fuchsntf Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I could of thrown this into the post manu thread, but I thought the point on team selection became a major issue, so I thought it deserved its own platform. Lets face it every single fan have their own idea who should play, and sometimes the critic goes over the top, when their own ideas dont match the managers. I back Pearson even when we go down (and we will), but his selection for this weekend did suprise me somewhat. #Could it be players carrying injuries more than we are led to believe.. ( no Cambiasso or Hammond starting) # NP believed he needed to save players , believing they would most likely come home empty handed today , and hoping to nick points later against the other big guns. # He really expected he could play a quicker game with Vardy, relying also on pace of Schlupp. # believing Drinkwater and King would have a fairshare of holding on to the ball longer. For thr 1st time this season, IMO this was a suicide selection from NP, something in all my years as a fan, I have never commented on, managers live and die on such issues, fans cant change it.!! Like players trying to change refs descision, wont happen dont waste energy. Any other opinions, or differnt angle, from you-would-be-managers, but alot better fans.???
AKCJ Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Get over it, the 3 goals weren't because of Vardy on the wing or whatever. We got roundly beaten by a superior team. Nigel would have known this and would rather not risk the likes of Cambiasso and Hammond, who have been injured, in this game when we've got a massive one next week. The team isn't good enough to compete with the likes of United at Old Trafford, hence we'r 20th and they're 4th. Rate his selections after next week.
shailen Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Saving players for what?? We play one game a week. We are not in Europe. Don't like such conspiracy theories.
the-blue-wildabeast Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 May as play them now as a good few of them wont he here next season.
hackneyfox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Get over it, the 3 goals weren't because of Vardy on the wing or whatever. We got roundly beaten by a superior team. Nigel would have known this and would rather not risk the likes of Cambiasso and Hammond, who have been injured, in this game when we've got a massive one next week. The team isn't good enough to compete with the likes of United at Old Trafford, hence we'r 20th and they're 4th. Rate his selections after next week. Well I hope the manager and team don't have your attitude before we play any team we're expected to lose against.
fuchsntf Posted 1 February 2015 Author Posted 1 February 2015 Get over it, the 3 goals weren't because of Vardy on the wing or whatever. We got roundly beaten by a superior team. Nigel would have known this and would rather not risk the likes of Cambiasso and Hammond, who have been injured, in this game when we've got a massive one next week. The team isn't good enough to compete with the likes of United at Old Trafford, hence we'r 20th and they're 4th. Rate his selections after next week. I dont have to get over anything...I was just asking for thoughts, nothing more nothing less.Yes I agree Next week I believe we will see another make up, and another type of performance. About Vardy I have been the last to criticise him, he may turn out to be another Harry Kane.....Pearson tried to keep loyal hoping Vardy could turn it around, and quite rightly. Of late though I dont think he warranted his 1st choice selection, yes yesterday I would have chosen Albrighton from the start, and thrown in another midfielder, maybe Lawrence with Drinkwater holding, if deciding t save Cambiasso and Hammond.
Fox92 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 We're talking about the same team that went to White Hart Lane and won though. I think Nigel's tactics were wrong yesterday, not his selection.
Clever Fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Get over it, the 3 goals weren't because of Vardy on the wing or whatever. We got roundly beaten by a superior team. Nigel would have known this and would rather not risk the likes of Cambiasso and Hammond, who have been injured, in this game when we've got a massive one next week. The team isn't good enough to compete with the likes of United at Old Trafford, hence we'r 20th and they're 4th. Rate his selections after next week. Your wrong on many counts. first. tell that to Bradford or Chelmsford. We all know football doesn't work like that. If it did then you would just sit down start of season and work out exactly how many points you would end up with. Accepting your not going to beat various teams. The Team isn't good enough. Well that's Nigels job to make sure that we where good enough from the start of the season. Here we are in Feb and he still doesn't know his best lineup. Your summising that he was saving Cambi and Hammond for next week. Or do you know. Vardy sadly like Drinkwater are kicking on to the next level. Now maybe NP thinks he can get them there. I've often done that with certain players before. But this should only happen when you're safe or winning easily. This is clearly not the case. Any Manager can get tactics wrong in a single game. The problem with NP is he's trying to put sq pegs into round holes. also his loyalty to certain players and his buying policy is questionable. I'm a big supporter of what he is doing at our club. But clearly he's struggling finding his feet at this level. But I do want him to succeed.
