Is this what transition looks like?

[Dante Lavelli]

It's not been nice, but it's nowhere like Stoke under Pulis. How many opponents have moaned about the way we play for throw ins, intimidate the officials and mass-foul?

This is the point. We may have approached Pulis' Stoke in ugliness terms, but 1) we've got there by accident not design, and 2) we're not thuggish to the point of evil.

This is the slightly weird thing.  I don't think we want to be playing such fidgid/direct football.  If that was the case we'd have plans when we get a throw in for example.  Or the team would collectively anticipate Guzan's punts and leg it out of defence to compress the play.  Furthermore we'd push men forward to increase the chance of us winning second balls from crosses/throw in/punts etc.  None of this happens.  Right now these long balls seem to be happening in isolation from typical Charles Hughes type tactics.

[not3bad]

It's not been nice, but it's nowhere like Stoke under Pulis. How many opponents have moaned about the way we play for throw ins, intimidate the officials and mass-foul?

This is the point. We may have approached Pulis' Stoke in ugliness terms, but 1) we've got there by accident not design, and 2) we're not thuggish to the point of evil.

This is the slightly weird thing.  I don't think we want to be playing such fidgid/direct football.  If that was the case we'd have plans when we get a throw in for example.  Or the team would collectively anticipate Guzan's punts and leg it out of defence to compress the play.  Furthermore we'd push men forward to increase the chance of us winning second balls from crosses/throw in/punts etc.  None of this happens.  Right now these long balls seem to be happening in isolation from typical Charles Hughes type tactics.

Don't forget the times when we do try and play it from the back and usually spend end up passing the ball sideways for what seems like ages because nobody seems to know what to do next before the ball goes back to Guzan. A no. 10 would (hopefully) improve this situation.

[Chris Smith]

It's not been nice, but it's nowhere like Stoke under Pulis. How many opponents have moaned about the way we play for throw ins, intimidate the officials and mass-foul?

This is the point. We may have approached Pulis' Stoke in ugliness terms, but 1) we've got there by accident not design, and 2) we're not thuggish to the point of evil.

This is the slightly weird thing.  I don't think we want to be playing such fidgid/direct football.  If that was the case we'd have plans when we get a throw in for example.  Or the team would collectively anticipate Guzan's punts and leg it out of defence to compress the play.  Furthermore we'd push men forward to increase the chance of us winning second balls from crosses/throw in/punts etc.  None of this happens.  Right now these long balls seem to be happening in isolation from typical Charles Hughes type tactics.

I also think the 'long ball' thing has been exaggerated by a few. We do try to play but we quickly run out of ideas against sides that pack the midfield and make it difficult to find space, particularly at home.

What invariably happens is we start off trying to do the right thing then, when we fail to score, the crowd becomes impatient and players take the easy option.

[ChicagoLion]

I don't think we are anything like Sturk. We have plan A which is counter attack, this works when we press and win the ball early and are able to spring attacks with pace.

When we don't we just play square or backward passes which often ends up with a hoof or misplaced pass.

The movement off the ball seems to be the real problem and the ability to pick the pass quickly.

The first half against Liverpool showed that we can play.

[villa kicks]

I saw the title of the thread wondered but alas i was wrong...Not a sex change thread then ..
Fuckers !

[Monty]

It's not been nice, but it's nowhere like Stoke under Pulis. How many opponents have moaned about the way we play for throw ins, intimidate the officials and mass-foul?

This is the point. We may have approached Pulis' Stoke in ugliness terms, but 1) we've got there by accident not design, and 2) we're not thuggish to the point of evil.

This is the slightly weird thing.  I don't think we want to be playing such fidgid/direct football.  If that was the case we'd have plans when we get a throw in for example.  Or the team would collectively anticipate Guzan's punts and leg it out of defence to compress the play.  Furthermore we'd push men forward to increase the chance of us winning second balls from crosses/throw in/punts etc.  None of this happens.  Right now these long balls seem to be happening in isolation from typical Charles Hughes type tactics.

I also think the 'long ball' thing has been exaggerated by a few. We do try to play but we quickly run out of ideas against sides that pack the midfield and make it difficult to find space, particularly at home.

What invariably happens is we start off trying to do the right thing then, when we fail to score, the crowd becomes impatient and players take the easy option.

The stats don't say it's exaggerated - we've played the second highest number of long balls in the league this season and the third fewest short passes (an important statistic, because Southampton marginally beat us on long balls played but have also played the 5th most short passes, suggesting that their long passes aren't so much of the 'aimless hoof' type). I grant you that it's probably because they run out of ideas very quickly, but that doesn't reflect well on the manager either - his job is to try and train them to play as a team and stop them resorting to the hoof so quickly.

[Dave Cooper please]

I saw the title of the thread wondered but alas i was wrong...Not a sex change thread then ..
Fuckers !

Feel free to start one if you have something to tell us.

[Legion]

I saw the title of the thread wondered but alas i was wrong...Not a sex change thread then ..
Fuckers !

Eh?

[SoccerHQ]

I'm pretty sure even at their anti football worst Stoke under Pulis had higher possession than 25% or whatever it was v Southampton/Swansea.

[KevinGage]

I saw the title of the thread wondered but alas i was wrong...Not a sex change thread then ..
Fuckers !

I think VK has a confession. 

[Monty]

I'm pretty sure even at their anti football worst Stoke under Pulis had higher possession than 25% or whatever it was v Southampton/Swansea.

Indeed. Their tactics were very specifically long-ball - ours are more muddled, unclear, indeterminate. It's not necessarily the plan to play like that, it's just the result of incompetence from everyone, and the manager cannot be excluded from that.

[LeeB]

I'm pretty sure even at their anti football worst Stoke under Pulis had higher possession than 25% or whatever it was v Southampton/Swansea.

Indeed. Their tactics were very specifically long-ball - ours are more muddled, unclear, indeterminate. It's not necessarily the plan to play like that, it's just the result of incompetence from everyone, and the manager cannot be excluded from that.

Good job we won then.

[Monty]

I'm pretty sure even at their anti football worst Stoke under Pulis had higher possession than 25% or whatever it was v Southampton/Swansea.

Indeed. Their tactics were very specifically long-ball - ours are more muddled, unclear, indeterminate. It's not necessarily the plan to play like that, it's just the result of incompetence from everyone, and the manager cannot be excluded from that.

Good job we won then.

Fair enough, the Southampton game was a fine counterrattacking performance, but Swansea was a really dreadful performance where we lucky not to lose.

[Legion]

Three attacks, three goals.

[Monty]

Three attacks, three goals.

It was immensely effective. Sadly, most of our other performances are hardly at a rate of a goal per every attack.