Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Ad@m on October 31, 2010, 03:57:18 PM
-
Is it too early to start worrying about GH's tactics?
When we appointed him there were Liverpool fans telling us he was ultra-defensive and I took that with a pinch of salt, but the past week has seen us start at home against Burnley with no recognised striker on the pitch and then follow that up with today where we had a central midfield consisting of a centre-half playing behind two defensive midfielders and our least prolific forward up front on his own.
I'm not sure what Ireland and the Fonz have done to piss GH off already either - my only fear is that he thinks they're too creative for his style!
I know we've got to give him time and make a judgement when he's had the chance to bring in the players he wants to use but today was tediously boring and I'm genuinely not looking forward to a season of that!
Excluding the West Ham match, we've scored 6 goals in our last 9 league games and only Wigan and West Ham have scored fewer in total.
I can't see attendances getting much better if we're serving that up...
-
You have to give him at least 2 years for me.
To be honest he has'nt got a lot to work with.3 strikers, 1 who is injured, another who works hard but does'nt look like scoring, another who has a poor touch, does'nt run, does'nt work, but has a good goal scoring record.
A midfield who does'nt score goals, and does'nt know its best formation.Possibly 2 who want to leave, 1 who the jury is still out on, and 2 who can't pass more than 5 feet.
1 LB, and 2 RBs, neither brilliant, 4 reasonably good CHs, 1 who is off form.
1 Goalie.
God i'm fed uptoday.
FWIW, i could'nt work out the playing of Clark today, he played ok, but hes never going to make a central midfielder is he.
We just have to perservere with Ireland.
-
He's learning his team and players, throw in the disarray his predecesor put us in and the fact we're in the middle of the worst injury crisis we've had for years and he's not doing too badly.
Today was poor, but we had three chances (Bannan, Clark and Ashley) to win it at the death.
-
I just think he knows what our limitations are at the moment. Carew is either unfit or can't be arsed and Gabby is injured.
The big plus for me is that he's not afraid to give the likes of Clark and Bannan a chance, something that wasn't happening under the previous regime (unless it was one of those unimportant "European" games, obviously). It'll pay off in the end.
-
I think the inclusion of Clark in the midfield was a good choice, earlier in the week I thought that maybe Collins would have been an option in the same role. I think with the height in Bloose team, we needed that extra protection for set pieces etc.. What was a funny choice was keeping with Sidwell, who I'd never class as a defensive midfielder by the way! Clark and NRC would have worked alot better if Bannan had started or Ireland. I think Ireland isn't settled and maybe GH didn't want to risk him going missing. I think with the injuries we've got, coupled with the fact we're not playing too well, he was right to play the formation he did today. Just didn't make for a very good game, but we didn't lose, which is what I feared before the game.
-
He's done okayish in general.
Today's tactics were pretty unfathomable. I know we have a couple of injurys, but it wasn't chelsea or arsenal we were playing was it. Fans will not put up with that approach for long. Its all well and good being calculated, but you have to give yourself the chance to win a game.
He definitely needs to stick with Ireland, get Gabby back fit asap and persuade Randy to part with some serious cash in january.
-
Too negative for me today, we didn't ask enough questions in the final third. NRC and Sidwell didn't get close enough to Heskey at any time and they very succesfully blocked our wide men out of the game. I think we missed Petrov very badly today, I hate to say it but he's the glue that makes a lot of the parts come together for us.
-
Not worried. I think he is struggling for options and tried to win the midfield today to get Young and Downing on the ball more. Didn't work out that way but maybe that says more about the players than the formation....
-
Yes of course it's too early to judge him on the current situation. He has to work with what he has available and i think it was imperative that we didn't lose our last two games and so put out our 'strongest team' rather than possibly our most creative. As it is we're in the quarter finals of the Carling cup and we got a draw in the local derby. It certainly wasn't pretty but we did what we needed to do. Before that i think we have seen some quite creative attacking play in phases. I think most of us know what Houllier wants to do with the team, but it will take time, we will need our best players to be fit, and we will need to see several additions to the squad.
I'm not sure about all of this 'creativity' you mention from Ireland and the Fonz either, i've yet to see much of it, especially from Ireland. He's offered very little so far in the games he's played for us and i doubt he would have offered much today. Given time however i'm sure he will come good for us.
I think from now until January is going to be a bit of a battle, I think we will see what a big loss Petrov is and even when Gabby comes back he is going to have to find both his fitness and his form. I think we will go on a good run of form after January though, Houllier will have had more time with the team, our fitness will be better, we should have key players back from injury, and some exciting new faces to freshen things up.
If I have one gripe it's that under O'Neill we did some things well that I would have liked us to retain, for instance quick wing play and getting lots of crosses into the box. We seem to do very little of this now and whilst i'm glad were changing our style of play, we should still retain this element of our play at times. It should be a plan B, rather than our plan A, B and C. It's where a lot of our goals came from and possibly one of the reasons we have had problems scoring this season. Any new manager coming in has to strike a balance between the way he wants a team to play and the best way to get the players he has available to him playing well.
-
We just can't judge him on this season, this is even worse than judging a manager who has taken over after a bad season, Hotlips hasn't even had a chance to buy one player. Add to that the unfortunate injuries to Petrov and Gabby and we're just treading water I feel.
-
I thought playing Clark in MF was fine today, to counter the strength of the oppo's feisty central core. The tactical concern for me today was our lack of width.
AY - where do I start?! He played in the middle rather than stretching the poor opposition fullbacks. Crazy. I'd be relaxed about seeing him go in January, TBH. I think his material contribution to the team is insignificant.
The game could have been won on the wings; so we play narrow. Sidwell was supposed to play the attacking midfield role but because the ball was not coming in from the wings, his contribution was negligible (or maybe that was simply 'cos he's not up to P'ship standard).
Bringing Carew on was a waste of time - he made no contribution at all; why not the Fonz? - at least a bit of pace later on would have stretched Dann and Johnson.
The game was there to be won today; GH fluffed it.
-
I'm not too worried, but am abit pissed off about Delfouneso not gettin a look in.