Clever Fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 We're talking about the same team that went to White Hart Lane and won though. I think Nigel's tactics were wrong yesterday, not his selection. Wrong. Different opposition present different challenges. There's only two main ways to play this game. 1 You impose your game on the opposition. Like Chelsea 2. you set up your team taking account of the opposition and try to frustrate them and get lucky also. It works sometimes provided you have a mobile battling hard working team. We were never going to be good enough for 1. So too was our only option. Except we did't do that either. Which made the selection yesterday strange.
bovril Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I'm sure Pearson makes subs at almost exactly the same time every match, like 62nd-65th minute mark.
Fox92 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Wrong. Different opposition present different challenges. There's only two main ways to play this game. 1 You impose your game on the opposition. Like Chelsea 2. you set up your team taking account of the opposition and try to frustrate them and get lucky also. It works sometimes provided you have a mobile battling hard working team. We were never going to be good enough for 1. So too was our only option. Except we did't do that either. Which made the selection yesterday strange. Which was never going to happen. Ulloa up top, on his own, and our stupid long balls were never going to work. It was so easy for Manchester United, they were just knocking it around at the back and we were chasing the ball. We didn't offer a threat until we went at them with a bit of pace - Albrighton and Nugent in particular - likewise when we played at Stamford Bridge in August, granted we lost but it was a good performance from us because we attacked them just like we did at Anfield.
davieG Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Did Man u change their formation from 352 to a 442 with a diamond midfield and Pearson planned for 352?
fleckneymike Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 This is not a dig at Vardy, but his selection - along with just a two man midfield - was curious. Whatever disagreements people have about his ability as a premier league striker, I doubt anyone would disagree that he is simply not capable of playing as a winger. To play him yesterday was just odd. The only conceivable reason I could come up with was that he might offer better defensive cover than Albrighton, if that is the case then dont play a four man midfield or dont play a four man defence. As it was Vardy was given (for a player of his ability) an impossible task. The two man midfield was, not unsuprisingly, out fought and out thought. Many a time Drinkwater looked for a pass and there was no available option through the middle or out wide, this meant he 'dawdled' on the ball and was regulary dispossesed. Likewise, many a time United broke in numbers and there was no covering man to delay the run on the centrebacks. It wasn't until the second half, and the introduction of Cambiasso, that we began pressing United higher up the pitch. It may be admirable to try and go toe to toe away at Old Trafford but it sure as hell wont get you any points with that line up. The other choices by Pearson I can 'get'. A pacey fullback to counter both DiMarea and Valencia (even though one full back played on his less favoured side), a 'big man' up front to try and hold up play so we can get out, and an experienced keeper with better distribution make enough sense. Vardy on the wing and a flat CM of King and Drinkwater doesn't.
fleckneymike Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Did Man u change their formation from 352 to a 442 with a diamond midfield and Pearson planned for 352? It had been rumoured all week that United were looking to go 442 (even though LVG is loathed to change) after the switch last week. We just seemed to go with the players who were fit from last weeks starting XI
Webbo Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Some people seem to be assuming that if we'd set up differently we'd have won yesterday, against world class players, at home. Sometimes you just have to admit that the better team won.
inckley fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 We're talking about the same team that went to White Hart Lane and won though. I think Nigel's tactics were wrong yesterday, not his selection. I can't agree with this. Albrighton's introduction was crucial to us winning that game, until that point we were second best. And we shouldn't confuse a cup game in which the opposition are not firing on all cylinders with a league game. That line-up was a side which was inferior to a half-assed Spurs side a week ago, as opposed to the one which went on and beat them. The decision to leave out Hamer, who had conceded one goal in open play in four matches, and Albrighton who has looked very good for us in recent weeks and is desperate for game time, was completely unnecessary. Both clearly cost us: we conceded one goal to a GK error, and the only goal we scored came when Albrighton came on, and was thanks to Albrighton. I think these were as clear a set of managerial errors as I've ever seen. I back Pearson and I'd probably back him if we went down, so long as there's emerging evidence of him learning how to manage at this level between now and the end of the season (it would be insane to leave him in charge and take the approach that we'd have to fire him if we came back up). But those two decisions were appalling, and he was in a very small minority of people who would have thought they made sense. He has to get better. And he has to stop making decisions like these which effectively pull the rug from under our own feet. I struggle to take seriously anybody who seriously tries to defend such decisions.
