|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Mar 14, 2009 21:57:27 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. Look at Villa and Everton's midfield, it's full of pace and quality that is much better than ours when they can be arsed to up the tempo. They see Stoke as a walk over, and so when 2-0 up naturally think game over and stop working allowing us to attack. That happened today for 25 minutes in the 2nd half, and the Everton players realised this and again upped the tempo finishing us off. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. It's a fact, we can't get possession when we're level, because our midfield is not as good as the opponents. Barry and Petrov stopped working at Villa Park, and this allowed us to pass it around. This is why we can't "go for it" from the off. What Pulis should be doing though, is starting Etherington and playin 5 across the midfield if he's going to set up defensively. 2 strikers today was pointless as Mamma, as much as I like him, did fuck all today. 2 out and out wingers in Lawrence and Ethers would have been enough to provide Beattie when on the break. This way I think we'd have not conceded two soft goals and would have been in it 2nd half.
|
|
|
Post by risa on Mar 14, 2009 22:04:42 GMT
I suppose you have a point there. The only thing is though, we need to keep on a 'level' keel to have a chance of getting something from a game - home or away.
I only hope when we go to WBA and Hull, we play our most attacking options as is possible, especially at WBA as they are shitting it every game now. Starting with Fuller & Beattie is the only option for me. Get 1 or 2 up by the break then we can opt to 'stop working' a little.
|
|
|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Mar 14, 2009 22:31:46 GMT
I agree, we need to stop letting daft goals, but that's not really Pulis' fault is it?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2009 22:38:58 GMT
They ought to play on Pro Evo before the game, go two down and then play! We'd win every game! Simples!
And its not his fault but wank tactics and team selections are!
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Mar 14, 2009 22:48:16 GMT
Tactics today were spot on and but for Tommy we would have achieved at least one point.
That first away win is nearly upon us.
|
|
|
Post by Beloved Monkfish on Mar 14, 2009 23:07:13 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. Look at Villa and Everton's midfield, it's full of pace and quality that is much better than ours when they can be arsed to up the tempo. They see Stoke as a walk over, and so when 2-0 up naturally think game over and stop working allowing us to attack. That happened today for 25 minutes in the 2nd half, and the Everton players realised this and again upped the tempo finishing us off. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. It's a fact, we can't get possession when we're level, because our midfield is not as good as the opponents. Barry and Petrov stopped working at Villa Park, and this allowed us to pass it around. This is why we can't "go for it" from the off. What Pulis should be doing though, is starting Etherington and playin 5 across the midfield if he's going to set up defensively. 2 strikers today was pointless as Mamma, as much as I like him, did fuck all today. 2 out and out wingers in Lawrence and Ethers would have been enough to provide Beattie when on the break. This way I think we'd have not conceded two soft goals and would have been in it 2nd half. Absolutely spot on
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2009 23:18:33 GMT
Tactics today were spot on and but for Tommy we would have achieved at least one point. That first away win is nearly upon us. Saw Diao was at fault too for the first goal by being a pussy in midfield and then Shawcross got done far too easily. Yes Sorro should've saved it but I can't help thinking if Faye was there the ball would never have got to Shawcross nevermind Sorro!
|
|
|
Post by mermaidsal on Mar 14, 2009 23:41:41 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. Look at Villa and Everton's midfield, it's full of pace and quality that is much better than ours when they can be arsed to up the tempo. They see Stoke as a walk over, and so when 2-0 up naturally think game over and stop working allowing us to attack. That happened today for 25 minutes in the 2nd half, and the Everton players realised this and again upped the tempo finishing us off. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. It's a fact, we can't get possession when we're level, because our midfield is not as good as the opponents. Barry and Petrov stopped working at Villa Park, and this allowed us to pass it around. This is why we can't "go for it" from the off. What Pulis should be doing though, is starting Etherington and playin 5 across the midfield if he's going to set up defensively. 2 strikers today was pointless as Mamma, as much as I like him, did fuck all today. 2 out and out wingers in Lawrence and Ethers would have been enough to provide Beattie when on the break. This way I think we'd have not conceded two soft goals and would have been in it 2nd half. Absolutely spot on I agree too, that's a really good analysis. I'm also thinking back to, for example, away at Blackburn when we played open football from the start and even a side of that quality had left us for dead after 20 minutes
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2009 23:43:09 GMT
We shouldn't go all out attack. But we should put ourselves about a bit. We tend to sit and let them come onto us. That is a bollocks and ends up with the results we get.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2009 23:44:23 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. "If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. " What unlike the approach of keeping it tight and getting dicked anyway?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 14, 2009 23:45:25 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. "If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. " What unlike the approach of keeping it tight and getting dicked anyway? ;D Harsh but true!
