|
Post by tazi on Nov 24, 2014 18:16:01 GMT
And there it is. Our magnificent support 'getting behind the lads'. Perhaps a chorus of Arnie Arnie after he did this then maybe it would have spurred him on to better things. No, our supporters prefer to moan. Stop it Pugs...you are killing me He's funny this pugs fella is, I must say. Maybe it shouldn't take us to sing Arnie Arnie Arnie maybe it'd serve him better by thinking 'I'd better start earning my living here' and really show the fans what they're paying me for, or maybe think 'fcuk you I'll show ya what I can do'. Arnie Arnie show us your slip, Arnie show us your slip...second thoughts don't as I'd probably vomit all over it.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Nov 24, 2014 18:18:54 GMT
Stop it Pugs...you are killing me I'm talking at the game numb nuts, not on here. Never. Pisser, keep e'm coming as I like classics.
|
|
|
Post by luke45 on Nov 24, 2014 18:23:20 GMT
A very good assessment of the game, can't argue with any of that really. We were saying on the drive down prior to the game that Diouf isn't the greatest at holding the ball up and laying it off and it proved to be the case again, I counted five times he failed to control the ball in the first half alone. His pass success rate of just over 68% also highlights that he is guilty of giving the ball away more often than he should be. As you say in your article though, his pace, work rate and ability to score goals on a fairly regular basis makes him a very valuable player for us when he's performing well. I thought Arnie started the game brightly when he came on, the turning point for me was when he cut into the area and screwed the ball wide when he should have squared it. There was a few groans from the crowd and that seemed to be enough to knock his confidence and everything he did after that was largely poor. At the end of the day he's got to be mentality stronger than that, he's long over-due a good performance and I don't think he did enough to warrant a start at Liverpool on Saturday. And there it is. Our magnificent support 'getting behind the lads'. Perhaps a chorus of Arnie Arnie after he did this then maybe it would have spurred him on to better things. No, our supporters prefer to moan. I agree, it would've been better to encourage him rather than groan at his error, because it was the first error he had made at that point in the game as far as I can recall. It's just a natural reaction to the frustration of the game though isn't it, we were trailing and desperately needed a goal and that particular situation presented a very good opportunity for us to get level in the match. I doubt there's a set of supporters in the country he wouldn't groan with frustration in a situation like that. Arnie has got to expect that reaction on occasions and learn to not let it knock his confidence. We all know how superb he is capable of being but we haven't seen that enough this season and we need that to change sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 18:24:55 GMT
So we shouldn't be concerned then? No doubt, but so should the vast majority of the league. We're no different, bit like most teams who find it difficult to break down a 10 man defence. It's up to the manager to work it out. "It's up to the manager to work it out" Indeed!
|
|
|
Post by Kjones9 on Nov 24, 2014 18:25:58 GMT
I said at the time (and on here afterwards) arnie did well retrieving Adam's shit cross then proceeded to fuck it up himself. There wasn't any reaction at all to Charlie's cross.
I think it's probably best for arnie to go because as we've seen before there's no way back for boo boys at Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by tazi on Nov 24, 2014 18:30:21 GMT
I just don't know how any player manages to become a boo boy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 10:16:53 GMT
Excellent report. No doubt about it, we need to improve.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 25, 2014 11:06:05 GMT
Great read. Thanks for posting. "Stoke showed their notable discomfort when teams press them and don’t allow them any space" This in particular concerns me. I don't know why it concerns you after the Burnley game and I therefore disagree. Had you said that after Villa I might have agreed. Same after Norwich last season. Last Saturday though? No chance. They pressed us that well, 50% of the game was played out in their final 3rd. They couldn't get near us at times and survived because we were unable to break down their flat back 9. They won the first ball into the box, defended the width of the posts and threw their bodies in front of everything. Losing had next to nothing to do with us not being able to cope with them pressing us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 12:04:06 GMT
The main conclusions are get Geoff back at RB, Wilson back at centre half and Pieters at LB.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 25, 2014 13:45:28 GMT
The main conclusions are get Geoff back at RB, Wilson back at centre half and Pieters at LB. Yep. Solid as a rock that. Ask West Ham.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 25, 2014 13:47:35 GMT
Great read. Thanks for posting. "Stoke showed their notable discomfort when teams press them and don’t allow them any space" This in particular concerns me. I don't know why it concerns you after the Burnley game and I therefore disagree. Had you said that after Villa I might have agreed. Same after Norwich last season. Last Saturday though? No chance. They pressed us that well, 50% of the game was played out in their final 3rd. They couldn't get near us at times and survived because we were unable to break down their flat back 9. They won the first ball into the box, defended the width of the posts and threw their bodies in front of everything. Losing had next to nothing to do with us not being able to cope with them pressing us. They pressed us in the early going and we panicked. After about 20 minutes they sat back and defended.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 25, 2014 14:30:42 GMT