fleckneymike Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Some people seem to be assuming that if we'd set up differently we'd have won yesterday, against world class players, at home. Sometimes you just have to admit that the better team won. I don't think anyone is assuming we'd win with a different line up, more that we'd give a better account of ourselves. Sometime when you hear a line up you get the sense that we are really going to have a good go at holding and battling, that lineup seemed to have so many obvious deficiencies that you just got a sense of innevitability
LCFCSOULBOY Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Sorry but in my opinion even if he does pick a decent side next week he will only pick the wrong tactics...I hate saying this but Pearson has lost the plot.
Fox92 Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I can't agree with this. Albrighton's introduction was crucial to us winning that game, until that point we were second best. And we shouldn't confuse a cup game in which the opposition are not firing on all cylinders with a league game. That line-up was a side which was inferior to a half-assed Spurs side a week ago, as opposed to the one which went on and beat them. The decision to leave out Hamer, who had conceded one goal in open play in four matches, and Albrighton who has looked very good for us in recent weeks and is desperate for game time, was completely unnecessary. Both clearly cost us: we conceded one goal to a GK error, and the only goal we scored came when Albrighton came on, and was thanks to Albrighton. I think these were as clear a set of managerial errors as I've ever seen. I back Pearson and I'd probably back him if we went down, so long as there's emerging evidence of him learning how to manage at this level between now and the end of the season (it would be insane to leave him in charge and take the approach that we'd have to fire him if we came back up). But those two decisions were appalling, and he was in a very small minority of people who would have thought they made sense. He has to get better. And he has to stop making decisions like these which effectively pull the rug from under our own feet. I struggle to take seriously anybody who seriously tries to defend such decisions. I cannot argue with the Albrighton case, I think that's spot on and something I mentioned elsewhere. But which goal do you think was a gk error? The second goal looked like mis-communication with Drinkwater and Kramaric, they both left it and the ball was played over the top and they scored.
ADK Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 The Vardy selection was quite odd. I hope we don't see Vardy starting again in a league game soon.
RedSoxUK Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 No matter what 11 out of the 25 we put out, or how they're lined up, it wouldn't have made a difference on the result - we looked like little school kids visiting the big boys' den for the day, well and truly played off the park in every area of the pitch. We looked so far out of our depth I could feel the smirk on LVG's face pull closer to wanting to make us pay for the reverse fixture - if anything we're lucky this is Man United who when comfortably winning, couldn't give a shit about demolishing the opposition, it could have easily of been 6/7/8 goals from the quality and inexperience of playing a much superior, dominating and confident team. As for his team selections.. Schwarzer's experience (although I thought he did pretty poor except his distribution) Vardy's chasing down + nuisance and aggravation from reverse fixture (Didn't work because of the above pure domination and superiority) King + Drink because we won vs Tottenham, and I presume Cam/Hamm's fitness would have potentially ruled them out for even longer with the amount of chasing and tackling they'd have to do vs the.. pure domination and superiority of Manchester United's entire starting 11. -- The way it's presented suggests any other manager could've taken our team to Old Trafford and got a result, or at least been competitive. I don't think we stood a chance unless they were using Blackett/Smalling/Keane etc and we had enough players to crows the midfield. Pearson would have tried to motivate us by 'looking back' at the reverse fixture, but ultimately we were outplayed by the better team. Jose Mourinho would have lost that game with our team. I can see why Vardy was picked, I just think Vardy has become a 'useful player' to have on the pitch at times, it didn't work how we wanted it to, and by the time we could have done something about it, we were 3 - 0 down, and that wasn't down to Vardy's lackluster performance either - they were better, and made our back-line look like the slow, aging inconsistent defense we know them to be vs Burnley, let alone Manchester United. But the midfield couldn't get a hold on the game at all, and were 'out of it' for the majority - 29% possession no matter who you're playing, is a bitch to contain and we only ever looked threatening when United were 3 - 0 up already, the positive is, that we did actually threaten at times, and managed to score - thanks to Albrighton's stunning cross which made the United defenders jump like balloon heads. Hamer, Huth, Albrighton, James, and Cambiasso HAVE to come in for the Palace game, and we should look like a very improved side. Would keep Kramaric / Ulloa, although both looked extremely isolated and at times, very poor - Kram did have a moment of brilliance skinning Shaw though, get him on the ball at home and we could be seeing W's.
