|
Post by mermaidsal on Apr 4, 2017 22:11:07 GMT
If v Leicester was a dismal job of football management, v Burnley tonight was ***ing dismal. Ok we're looking down to the bones in terms of players visibly carrying injuries and/or plain knackered - but it's not just thnat, or the way the team was set up tonight, it was the lack of confidence and belief that seems to run through most things we do now. This side is feeling like the one that looked doomed at the start of the season. Sorry Leslie, but this just isn't acceptable on any level.
3 from me
* if you were at the game please.
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Apr 4, 2017 22:12:14 GMT
1
|
|
|
Post by TexasPotter on Apr 4, 2017 22:19:42 GMT
4 Good first half, players missed alot of chances but after 55 mins there was that old poor mid-match management (per usual) should of subbed sooner and got caught with his pants down then ran to hoofball versus a hoofball master manager in Dyche. It showed us a lot tonight.
|
|
|
Post by nicholasjalcock on Apr 4, 2017 22:21:32 GMT
3 Yet another change in formation, change in players didn't work, subs didn't work too!
|
|
|
Post by AlbertTatlock on Apr 4, 2017 22:22:42 GMT
He doesn't deserve a mark, his management of the game and team tonight was utter fucking garbage. Gouranga.
|
|
|
Post by WhyDelilah on Apr 4, 2017 22:23:20 GMT
Ramadan on the bench?
Crouch as his sub when we had to chase the game?
0 - negative dross
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 22:27:09 GMT
6 - liked the starting XI, changed from 442, much better performance, poor subs.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 4, 2017 22:29:58 GMT
2*
Keeps going back to Adam who was dog shit. Substitutions? Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by pavel on Apr 4, 2017 22:34:04 GMT
Don't usually comment but a 2 for me, negative, shapeless and subs didn't respond to the position we were in, didn't change anything really. No shape, drive or creativity in the team and that's down to the manager.
|
|
|
Post by potterinleeds on Apr 4, 2017 22:34:21 GMT
2*
Might as well have started with Crouch if we were just going to punt it up to Berahino.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 4, 2017 22:41:47 GMT
0 - scandalous and ridiculously stupid substitutions that saw Ryan finish the game plying his trade on the right wing.
Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 4, 2017 22:42:56 GMT
0 - scandalous and ridiculously stupid substitutions that saw Ryan finish the game plying his trade on the right wing. Pathetic. To be fair he was better there than in his rightful position.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 4, 2017 22:45:09 GMT
2* Adam who was dog shit. I count 5 maybe 6 worse than Adam tonight. Two without argument so and have been all season.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 4, 2017 22:46:53 GMT
2* Adam who was dog shit. I count 5 maybe 6 worse than Adam tonight. Two without argument so and have been all season. Pieters, Allen, Ryan, Arnie all had poor games. Grant is shite. Adam was the cherry on a white dog turd of a cake.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Apr 4, 2017 22:48:55 GMT
I count 5 maybe 6 worse than Adam tonight. Two without argument so and have been all season. Pieters, Allen, Ryan, Arnie all had poor games. Grant is shite. Adam was the cherry on a white dog turd of a cake. Think that's bollocks myself. Now if we're gonna dig players out, lets start with our fraud of a left back shall we. Absolutely fucking useless.
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Apr 4, 2017 22:50:16 GMT
0*
As garbage as garbage gets.
Nowt else to say really.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 4, 2017 22:51:21 GMT
Pieters, Allen, Ryan, Arnie all had poor games. Grant is shite. Adam was the cherry on a white dog turd of a cake. Think that's bollocks myself. Now if we're gonna dig players out, lets start with our fraud of a left back shall we. Absolutely fucking useless. I said Pieters mate. He was shite.
|
|
|
Post by cooper67 on Apr 5, 2017 0:56:03 GMT
An interesting starting XI that had us rubbing our heads on the coach on how he was going to set up.Played OK 1st half and for about 10 minutes of the 2nd-but we can't hit a cow's arse with a banjo.
Once they scored you knew we had lost.Us fans were screaming for subs so he only use's one until the 85th minute!
