Lies, damned lies and Jamie Vardy's inability to pass

[BigMicky]

Well, the ‘premise’ of having any wide player in your side is to ‘play him in’ – what’s that got to do with the formation? It’s the same with 451.

Anyway. So our idea is to play the wide men in. Fair enough. But then what? Cross it in for 5 ft 10 Vardy and 5 ft 9 Nugent to out-jump 6ft 4 Stoke defender Philipp Wollscheid and power the header home?

Any other brilliant ideas?

So every cross has to be head height does it? I'd give up now your grasp of formations is very wide of the mark. A 4-5-1 is more suited to a long ball game.

[Guest ttfn]

If i find out that people in this thread have been affirming the consequent I am going to be livid.

[Babylon]

The complaint is that Pearson dropped a striker who's scored 7 in 22 in favour of a guy who's scored 1 in 19.

 

It makes literally no sense.

 

He did the same against Liverpool... didn't see anyone moaning afterwards then.

 

[Dickov22]

I don't think anyone's writing him off (well, not of those who can write in complete sentences). He's done OK this season.

It's just that it's fairly clear that Ulloa is a better option.

The complaint is that Pearson dropped a striker who's scored 7 in 22 in favour of a guy who's scored 1 in 19.

It makes literally no sense.

Ulloa was awful against Villa. No surprise he was left out.

[Fox Ulike]

So every cross has to be head height does it? I'd give up now your grasp of formations is very wide of the mark. A 4-5-1 is more suited to a long ball game.

 

Right. So you put 3 players in the middle and then spend the game hoofing the ball over their heads? I don't think so.

 

 

He did the same against Liverpool... didn't see anyone moaning afterwards then.

 

 

Yes but just cos something works away at Liverpool doesn’t mean it will also work at home to Stoke.

 

Against Liverpool we had 2 defensive midfielders (James and Hammond) and set up defensively. Our game plan was to absorb the pressure and hit them on the counter. Playing Vardy made sense because Liverpool would be pushing up, and Vardy’s pace might be useful against a high line.

 

But at home against Stoke we had two passing midfielders (King and Drinkwater) because apparently the game plan was to ‘play it around’, but we failed to dominate the middle of the pitch because we chose to be out-numbered in midfield. We also failed to create an attacking threat because we chose to play a striker whose chief asset is pace, against a side that were happy to sit back and let us attack.

 

Pearson just keeps getting it wrong.

 

 

Ulloa was awful against Villa. No surprise he was left out.

 

 

Didn't see the Villa game but maybe he just had an off-day.  I wouldn't say he's had enough bad games (compared to Vardy) to justify being benched?

 

Ulloa’s height, better skill and better link-up play made him much more suitable for the Stoke game than Vardy.

[The Doctor]

 but we failed to dominate the middle of the pitch because we chose to be out-numbered in midfield.

 

 

you realise we only had 2 centre midfielders available? That's not choosing to play 2 in the middle, that's our hand being forced

[Fox Ulike]

 

you realise we only had 2 centre midfielders available? That's not choosing to play 2 in the middle, that's our hand being forced

 

Well, that's even more reason to realise that we were going to be out-numbered in midfield, and so need to play a big striker who is better at picking up long balls from defence and holding the ball up for his fellow striker.

 

Vardy is good at chasing down balls played over the top or racing on to through-balls from midfield. But if we're out-numbered in midfield then he’s not going to have too many balls to race on to. And it’s asking a lot of your defenders to pinpoint a fifty yard ball over the top of 6ft4 defenders who are sitting deep.

[BigMicky]

Right. So you put 3 players in the middle and then spend the game hoofing the ball over their heads? I don't think so.

Yes but just cos something works away at Liverpool doesn’t mean it will also work at home to Stoke.

Against Liverpool we had 2 defensive midfielders (James and Hammond) and set up defensively. Our game plan was to absorb the pressure and hit them on the counter. Playing Vardy made sense because Liverpool would be pushing up, and Vardy’s pace might be useful against a high line.