I don't know why it concerns you after the Burnley game and I therefore disagree. Had you said that after Villa I might have agreed. Same after Norwich last season. Last Saturday though? No chance. They pressed us that well, 50% of the game was played out in their final 3rd. They couldn't get near us at times and survived because we were unable to break down their flat back 9. They won the first ball into the box, defended the width of the posts and threw their bodies in front of everything. Losing had next to nothing to do with us not being able to cope with them pressing us. They pressed us in the early going and we panicked. After about 20 minutes they sat back and defended. I don't think we did panic at all or more to the point, Muniesa didn't panic when pressed. Muniesa is calm and composed on the ball and isn't a panicky type player. He simply made the wrong choice. If anything he was too calm. Had he panicked he would have whacked it into touch and the danger is gone. We had no time to panic for the second goal because we never had possession of the ball. The goal came directly from a throw in just inside their own half, which incidentally, was as clear a thrown in to us as was possible for a throw in to be. Our players moved forward as if it was our thrown in and they took it quickly meaning several players, Bardsley included, were caught a little out of position. I haven't even read your conclusions and am merely commenting on the one quote that was highlighted, which for me, is wrong based purely on Saturday's game. Your conclusions are titled "Burnley conclusions" so what has happened in previous games should be irrelevant. Panicking under pressure to me, means that we don't play our usual style and get harried into aimless punts. It's what happened against Norwich last season and to a lesser degree against Villa on the opening day of the season. It never happened against Burnley. We totally dominated the game.
|
|
|
Post by wearepremierleague on Nov 25, 2014 14:38:44 GMT
Diouf isn't a footballer. Despite his shit form I would try Arnie up front, if not him, Walters.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 25, 2014 14:41:51 GMT
Diouf isn't a footballer. Despite his shit form I would try Arnie up front, if not him, Walters. Diouf is great and is doing just fine. He had a poor game on Saturday. Players do. The others were no better and the bloke that replaced him was a whole lot worse. There is merit in Walters up front for sure and for me, that would have been what I would have done on Saturday as I said at the time. Arnie on for Moses, Assaidi on for Diouf with Walters moving into a more central position. When Crouch came on, the best we could hope for was a draw. His introduction played right into Burnley's hands and they dealt with him easily.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 25, 2014 15:18:45 GMT
They pressed us in the early going and we panicked. After about 20 minutes they sat back and defended. I don't think we did panic at all or more to the point, Muniesa didn't panic when pressed. Muniesa is calm and composed on the ball and isn't a panicky type player. He simply made the wrong choice. If anything he was too calm. Had he panicked he would have whacked it into touch and the danger is gone. We had no time to panic for the second goal because we never had possession of the ball. The goal came directly from a throw in just inside their own half, which incidentally, was as clear a thrown in to us as was possible for a throw in to be. Our players moved forward as if it was our thrown in and they took it quickly meaning several players, Bardsley included, were caught a little out of position. I haven't even read your conclusions and am merely commenting on the one quote that was highlighted, which for me, is wrong based purely on Saturday's game. Your conclusions are titled "Burnley conclusions" so what has happened in previous games should be irrelevant. Panicking under pressure to me, means that we don't play our usual style and get harried into aimless punts. It's what happened against Norwich last season and to a lesser degree against Villa on the opening day of the season. It never happened against Burnley. We totally dominated the game. I'm not just talking about the goals Dave - there were a fair few times both before and just after where they were in our faces and we hurriedly pinged the ball either into touch or against the shin bone of the nearest man. I think the pressing was very much key to their first goal as well though. It was why Sidwell gave Muniesa that thankless pass and why they charged MM down so quickly.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 25, 2014 15:32:50 GMT
I don't think we did panic at all or more to the point, Muniesa didn't panic when pressed. Muniesa is calm and composed on the ball and isn't a panicky type player. He simply made the wrong choice. If anything he was too calm. Had he panicked he would have whacked it into touch and the danger is gone. We had no time to panic for the second goal because we never had possession of the ball. The goal came directly from a throw in just inside their own half, which incidentally, was as clear a thrown in to us as was possible for a throw in to be. Our players moved forward as if it was our thrown in and they took it quickly meaning several players, Bardsley included, were caught a little out of position. I haven't even read your conclusions and am merely commenting on the one quote that was highlighted, which for me, is wrong based purely on Saturday's game. Your conclusions are titled "Burnley conclusions" so what has happened in previous games should be irrelevant. Panicking under pressure to me, means that we don't play our usual style and get harried into aimless punts. It's what happened against Norwich last season and to a lesser degree against Villa on the opening day of the season. It never happened against Burnley. We totally dominated the game. I'm not just talking about the goals Dave - there were a fair few times both before and just after where they were in our faces and we hurriedly pinged the ball either into touch or against the shin bone of the nearest man. I think the pressing was very much key to their first goal as well though. It was why Sidwell gave Muniesa that thankless pass and why they charged MM down so quickly. I'd call that being shit :-). Pressing the ball and denying time and space makes even the most comfortable team struggle. Look at Arsenal and Liverpool when they've come to us in the past. They key is being able to sustain that kind of pressure for 90 minutes. Not many teams do or can, hence you ride out the storm and enforce your own game on the opposition. We gifted them goals and that is all there is to it. If the pressing did cause us to lose the goals, it didn't cause us to lose the game.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 25, 2014 15:48:34 GMT