6 for the 1st half,0 for the second.*
|
|
|
Post by thegift on Apr 5, 2017 0:58:07 GMT
0.
Nothing he did make any positive impact on the game.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Hesham on Apr 5, 2017 4:58:05 GMT
Absolutely 0
He made all the mistakes needed to lose an easy game.
|
|
|
Post by ozy2002 on Apr 5, 2017 5:36:49 GMT
I know that every player in the world need some rest , but I think someone should have told MH that Ramadan played match with international team And in the second day played another match with Alahly club , because we were loosing , and we needed him You have two choice to win this game and lose against Liverpool , or loose this game and loose against Liverpool He should give Ramadan 20 min this game and 60 min against Liverpool , also I have notice in general that MH. Sometimes doesn't like to use all 3 sub He use on or two only , someone should tell him. In general these sub made to give fresh legs , and give rest to some players for next game And give confident to players who are far on the bitch Also why stoke only use one formation for attacking , there are million formation he can try with those type of players And changing between them in the match will open up any team , I am very very disappointed, I dream to watch the attacking side of Ramadan I am bored from watching him defending only , he is wasting his energy , give him attacking role only and judge him Learn from Roma couch , when he realise that Salah is zero in defending , he just keep him for attacking And every touch from him is nightmare for the defenders, he just scored yesterday his 100 goal in his career as winger when he is 24 or 23 years I hop he teach Ramadan new tricks , make him develop by shooting , or try something new watch Ramadan as striker or number 10 I believe he can be far better , just use his offensive skills please
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Apr 5, 2017 6:17:52 GMT
3 Yet another change in formation, change in players didn't work, subs didn't work too! I don't agree that the formation didn't work. It worked to the extent that it enabled us to create more chances in an away game than we have done for a long time. It also worked to the extent that we allowed the home team (with one of the better home records in the division) fewer chances than they normally manage. Obviously we didn't take any of our many chances but I'm not sure we would have taken the chances we would have created in any other formation. Where Hughes let himself down was in the way he reacted to the way we played. From the first few minutes it was clear that Pieters (as usual) was poor in an attacking role. His distribution is usually poor in attack and whilst he will surge forward he has to get rid quickly - he isn't comfortable holding up the ball in an attacking position. Hughes could have considered swapping Muniesa and Pieters round with Pieters as the wide left player in the back 3 and Muniesa as the wing back. That should certainly have been tried. The other option, in the second half would have been to have replaced Pieters with Ramadan and kept Muniesa in the back three. That's the option I think should have been used from the start. To say that a 343 has no room for Ramadan is daft. Of all our players he is probably best equipped to play left wing back the next best option is Muniesa. The pair of them together on the left could be very exciting. So - a reasonable starting formation by Hughes but he loses virtually all his marks with his failure to use his subs properly. 1. Failure to use Ramadan as a sub in place of Pieters - as suggested above. 2. Crouch did fine when he came on but he should not have been swapped for Berahino. He won most of his duels and we needed Berahino to play off him. So I would have taken Adam off, dropped Allen back alongside Cameron and brought Crouch on to to replace Adam 3. Legs get tired when you are chasing a game - to not use a 3rd sub in such circumstances was crazy. Afellay hangs on to the ball well and should have come on as third sub much earlier. I'd have wanted all my subs on with 20 minutes to go - or even earlier. So 7 for Hughes for the starting formation and personnel and he loses at least 3 marks for poor subs - a 4* from me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2017 6:24:32 GMT
7. Picked a balanced side that created opportunities and looked solid from front to back. Midfield was arguably the most balanced it's been all season. The goal was massively against the run of play and undeserved.
Loses 3 points for the Crouch sub, that killed us. I said on the match thread that I would have kept Berahino on and subbed Arnie, and gone with a flat 2 up front.
Is this a rate the manager thread or a rate the recent form thread?
|
|
|
Post by tonedepear on Apr 5, 2017 6:38:31 GMT
4.
Sometimes it's fun to see what the random tactic generator will chuck out, and I thought 1st half something might come of it. Bloody hell though, pick a system, buy players to fit it. Profit?
Probably 2 of the 4 for picking Muniesa.