But at home against Stoke we had two passing midfielders (King and Drinkwater) because apparently the game plan was to ‘play it around’, but we failed to dominate the middle of the pitch because we chose to be out-numbered in midfield. We also failed to create an attacking threat because we chose to play a striker whose chief asset is pace, against a side that were happy to sit back and let us attack.

Pearson just keeps getting it wrong.

Didn't see the Villa game but maybe he just had an off-day. I wouldn't say he's had enough bad games (compared to Vardy) to justify being benched?

Ulloa’s height, better skill and better link-up play made him much more suitable for the Stoke game than Vardy.

You don't understand football do you? No need for an answer as the above clearly shows that.

[The Doctor]

Well, that's even more reason to realise that we were going to be out-numbered in midfield, and so need to play a big striker who is better at picking up long balls from defence and holding the ball up for his fellow striker.

 

Vardy is good at chasing down balls played over the top or racing on to through-balls from midfield. But if we're out-numbered in midfield then he’s not going to have too many balls to race on to. And it’s asking a lot of your defenders to pinpoint a fifty yard ball over the top of 6ft4 defenders who are sitting deep.

And what big striker do we have that can do that? Do you remember games like Newcastle away where we played ulloa as a target man?

[Babylon]

Yes but just cos something works away at Liverpool doesn’t mean it will also work at home to Stoke.

 

Against Liverpool we had 2 defensive midfielders (James and Hammond) and set up defensively. Our game plan was to absorb the pressure and hit them on the counter. Playing Vardy made sense because Liverpool would be pushing up, and Vardy’s pace might be useful against a high line.

 

But at home against Stoke we had two passing midfielders (King and Drinkwater) because apparently the game plan was to ‘play it around’, but we failed to dominate the middle of the pitch because we chose to be out-numbered in midfield. We also failed to create an attacking threat because we chose to play a striker whose chief asset is pace, against a side that were happy to sit back and let us attack.

 

Pearson just keeps getting it wrong.

You do know that against Liverpool we have three fit CM's all of which were defensive and against Stoke we had two fit CM's none of which are defensive.  Our midfield line ups are somewhat being dictated to by who we have fit. If we'd had a good option on Saturday to go with a three second half then there is a very good chance we would have just as we did against Stoke at their ground.

 

What did Ulloa and Kramaric bring second half? If anything we got worse with their arrival. The key was the centre for which there wasn't much option other than playing another attacking player out of position. Something I would personally have tried, but it's not exactly shocking that we didn't.

 

Ulloa was fecking useless against Stoke away first half, so your thoughts on him being better in the 4-4-2 don't really match up with what actually happened before we went to a 3 in the last game against them.

 

Perhaps you could post your proposed teams BEFORE the games next time, rather than just being the master of hindsight.

[Fox Ulike]

And what big striker do we have that can do that? Do you remember games like Newcastle away where we played ulloa as a target man?

 

Well that's exactly my point you numpty! Why are we playing a formation when we don't really have the players to suit it.

 

You do know that against Liverpool we have three fit CM's all of which were defensive and against Stoke we had two fit CM's none of which are defensive.  Our midfield line ups are somewhat being dictated to by who we have fit. If we'd had a good option on Saturday to go with a three second half then there is a very good chance we would have just as we did against Stoke at their ground.

 

What did Ulloa and Kramaric bring second half? If anything we got worse with their arrival. The key was the centre for which there wasn't much option other than playing another attacking player out of position. Something I would personally have tried, but it's not exactly shocking that we didn't.

 

Ulloa was fecking useless against Stoke away first half, so your thoughts on him being better in the 4-4-2 don't really match up with what actually happened before we went to a 3 in the last game against them.

 

Perhaps you could post your proposed teams BEFORE the games next time, rather than just being the master of hindsight.

 

I can’t work out if you’re agreeing with me or not – or whether you’re just covering both side of the argument (as per usual J). You actually agree with me that the “key was the centre”. Exactly right.

 

If we had no defensive midfielder available then surely it would make sense to shore up that area with an extra body against 3 Stoke midfielders? I’d have played Schlupp in the middle as an attacking midfielder  and asked King and Drinky to sit deeper (Schlupp does tend to drop in there anyway a lot when we don’t have possession) and put Albrighton on the wing. Ulloa on his own up front.