I'm not just talking about the goals Dave - there were a fair few times both before and just after where they were in our faces and we hurriedly pinged the ball either into touch or against the shin bone of the nearest man. I think the pressing was very much key to their first goal as well though. It was why Sidwell gave Muniesa that thankless pass and why they charged MM down so quickly. I'd call that being shit :-). Pressing the ball and denying time and space makes even the most comfortable team struggle. Look at Arsenal and Liverpool when they've come to us in the past. They key is being able to sustain that kind of pressure for 90 minutes. Not many teams do or can, hence you ride out the storm and enforce your own game on the opposition. We gifted them goals and that is all there is to it. If the pressing did cause us to lose the goals, it didn't cause us to lose the game. I didn't say it did in and of itself. It was a factor in that it played a role in our nightmarish opening 20-30 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 25, 2014 16:09:47 GMT
They pressed us in the early going and we panicked. After about 20 minutes they sat back and defended. I don't think we did panic at all or more to the point, Muniesa didn't panic when pressed. Muniesa is calm and composed on the ball and isn't a panicky type player. He simply made the wrong choice. If anything he was too calm. Had he panicked he would have whacked it into touch and the danger is gone. We had no time to panic for the second goal because we never had possession of the ball. The goal came directly from a throw in just inside their own half, which incidentally, was as clear a thrown in to us as was possible for a throw in to be. Our players moved forward as if it was our thrown in and they took it quickly meaning several players, Bardsley included, were caught a little out of position. I haven't even read your conclusions and am merely commenting on the one quote that was highlighted, which for me, is wrong based purely on Saturday's game. Your conclusions are titled "Burnley conclusions" so what has happened in previous games should be irrelevant. Panicking under pressure to me, means that we don't play our usual style and get harried into aimless punts. It's what happened against Norwich last season and to a lesser degree against Villa on the opening day of the season. It never happened against Burnley. We totally dominated the game. This is the problem though. Dominating the game means fuck all. We've won away from home with a lot less of the ball then the opposition. Burnley pressing the ball earlier on is exactly what got them into a position to win the game. Getting your noses in front and then seeing it out is a very sensible away tactic that can pick you up points. It did cause us to lose the game because we didn't have a response.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Nov 25, 2014 16:17:40 GMT
Diouf isn't a footballer. Despite his shit form I would try Arnie up front, if not him, Walters.
True, he's a willing runner. Potters fans will love him.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 25, 2014 16:23:16 GMT
I don't think we did panic at all or more to the point, Muniesa didn't panic when pressed. Muniesa is calm and composed on the ball and isn't a panicky type player. He simply made the wrong choice. If anything he was too calm. Had he panicked he would have whacked it into touch and the danger is gone. We had no time to panic for the second goal because we never had possession of the ball. The goal came directly from a throw in just inside their own half, which incidentally, was as clear a thrown in to us as was possible for a throw in to be. Our players moved forward as if it was our thrown in and they took it quickly meaning several players, Bardsley included, were caught a little out of position. I haven't even read your conclusions and am merely commenting on the one quote that was highlighted, which for me, is wrong based purely on Saturday's game. Your conclusions are titled "Burnley conclusions" so what has happened in previous games should be irrelevant. Panicking under pressure to me, means that we don't play our usual style and get harried into aimless punts. It's what happened against Norwich last season and to a lesser degree against Villa on the opening day of the season. It never happened against Burnley. We totally dominated the game. This is the problem though. Dominating the game means fuck all. We've won away from home with a lot less of the ball then the opposition. Burnley pressing the ball earlier on is exactly what got them into a position to win the game. Getting your noses in front and then seeing it out is a very sensible away tactic that can pick you up points. It did cause us to lose the game because we didn't have a response. I agree wholeheartedly that possession itself counts for absolutely nothing. It's what you do with it that counts and we didn't do enough.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Nov 25, 2014 16:43:44 GMT
This is the problem though. Dominating the game means fuck all. We've won away from home with a lot less of the ball then the opposition. Burnley pressing the ball earlier on is exactly what got them into a position to win the game. Getting your noses in front and then seeing it out is a very sensible away tactic that can pick you up points. It did cause us to lose the game because we didn't have a response. I agree wholeheartedly that possession itself counts for absolutely nothing. It's what you do with it that counts and we didn't do enough. shame you didn't tell your fellow wankstains a couple of years back...
