|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 8:14:23 GMT
Same team with Arnie in for Walters. Same team.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 31, 2014 8:20:16 GMT
Same team with Arnie in for Walters. Why? Arnie doesn't deserve a start and Walters doesn't deserve to get dropped. Because playing Leicester at home is different to playing Man City away and the focus is on us to break them down rather than spending long spells without the ball and having an all hands on deck defensive effort?
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 31, 2014 8:23:17 GMT
Why? Arnie doesn't deserve a start and Walters doesn't deserve to get dropped. Because playing Leicester at home is different to playing Man City away and the focus is on us to break them down rather than spending long spells without the ball and having an all hands on deck defensive effort? Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 31, 2014 8:25:41 GMT
Because playing Leicester at home is different to playing Man City away and the focus is on us to break them down rather than spending long spells without the ball and having an all hands on deck defensive effort? Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said. It's horses for courses surely? You have to make difficult decisions sometimes and his skill set isn't suited to what we need to do in that game. We'll need more creativity because they'll pack the defence. As a Walters fan I don't quite get the love in for him yesterday. Ran his bollocks off but dreadful on the ball and lost his man a couple of times at the back.
|
|
|
Post by kurt on Aug 31, 2014 9:07:53 GMT
Arnautovics absence today showed what an expensive luxury he is in the team and how much better we looked without him. Yes...As Walters biggest critic he showed what he can provide to the team with his defensive ability and covering back. I'm not sure Arnautovic is going to see as much first team action as some may have thought. On today's performance perhaps that may be a good thing. Thought Crouch was excellent too .... You definitely miss no chance to downgrade Arni. He had a bad start in the new season, who cares? If you already have forgotten his many good performances in the second half of the previous season, than it´s your problem. We should be very glad, that Stoke has so many offensiv options this season. Arni deserved the bench yesterday, undoubtedly, but he will surely be of value in course of the season, believe me. Hope he has a good performance in the national squad against Sweden.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 9:21:33 GMT
Arnautovics absence today showed what an expensive luxury he is in the team and how much better we looked without him. Yes...As Walters biggest critic he showed what he can provide to the team with his defensive ability and covering back. I'm not sure Arnautovic is going to see as much first team action as some may have thought. On today's performance perhaps that may be a good thing. Thought Crouch was excellent too .... You definitely miss no chance to downgrade Arni. He had a bad start in the new season, who cares? If you already have forgotten his many good performances in the second half of the previous season, than it´s your problem. We should be very glad, that Stoke has so many offensiv options this season. Arni deserved the bench yesterday, undoubtedly, but he will surely be of value in course of the season, believe me. Hope he has a good performance in the national squad against Sweden. On the contrary ....I have always maintained that Arnautovic is one of our most skillful players . I still do....I have said this all along. But , unfortunately some peoples basic understanding of comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Some posters just want a slanging match because they have nothing better to do with themselves. I also think that he is a player who is best suited on the bench at the moment for the good of the team.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Aug 31, 2014 9:22:49 GMT
Because playing Leicester at home is different to playing Man City away and the focus is on us to break them down rather than spending long spells without the ball and having an all hands on deck defensive effort? Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said. Come on boskamps use some common sense mate. As Rob says you can't possibly approach Leicester in the same way as you approach Man City. We know what Walters is about...breaking teams down with skill and creativity isn't him. Had Walters not been replaced by Odemwingie do you think we would have won yesterday? Odemwingie changed the game for us in attacking sense. Do we know if this change was tactical or due to injury? Either way it worked and highlights that away against the big teams Walters is an effective defensive option to keep the score at 0-0 but why would we need this against Leicester? (Unless we are holding on to a lead). I'd also consider showing Arnie a bit more respect. He was outstanding for us for the second part of last season. Suddenly Walters is great and Arnie is shit.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 9:24:55 GMT
Because playing Leicester at home is different to playing Man City away and the focus is on us to break them down rather than spending long spells without the ball and having an all hands on deck defensive effort? Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said. Exactly. Play for the shirt.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 9:28:57 GMT
Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said. Come on boskamps use some common sense mate. As Rob says you can't possibly approach Leicester in the same way as you approach Man City. We know what Walters is about...breaking teams down with skill and creativity isn't him. Had Walters not been replaced by Odemwingie do you think we would have won yesterday? Odemwingie changed the game for us in attacking sense. Do we know if this change was tactical or due to injury? Either way it worked and highlights that away against the big teams Walters is an effective defensive option to keep the score at 0-0 but why would we need this against Leicester? (Unless we are holding on to a lead). I'd also consider showing Arnie a bit more respect. He was outstanding for us for the second part of last season. Suddenly Walters is great and Arnie is shit. Yes...I agree. I've been trying very hard to explain this simple point to others on here with little success. They are two very different players that should be used for different purposes and teams.
