LCFC_FAN_1995 Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Didn't realise we conceded with 5 at the back?
Dan Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 There are teams you need to go at and there are teams you need to play defensive play on the break type football. We have players itching at the bit to play both styles of play so why didn't we play them? For example RDL, we could have tried a 3-5-2 with Schlupp and RDL as wing backs. Managers need an element of surprise as part of their arsenal, everybody knew what Pearson was going to do. But Villa actually aren't that bad defensively, ignoring how bad they were away at us. They don't score many but they don't concede many either, hence why they're above us. We've seen time and time again that going all guns blazing simply isn't the answer as teams just pick us off on the counter. We're bottom of the league. We need to focus on being hard to beat, especially in a game where you're missing your best defender (Huth would've walked into that XI with a carrot up his arse based on the Arsenal display). Literally within two minutes of us going back to four at the back, we conceded a goal due to them being in a position they hadn't been in all game. When Wasilewski went off our defence consisted of four players, three of whom I'd deem to not be up to this league, and Upson, who is still very much an unknown quantity (but has actually shown he might come in handy, IMO). It'd be nice for us to have been a bit more positive but our defence is by a mile the worst in the division. Any team in the league will pick it off if we give them a chance. Huth could be a massive signing for us.
davelcfc100 Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 It worked well against Arsenal. It worked very, very well. That being the case how was it so obvious to you or anyone else that it wouldn't work against Villa? Pearson's got it wrong at times with the line up this season but I don't he was unreasonable in thinking we could repeat what we did on Tuesday. This is my view too. The system we employed was a reasonable one to go with as we already knew it could work. The difference was that the quality of our passing dropped immensely. I've not given up on this formation yet, if the players can kick it to each other more often than not it can work. We did repeat what we did on Tuesday, we went 2-0 then got 1 back but unfortunately the games are played over 90 minutes of football, maybe if we had a little longer
Dan Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Shock revelation, I would stick with the formation at Everton.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Enough said tell me about it pal !!! pearsons tactics are a joke !!!!! get lenoon in i say!!!!! u fancy a carling after the game !!!!!
Swiss_tony Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 It worked against Arsenal, but the Arsenal and Villa attacks are two oppopsite ends of the scale. 5 at the back will be useful at times, but not against one of the worst attacks in Premier League history! We didn't concede 2 goals because we went to 442, we did due to a good goal and a terrible bit of goalkeeping. The problem with 5 at the back today was that we let Villa control the game and there was no space to exploit on the counter, like there was against Arsenal. His tactics today were unforgiveble. He isn't learning. I've had it with him. did we win the arsenal game then??? i thought we lost 2-1.
Swiss_tony Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 the 5-4-21 'worked' against the gooners becasue they attacked and left huge swathes of space gehind their fullbacks for us to run into. villa sat back and denied space and it didn't work as well. same result though. the critiscism of pearsons tactics should not be that he started 5-4-1, but that he changed it when we were 0-0 for no real reason. and then when we did go behind he made no changes at all. albrighton not getting on was scandalous. mahrez and schlupp were terrible today and that's not overstating it. baffling subs or lack of.
Lambert09 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I think Pearson was experimenting. Obviously not what we wanted as it was a great chance to get to Wembley but in the context of our situation I understand. The formation worked brilliantly against arsenal, we even managed to attack in a successful fashion. So Pearson, like me and many others wanted to see if it would have the same affect against a team we can truly attack against. No, it didnt work. But would you not rather discover that in the cup then against a rival in the league?
Lambert09 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 the 5-4-21 'worked' against the gooners becasue they attacked and left huge swathes of space gehind their fullbacks for us to run into. villa sat back and denied space and it didn't work as well. same result though. the critiscism of pearsons tactics should not be that he started 5-4-1, but that he changed it when we were 0-0 for no real reason. and then when we did go behind he made no changes at all. albrighton not getting on was scandalous. mahrez and schlupp were terrible today and that's not overstating it. baffling subs or lack of. Agree with this, apart from the bold part .... We were getting hammered and hadnt had good possession for the whole of the second half. Trust me if he didnt change the formation we still would have lost. It was a ticking timebomb
Bettsj2 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 It doesnt matter what formation he plays, line up he selects, tactics he employs or how well the players perform. We still lose. Time to say goodbye Mr Pearson.
eunmac Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Strategy is undertaken before the battle. Tactics are implemented during battle. At least we can clear that one up.