|
|
|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Mar 14, 2009 23:47:19 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. "If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. " What unlike the approach of keeping it tight and getting dicked anyway? We were hardly dicked today though. We wern't dicked at Villa either. At Blackburn we went all out attack and were 3-0 down after 25 minutes. At least we were in the game until the 90th minute.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2009 23:50:46 GMT
I agree too, that's a really good analysis. I'm also thinking back to, for example, away at Blackburn when we played open football from the start and even a side of that quality had left us for dead after 20 minutes I don't agree at all Sal. We forced Everton into having to defend in the second half because our midfield played 10 yards further up the pitch than we did in the first half. A half in which our midfield had, by playing so deep, LET Everton play in front of us and frankly we had made it easy for them. Everton didn't choose to ease off in the second half, we just finally decided to gave them a game. It could have just as easily have finished 2-2 as 3-1 IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Mar 14, 2009 23:54:06 GMT
I agree too, that's a really good analysis. I'm also thinking back to, for example, away at Blackburn when we played open football from the start and even a side of that quality had left us for dead after 20 minutes I don't agree at all Sal. We forced Everton into having to defend in the second half because our midfield played 10 yards further up the pitch than we did in the first half. A half in which our midfield had, by playing so deep, LET Everton play in front of us and frankly we had made it easy for them. Everton didn't choose to ease off in the second half, we just finally decided to gave them a game. It could have just as easily have finished 2-2 as 3-1 IMHO. Don't agree, it was the othe way round, they were forcing us back.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 14, 2009 23:56:47 GMT
We were hardly dicked today though. We wern't dicked at Villa either. At least we were in the game until the 90th minute. Mate I guess it all depends how you personally define 'getting dicked'. I think we were garbage in the first half today and even worse in the first half against Villa, the actual reason we were still in the game until the 90th minute in both matches was because we adopted different tactics in the second half to those that we had employed in the first half. IMHO it's actually that black and white.
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Mar 14, 2009 23:56:49 GMT
Fully agree with Paul, we sit so deep its embarressing, we really do play with fear and it's really annoying because in the second half of games when its practically game over we show just how dangerous we can be.
If we took the game to the opponents then we wouldnt suffer a constant tidal wave of attacks, how about giving their full-backs something to think about instead of letting them get to our byline?
|
|
|
Post by Cupid Stunt on Mar 15, 2009 0:04:34 GMT
Fully agree with Paul, we sit so deep its embarressing, we really do play with fear and it's really annoying because in the second half of games when its practically game over we show just how dangerous we can be. If we took the game to the opponents then we wouldnt suffer a constant tidal wave of attacks, how about giving their full-backs something to think about instead of letting them get to our byline? Because they have better players, so theirs woudl come out on top. I'm not saying Pulis got it right today, I'm saying we shouldn't go out and try and bombard them. I think we should keep it tight but with our better players. Etehrington should have started, possibly Fuller, but he does do better coming off the bench IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Mar 15, 2009 0:16:57 GMT
I'm saying we shouldn't go out and try and bombard them. Mate with the greatest of respect, nobody but you has mentioned trying to 'bombard them'. Yes Everton (and the majority of the Premiership teams) do indeed have better individual players than us, but that was a given from the start of the season. The simple truth is that on the evidence of what we've seen all season long, is that Stoke give a better account of themselves away from home, when the midfield plays further up the pitch and we don't give the opposition an undue amount of respect.
|
|
|
Post by powchirper on Mar 15, 2009 1:05:48 GMT
Well here's another thought, cant be arsed open a new thread but cant believe no ones mentioned the Lescott goal being offside and the deflection on the 3rd goal so making our loss a tad unlucky.