|
|
|
Post by kurt on Aug 31, 2014 9:39:18 GMT
You definitely miss no chance to downgrade Arni. He had a bad start in the new season, who cares? If you already have forgotten his many good performances in the second half of the previous season, than it´s your problem. We should be very glad, that Stoke has so many offensiv options this season. Arni deserved the bench yesterday, undoubtedly, but he will surely be of value in course of the season, believe me. Hope he has a good performance in the national squad against Sweden. On the contrary ....I have always maintained that Arnautovic is one of our most skillful players . I still do....I have said this all along. But , unfortunately some peoples basic understanding of comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. Some posters just want a slanging match because they have nothing better to do with themselves. I also think that he is a player who is best suited on the bench at the moment for the good of the team. ...if the team plays better and wins without him, than he deserves the bench. The character of a successfull team is, that a manager has several options and can react, if a player delivers a bad performance. That´s the situation now and Arni has to work hard to improve himself...and he will do that. I think, we will never see a constant good Marko Arnautovic during a season but i´m sure he will be an important part of a good, winning team this year....his time will come.
|
|
|
Post by boskampsflaps on Aug 31, 2014 9:46:21 GMT
Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said. Come on boskamps use some common sense mate. As Rob says you can't possibly approach Leicester in the same way as you approach Man City. We know what Walters is about...breaking teams down with skill and creativity isn't him. Had Walters not been replaced by Odemwingie do you think we would have won yesterday? Odemwingie changed the game for us in attacking sense. Do we know if this change was tactical or due to injury? Either way it worked and highlights that away against the big teams Walters is an effective defensive option to keep the score at 0-0 but why would we need this against Leicester? (Unless we are holding on to a lead). I'd also consider showing Arnie a bit more respect. He was outstanding for us for the second part of last season. Suddenly Walters is great and Arnie is shit. I understand where you are coming from but form counts for a lot, "Suddenly Walters is great and Arnie is shit" yes, so far this season that is spot on.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 31, 2014 11:33:24 GMT
Seems harsh to drop an in form player, especially for one that has shown nothing so far this season, would make a mockery of telling the players that you play for your place, which is what it looks like Hughes has pretty much said. It's horses for courses surely? You have to make difficult decisions sometimes and his skill set isn't suited to what we need to do in that game. We'll need more creativity because they'll pack the defence. As a Walters fan I don't quite get the love in for him yesterday. Ran his bollocks off but dreadful on the ball and lost his man a couple of times at the back.
I don't get all this stuff about playing the 'same' team against Leciester and Walters has to start Rob.
We played two different formations yesterday, in the first half we set up as a 4-2-3-1 with Walters in it, in the second half we played 4-4-2 without Walters in it.
So which 'same' team are people talking about for Leicester then?
In my opinion we looked much better as result of the changes Hughes made at half time.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 31, 2014 11:35:27 GMT
With Sidwell's range of passing, it wouldn't be too much of a shock seeing him in for Whelan. It's going to be like that this season.
|
|
|
Post by leicspotter on Aug 31, 2014 11:46:43 GMT
At the moment I am more than happy to put my faith in the manager to select the right team for each game as it comes along. Only he really knows the fitness, mental state and form of each player whilst having a tactical plan to defeat the opposition - witness yesterday For my part, Leicester is a MUST win game (geographical issues!) and, due to work committments I shall BLOODY MISS IT!! So, come on Stoke City...do me proud!!