-
Houllier bottled it today. He was too scared to lose the game, than gamble and try to win it. You may not want to hear it, but both O'neill and O'leary have had better starts to their Villa management careers. Too many similarities to GT mk2, and I feel we are going backwards. I will give him time, i.e transfer windows to build his team, but I feel he is out of touch having been out of the game for so long, and McCallister is only with us until he can get something better. I have no affinity with them both. It doesn't feel like my club anymore.
-
Strong words glasses- have patience and give him time and I'm sure things will work out well in the end- o neill left a much worse position than many fans think he did.
Give him a year and see where we are with new signings and the deadwood gone - I think he will do a good job .
-
Houllier bottled it today. He was too scared to lose the game, than gamble and try to win it. You may not want to hear it, but both O'neill and O'leary have had better starts to their Villa management careers. Too many similarities to GT mk2, and I feel we are going backwards. I will give him time, i.e transfer windows to build his team, but I feel he is out of touch having been out of the game for so long, and McCallister is only with us until he can get something better. I have no affinity with them both. It doesn't feel like my club anymore.
So, you say you'll give him time, then promptly go on to sound like you're not.
Today was his fifth league game in charge of us (and the two others, league cup games, we won).
It's hard to imagine what people expect from a manager parachuted in to a club which had lost its manager five days before the start of the season, with no knowledge of the set up of the club or the players.
We've a new manager, and a new management team - in fact, the entire football management of the club bar KM and TM has been replaced over the last few weeks - and such wholesale changes do not settle down quite so quickly.
The one glaringly obvious thing we have missed recently is someone who can be relied on to score goals, to put chances away. That was something we lacked for two years. Houllier hasn't had the chance to rectify that yet. It seems somewhat harsh to give him a hard time over it.
-
Houllier bottled it today. He was too scared to lose the game, than gamble and try to win it. You may not want to hear it, but both O'neill and O'leary have had better starts to their Villa management careers. Too many similarities to GT mk2, and I feel we are going backwards. I will give him time, i.e transfer windows to build his team, but I feel he is out of touch having been out of the game for so long, and McCallister is only with us until he can get something better. I have no affinity with them both. It doesn't feel like my club anymore.
So, you say you'll give him time, then promptly go on to sound like you're not.
Today was his fifth league game in charge of us (and the two others, league cup games, we won).
It's hard to imagine what people expect from a manager parachuted in to a club which had lost its manager five days before the start of the season, with no knowledge of the set up of the club or the players.
We've a new manager, and a new management team - in fact, the entire football management of the club bar KM and TM has been replaced over the last few weeks - and such wholesale changes do not settle down quite so quickly.
The one glaringly obvious thing we have missed recently is someone who can be relied on to score goals, to put chances away. That was something we lacked for two years. Houllier hasn't had the chance to rectify that yet. It seems somewhat harsh to give him a hard time over it.
Spot on, give the man chance to make his mark.
We haven't got a decent striker at the moment, Gabby's out and Heskey had no help really. he's never been prolific anyways has he?
-
His tactics is to get the team to pass the ball to each other. He's said as much, it's just a case of making the players aware that they're capable of it and they don't need to hoof the ball as often as they do.
The first 2 minutes of the game today was a sign that we're more than capable of putting some nice passes together. Blues didn't touch the ball in that opening period.
-
I dont think he has much choice, we have seen his comments on Ireland, Banan came on but i dont think many would have started him today, Carew is not interested or carrying the back problem, Fonz has not done anything to show that he is Prem level yet, tell me who else we have at the moment?
-
To be honest I'd been thinking it was probably a wise idea to play Clark or Collins as a holding midfielder. If we play 3 out of Ireland, Ash, DJ Stewey, Albrighton, sometimes all, then we're far, far too lightweight. Coker has done great, but even he will need help sometimes.
Saying that, I do feel it wasn't warranted in todays game. At least not with Sidwell playing too.
I don't really worry about Houlliers tactics really. I'm glad he's thinking and trying things out. But in fairness to him, our squad has a serious imbalance in the middle of the park. We're also struggling up front without Gabby.
GH has one arm tied behind his back to be fair to him. Roll on january.
-
I wasn't in the least impressed, playing for a draw from the start against that lot is pretty poor stuff. We saw in the last five minutes what would happen if we had a go at them.
-
His tactics is to get the team to pass the ball to each other. ...
The first 2 minutes of the game today was a sign that we're more than capable of putting some nice passes together.
And the other 88?
I'm not a knocker of what we're trying to do but the tactics were not good today. See my earlier comment (on page 1 of this thread).
-
Was I the only one who thought young Clark has the Gareth Barry about him (and I don't mean a fat arse).
-
In fairness Gabby was what injured for 5-6 games in 4 years under the previous manager. Under GH he's been injured for 4-5 games already. He's our best striker by a long way and we miss him badly.
Is it any surprise aswell that a team constructed to draw I think has drawn 16 times at home in the previous two seasons struggled to break down SHA today?
Only disappointment with GH today is he didn't bring on extra pace for the last ten minutes in terms of the Fonz as the long balls to Dann and Johnson to head away were easy for them.
Give GH time and judge him in a year. I expect us to have a much better second half of the season once he makes a few signings and we have more winnable home games.
-
He's playing the cards he was dealt. I really cannot believe how some people are just dying for the man to fall. I really hate this era of wanting everything now, and not being patient to see something built. We now have a manager with a proven track record of winning things wherever he has been, yet after a handful of games some people, given their far superior wisdom already have the knives out. As has been said by many rational people on here, he took over a team devoid of leadership and confidence and has asked them to do a lot of things that are different to the past 4 years. We have a coaching staff now who believe in playing the game on the ground, but it will take some time for those beliefs to bed in. The next number of months will reveal to them who can or cannot meet those basic tasks. Some will sink, others will swim. Those who can't play that will be replaced by those who can. It's quite simple if you think about it, and quite exciting thinking of the possibilities.
GH is going to make every player take a long hard look at themselves. Either you are with us, or you're not. And if you're not, then you're going to replaced. I firmly believe he has targets in mind of proven quality to make us significantly better than we are much sooner than many people might think.