 

I do often post my thoughts on the line-ups before the games, but they tend to get ignored in the swamp of posts pre-games.  I’ll try and dig out some of my Nostradamus-esque visions of doom for ya. They will chill you to da bone.

 

Anyway I’m not paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend my week ruminating over the combinations and strategies that give our club the best chance of winning football games. I do it for free. And this season I’ve done a better job than Pearson at it. J

 

However, my general principle is that 442 is just giving away points at this level. You know that. In fact, that’s the general principle of about 95% of managers of Europe’s top leagues.. The 4411 we play when Nugent on the pitch isn’t a bad line-up, but it’s not as resilient as a 451. Ask anyone.

 

Actually tell you what, you find me an article or press release from anyone anywhere actually praising the 442 system (after 1986) and I’ll eat my hat.

[The Doctor]

Well that's exactly my point you numpty! Why are we playing a formation when we don't really have the players to suit it.

 

 

I can’t work out if you’re agreeing with me or not – or whether you’re just covering both side of the argument (as per usual J). You actually agree with me that the “key was the centre”. Exactly right.

 

If we had no defensive midfielder available then surely it would make sense to shore up that area with an extra body against 3 Stoke midfielders? I’d have played Schlupp in the middle as an attacking midfielder  and asked King and Drinky to sit deeper (Schlupp does tend to drop in there anyway a lot when we don’t have possession) and put Albrighton on the wing. Ulloa on his own up front.

 

I do often post my thoughts on the line-ups before the games, but they tend to get ignored in the swamp of posts pre-games.  I’ll try and dig out some of my Nostradamus-esque visions of doom for ya. They will chill you to da bone.

 

Anyway I’m not paid hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend my week ruminating over the combinations and strategies that give our club the best chance of winning football games. I do it for free. And this season I’ve done a better job than Pearson at it. J

 

However, my general principle is that 442 is just giving away points at this level. You know that. In fact, that’s the general principle of about 95% of managers of Europe’s top leagues.. The 4411 we play when Nugent on the pitch isn’t a bad line-up, but it’s not as resilient as a 451. Ask anyone.

 

Actually tell you what, you find me an article or press release from anyone anywhere actually praising the 442 system (after 1986) and I’ll eat my hat.

Yeah, you've argued that we should have played 3 of 2 centre midfielders, then when I pointed out that's not possible you said we should play a target man that we don't have, and I'm the numpty...

[Manwell Pablo]

You do know that against Liverpool we have three fit CM's all of which were defensive and against Stoke we had two fit CM's none of which are defensive.  Our midfield line ups are somewhat being dictated to by who we have fit. If we'd had a good option on Saturday to go with a three second half then there is a very good chance we would have just as we did against Stoke at their ground.

 

What did Ulloa and Kramaric bring second half? If anything we got worse with their arrival. The key was the centre for which there wasn't much option other than playing another attacking player out of position. Something I would personally have tried, but it's not exactly shocking that we didn't.

 

Ulloa was fecking useless against Stoke away first half, so your thoughts on him being better in the 4-4-2 don't really match up with what actually happened before we went to a 3 in the last game against them.

 

Perhaps you could post your proposed teams BEFORE the games next time, rather than just being the master of hindsight.

 

Ulloa is frequently useless, however every now and again is he useless and manages to score.

 

Putting him one up on Jamie Vardy, who has just been useless in every game post Manchester United, he has done precious little apart from foul half of the defenders in the Premier League since then. 

[Fox Ulike]

Yeah, you've argued that we should have played 3 of 2 centre midfielders, then when I pointed out that's not possible you said we should play a target man that we don't have, and I'm the numpty...

 

No. NO. NO!

 

This is an artist's illustration of me trying to explain this to you:

 

 

 

 

Look. I'm saying that we should have asked someone like Schlupp to play in the centre to make up the 3. And I'm saying that if IF IF we want to play a 442 that Vardy is not big or strong enough to lead the line. Our best forward to play 442 at Home to Stoke would have been Ulloa, not Vardy.

[BigMicky]

No. NO. NO!