Spanner73 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 It's a really good point , playing 3 centre holds agsinst a team that's so poor in terms of goalscoring then again they got 2 against us so how poor are we ? Problem is I fear we're going to stick with this clown
SpacedX Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 There are teams you need to go at and there are teams you need to play defensive play on the break type football. We have players itching at the bit to play both styles of play so why didn't we play them? For example RDL, we could have tried a 3-5-2 with Schlupp and RDL as wing backs. Managers need an element of surprise as part of their arsenal, everybody knew what Pearson was going to do. Steady, I got flame grilled by the Konch and Jeff fanboys for suggesting this - because apparently this season on the left wing 'he's made the role his own'. Dropping Wes and relinquishing the armband to Cambiasso; reinstating DeLaet over Simpson; Jeff to LB/WB over Konch; and starting Albrighton - it's almost although Nige knows that inside - but his arrogance leaves him in complete denial of himself. Also, all this crap on here about how Krameric 'likes to play'. Although it is vital to play to and exploit a players preferences, strengths and style - I don't give a shit what he liked to do in the Prva HNL this is the premiership. He was marooned yesterday and dropping too deep. A natural predatory instinct like that needs to remain in and around the box - not running the channels or 'creating chances for his teammates and for himself' as someone suggested was his strength. Not in this league it ain't.
Stadt Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I'd love to see the tactical geniuses on here given a go, a "tactically inept" manager is one that loses by 3 or 4 goals everyweek, tactically Pearson may struggle on occasion but tge hyperbole used by some is completely over the top.
Scotch Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 In response to this thread,I think it is worth mentioning that we lost both goals AFTER reverting back to a 442. I think Nige is onto something with this formation. I would swap Konchesky and Simpson for Schlupp and RDL in the wing back areas,I think this would add a more attacking dynamic to the system. I would also play 3 in the centre of the park with 2 more defensive minded players supporting Mahrez who would push up into the whole behind the two strikers of Ulloa and Kramaric (who is NOT a loan striker by any stretch of the imagination)
Mark 'expert' Lawrenson Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 tactics were again not the problem, it's the personnel. huth in for morgan, probably de laet for simpson and this is a formation that will work. no formation would've worked with the amount of times we needlessly gave the ball away. I would also move Schlupp to LB playing 3 centre halves should allow the full backs licence to get forward, which De Laet and Schlupp should be ideal at.
SpacedX Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I'd love to see the tactical geniuses on here given a go, a "tactically inept" manager is one that loses by 3 or 4 goals everyweek, tactically Pearson may struggle on occasion but tge hyperbole used by some is completely over the top. Wookie, selection is a key part of strategy. Pearson appears to allow personal preference and even favouritism to obfuscate and confound those tactics on the rare occasions that they are sound. He got it badly wrong on Sunday in terms of selection, formation and a stubborn refusal to significant effect changes to a system that clearly wasn't working. He was 'tactically inept' and the only reason that we didn't lose by three goals or more is because Villa are still suffering the hangover from Paul Lambert. Sherwood will transform them into the attacking side that they are on paper.
Babylon Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Pearson appears to allow personal preference and even favouritism to obfuscate and confound those tactics on the rare occasions that they are sound. Of course he's going to pick a team based on his personal preference. All this stuff about not pickying x or y player, I'm not going to moan too much about. We've heard it all before on here, "why isn't he picking Danns, Mills and Beckford. It's so obvious, why can't he see it". Everyone walked away with egg on their faces their as he knew them better as players and people than the fans did. I'm more pissed about sticking with what wasn't working on Saturday. Mahrez and Cambiasso were crap and should have been replaced by somebody else with a good 20 minutes remaining minimum.
5waller5 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Nige .... Here's tactics 101 for you. Against a strong side like Arsenal you dd the right thing in being more defensive, letting them push on, and counter attacking. Against the bluntest, most un-inspiring front line in the league then you don't need to sit back and invite pressure - you can actually attack them. Nigel doesn't seem to understand anything but setting up for a narrow loss. Oh and if it's not working, and you're watching the game .... It's OK for you to change it and use those guys sat next to you in the tracksuits.