-
I will give him time Paulie, but thats how I feel right now. I'm yet to be convinced otherwise. Just compare his results to what we achieved in the same fixtures last season. Then compare his results to the afore mentioned previous managers after the same amount of games. Why am I wrong to be concerned about this?
-
Was I the only one who thought young Clark has the Gareth Barry about him (and I don't mean a fat arse).
I said exactly the same. He was my MOTM, despite the fact that he shouldn't have been anywhere near the first 11. A pleasant surprise. He was the only midfielder who looked forward.
-
His tactics is to get the team to pass the ball to each other. ...
The first 2 minutes of the game today was a sign that we're more than capable of putting some nice passes together.
And the other 88?
I'm not a knocker of what we're trying to do but the tactics were not good today. See my earlier comment (on page 1 of this thread).
My point was that our players can pass the ball well and need to do it throughout a whole game, not in short spells (though not usually as short as today!).
-
I will give him time Paulie, but thats how I feel right now. I'm yet to be convinced otherwise. Just compare his results to what we achieved in the same fixtures last season. Then compare his results to the afore mentioned previous managers after the same amount of games. Why am I wrong to be concerned about this?
It's not about being wrong. If MON was still manager, then we might have expected similar results. However, that style of management and tactics can only take us so far. GH is in the process of changing tactics, the philosophy and mentality of the club. Last season it was the same 11 for most of the season. This season we have barely used the same 11 in consecutive games. Those squad players are being asked to step up. We know our regular first XI is quite good, but with Milner now departed it is weaker than last year. It means that the others have to start to prove themselves and fill the massive void. Add to that Gabby being injured almost all season, and you could argue to 2 of our most influential players from last season have played no part in our season. That's some big shoes to fill and losing two top players for any team is going to have an impact in addition to everything else that is going on at the club.
-
I will give him time Paulie, but thats how I feel right now. I'm yet to be convinced otherwise. Just compare his results to what we achieved in the same fixtures last season. Then compare his results to the afore mentioned previous managers after the same amount of games. Why am I wrong to be concerned about this?
It's a much poorer league this season outside the top 3. Liverpool are worse than last season, spending 300m makes you lose to Wolves and Spurs have lost to West Ham and Wigan already so I'd say finishing in the top 6 won't require as many points as last season.
If things don't pick up in the second half of the season I'd get worried as we have lots of winnable home games then.
-
Fair enough TV. I feel his tactics have been utter shite with the personnel he has at his disposal. I agree the pass and move mentallity is the way forward, but we are not going to get results while we have the existing players being asked to do things that they aren't capable of. As for playing no strikers against Burnley! O'Neill would have been hung out to dry had that have been him. In short I will give him time to build his team and play his way, but he needs to accept that the players he has are more influential playing a different style to what he wants. A master tactician uses the resources at his disposal to the best of their respective abilities. For me, Houllier is not doing this right now.
-
Fair enough TV. I feel his tactics have been utter shite with the personnel he has at his disposal. I agree the pass and move mentallity is the way forward, but we are not going to get results while we have the existing players being asked to do things that they aren't capable of. As for playing no strikers against Burnley! O'Neill would have been hung out to dry had that have been him. In short I will give him time to build his team and play his way, but he needs to accept that the players he has are more influential playing a different style to what he wants. A master tactician uses the resources at his disposal to the best of their respective abilities. For me, Houllier is not doing this right now.
not being funny but i have no idea what you are on about
-
I heard an interview with Luke Young today and he said that they were disappointed that they didn't play better football and felt that they had got dragged down into a derby style scrap. Overall the performance was poor by our standards but we should still have won it and had the much better chances.
A few people have had a go at Clarke's performance but I thought the guy did very well and looked the most composed of the midfielders. In my view Sidwell should have been off at half time and he's clearly off the pace and we would have been better off with Bannon or Ireland adding a bit of life to the midfield. Apart from that Houllier didn't have a lot to chose from the squad and at least tried something a bit more inventive by playing Clarke in that position, but what we really lacked today was moving the ball quickly which is what you need to do against a team of spoilers.
With a number of key personnel missing today (particularly Gabby and Petrov) we did OK against a very well organised Blues team. MON was very lucky with squad injuries during his tenure which may have hid (along with his appalling squad rotation) the lack of quality in depth he got for £120M.
I'm not as gloomy about the season as many people on H&V and still feel that we will do well when things settle down.
-
agree Jembob, and about Clarke, one of our better players today
-
I really hope that GH knows what he is doing with respect to Ireland. It appears that he "called him out" in the media as "not playing good enough". The question is: How will Ireland respond?
-
Fair enough TV. I feel his tactics have been utter shite with the personnel he has at his disposal. I agree the pass and move mentallity is the way forward, but we are not going to get results while we have the existing players being asked to do things that they aren't capable of. As for playing no strikers against Burnley! O'Neill would have been hung out to dry had that have been him. In short I will give him time to build his team and play his way, but he needs to accept that the players he has are more influential playing a different style to what he wants. A master tactician uses the resources at his disposal to the best of their respective abilities. For me, Houllier is not doing this right now.
not being funny but i have no idea what you are on about
Thanks for your contribution there Hawkeye.
-
Fair enough TV. I feel his tactics have been utter shite with the personnel he has at his disposal. I agree the pass and move mentallity is the way forward, but we are not going to get results while we have the existing players being asked to do things that they aren't capable of. As for playing no strikers against Burnley! O'Neill would have been hung out to dry had that have been him. In short I will give him time to build his team and play his way, but he needs to accept that the players he has are more influential playing a different style to what he wants. A master tactician uses the resources at his disposal to the best of their respective abilities. For me, Houllier is not doing this right now.
not being funny but i have no idea what you are on about
Thanks for your contribution there Hawkeye.
sorry mate i just dont understand
-
I've been very pleased with GH's tactics so far though I think he got it wrong today. Clark was inspired as the holding midfielder but we lacked any creativity forward of this as Downing and Young were both played wide and Blues easily cut off the supply lines from the limited NRC and Sidwell. As others have said if we get Ireland or Bannan on earlier we start to create problems like the last 20 minutes. I suppose the pleasing thing about today is GH changed his formation from 4-2-3-1 to 4-1-4-1 and whilst it didn't come off we never looked in serious trouble from them barring Dunne being levered off the ball by Jerome.
