would have seen it out, but we were too naïve, Newcastle too, our downfall was going for it at the end, when we could have comfortably seen out a draw. We are too nice at times and it will cost us, should we have put pressure on the ref to book their players? A number of times he didn't book clear cynical fouls, but we didn't really react. When Brunt was screaming in the linesman's face should we have been pointing it out to the ref? Should we be going down and wasting time milking an injury just to unsettle and wind up the fans? Every other team does it, so would you want to see us do it?

 

The thing is using these tactics doesn't guarantee any points, but it does guarantee one thing, and that is a shit game of football, anyway the poll is open, what do you think?

[Babylon]

Personally I thought West Brom's tactics were disgusting on Saturday, they slowed the ball down constantly, took ages over every dead ball, committed numerous fouls, should have had at least 3 clear cut bookings, got in the officials faces, feigned injury, played negative football, never looked like scoring and won.

Didn't stoke say the same about us at their place.

[Fox92]

If it meant we won 1-0 every time we played away, yes I'd be happy for us to play like that. 

 

Do people forget this is football, and they were the away team? I'm pretty sure Stoke could say the same about us.

[Captain...]

Didn't stoke say the same about us at their place.

 

At least we scored our goal against Stoke, but I'm not just talking about their style of play, but all the gamesmanship, slowing down the game, taking ages over every dead ball, winding up the crowd and getting at the officials, we are not a team that does that, we may have a little moan when the ref makes the wrong call, but nothing compared to what most other teams do.

[Guest ttfn]

West Brom were basically playing for 0-0 from the first whistle. Even in the first half I said that it would be a disaster if they scored, as they crawled to each goal kick and corner. And that's not to mention the incessant tactical fouling in midfield.

But I would want us to do the same. The problem was not West Brom in this regard, it was weak refereeing. 2 or 3 obvious cynical trips went unpunished, whilst the time wasting mentioned earlier was obvious and relentless from the first whistle. If the referee is going to let you protect a lead (or even protect a 0-0) that way then of course you would keep pushing it. Foster should have been in the book for time wasting before the hour mark and somehow went unpunished for 90 minutes, so obviously he and the rest of the team continued to do it.

In terms of the lack of management of the game, Atwell was the worst ref we've had this season.

[Guest ttfn]

Oh, and I'd always liked Chris Brunt until Saturday but he's a really snide, nasty piece of work. Always in the linesman's face, like a Northern Irish Wayne Rooney.

[Corky]

Referee has to clamp down on it, they were going to take their time over every dead ball when winning and although Attwell kept pointing to his watch, four minutes was a ridiculously low amount. Given we had six subs in the game, 30 seconds each so three minutes, are you telling me other stoppages for injuries, time wasting covered one minute?

 

It's the referee's fault, not their players.

[Guest ttfn]

Also sorry to clog up the thread but undoubtedly one thing we do lose when Pearson is in the stands (and this is not a "get him on the sidelines showing some Pashun" rant) is the fact that he is a massive, hard, intimidating bastard.

[Guest ttfn]

Referee has to clamp down on it, they were going to take their time over every dead ball when winning and although Attwell kept pointing to his watch, four minutes was a ridiculously low amount. Given we had six subs in the game, 30 seconds each so three minutes, are you telling me other stoppages for injuries, time wasting covered one minute?

It's the referee's fault, not their players.

8 minutes would have been easily justifiable, I nearly fell off my chair when they put 4 up.

But we could have had 80 and not scored (partly because Foster would have been moving the ball along his six yard line for 74 of them).

[Captain...]

Referee has to clamp down on it, they were going to take their time over every dead ball when winning and although Attwell kept pointing to his watch, four minutes was a ridiculously low amount. Given we had six subs in the game, 30 seconds each so three minutes, are you telling me other stoppages for injuries, time wasting covered one minute?

 

It's the referee's fault, not their players.

 

Don't disagree with that, the officials were poor all game and made numerous basic errors which were clear from the top of the stands.

[Babylon]

Referee has to clamp down on it, they were going to take their time over every dead ball when winning and although Attwell kept pointing to his watch, four minutes was a ridiculously low amount. Given we had six subs in the game, 30 seconds each so three minutes, are you telling me other stoppages for injuries, time wasting covered one minute?