inckley fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I cannot argue with the Albrighton case, I think that's spot on and something I mentioned elsewhere. But which goal do you think was a gk error? The second goal looked like mis-communication with Drinkwater and Kramaric, they both left it and the ball was played over the top and they scored. Schwarzer failed to hold the ball for either the 2nd or 3rd, can't remember which. A lot of media pointed the finger at him. Interestingly his distribution wasn't all that hot either, always straight and long down the middle.
Clever Fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I don't think anyone really thought that we would win yesterday. But thats what makes football exciting. One team dominates doesn't score and the other team breaks away and does score. We've all seen happen. We are were we are in the league with the players we have and NP has to take a lot of the blame for that. we were promoted with real money to spend unlike others before us. And quite frankly he's failed to bring in the necessary players for whatever reason. what's frustrating a lot of people is that we all see the need for a creative midfielder and yet he keeps bringing in Forwards and Defenders. He's behaving like the general who defends his way until the end while his troops are being killed on the battlefield. I really want him to succeed but feel if he doesn't start getting things right he will pay the ultimate price. And I don't think that will be good for the club long term.
inckley fox Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 I must admit that I haven't seen many sides in the PL who don't look 'up for the fight' to the extent that we have on 6 or 7 occasions this season. Your effort and energy levels should be a given when you're in our position. But if he's decided that he's going to use the 'total faith' line, give them days off when other sides have to turn up for work, pick guys he's been working with for years ahead of others who've done more to warrant being in the side, and never stop to say 'look, a hell of a lot more is required of you if you want to play for my team at this level', then this is probably what you should expect. I said ages ago I would stick with him on the grounds that these things would change, but they haven't. And I can take a 1-3 at Old Trafford, but the extent to which we were overpowered and out-worked and seemed to lack desire was heart-breaking. Especially in the context of us having been equally pathetic in our previous league outing, and so many others this year. Laziness, apathy, negativity and an off-hand approach to match preparation from our manager will get this side relegated long before a lack of quality or financing, or sheer bad luck. And if they do, it should be an easy decision to get rid of the manager because we'll be right back where we started, as favourites for promotion with an ageing side of demoralised big name players, the only difference being that we'll know that - should we be lucky enough to get back up to the PL in less than 10 years - our manager will almost certainly not be the man to keep us there.
foxinsocks Posted 1 February 2015 Posted 1 February 2015 Three goals in the first half and utd were able to be relax - yet even van Gall admitted that they remained wary of another lcfc fight back. It was always going to be tough for us to get anything out of it. That said, I didn't believe NP had gone down the Mick MacCarthy route of saving player for point we can win - please correct me if I am wrong. So that raises a few questions: 1. NP always subs at 70 minutes - it is good to freshen up the attack.... but not compulsory - I am sure Ulloa is capable of 90 minute once a week! IF we are leading and want to save ulloa then by all means put the others on in his place... but if we are still chasing the game then we should keep him on. 2. Once gain he bought albringhton on at the same time as taking Ulloa off for Nugent - was Nugent ever going to get on the end of an Albrighton cross - I though NP had learnt this error the last time he made it 3. It was brave to start with Vardy on the wing - but his speed could counter the utd wingers - and as someone said above I don't think it was a significant point in any of the goals.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.