The other thing I noticed about ths game and the Chelsea game is that the opposition played their full backs extremely wide and advanced which seems to give space in behind them but results in our wingers having to track back. It seems to be an effective way of nullifying our threat, maybe a diamond with two up top would have worked better today. Ah what does it matter, we didn't have enough quality to win.
-
Perhaps you just don't agree rather than don't understand. I don't think I can make my view any clearer. I suppose I just don't think our players are capable of the pass and move style he wants to play, therefore to get results he needs to play to our strengths until January, otherwise we will continue to drop points.
-
Perhaps you just don't agree rather than don't understand. I don't think I can make my view any clearer. I suppose I just don't think our players are capable of the pass and move style he wants to play, therefore to get results he needs to play to our strengths until January, otherwise we will continue to drop points.
I think you're wrong. I think a lot of our players can play the pass and move style he wants, he just didn't have them available to him today.
-
I thought he got it badly wrong today I’m afraid.
I can accept Clarke being in there, but not alongside NRC and Sidwell. You need two of them with say Ireland supporting the front man. I was also aghast at how often they were able to double up on Warnock, with Young drifting central. We had zero width on the right until Bannan came on and Young went wider.
-
Perhaps you just don't agree rather than don't understand. I don't think I can make my view any clearer. I suppose I just don't think our players are capable of the pass and move style he wants to play, therefore to get results he needs to play to our strengths until January, otherwise we will continue to drop points.
today we went back to hoof it, it was only in the last 20 mins when we got the ball on the deck that we started to look dangerous, i think we will continue to drop points and the squad needs strengthening
-
Perhaps you just don't agree rather than don't understand. I don't think I can make my view any clearer. I suppose I just don't think our players are capable of the pass and move style he wants to play, therefore to get results he needs to play to our strengths until January, otherwise we will continue to drop points.
I think you're wrong. I think a lot of our players can play the pass and move style he wants, he just didn't have them available to him today.
Sorry, should have said the players available, rather than just players. He chose the starting line-up and sat on the bench all game whilst we were hoofing the ball up to the isolated Heskey. If the players were not moving the ball as instructed to do so, how come no member of the coaching team tried to correct it? It must have been his tactics however, that decided us to play the way we started.
At no point though Hawkeye, did I say that I felt our strengths were hoof it football, I would say our strengths were what nearly won us the game. My big problem is that it was only nearly, and had we played that way earlier in the game could have won it. So hence, he did not play to our strengths, and was more concerned about what blues could do to us, rather than focussing on what we know we can do.
-
Hard to assess GH reign so far but I will get my tuppence worth.
He took over an absolute shambles. It was clear from the conditioning of some of the players that pre season was a farce, one of our best players had left and been replaced with a player noone sanctioned it seems, the chairman had rightly tightened the budget and we had a lobsided aging squad. During KMc brief regime we looked like conceding regularly.
So to be fair he has tightened us up at the back. We will concede very few goals this season. Young and Beye have done well at right back. Dunne isnt quite back to his best but with Clark we have four really good options at centre half. He has had to look at our options in midfield, Reo Coker has improved but at home against limited opposition he is never going to shine, Sidwell a 5m signing has got a chance but is best in a destructive sense. Albrighton has been a plus but imo has a long way to go to. Downing has improved hugely not withstanding his awfulness today. Young has been hit and miss but still our only real player of genuine quality. With Gabby out there isnt a huge pile he can do upfront, Heskey has improved but he was shown up for what he is today I felt. Carew has been unfit and lazy. Ireland a huge disappointment but has got many chances too. Trying Clark in midfield today in a three was interesting, I thought he was the best of our 3 in there without excelling but it showed GH was open to trying new formations at least.
Not playing a striker against Burnley was a brainfart. Apart from that, I think he has done ok with the resources at his disposal. Add an inform Gabby, Delph and a couple of players in Jan into the mix and I think we will still have a good season. By January he will have had a really good look at all players, both old and young and have a good idea what players he needs to try and ship out and players to bring in. To be honest, I think Randy Lerner needs to make a big statement in January and splash out on a player that will excite us again. A really good centre midfielder is hard to find, one comfortable on the ball, we are fine without the ball all players work hard etc but someone who is comfortable to pick up the ball and distribute it is what we really lack.
-
Glasses i agree with your analisys and he could have changed it earlier, i have no idea if A Young was supposed to come inside to little effect and leaving Warnock exposed down the left, Downing to play next to LYoung, which meant thier fullbacks were not troubled and able to push on to ours UTV
-
brontebilly we have Ireland but it looks like he is a long way short of starting
-
brontebilly we have Ireland but it looks like he is a long way short of starting
A long way off due to lack of fitness or Manager's preference ??
-
I've been very pleased with GH's tactics so far though I think he got it wrong today. Clark was inspired as the holding midfielder but we lacked any creativity forward of this as Downing and Young were both played wide and Blues easily cut off the supply lines from the limited NRC and Sidwell. As others have said if we get Ireland or Bannan on earlier we start to create problems like the last 20 minutes. I suppose the pleasing thing about today is GH changed his formation from 4-2-3-1 to 4-1-4-1 and whilst it didn't come off we never looked in serious trouble from them barring Dunne being levered off the ball by Jerome.
The other thing I noticed about ths game and the Chelsea game is that the opposition played their full backs extremely wide and advanced which seems to give space in behind them but results in our wingers having to track back. It seems to be an effective way of nullifying our threat, maybe a diamond with two up top would have worked better today. Ah what does it matter, we didn't have enough quality to win.
I agree.
We did play much better in the second-half though and I liked how Houllier changed his tactics and making a couple of good subs in Bannan and Carew. I just watched the 2nd half highlights, and yes I know they're called 'highlights' even from today's match, but we could/should of won with our performance in the second half with the chances we made. Reflecting on it, we completely outplayed them in the second-half having all the posession and making a few chances that could of gone in - all they did is take advantage of a Dunne cock up.