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 31, 2014 11:52:08 GMT
It's horses for courses surely? You have to make difficult decisions sometimes and his skill set isn't suited to what we need to do in that game. We'll need more creativity because they'll pack the defence. As a Walters fan I don't quite get the love in for him yesterday. Ran his bollocks off but dreadful on the ball and lost his man a couple of times at the back.
I don't get all this stuff about playing the 'same' team against Leciester and Walters has to start Rob.
We played two different formations yesterday, in the first half we set up as a 4-2-3-1 with Walters in it, in the second half we played 4-4-2 without Walters in it.
So which 'same' team are people talking about for Leicester then?
In my opinion we looked much better as result of the changes Hughes made at half time.
I felt Walters needed to come off at half time regardless of whether he was injured or not Paul. Effort couldn't be faulted but he was offering nothing at all going forward and if they'd scored when he totally lost Kolarov in the first half his hate mob would've been out in full force today.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 31, 2014 11:54:16 GMT
Walters not tracking his man? I won't have any of it. Such a poor defensive player.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 31, 2014 11:57:37 GMT
The one thing Hughes must not do is to revert to the starting eleven and tactics employed in the first two games.
|
|
|
Post by chuckrocky on Aug 31, 2014 11:58:18 GMT
There was a couple of times he switched off and let Kolarov go, I presumed this is why he was subbed at half-time.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 31, 2014 12:06:28 GMT
The one thing Hughes must not do is to revert to the starting eleven and tactics employed in the first two games.
Very, very interesting that he went 4-4-2 for the second half wasn't it, I don't think anybody expected him to move away from his beloved 4-2-3-1?
I wonder if we're likely to see more of it in the future? It certainly suits both Crouch and Diouf better I think and if you can set up (and win) with just two men in central midfield at the Ethiad, then there's hardly an argument to suggest that you can't do it anywhere else too.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 31, 2014 12:09:28 GMT
The one thing Hughes must not do is to revert to the starting eleven and tactics employed in the first two games.
Very, very interesting that he went 4-4-2 for the second half wasn't it, I don't think anybody expected him to move away from his beloved 4-2-3-1?
I wonder if we're likely to see more of it in the future? It certainly suits both Crouch and Diouf better I think and if you can set up (and win) with just two men in central midfield at the Ethiad, then there's hardly an argument to suggest that you can't do it anywhere else too.
Am I right in thinking they lined up in a 4-4-2 as well Paul, or was Jovetic playing off Aguero?
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 31, 2014 12:11:14 GMT
The one thing Hughes must not do is to revert to the starting eleven and tactics employed in the first two games.
Very, very interesting that he went 4-4-2 for the second half wasn't it, I don't think anybody expected him to move away from his beloved 4-2-3-1?
I wonder if we're likely to see more of it in the future? It certainly suits both Crouch and Diouf better I think and if you can set up (and win) with just two men in central midfield at the Ethiad, then there's hardly an argument to suggest that you can't do it anywhere else too.
It thankfully shows a flexibility I feared wasn't there Paul. It does remain somewhat of a concern though that he's spent 18 months chasing a forward incapable of playing his preferred formation.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 31, 2014 12:11:39 GMT
Very, very interesting that he went 4-4-2 for the second half wasn't it, I don't think anybody expected him to move away from his beloved 4-2-3-1?
I wonder if we're likely to see more of it in the future? It certainly suits both Crouch and Diouf better I think and if you can set up (and win) with just two men in central midfield at the Ethiad, then there's hardly an argument to suggest that you can't do it anywhere else too.
Am I right in thinking they lined up in a 4-4-2 as well Paul, or was Jovetic playing off Aguero?
