the-blue-wildabeast Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 He'd been asking to come off for 5 minutes. Looked fine runnimg off and having watched the game again I saw no indication he wanted to come off, what's the point at 85 mins when he clearly could still run?
Babylon Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 How do you know that? The Manager needs to make these decisions based on what the team needs, not the players. Because I and others saw him signal he needed to come off. Perhaps what the team needs is players who aren't injured on the pitch. I know you're desperate you have a go about Pearson, but this is just a bit ridiculous.
Babylon Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Looked fine runnimg off and having watched the game again I saw no indication he wanted to come off, what's the point at 85 mins when he clearly could still run? Nope I'm sure you're right and the multiple people instantly pointing it out in the match thread were all making it up.
Fox Ulike Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Pearson's antics and Paul Konchesky have been two of our biggest problems this season. I thought Konch had a decent enough game yesterday. Fair play to him for trying to play a wing-back. But he’s a nailed-on left-back. But as others have said, that formation is almost tailor-made for two wing-backs like De Laet and Schlupp flying down the flanks. Simpson and Konch are just keeping their heads above water trying to play a role that neither is particularly adept at. I’d say Pearson’s antics have cost us this season. The players have been fine in the main. But to be fair, he got a lot right yesterday. Unfortunately, it’s not enough at this level. Everton were flat, and Lukaku missed enough chances for another hat-trick. We really needed to take advantage.
Bayfox Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Looked fine runnimg off and having watched the game again I saw no indication he wanted to come off, what's the point at 85 mins when he clearly could still run? sorry but he was ****ed. him and kramaric looked knackered. those around me had all pointed out how ****ed he was at least 10mins before. the fault if any was bringing king on.
Bayfox Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 also anyone else a bit pissed motd2 didn't show the handball incident just before they went up the other end and scored. for me it looked nailed on.
Babylon Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 also anyone else a bit pissed motd2 didn't show the handball incident just before they went up the other end and scored. for me it looked nailed on. More ball to hand for me... but still worth looking at.
Fox Ulike Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Because I and others saw him signal he needed to come off. Perhaps what the team needs is players who aren't injured on the pitch. I know you're desperate you have a go about Pearson, but this is just a bit ridiculous. I’m certainly not desperate to have a go at Pearson. I would really like to come to one of these threads on a Monday morning knowing that our manager picked the best formation, the best players to play that formation, and made the right substitutions at the right times. These really are the basics for a Manger at this level. Plus, as I have already said, Pearson got a lot right yesterday, but his inability to see the advantages of a five man midfield over a five-man defence, in my opinion, cost us the chance of all 3 points yesterday. Had Pearson not gone with five defenders against a tired and lethargic Everton side, he wouldn’t have needed to have made two substitutions when we went behind. He’d therefore have been able to substitute both a flagging Kramaric and an “injured” Cambassio.
Bayfox Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 More ball to hand for me... but still worth looking at. i was right inline with it and i thought he was far enough away for it to be hand ball and his hand was out from his body so he has made himself bigger. but not seen it since so was hoping it would be showed if nothing else.
Gio Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 i was right inline with it and i thought he was far enough away for it to be hand ball and his hand was out from his body so he has made himself bigger. but not seen it since so was hoping it would be showed if nothing else. Watched the game on tele. His arm was at his side. No penalty was the right decision in my opinion We've all seen them given before though, shame we never seem to get that bit of luck at the minute. I thought it would have been mentioned on MOTD2.
GingerrrFox Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Plus, as I have already said, Pearson got a lot right yesterday, but his inability to see the advantages of a five man midfield over a five-man defence, in my opinion, cost us the chance of all 3 points yesterday. Had Pearson not gone with five defenders against a tired and lethargic Everton side, he wouldn’t have needed to have made two substitutions when we went behind. He’d therefore have been able to substitute both a flagging Kramaric and an “injured” Cambassio. That's right the formation was so dire that we were 2-1 up against a team full of internationals who finished in the Top 8 last season before conceding a late goal. Really dire. Also he wouldn't still have had 2 substitutions left because he replaced both Mahrez and Schlupp who by their relatively high standards had poor games yesterday. If we had started with a midfield 5 instead of a back 5 he still would have made those substitutions, which by the way got us back into the game and then in the lead. So he wouldn't have been able to replace Kramaric and Cambiasso, hereby you are wrong.
st albans fox Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Pedantically - he isn't wrong. He is arguing that with five in the middle we wouldn't have needed to sub both wide men to get back into it as we would probably have been ahead and comfortable. Away from home I disagree. Have to get something and a point is a start on our trek to survival. At home we should be more aggressive in our setup. He is wrong about Esteban - he clearly signalled he wanted to come off and he certainly took his time getting to the bench.
Babylon Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 If we'd played my formation every game we'd have won the league by now... amateurs.