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Nov 25, 2014 16:45:45 GMT
I agree wholeheartedly that possession itself counts for absolutely nothing. It's what you do with it that counts and we didn't do enough. shame you didn't tell your fellow wankstains a couple of years back... I'm pretty sure I did in fairness. Having limited possession and not trying to do anything with that possession is what I would grumble about. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Nov 25, 2014 16:55:48 GMT
Diouf isn't a footballer. Despite his shit form I would try Arnie up front, if not him, Walters.
True, he's a willing runner. Potters fans will love him.
Diouf is Cameron Jerome Mk II, an athlete in football boots. Nothing I have seen of him suggests he has the all-round game to play alone up front. Compare him to Pelle at the Saints! I would keep him for away games, when his pace can be used on the counter, and get Crouch back in at home, as long as this does not relegate us to hoofing long balls to his head. He can hold up the ball and link play way better than MBD.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 25, 2014 16:56:46 GMT
Another excellent essay, which pushed all the right buttons for me. Please keep them coming, they are most enjoyable.
If I were to be hypercritical, I'd say there could have been a bit more praise for Bojan, who stood out like a shining beacon in a black storm. Arnie may need praise, but Bojan certainly deserves all the praise we can give him for his effort to adapt to the Prem. and improvement he is demonstrating; his cross for the goal was a peach and the highlight of the match for me.
What is it about modern day footballers that can't cut it for two matches a week? Those who traveled last fortnight to play for their countries seemed "under the weather". Teams who play in Europe seem to under-perform the following weekend. Other professional sportsmen are able to put in top class performances day after day, or a number of times per week, but footballers seem to fall short these days when extra demands are put on them. I am very alarmed and dismayed at Ryan's comment about some players' attitude at training.
|
|
|
Post by jezzascfc on Nov 25, 2014 16:59:43 GMT
My other suggestion for improving our team is to give Arnie a mahoosive kick up the arse. This guy was a superstar in the spring - where is that player now? Tell him that he will play the next three weeks whilst Moses is injured and, if he doesn't want to be put on the transfer list to be sold in January, it's time to show what he can do.
A motivated, performing Arnie can break open the most determined of bus parking performances.
|
|
|
Post by adamsson on Nov 25, 2014 17:04:54 GMT
True, he's a willing runner. Potters fans will love him.
Diouf is Cameron Jerome Mk II, an athlete in football boots. Nothing I have seen of him suggests he has the all-round game to play alone up front. Compare him to Pelle at the Saints! I would keep him for away games, when his pace can be used on the counter, and get Crouch back in at home, as long as this does not relegate us to hoofing long balls to his head. He can hold up the ball and link play way better than MBD. But playing Crouch always ends up hoofing long balls in the hope that just for once he manages to do something with them it always does for Stoke it always did for England We got much worse when Crouch came on despite Diouf playing like someone who had just got off a long haul flight.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 17:42:15 GMT
The main conclusions are get Geoff back at RB, Wilson back at centre half and Pieters at LB. Yep. Solid as a rock that. Ask West Ham. Done. They send their thanks to Mr V Moses.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Nov 25, 2014 20:30:38 GMT
Yep. Solid as a rock that. Ask West Ham. Done. They send their thanks to Mr V Moses. They should be sending their thanks to Mr A. Begovic. One of them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by miltonstokie on Nov 25, 2014 20:37:33 GMT
Diouf isn't a footballer. Despite his shit form I would try Arnie up front, if not him, Walters. Thank fuck your behind a keyboard and nowhere near a bench
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 22:33:56 GMT
Done. They send their thanks to Mr V Moses. They should be sending their thanks to Mr A. Begovic. One of them anyway. West Ham should be thanking Begovic? You've lost me.
|
|