 

It's the referee's fault, not their players.

The time added on was a joke. Their bloke was down for two minutes at the end of the game let alone the other "injury" stoppages.

[Manwell Pablo]

The levels of bitterness in this thread are quite unbelievable. 

 

In the past we've been guilty of gamesmanship, slowing games down, and we've certainly been guilty of playing negative football.

 

We were no better than them, a draw would of been fair, they fluked a winner but if we're going to give them a goal that's not their fault it is ours. On to Southampton. 

The time added on was a joke. Their bloke was down for two minutes at the end of the game let alone the other "injury" stoppages.

 

Hoofing balls up to Wood and Ulloa we could of played till Sunday afternoon and not scored. 

[LCFCCKEANO]

Easily, we can play nice football when we are an established prem club with established prem players, which will happen if we can survive a couple of seasons

[Guest ttfn]

The levels of bitterness in this thread are quite unbelievable.

In the past we've been guilty of gamesmanship, slowing games down, and we've certainly been guilty of playing negative football.

We were no better than them, a draw would of been fair, they fluked a winner but if we're going to give them a goal that's not their fault it is ours. On to Southampton.

Hoofing balls up to Wood and Ulloa we could of played till Sunday afternoon and not scored.

Who's being bitter? Only CPF has even hinted that he'd be unhappy at us playing like that.

It was a very frustrating game. Refereed properly it might have panned out in a different manner but as you say, we probably weren't going to score anyway.

[Babylon]

Hoofing balls up to Wood and Ulloa we could of played till Sunday afternoon and not scored. 

That may have been the case, although I'd say we looked more likely to get something in the last 10 than we did the previous 80.

[Guest Kopfkino]

They knew Attwell is a weak ref and played on it to get an advantage. Its incredibly frustrating but its part of the game and its upto the ref to do something about it

[Manwell Pablo]

That may have been the case, although I'd say we looked more likely to get something in the last 10 than we did the previous 80.

 

Oh we were poor for 90 and sadly yes the hoof ball did seem to be more effective. We still didn't look dangerous though. 

 

Need to **** the diamond off asap. 

[chris_lcfc_85]

They werent great but neither were ours when we beat Stoke 1-0.....

Points are hard to come by in the Prem so you have to scrap for everything particularly away from home. Any form of points away in this league are good one's

[ScouseFox]

depends. i go the game to be entertained, but i also obviously wanna see my team win. if I can be entertained whilst we win that'd e superb but obviously can't always happen.

at the moment we aren't even getting a hint of either good football or a win so right now I'd take 3 points if it came off the oppositions best player's arse every day of the week.

[fox in the sox]

The time added on was a joke. Their bloke was down for two minutes at the end of the game let alone the other "injury" stoppages.

The extra 2 minutes was added but not included on the board. Over 6 minutes were eventually added on.

[Harry - LCFC]

I've got no problem with playing negative football. Getting on the ref's back is unacceptable though.

[Bert]

Referee has to clamp down on it, they were going to take their time over every dead ball when winning and although Attwell kept pointing to his watch, four minutes was a ridiculously low amount. Given we had six subs in the game, 30 seconds each so three minutes, are you telling me other stoppages for injuries, time wasting covered one minute?

It's the referee's fault, not their players.

Foster received treatment from the 88th minute right up until the 90th. So there's two extra minutes already!

[Dan]

Playing against a struggling team in a formation that doesn't suit them, that doesn't include their most dangerous winger or top scorer, and only winning the game through a freak goal?

 

A categorical 'no' from me.

They knew Attwell is a weak ref and played on it to get an advantage. Its incredibly frustrating but its part of the game and its upto the ref to do something about it

 

I have literally no idea how it still goes on. It's utterly laughable from all involved.

[DennisNedry]

We wasted so much time at Stoke so it's a bit hypocritical to moan.

 

Have to agree with Foster though. I've never seen a keeper waste as much time without getting booked.

[Monsell1976]

If it meant we won 1-0 every time we played away, yes I'd be happy for us to play like that.

Do people forget this is football, and they were the away team? I'm pretty sure Stoke could say the same about us.

Exactly can put up with boring, negative, time wasting tactics if we can win 1-0, it's just when the tactics are similar and getting nothing from the game.