-
brontebilly we have Ireland but it looks like he is a long way short of starting
thought Houllier's quotes about that insufferable idiot were spot on after the game. If he gets his head right and stops acting like a coward on the pitch then he could have a huge future. But his performances have been so diabolical thus far, we have tried to play him into form and it hasnt worked so maybe the stick approach will be better. At his best, he could have provided us with so much today. A three man midfield it was set up for him but due to his sheer ineptitude we had to try a young centre half - Clark and a Scottish u21 player Bannan to provide some creativity. Instead of waiting for GH to create a role for him, Ireland needs to make a role for himself either wide or in the centre.
-
Gerard's tactics.
in short.
Were shite.
-
We mustn't forget that when we signed Sidwell we thought we were getting a midfielder who would get forward to support the striker. Add into this NRC's box-to-box drive and fitness and that was a midfield which, while lacking in creativity from the centre (MON's fault, certainly, not GH's), could get forward to support Heskey and the wide forwards IF NRC and Clark had been more decisive with the passing and movement in the middle third. The fact that they weren't is stark - and Bannan really impressed me when he came on, really adding creativity - but in derby game, the one quality you need above all else is solidity. GH knows this - he's now not lost in 14 derbies - and made the right decision in not playing Ireland in my view.
Also there's been a lot of guff about not playing two strikers being "negative". If we'd have played two strikers we'd have ceded the midfield entirely and only been able to play on the counter - in short, a MON away game. How's that for negative.
-
Also there's been a lot of guff about not playing two strikers being "negative". If we'd have played two strikers we'd have ceded the midfield entirely and only been able to play on the counter - in short, a MON away game. How's that for negative.
Well away from home under MON was generally more entertaining/ positive than at home, but agree with the first part.
-
Also there's been a lot of guff about not playing two strikers being "negative". If we'd have played two strikers we'd have ceded the midfield entirely and only been able to play on the counter - in short, a MON away game. How's that for negative.
That's only half the story though. Playing one up front is the current fashion and plenty of good teams have won things with that formation. The point though is that if you're going to play one up front you've got to support him. Where GH got it wrong was by playing one up front and then sticking two defensive midfielders and a centre-half behind him. Even that could have been saved though if he'd told Ash and Downing to push right on to support Heskey.
But instead, they played their normal roles in midfield, the centre-mids sat on the defenses toes and we either hammered long balls up to a lone Heskey or Heskey dropped deep to stand a chance and left no one in an attacking position whatsoever.
Poor tactics for a home game against a worse team.
-
Playing on the break with pace isn't negative, only getting 1 or 2 players ahead of the ball is negative.
Houllier might be making us solid but that wasn't where our problem was, our defence was pretty good last season, it is that creativity around the box we need, which is a bit trickier to coach, and needs a manager to take a few risks.
-
Adam, like I said, the midfield could have been a more positive one had we played better. We've lost our best ball-player in deep midfield in Petrov, and MON's distrust of style and technique is being shown up in our squad options. With Albrighton out, the other option would have been to play either Bannan, who did well when he came on but you'd worry for his ability to impose himself from the start at his age, and Ireland, whose problems are well documented.
Either way, it's no vindication of playing two up front because of the problems with that system I mentioned above. A 4-3-3 can be negative, but a 4-4-2 these days almost automatically means being either negative or direct, neither of which would be particularly effective at home against Blues. Also, playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics, surely, because to do it effectively you have to get men behind the ball, thus becoming negative.
-
GH didn't do a lot wrong yesterday tactically IMO. He knew Blues would pack the midfield and try to stifle the game and a lot of us had talked in the week about needing to beef up the midfield - some even suggested Collins as defensive central midfielder. That he went for Clark in that role surprised me, but it made sense in hindsight. He's good on the ball, technically sound. So, that worked. Personally, with Clark in that anchor role I think he could have been slightly riskier and gone for Ireland over Sidwell...
Then he switched things around later on to try and win the game - Bannan nearly did it, and then Carew nearly set Clark up for the winner. We finished 4-4-2 with Downing and Young flanking Bannan and Clark in midfield and the two big men up front, which is hardly negative. Not overly concerned at this stage, though we do badly miss Gabby.
-
Also, playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics, surely, because to do it effectively you have to get men behind the ball, thus becoming negative.
In general, yes.
But the Nottingham Forest teams of mid 80's to early 90's were an attractive counter attacking side and Arsenal early to mid noughties were as entertaining a side as I've ever seen - suck teams in and hit them with pace as Henry, Cole, Perez all hared forward. To the point that you almost wouldn't want to gain a corner against them for fear of being torn apart on the counter.
It's a method that -when used properly- has plenty of merit. In purely simplistic terms, when done right there is more space to exploit in the opposition half and it opens the game up. We played a more agricultural version of it than Arsenal, but at our most effective -between say Nov 2007 - Feb 2009 teams and opposition supporters alike were wary of us.
I recall a number of games v Blackburn, Pompey and Sunderland away when there were audible groans from the home fans when either Gabby or Ash got the ball in space -as if they expected a goal to inevitably follow.
Our major falling was not building on that. Both in the shape of getting even better personnel to play that system and not having players patient enough to keep possession better -particularly at home. That might sound a contradiction -why would you need to be good in possession and keeping the ball if you're only focus is to attack at full pelt when the opposition surrender the ball. But you need to have more than just a handful of players technically competent -or else the ball just keeps on going straight back to the opposition or out of play. As we witnessed countless times.
-
There is nothing at all wrong with being good on the counter - indeed, in today's game it's a crucial weapon to have in your arsenal. The point is, though, that all those teams that you've mentioned (apart from us) were also capable of plan A: control the game, keep possession and break teams down. The point with tactics being negative is that they rely on the opposition to do something, and if the opposition don't do what you want them to do, you're screwed. This is exactly what happened to us under MON - teams no longer attacked us but sat back, waiting for us to inevitably give the ball away and for them to break. If you play on the front foot, you have to be able to keep the ball in midfield, and to do that these days you really need three players in there, even if one of those three is a second striker dropping deep.