I thought it was 4-4-2 mate.
|
|
|
Post by redwhite on Aug 31, 2014 12:12:21 GMT
Arnie needs to show the same desire in training as we saw from all the lads today if he wants to be considered. I like him but I would have been pissed off with his usual histrionics if he'd played today. Time to man up son and think of the team first... Think of the team? Is that why he has congratulated all his team mates and stated how proud he was? His attitude is top class, most misunderstood player we have. He wears bright boots, is covered in tattoos and struts around pre game in a baseball cap. That's enough for some idiots to decide that he therefore must be lazy and arrogant. I tend to trust the fact that he shows every week that he's anything but lazy but some people like to make their mind up based on fuck all.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 31, 2014 12:14:54 GMT
Very, very interesting that he went 4-4-2 for the second half wasn't it, I don't think anybody expected him to move away from his beloved 4-2-3-1?
I wonder if we're likely to see more of it in the future? It certainly suits both Crouch and Diouf better I think and if you can set up (and win) with just two men in central midfield at the Ethiad, then there's hardly an argument to suggest that you can't do it anywhere else too.
It thankfully shows a flexibility I feared wasn't there Paul. It does remain somewhat of a concern though that he's spent 18 months chasing a forward incapable of playing his preferred formation. He isn't though. He played up front on his own for Hanover from what I saw and did well. They just fire way more crosses in than we do and used him better.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 31, 2014 12:15:56 GMT
Very, very interesting that he went 4-4-2 for the second half wasn't it, I don't think anybody expected him to move away from his beloved 4-2-3-1?
I wonder if we're likely to see more of it in the future? It certainly suits both Crouch and Diouf better I think and if you can set up (and win) with just two men in central midfield at the Ethiad, then there's hardly an argument to suggest that you can't do it anywhere else too.
It thankfully shows a flexibility I feared wasn't there Paul. It does remain somewhat of a concern though that he's spent 18 months chasing a forward incapable of playing his preferred formation.
Yeah I'd really like to see us play with two strikers more often - (as I said last week) I think it suits the actual players we've got at the club better.
I know it flies in the face of conventional football wisdom but at the end of the day we've just gone and done something which virtually every other team couldn't - win at the Ethiad and we did it playing with two strikers!
|
|
|
Post by itsmorethanagame on Aug 31, 2014 12:19:22 GMT
It's horses for courses surely? You have to make difficult decisions sometimes and his skill set isn't suited to what we need to do in that game. We'll need more creativity because they'll pack the defence. As a Walters fan I don't quite get the love in for him yesterday. Ran his bollocks off but dreadful on the ball and lost his man a couple of times at the back.
I don't get all this stuff about playing the 'same' team against Leciester and Walters has to start Rob.
We played two different formations yesterday, in the first half we set up as a 4-2-3-1 with Walters in it, in the second half we played 4-4-2 without Walters in it.
So which 'same' team are people talking about for Leicester then?
In my opinion we looked much better as result of the changes Hughes made at half time.
That's a fair point Paul.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 31, 2014 12:27:29 GMT
Am I right in thinking they lined up in a 4-4-2 as well Paul, or was Jovetic playing off Aguero?
I thought it was 4-4-2 mate.
I did as well - just wondering if we can get away playing like that against a 3-man midfield. Can recall last season we looked great against Man U's 4-4-2 but Swansea overran us in our subsequent home game with their midfield three.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 31, 2014 12:27:51 GMT
It thankfully shows a flexibility I feared wasn't there Paul. It does remain somewhat of a concern though that he's spent 18 months chasing a forward incapable of playing his preferred formation. He isn't though. He played up front on his own for Hanover from what I saw and did well. They just fire way more crosses in than we do and used him better. They played 4-4-2 for the most part. That doesn't necessarily mean he can't adapt to that role but I thought yesterday underlined Crouch's value.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 31, 2014 12:29:25 GMT
I see Liverpool are starting with a front two at Spurs ...
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 31, 2014 12:31:38 GMT
I thought it was 4-4-2 mate.
I did as well - just wondering if we can get away playing like that against a 3-man midfield. Can recall last season we looked great against Man U's 4-4-2 but Swansea overran us in our subsequent home game with their midfield three.
Yeah that's a fair point but in those instances I'd go with a 4-3-1-2 (same as Liverpool do) with Moses playing as the '1' in the Sterling role behind the front two mate.
|
|