This is an artist's illustration of me trying to explain this to you:

Look. I'm saying that we should have asked someone like Schlupp to play in the centre to make up the 3. And I'm saying that if IF IF we want to play a 442 that Vardy is not big or strong enough to lead the line. Our best forward to play 442 at Home to Stoke would have been Ulloa, not Vardy.

Schlupp as a centre midfielder, call talksport this lad/ladies head has well and truely gone. You do realise that most centre mids have a great 1st touch don't you?

[Bayfox]

jeff in centre mid. ffs

I mean that only really leaves him cb and in goal left to discover he's average in those positions as well.

we can debate all day if 442 or 451 works or doesn't at the end of the day pearson clearly had 2 fit cm's and decided stokes centre backs would dominate us in the air.

so he went for something different, what he can't legislate for is vardy not working his socks off as he normally would, and like it or not nugent being about the only player that looks any good trying to link the midfield and foward not being good enough at this level week in week out.

we are not as good as we thought we were last season, the players we thought would make the step up haven't and we are short on ability, quality and experience all over the pitch.

if we stay up it will be more by fortune than real ability.

[The Doctor]

No. NO. NO!

This is an artist's illustration of me trying to explain this to you:

Look. I'm saying that we should have asked someone like Schlupp to play in the centre to make up the 3. And I'm saying that if IF IF we want to play a 442 that Vardy is not big or strong enough to lead the line. Our best forward to play 442 at Home to Stoke would have been Ulloa, not Vardy.

Strange, because I feel like the parent trying to explain it to an arrogant child who refuses to see reality.

Why? We have two central players fit, there's no skirting round this, no wingers at cm, because that won't help one bit. Our hand was forced, we had to play 442. But, we don't have a target man - we have a poacher (Wood), a worrier (Vardy) and a finisher (ulloa). But, leading the line isn't about physical strength, unless you play as a target man - which Vardy wasn't, he was playing as a runner. Which can work - look at Dickov.

We had our hand forced, we had to play 442, and we saw that ulloa can't play against Stoke with a two behind him at the away game, and vardys style was better suited to a big defence. We failed to get the ball to him, but the logic was sound.

Now, pull your head out your arse and look at what you've said. You said we should have played a three, we didn't have three to be able to do so. You said we should have played a target man, which we don't have. Your arguments are as always utter nonsense, not that I expect better from someone who can only see his colon when opens his eyes. You argued several things tht were obviously wrong, you can't claim to be smarter when your arguments have more holes than Swiss cheese that's been attacked with an Uzi. Now piss off you ****.

[MC Prussian]

Well, that's even more reason to realise that we were going to be out-numbered in midfield, and so need to play a big striker who is better at picking up long balls from defence and holding the ball up for his fellow striker.

 

Vardy is good at chasing down balls played over the top or racing on to through-balls from midfield. But if we're out-numbered in midfield then he’s not going to have too many balls to race on to. And it’s asking a lot of your defenders to pinpoint a fifty yard ball over the top of 6ft4 defenders who are sitting deep.

You opt to play one tall striker, hope that long balls coming from the defenders (!) against a centre-back pairing such as Stoke's work out?

 

Good luck.

[Fox Ulike]

You opt to play one tall striker, hope that long balls coming from the defenders (!) against a centre-back pairing such as Stoke's work out?

 

Good luck.

 

Well no. As I've said about one million times now, what you do is put an extra body in centre midfield, such as Schlupp, and take advantage of the lack of mobility of Stoke's big defenders by playing through them with fast skilful players.

 

What we actually did, was opt to play one short striker, and hope that long balls coming from the defenders (!) against a centre-back pairing such as Stoke's work out.

[BigMicky]

Well no. As I've said about one million times now, what you do is put an extra body in centre midfield, such as Schlupp, and take advantage of the lack of mobility of Stoke's big defenders by playing through them with fast skilful players.

What we actually did, was opt to play one short striker, and hope that long balls coming from the defenders (!) against a centre-back pairing such as Stoke's work out.

Ahh it all makes sense now, play a striker (who has in recent times been employed as a left sided player) in a completely foreign position that he has never played in. Makes perfect logical sense....