-
Agreed Monts.
I just didn't agree with you earlier assertion that playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics. It clearly isn't.
-
Agreed Monts.
I just didn't agree with you earlier assertion that playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics. It clearly isn't.
I'll clarify, I think. It's clearly not a negative thing to, if you go a goal up, sit back a bit and exploit space on the counter as the opposition come forward looking for an equaliser. It is, however, negative to go into a game and play this way from the beginning, as it is relying on the opposition making mistakes.
-
Sitting back after going a goal up is one thing, sitting back before kick off is another.
When your striker is Emile Hesley you need goal threats from elsewhere in the team, I can't see where the goals are going to come from the way we set up yesterday, especially as the set piece goals have dried up, must be all that practice they are doing.
-
When your striker is Emile Hesley you need goal threats from elsewhere in the team, I can't see where the goals are going to come from the way we set up yesterday, especially as the set piece goals have dried up, must be all that practice they are doing.
Like I say, we shouldn't forget that when we signed Sidwell we thought we were getting a goal-scoring midfielder. The fact that he didn't get forward yesterday was indicative of how few ideas we had in deep midfield, but in a derby game I can see why he would select players who he knew for sure would work hard and hold their own defensively. I'm not trying to argue that he was particularly bold in his team selection, but I can see why he did what he did and, anyway, I don't think he was necessarily quite as negative as some have been saying.
-
To get the most of Sidwell, who can still be a useful player for us, he needs to be allowed the freedom to into the box and ahead of the play at times.
The midfield 5 yesterday very rarely ventured forward to link with Emile, playing Clark holding could be a good tactic if it allowed the others chance to bomb on, what worried me yesterday was how narrow Downing and Young played, if we worry about a functional team like Blues I fear for Gerard's sanity when we play the decent sides.
-
Agreed Monts.
I just didn't agree with you earlier assertion that playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics. It clearly isn't.
I'll clarify, I think. It's clearly not a negative thing to, if you go a goal up, sit back a bit and exploit space on the counter as the opposition come forward looking for an equaliser. It is, however, negative to go into a game and play this way from the beginning, as it is relying on the opposition making mistakes.
Negative to me would be the Italian way of playing -setting teams up first of all not to lose and anything after that is a bonus.
Playing on the counter, even from 0-0 is not necessarily negative.
Not an identical comparison, but a counter punching boxer is not seen as negative. He's seen as smart, exploiting the other guys weakness and picking his shots accordingly. Whereas the come forward slugger, walking onto jabs is seen as the more suspect.
-
He was hamstrung by absentees. With Petrov injured, we'd lost our best technical deep midfielder, and with Delph injured our best all-rounder. Add into this the absence of Albrighton and it's clear we had to make do as best we could, and his choice was between an inexperienced Bannan who might have been destroyed by starting in such a competitive game or Ireland whose problems are well-documented, and the vaguely competent but limited Sidwell who, if he had a good game, would have provided some impetus in the final third. He erred on the right side for me, especially when you consider the introduction of Bannan which was at the right time and had an impact on the game (what a change from under MON!).
Also, you mention the decent sides, but don't forget that we've already played the best team in the country, Chelsea, and played pretty adventurously when we could. We were penned back in the second half, but that's because they're the best team in the country, not because of GH's tactics.
KG, that is the Italian way of playing. Catenaccio was as much about counter-attacks as it was about defending deep and in numbers.
-
Catenaccio probably should have been like that, it's probably what Helenio Herrera envisaged at the time.
The reality was that when it became widespread and other sides imitated it, they got the defensive part down but largely forgot about the attacking part.
Hence, attritional safety first football with zero risks and close to zero entertainment.
-
clean sheet is a good stat finally. Although Brum never really looked like scoring. Injuries are taking a big role in our play. We played well enough to score against Chelsea, we played attacking football at Spurs and I think we were unlucky at Sunderland. Derby's remain tough to rise above the competition, and I think its tough to make a call on that game with the absentees as well. At least Brum didnt play right through our midfield like a lot of teams have over the recent 6 months. Sidwell is veracious and hungry. Coker is improving, but needs to grow up a bit, and use his head. He likes running into trouble. My biggest disappointment was bringing on Carew. He has shown little for months. At least the Fonz's pace asks different questions.
-
Personally, I'd have taken 0-0 before the game, and that is the scoreline I thought we'd end up with.
We'd had a difficult 2 hour match 3 days before, we're struggling to find the net, they're hard to beat, it's their cup final so they lift their game etc etc.
-
This is a season of transition, very much like O'Neill's first one where we finished 11th, patience is required until Gerard can bring some players in and stamp his mark on the team.
-
I think people are underestimating the loss of Gabby to the side. He gets slagged but he is our main goal threat and we have missed him no doubt about it.
On the negative side, I have to draw a comparison with MO'N and GH . In the game at the Sty a year or so ago, MO'N bought on Carew after 70 minutes and it turned the game - that was someone going out to win the match. If GH had been in the same position, he would no doubt have been bringing on someone with a view to not losing the game. That is a notable difference.
-
I think people are underestimating the loss of Gabby to the side. He gets slagged but he is our main goal threat and we have missed him no doubt about it.
On the negative side, I have to draw a comparison with MO'N and GH . In the game at the Sty a year or so ago, MO'N bought on Carew after 70 minutes and it turned the game - that was someone going out to win the match. If GH had been in the same position, he would no doubt have been bringing on someone with a view to not losing the game. That is a notable difference.
I would'nt say Gabby is our main goal threat, but we have missed his pace badly.
-
I don't think you've taken into account time and how different Carew is now from 12 months ago. He offers nothing, so bringing him on these days is a liability.
You’re right about Gabby and what he brings to the table. It will be a different game at the Sty with him leading the line and Albrighton out on the right!
-
Fingers crossed.
It says a lot about how far Albrighton has progressed that we missed him badly yesterday.