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Mar 15, 2009 1:14:34 GMT
Fully agree with Paul, we sit so deep its embarressing, we really do play with fear and it's really annoying because in the second half of games when its practically game over we show just how dangerous we can be. If we took the game to the opponents then we wouldnt suffer a constant tidal wave of attacks, how about giving their full-backs something to think about instead of letting them get to our byline? Because they have better players, so theirs woudl come out on top. I'm not saying Pulis got it right today, I'm saying we shouldn't go out and try and bombard them. I think we should keep it tight but with our better players. Etehrington should have started, possibly Fuller, but he does do better coming off the bench IMO. Really? Manure have better players than Liverpool ... Stoke have better players than Hartlepool, but by giving it a go (and as Paul says not bombard, but try to pass the ball a bit and at least attempt to get out of our own half at some point in the game) we give ourselves a chance of knicking a goal at the very least. It cant be any worse than the current format of defend, concede two goals before trying? Even West Brom have won away FFS.
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Mar 15, 2009 1:16:21 GMT
You create your own luck, maybe if we'd got far enough forward in the first half to get into offside positions we may have had the benfit of the doubt.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2009 1:31:08 GMT
At Blackburn the team selection was wank!
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Mar 15, 2009 1:47:13 GMT
At Blackburn the team selection was wank! Not to mention the tactics and individual players performances!
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2009 2:21:54 GMT
Didn't Cresser and Vince start on the same pitch in a Premier League game? I know Shawcross was at right back! Poor example of TP being confounded by attacking football I think!
|
|
|
Post by evans1863 on Mar 15, 2009 2:26:00 GMT
Sorro
Shawcross Sonko Faye Wilko (LB)
Delap (50% fit with a bad shoulder) Diao Faye Cresswell
Fuller Pericard
** Thats as far as I can remember, Salif may have been out injured though because I do seem to have some recollection of Whelan playing.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 15, 2009 2:39:31 GMT
Simmo was in goal too. Pericard and Cresswell on the same pitch in a Premier League game, my God what had we done to deserve that?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Mar 15, 2009 6:54:04 GMT
You are being too negative about our own midfield, Whelan is a regular under a manager like Trapatoni, Faye can hold well and Ethrington has good pace.
If we had a fast outlet up front from the start to let them worry about perhaps they might sit a bit deeper and our midfield could advance forward more.
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla on Mar 15, 2009 6:59:07 GMT
Pulis, away from home sets up defensively, he did at Villa and today at Everton and found himself 2-0 down in both games, and as a result of this the side started to "go for it". Now, this makes every one think "Why didn't he set the team up like this from the start?" The answer is a simple one. Look at Villa and Everton's midfield, it's full of pace and quality that is much better than ours when they can be arsed to up the tempo. They see Stoke as a walk over, and so when 2-0 up naturally think game over and stop working allowing us to attack. That happened today for 25 minutes in the 2nd half, and the Everton players realised this and again upped the tempo finishing us off. If we start with this approach, then they will catch us out and dick us. It's a fact, we can't get possession when we're level, because our midfield is not as good as the opponents. Barry and Petrov stopped working at Villa Park, and this allowed us to pass it around. This is why we can't "go for it" from the off. What Pulis should be doing though, is starting Etherington and playin 5 across the midfield if he's going to set up defensively. 2 strikers today was pointless as Mamma, as much as I like him, did fuck all today. 2 out and out wingers in Lawrence and Ethers would have been enough to provide Beattie when on the break. This way I think we'd have not conceded two soft goals and would have been in it 2nd half. I've been saying this for quite a while now. But i can only echo other comments in saying that we now need to go to Hull and WBA with our home side out there. They should not command the respect we have given other sides.
|
|
|
Post by Gorilla on Mar 15, 2009 9:01:30 GMT
My other thought is that we have sat back against teams we could have gone at e.g. Sunderland. These teams don't have a vastly superior team, so being more adventurous is not such a gamble.
|
|
|
Post by fca47 on Mar 15, 2009 9:12:53 GMT
The point is all the Premier league teams have better players than Hull and WBA, but guess what Hull have won 5 away, and even WBA have won, so it might just be that we have our tactics wrong.
|
|