[MC Prussian]

Well no. As I've said about one million times now, what you do is put an extra body in centre midfield, such as Schlupp, and take advantage of the lack of mobility of Stoke's big defenders by playing through them with fast skilful players.

 

What we actually did, was opt to play one short striker, and hope that long balls coming from the defenders (!) against a centre-back pairing such as Stoke's work out.

Except for the fact that we passed the ball around on the ground for most part and only reverted to aimless hoofing towards the latter stages of the Stoke game.

[Fox Ulike]

Except for the fact that we passed the ball around on the ground for most part and only reverted to aimless hoofing towards the latter stages of the Stoke game.

 

Yeah. And scored 0. And lost again.

 

You're going round in circles.

 

If the tactic is to pass it around, then we need 3 in centre midfield. We only played 2.  Imagine a mini-game of footy with one team of 3 players against one team of 2 players. Which team will see most of the ball? The 3 or the 2....   .... ... I'm going to have to give it to you: It's the 3.

 

 

 

Ahh it all makes sense now, play a striker (who has in recent times been employed as a left sided player) in a completely foreign position that he has never played in. Makes perfect logical sense....

 

Schlupp tucks in to make a third Centre-midfielder anyway when we don't have the ball anyway. (You haven't noticed that have you?) So, yes, playing a left-sided midfielder/attacker as an attacking midfielder to cover an injury crisis really isn't the quantum leap in logic you seem to think.

 

Try watching the whole pitch when you're watching the game. Spend some time looking at our players when they don't have the ball if you want to understand tactics.  Don't just follow the ball around like a dog would.

[BigMicky]

Yeah. And scored 0. And lost again.

You're going round in circles.

If the tactic is to pass it around, then we need 3 in centre midfield. We only played 2. Imagine a mini-game of footy with one team of 3 players against one team of 2 players. Which team will see most of the ball? The 3 or the 2.... .... ... I'm going to have to give it to you: It's the 3.

Schlupp tucks in to make a third Centre-midfielder anyway when we don't have the ball anyway. (You haven't noticed that have you?) So, yes, playing a left-sided midfielder/attacker as an attacking midfielder to cover an injury crisis really isn't the quantum leap in logic you seem to think.

Try watching the whole pitch when you're watching the game. Spend some time looking at our players when they don't have the ball if you want to understand tactics. Don't just follow the ball around like a dog would.

Haha of course a wide midfielder tucks in, that isn't the same as playing as a centre midfielder in a 3. As i stated, Jeff's close control wouldn't be good enough for the centre of the pitch containing 6 players, it would be too congested.

You do realise people are laughing at you for being so clueless don't you??

[Manwell Pablo]

Fcking Jeff Schlupp in midfield.

 

I have herd it all now. 

 

 

Yeah. And scored 0. And lost again.

 

You're going round in circles.

 

If the tactic is to pass it around, then we need 3 in centre midfield. We only played 2.  Imagine a mini-game of footy with one team of 3 players against one team of 2 players. Which team will see most of the ball? The 3 or the 2....   .... ... I'm going to have to give it to you: It's the 3.

 

 

 

 

Schlupp tucks in to make a third Centre-midfielder anyway when we don't have the ball anyway. (You haven't noticed that have you?) So, yes, playing a left-sided midfielder/attacker as an attacking midfielder to cover an injury crisis really isn't the quantum leap in logic you seem to think.

 

Try watching the whole pitch when you're watching the game. Spend some time looking at our players when they don't have the ball if you want to understand tactics.  Don't just follow the ball around like a dog would.

 

When the balls on the right of the pitch yeah that's what wingers do.

 

Jeff Schlupp as a midfielder is a horrible idea, if your going to persist with this argument you could at least pick a player who could perceivable be some use there. Knockaert for example has been touted by many as an option there. Wasil as a deep lying holding midfield at a push. Jeff Schlupp has literally none of the attributes needed to be a decent center midfielder (hence why it's one of only two outfield positions he has never played)

 

To be honest rolling Cambiasso out on one leg out would be a better idea than that.

[Strokes]

Fox unlike is having a mare