He's pretty much been at the heart of most of the good things we've done this season - even if he does tend to fade in the second half.
-
We have a serious goal scoring problem so it was imperative we didn't concede. A single goal from them would probably have won them the game.
-
We also haven't done the business from set pieces ie scoring from corners and free kick enough that make the different between us now and 2 season ago. We still have not find a replacement for the Great Dane Martin Laursen and our team is lacking one important ingredient - Viking Spirit (See Martin Laursen / Olof Mellberg) Shame John Carew doesn't have it. His DNA didn't pick Viking Spirit from his Norwegian parent.
-
Catenaccio probably should have been like that, it's probably what Helenio Herrera envisaged at the time.
The reality was that when it became widespread and other sides imitated it, they got the defensive part down but largely forgot about the attacking part.
Hence, attritional safety first football with zero risks and close to zero entertainment.
Well, that's what Herrera says anyway. He always went on about Facchetti being an attacking full-back, making his system less defensive. Unfortunately Inter became a parody of themselves, and the imitators a parody of that.
It's actually a good point about the attacking full-back, because at the moment we're severely lacking in an attacking sense down our right full-back side. I'm not Luke Young's biggest fan, but he does at least get forward (not always to any great success, but he does get forward). Warnock can but has been out of sorts this season, though he's improving. The full-back who is good on the ball is a crucial part of either successful counter-attack systems, where he joins the attack late making a spare man, or the possession-based football which I'd favour, because teams will try and press the ball to your weakest area of the field, as happened to us with Carlos at right back far too often.
-
I don't really see too much wrong with his tactics yesterday.
Personally, I thought the decision to play Clark in midfield was inspired and most people I've spoken to agreed with me when I said he was our best player. So I really don't get what people are saying there.
I was not happy that Sidwell played as he is not good enough but we were limited by our other options. Ireland has been poor ever time he's played and I think GHou is right when he says that he lacks the form and mental toughness.
A further key point is the way Blues played. If we were negative then fuck knows what they were. We had very little chance with how resolute and organized they were in defence. This limited us a lot I felt.
We are also missing our best central midfielder, our best striker and our best wide player. This would be impossible for most teams to get through and that is before you think about what Houllier has inherited. Our starting line up yesterday was so poor due to these injuries that the journalist in the Times suggested that Gardner would walk into our team. I agree and that is how bad we are on injuries and form.
Further, we were badly let down by some senior players yesterday. A Reo-Coker who was spoling for a fight from an off and an Ashley Young who seems determined to make the wrong choice on the ball whenever he has it.
It is for me ludicrous that we are calling for the man's head 5 league games into his career. 5 GAMES! If we'd lost them all 6-0 or even one of them 6-0 then I'd understand. Christ, it's beyond ludicrous. Lets look at it after 10, 15 games... See where we are and how we've done at Christmas. The man has come into an intolerable situation with a small, clearly unfit squad with some players who most definitely should have no future at the club and will need time to rectify it.
-
Well said that ^^^^ man.
-
well said Sandman
-
Good point by Gerard as well - we played for 20 hard minutes on Wednesday with ten men.
-
and blues went to penalties on tuesday. I'm glad we didn't lose but we've got to start picking up some points soon.
-
I'm sorry Sandman but I don't agree with a few things you've said there.
We are also missing our best central midfielder, our best striker and our best wide player
I assume you are suggesting these are Petrov/Delph, Gabby, and Albrighton?! I'll agree on Gabby but I think our best centre mid and winger is Ash. He was poor on Sunday but then he didn't really get much space because he was stuck in the midfield melee with the majority of other players on the pitch! I'm not Downing's biggest fan either but I think he's more of an asset than Albrighton at the moment - Marc's had a few good games but he still goes missing in the second half as he gets tired. That's not a criticism but we need to appreciate he's still young and is nowhere near the finished article. Stan's frailties are well documented and we've seen so little of Delph (albeit what we have seen has been promising) that you could never class him as our best centre-mid.
It is for me ludicrous that we are calling for the man's head 5 league games into his career. 5 GAMES! If we'd lost them all 6-0 or even one of them 6-0 then I'd understand. Christ, it's beyond ludicrous.
Who's calling for his head? I certainly wasn't. I just raised a concern about the recent tactics of a manager with form for being defensive and who sent a team out on Sunday, at home, against a poor side with the primary objective of not losing. There are plenty of people on here who found MON's tactics dull. I wasn't one of them, but I dread to think what they will make of GH's if his default position is to not lose.
As I said before, we've scored 6 goals in our last 9 league games and we're only just off being the lowest scoring team in the division. Playing one up front is fine as long as that one is supported. On Sunday GH sent out three very defensively minded centre-mids and then didn't appear to tell Ash and Downing to push on to support Ivanhoe. As a result we created hardly any chances - this is more to do with our set up than the Blues' set up and is the main reason we didn't score.
-
On Petrov I wouldn't say he's the greatest player but in terms of being an all round midfielder who can pass or tackle he is better than anything else we have. Our central midfield is terrible with two limited players in NRC and Petrov being the pick. It is less who is the best but who is least bad.
I'll agree on Albrighton but he has been our most exciting player this season in my view and in how he has done so far he was a big loss on Sunday. The irony is, had he not been suspended we'd not have seen the three defensive midfielders. Ireland hasn't quite excelled yet so that might be why he didn't play (though Sidwell has excelled less...). If Petrov had been fit we probably wouldn't be seeing Clark in midfield.
I didn't specifically see your original post as calling for his head but others were more extreme in their points than yourself. I'm not going to trawl through this thread to find them but this post on the pre-Fulham thread kind of shows my point.
Well, as our manager believes we are a 8-12th placed club that are not good enough to attack I expect to lose 2-0. Whats more I expect to lose every game (or draw 0-0) until GH buggers off or he starts to play positive football.
I think if we are seeing negative tactics in a few months then we will have a lot of cause to complain but it's too early and with too many important players missing to make a call.
-
Good point by Gerard as well - we played for 20 hard minutes on Wednesday with ten men.