Possibly should lose 3 for playing Pieters in front of him instead of the other way round.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Apr 5, 2017 6:46:49 GMT
6 - We played crap football , but we still should have got something from the game.
|
|
|
Post by Fred Ferret on Apr 5, 2017 7:01:31 GMT
3 Yet another change in formation, change in players didn't work, subs didn't work too! I don't agree that the formation didn't work. It worked to the extent that it enabled us to create more chances in an away game than we have done for a long time. It also worked to the extent that we allowed the home team (with one of the better home records in the division) fewer chances than they normally manage. Obviously we didn't take any of our many chances but I'm not sure we would have taken the chances we would have created in any other formation. Where Hughes let himself down was in the way he reacted to the way we played. From the first few minutes it was clear that Pieters (as usual) was poor in an attacking role. His distribution is usually poor in attack and whilst he will surge forward he has to get rid quickly - he isn't comfortable holding up the ball in an attacking position. Hughes could have considered swapping Muniesa and Pieters round with Pieters as the wide left player in the back 3 and Muniesa as the wing back. That should certainly have been tried. The other option, in the second half would have been to have replaced Pieters with Ramadan and kept Muniesa in the back three. That's the option I think should have been used from the start. To say that a 343 has no room for Ramadan is daft. Of all our players he is probably best equipped to play left wing back the next best option is Muniesa. The pair of them together on the left could be very exciting. So - a reasonable starting formation by Hughes but he loses virtually all his marks with his failure to use his subs properly. 1. Failure to use Ramadan as a sub in place of Pieters - as suggested above. 2. Crouch did fine when he came on but he should not have been swapped for Berahino. He won most of his duels and we needed Berahino to play off him. So I would have taken Adam off, dropped Allen back alongside Cameron and brought Crouch on to to replace Adam 3. Legs get tired when you are chasing a game - to not use a 3rd sub in such circumstances was crazy. Afellay hangs on to the ball well and should have come on as third sub much earlier. I'd have wanted all my subs on with 20 minutes to go - or even earlier. So 7 for Hughes for the starting formation and personnel and he loses at least 3 marks for poor subs - a 4* from me.Good appraisal.
|
|
obhstokie
Academy Starlet
Vis Unita Fortior
Posts: 230
|
Post by obhstokie on Apr 5, 2017 7:11:36 GMT
What worried me is that Muniesa said he only knew he was playing 2 hours before KO. Therefore the team wouldn't have known they were playing that formation till then, surely we should be training upto the day of the match in the formation/team thats going to play?
I'd give hughes a 5, team did OK, although blaming Arnie and Adam for missing great chances. Subs were too late and wrong, needed berahino with crouch and sobhi on the
p.s. why do you have to be "at the game" to give a rating? What if you watched it online?
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 5, 2017 7:32:44 GMT
0 - scandalous and ridiculously stupid substitutions that saw Ryan finish the game plying his trade on the right wing. Pathetic. To be fair he was better there than in his rightful position. Rubbish. Ryan defended superbly well last night and didn't give Vokes or Gray a kick.
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on Apr 5, 2017 7:38:17 GMT
To be fair he was better there than in his rightful position. Rubbish. Ryan defended superbly well last night and didn't give Vokes or Gray a kick. Neither did he give his team mates a kick. Plus he was daydreaming for the goal.
|
|
|
Post by davejohnno1 on Apr 5, 2017 7:54:02 GMT
Rubbish. Ryan defended superbly well last night and didn't give Vokes or Gray a kick. Neither did he give his team mates a kick. Plus he was daydreaming for the goal. The manager shouldn't be asking players to do jobs they can't do. Ryan effectively played as a full back last night with Bruno as the central pin of the back 4. It was ludicrous. The fact that Ryan made such a good fist of it is testament to his ability. There weakest players are the two full backs, so we opted to play Pieters and Diouf wide. It was a crazy starting line up that actually looked like it could work simply because they were utter shite. Once they scored, we introduced a bloke who should be retiring, yet has a new contract, and we never ever looked like we would get anything out of the game. We have a stupid manager and we've arguably got the thickest set of players known to man. The free kicks we were giving away in 6 minutes of stoppage time were totally brain dead.
|
|