Fox Ulike Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 That's right the formation was so dire that we were 2-1 up against a team full of internationals who finished in the Top 8 last season before conceding a late goal. Really dire. Also he wouldn't still have had 2 substitutions left because he replaced both Mahrez and Schlupp who by their relatively high standards had poor games yesterday. If we had started with a midfield 5 instead of a back 5 he still would have made those substitutions, which by the way got us back into the game and then in the lead. So he wouldn't have been able to replace Kramaric and Cambiasso, hereby you are wrong. Well, since I’m talking about a hypothetical scenario which never happened I really can’t see how I can be “wrong”. It really doesn’t matter what Everton did last season. Yesterday they were poor. We should have taken full advantage. Incidentally, it wasn’t a co-incidence that both our wingers were ‘poor’ yesterday. They’re playing with a lone striker who isn’t good in the air or in holding the ball up, and no Central attacking midfielder with whom to link-up with. They had no-one to hit, and could only really link-up with the defensive-minded full-backs. Things only changed when Pearson changed tactics when we went behind. Good decision. However, surely it’s then a Bad decision not to change to become more defensive once we were in front with a few minutes left? What other team would keep 3 attackers on the pitch when only a couple of minutes away from a crucial away victory?
Fox Ulike Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 If we'd played my formation every game we'd have won the league by now... amateurs. Well if I were manager we definitely wouldn't be in a worse league position than Pearson has had us in since forever. KA-POW!!
Babylon Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Well if I were manager we definitely wouldn't be in a worse league position than Pearson has had us in since forever. KA-POW!! Zaaaaaaaap!
Bayfox Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Watched the game on tele. His arm was at his side. No penalty was the right decision in my opinion We've all seen them given before though, shame we never seem to get that bit of luck at the minute. I thought it would have been mentioned on MOTD2. to me it looked as he ran back towards the by line his arm came out. but as i say i only got 1 look. found it odd that it wasn't shown on motd2. they just show the build up to the goal from evertons throw in. but the break came from that moment.
Fox Ulike Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Should Schwarzer have done better for the first goal yesterday? He seemed very flat-footed to me... but don't know if it's expecting too much for him to save it.... it was at his near post, and wasn't actually deflected.
MC Prussian Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 How do you know that? Anyhoo I think Pearson should have told him to bloody get on with it and stop moaning. Just cos Kramaric wasn’t moaning to come off doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right choice. Like I said, sit deep, keep the ball. That’s all he had to do. He didn’t even need to leave his own half. Pearson could put on Andy King to do his running for him. The Manager needs to make these decisions based on what the team needs, not the players. So you'd rather sacrifice one of our (potentially) best assets, risking him to worsen his condition in the process, just because you want him to stay on the pitch? The manager is ought to make sensible decisions in cooperation with his assistant as well as the physio. And that's what he did.
filbertway Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Pretty sure Schwarzer didn't see the ball till very late, maybe a top keeper like Lloris, Courtois or De Gea would have had the agility/quick reactions to get down to it, but it's incredibly harsh to hold him accountable for that goal.
Ricey Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Pretty sure Schwarzer didn't see the ball till very late, maybe a top keeper like Lloris, Courtois or De Gea would have had the agility/quick reactions to get down to it, but it's incredibly harsh to hold him accountable for that goal. He lent the other way, leaving him unable to change direction. I'm not sure why he lent to the left though, surely you'd wait to see where the shot is going first then react. Kasper may have no command of his area, but we've really missed him recently.
Babylon Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 He lent the other way, leaving him unable to change direction. I'm not sure why he lent to the left though, surely you'd wait to see where the shot is going first then react. Kasper may have no command of his area, but we've really missed him recently. He went one for because he couldn't see, you're taught to shoot across the keeper and the keeper is taught it will mostly go across you. So putting your weight on that side is the natural thing to do given that it would be the most likely direction of a shot. Being unsighted and pretty close in is what did him and nothing he did wrong. It's just another stick to beat people with for most I think... rationality seems to have vanished completely with regards any and every decision.
cc_star Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 He lent the other way, leaving him unable to change direction. I'm not sure why he lent to the left though, surely you'd wait to see where the shot is going first then react. Kasper may have no command of his area, but we've really missed him recently. That's where I think Hamer offers the compromise choice by not only being actually able to come off his line for crosses & set-pieces like Schwarzer can, but also be able to react in a way the OAP can't There was plenty of occasions yesterday where Schwarzer dealt with a ball or two, which may have caused the CB a problem had the keeper been rooted to his line, so we'd be solving one problem, but potentially causing another
Fox Ulike Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 So you'd rather sacrifice one of our (potentially) best assets, risking him to worsen his condition in the process, just because you want him to stay on the pitch? The manager is ought to make sensible decisions in cooperation with his assistant as well as the physio. And that's what he did. I think 'sacrificing Cambiasso' is a bit of a far-fetched interpretation of my post, even for you. I'm not suggesting he played until the pain and exhaustion causes him to drop down dead. No. Others have said, he'd been signalling to the bench to come off for five minutes. So he clearly could play on. So it seems reasonable to suggest he could play for a further five minutes? Kramaric is a lot younger and probably wouldn't have signalled to come off, even though he needed to. The Manager needs to over-ride the wishes of individual players in favour of what's best for the team. Cambiasso wasn't seriously injured. Why didn't he go down for treatment?
NotTheMarketLeader Posted 23 February 2015 Posted 23 February 2015 Because by opening up you will probably increase the chances of an error even more as there is less cover. As we saw yesterday, when Nuge and Vardy came on the chances flowed for Everton more than they had before. It's trying to find a middle ground. In that period, you must understand that we scored 2 goals to their 1. Conversely before having to become more attack minded - being a goal down - we scored 0 and they 1. So that argument holds no water. There was no middle ground anyway yesterday - we needed to win. And now even more so the next game. I see no reason to wait until you are a goal down before trying to score the goals required to do that.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.