These aren't pub team players but primed athletes. They can quite easily play 120 minutes on a Wednesday and then do it again on a Sunday. No excuses. I can never understand it when managers use that nonsense to explain a negative attitude and a poor performance.
Say what you like about what we had available but knowing how the Shit were going to set themselves up for the game questions why we felt the need for playing a 4-5-1, or 4-4-1-1 formation. If we are going to put Clark in the middle in the holding role then there is no place for Reo-Coker. Why not either try Ireland and give him free licence to get at them, or even Downing and play Young/Hesley as a two up front.
it smacks of not wanting to lose first rather than wanting to win.
-
Good point by Gerard as well - we played for 20 hard minutes on Wednesday with ten men.
These aren't pub team players but primed athletes. They can quite easily play 120 minutes on a Wednesday and then do it again on a Sunday. No excuses. I can never understand it when managers use that nonsense to explain a negative attitude and a poor performance.
The thing is though Peter, they are playing against other primed athletes and not pub players. It would be an excuse and not a reason if they actually played against pub players and were knackered.
-
You can get away with 99% fitness for a pub team. Try that in the Premier League and you'll get battered.
-
They play every weekend with the odd midweek game thrown in. They will also train after that. They have no problem in competing at the highhest level for an hour and a half/ 2 hours every week more than once a week. To suggest otherwise is giving players and managers excuses that they don't need, or hide behind, because of a poor result, or tactics.
Players are 100% fit (usually) before every game, and could play a lot more if they needed to.
-
They play every weekend with the odd midweek game thrown in. They will also train after that. They have no problem in competing at the highhest level for an hour and a half/ 2 hours every week more than once a week. To suggest otherwise is giving players and managers excuses that they don't need, or hide behind, because of a poor result, or tactics.
Players are 100% fit (usually) before every game, and could play a lot more if they needed to.
Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true.
-
They play every weekend with the odd midweek game thrown in. They will also train after that. They have no problem in competing at the highhest level for an hour and a half/ 2 hours every week more than once a week. To suggest otherwise is giving players and managers excuses that they don't need, or hide behind, because of a poor result, or tactics.
Players are 100% fit (usually) before every game, and could play a lot more if they needed to.
Just because you say so doesn't mean it's true.
Not sure what you're trying to get at here, as I could say the same about your point.
I've played to a level where I've been very fit and could play more than twice a week and that was a lot lower than the Prem. International level sees players at an even higher fitness level. The fitness levels of the Conference player's standard is frightening. I once trained with the first team at Stafford Rangers and was absolutely bollocksed, and I know that that was nowhere near the fitness levels of Pros in the top flight.
The human body can do a lot more than top-flight players have asked of them. Over a 9 month period this will of course take its toll and players will need a good rest after that. But expecting these highly-trained, extremely fit, top athletes to play 2 hours of football on a Wednesday, and then be expected to be on the ball the following Sunday is far from being beyond what their bodies are capable of. As I said, anything else is just an excuse.
-
And as I said before, there's a difference between what anyone else would call fit, and the extra edge that provides the difference between winning and losing at the top level in any sport. It's not about excuses, it's a fact. Otherwise the same eleven players would be in the team for 90 minutes every match.
-
And as I said before, there's a difference between what anyone else would call fit, and the extra edge that provides the difference between winning and losing at the top level in any sport. It's not about excuses, it's a fact. Otherwise the same eleven players would be in the team for 90 minutes every match.
It worked in 1980/81...
;o)
-
Players are 100% fit (usually) before every game, and could play a lot more if they needed to.
You'd be amazed how many aren't.
Not because they've ate too many pies or sunk too many pints at the Dog & Duck the night before though. Players at any level of professional sport with money and jobs riding on their contribution will often be asked to play even when only 70/80 per cent fit.
See Rooney from last April onwards and even our own Dickie Dunne this season. Though in the latter case I could well imagine he's no stranger to pies and pints. It's probably his pre match routine, the big bloater.
Anytime you hear about a player passing a fitness test on the day of the game you can be pretty certain he isn't 100% fit.
-
And as I said before, there's a difference between what anyone else would call fit, and the extra edge that provides the difference between winning and losing at the top level in any sport. It's not about excuses, it's a fact. Otherwise the same eleven players would be in the team for 90 minutes every match.
And I could say just because you say so doesn't mean its true.
But the other factors to add in are motivation. If a player is less than 100% fit - and yes that does happen - motivation and adrenalin will make up for any shortfall. Also, a player doesn't need to be 100% fit to be able to contribute fully although it can affect his performance by the next game. What is most important, and how you measure their fitness levels is how quickly they recover. For the game last Sunday we are expected to believe that enough of the team went into the game less than 100% fit. For that to be so then they're either cheating the club, not doing the required fitness work up to now, or don't have the motivation to go out and do their job fully.
I fully take the point that being at the top of their profession means that if they aren't at the peak of their fitness can have an adverse effect on a performance. But that's over a period of time. Not after a 2 hour shift, and a good 3 day rest before the next game.
-
It isn't me that's saying it, it's Gerard Houllier.
-
What is 100% fit? I don't think in reality there is such a distinct mark, as though a player gets to a certain level and then the management tick a box and say "congratualtions, your a 100% fit."
The whole argument about them being professional athletes is also a slight misnomer, whatever a player's level of fitness you would ask them to go out and give it their all in a game, to push themselves to their maximum limit. If you push your body to the limit, wherever that limit might be, it's going to take it's toll on your body and you are going to need time to recover. Three days isn't necessarily that long to recover if you really push yourself hard, on occassion i've drank too much energy drink at the gym and gone crazy with intense two hour training sessions, i've still been aching 5 days later.
-
What is 100% fit?
(http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/caroline_wozniacki1.jpg)
-
It isn't me that's saying it, it's Gerard Houllier.
And I fundamentally disagree with him. I'd have taken it more seriously if he had come out and said he played a horses for courses type team and didn't want to lose his first derby, or just the game in general, rather than risking it with what he thought may be an inferior team. (Don't say the inferior team bit though) as blaming match fitness is bollocks, especially as our rivals had played even longer.