SpacedX Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Of course he's going to pick a team based on his personal preference. All this stuff about not pickying x or y player, I'm not going to moan too much about. We've heard it all before on here, "why isn't he picking Danns, Mills and Beckford. It's so obvious, why can't he see it". Everyone walked away with egg on their faces their as he knew them better as players and people than the fans did. I'm more pissed about sticking with what wasn't working on Saturday. Mahrez and Cambiasso were crap and should have been replaced by somebody else with a good 20 minutes remaining minimum. Personal preference through favouritism and loyalty to particular individuals as opposed to recent performances. It's nothing to do with 'knowing them as people' when last Tuesday you find that Paul Konchesky is in against the fastest winger in the entire country. Morgan was abysmal and has been since October. How is Simpson depriving RDL of a start? Schwarzer and Hamer - the same...and the Albrighton situation is as farcical as it is unfathomable. "Everyone walked away with egg on their faces their as he knew them better as players and people than the fans did." You really think that still applies? Sorry - I completely disagree.
Fox Ulike Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Well the formation did not work brilliantly at Arsenal since we lost the game! I think it shows how low we currently are that we are lauding games in which we narrowly lose. A battling performance away at Arsenal was the least we should expect. Narrow defeats should not be celebrated. The really exasperating thing about the Villa line-up was that there was clearly no thought given to it. I would have expected Pearson to sit down with his coaches and scouts, examine Villa’s side in minute detail, and arrive at a formation that would give us the best chance of getting something out of the game. No. “Fvck that, let’s just play how we played at Arsenal. It worked then so logic dictates it will work again? As David Brent says “A good idea is a good idea forever”. Fvck me, Nige. Then, after the game, I had to slap my forehead in a Homer Simpson ‘D’oh’ moment when I heard Pearson had said: “we just could not keep hold of the ball, it kept coming back at us.” He plays 5 defenders and then is surprised that the ball keeps coming back to the defence!! Surely that’s the gameplan? You play lots of defenders because you anticipate them seeing a lot of the ball? No? I would laugh but it’s not funny when it’s happening to your own team. I’m not even going to mention an £8m striker, and our most competent keeper this season, both on the bench.
Mark 'expert' Lawrenson Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 5 at the back for me always meant the full backs would get forward to provide the crosses, with our 5 at the back set up we are left either short in midfield or up front, De Laet and Schlupp have to play in a back 5 to get forward and get crosses in, play an extra body in midfield and 2 up front. Here is the problem though, no room for Mahrez or Albrighton, but to get the balance right they couldn't start.
Ricey Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 It reminds me of the Man Utd and Palace matches earlier in the season. The way we set up against United was ideal for counter attacking, exploiting their high line and dealing with their attacking threat. We won 5-3 and in typical Pearson fashion, he doesn't change a thing for Palace away, resulting in us being unable to break Palace down and losing 2-0. United and Palace, particularly back then, were two totally different propositions and we needed to adapt. I would call it naivety, but you can learn from naivety and he isn't. I think it's more stubbornness. He has never been sure of the best XI and best system this season, so the second one works, he's too scared to change it. The result, crippling inconsistency. We are, by the very nature of being a promoted side, going to face a lot of teams that are stronger than us. We have to adapt to nullify their threats or exploit their weaknesses, not just change systems once we don't play very well. It's not like last season when whoever we faced, we could pick the same 442 and know that if we are at our best, we'll win. Even if we had beaten Arsenal with 541, I wouldn't even consider using it against Villa for a second. We need an extra CM in games like yesterday.
suffolk fox Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 In response to this thread,I think it is worth mentioning that we lost both goals AFTER reverting back to a 442.I think Nige is onto something with this formation. I would swap Konchesky and Simpson for Schlupp and RDL in the wing back areas,I think this would add a more attacking dynamic to the system. I would also play 3 in the centre of the park with 2 more defensive minded players supporting Mahrez who would push up into the whole behind the two strikers of Ulloa and Kramaric (who is NOT a loan striker by any stretch of the imagination) This. Not a bad shout because if you play the system we set up with yesterday five at the back the full backs have to bomb up the wings to support the forwards when you attack. Neither Simpson or Konchesky are quick enough to be able to do that. That is why Rdl and Schlupp have to move back in order to supplement that formation. Tactical Nige (new name) couldn't see that plus we were playing far too deep yesterday. Even the bloody commentary team Green/savage were referring to Konchesky and Simpson as wingbacks I was laughing cos neither are poor fullbacks at this level.
yorkie1999 Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I think his whole problem is he has installed this regime of over analysing the opposition. My mate, a west brom fan, was telling me that Pullis is on the touchline barking out orders and telling the players where to be and who to cover and constantly giving directions, no clipboards, no little sketchbooks just the players doing what they are told in the moment. You can't plan a game of football because one goal and your plans go out the window.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.