Post by andyl on Dec 3, 2015 11:16:36 GMT
12 hours ago
Quote
Post Options
Post by joanna on 12 hours ago
Andy L said: " I don't think we can credit Neil with a change of tactics in terms of playing the ball up to Madine and Ameobi because it was a response to injury Would he have made the change without injury. I seriously doubt it."
Unless I'm misremembering somehow, Clayton was injured well before the break, and we kept to the same fruitless approach until half time, despite the introduction of the lumbering Madine. Lennon saw that the status quo was failing and clearly then had words in the dressing room and changed to the far more effective tactic immediately afterwards.
Did I miss a further injury and substitution which forced NL's positive change or is this another example of your tendency to manipulate matters to back up your judgements as with others that you've decided are utterly useless (eg Feeney and co)?
bonaparte
Squad Player
**
bonaparte Avatar
Posts: 53
22 minutes ago
Quote
Post Options
Post by bonaparte on 22 minutes ago
Sorry, maybe NL did say something, perhaps you have insider knowledge, to change the tactics. No doubt he might, as he had to replace Clayton, about 5 mins before the interval, but to me there was only positional change, not tactical. There were still two possible tactical substitutions he could have made, but he chose not to. (DF was of the same frame of mind). Why not? Can he not see a potential winning tactic? Does he think that his bench is too weak? Does he think his starting 11 can out run 14 opposition players? I have no idea.
I only see that he is taking the club further down
I've lifted the above from the admin thread and popped it here where maybe it may be read by anyone just looking up specific threads on specific topics
I think I'm with Bonaparte on this one. Clayton's substitution is recorded at 40 min but that maybe when Madine came on rather than he went off and there was an interval. But I think it is fair comment that any tactical or psoitional changes would be made at half time. I am presuming also that Neil said something then not least because he wasn't to be seen in the technical area much of the time
Dougie was much keener on tactics and strategy so much so that the consensus now seems to be that players got bored and didn't understand because of the overkill and no doubt because he was hard at times to listen to. Commenting more broadly than with reference to the the Brentford game I think I've seen the same game over and over again this year.
We attack with passion and emotion- none more so than Feeney actually- but we run into blind alleys and miss chances. If full backs or midfielders support the attack and it breaks down we are counter attacked at pace and either concede or escape by dint of agreat tackle ( Osede, I think) v Sheffield , Vela once on Monday pivoting all the way across to left back, a Wheater clearance and often Amos on his own.
I have seen some games where we have just hoofed the ball up front interminably ( not so much on Monday even after the interval we tended to play to the flanks for crosses or to Ameobi or Pratley in indide right and left positions). But most of the time just about every opposition has outnumbered our midfield and been able to interpass for significant periods albeit without much penetration. We have not often been on the rack. Is it a tactical decision to fall back and pack the penalty box? Maybe?
We have blocked a lot of shots this year but because Dervite is quite a soft defender if shots are in his area somehow forwards tend to have time to change feet, line themselves and shoot with ease- that seemed to me to occur for Brentford's goal and it certainly occurred for QPR's clinching goal. I am also never clear as to who is picking up potential shoooters on the D when crosses or free kicks are cleared. But Prince too is gangling and clumsy. One QPR goal came after he was wrongsided at full back , tried his slide and hook back but didn't do enough to halt the winger. Prince and Amos appear to have no rapport at all.
For my part I have no idea what neil said at half time or what adjustments he made other than repositioning Pratley and Davies. But I do believe he fired them up because we did do better in the second half and it looked to me as if we did better at the things we were trying to do in the first half
Brentford made substitutions at 68,74 and 81 minutes. It seemed to me that the arrival of fresh legs boosted them and certainly the counter attack threat returned
Dobbie's arrival was timed at 90 minutes. I think I have seen this pattern repeatedly and conclude that Neil either has no confidence in his benches or just wants to hang on and not rock the boat. My observation is that most managers most of the time use a substitution strategy closer to Carsley's? In this game I felt that we fizzled out and thanks to Amos's save only just avoided paying the ultimate price
Quote
Post Options
Post by joanna on 12 hours ago
Andy L said: " I don't think we can credit Neil with a change of tactics in terms of playing the ball up to Madine and Ameobi because it was a response to injury Would he have made the change without injury. I seriously doubt it."
Unless I'm misremembering somehow, Clayton was injured well before the break, and we kept to the same fruitless approach until half time, despite the introduction of the lumbering Madine. Lennon saw that the status quo was failing and clearly then had words in the dressing room and changed to the far more effective tactic immediately afterwards.
Did I miss a further injury and substitution which forced NL's positive change or is this another example of your tendency to manipulate matters to back up your judgements as with others that you've decided are utterly useless (eg Feeney and co)?
bonaparte
Squad Player
**
bonaparte Avatar
Posts: 53
22 minutes ago
Quote
Post Options
Post by bonaparte on 22 minutes ago
Sorry, maybe NL did say something, perhaps you have insider knowledge, to change the tactics. No doubt he might, as he had to replace Clayton, about 5 mins before the interval, but to me there was only positional change, not tactical. There were still two possible tactical substitutions he could have made, but he chose not to. (DF was of the same frame of mind). Why not? Can he not see a potential winning tactic? Does he think that his bench is too weak? Does he think his starting 11 can out run 14 opposition players? I have no idea.
I only see that he is taking the club further down
I've lifted the above from the admin thread and popped it here where maybe it may be read by anyone just looking up specific threads on specific topics
I think I'm with Bonaparte on this one. Clayton's substitution is recorded at 40 min but that maybe when Madine came on rather than he went off and there was an interval. But I think it is fair comment that any tactical or psoitional changes would be made at half time. I am presuming also that Neil said something then not least because he wasn't to be seen in the technical area much of the time
Dougie was much keener on tactics and strategy so much so that the consensus now seems to be that players got bored and didn't understand because of the overkill and no doubt because he was hard at times to listen to. Commenting more broadly than with reference to the the Brentford game I think I've seen the same game over and over again this year.
We attack with passion and emotion- none more so than Feeney actually- but we run into blind alleys and miss chances. If full backs or midfielders support the attack and it breaks down we are counter attacked at pace and either concede or escape by dint of agreat tackle ( Osede, I think) v Sheffield , Vela once on Monday pivoting all the way across to left back, a Wheater clearance and often Amos on his own.
I have seen some games where we have just hoofed the ball up front interminably ( not so much on Monday even after the interval we tended to play to the flanks for crosses or to Ameobi or Pratley in indide right and left positions). But most of the time just about every opposition has outnumbered our midfield and been able to interpass for significant periods albeit without much penetration. We have not often been on the rack. Is it a tactical decision to fall back and pack the penalty box? Maybe?
We have blocked a lot of shots this year but because Dervite is quite a soft defender if shots are in his area somehow forwards tend to have time to change feet, line themselves and shoot with ease- that seemed to me to occur for Brentford's goal and it certainly occurred for QPR's clinching goal. I am also never clear as to who is picking up potential shoooters on the D when crosses or free kicks are cleared. But Prince too is gangling and clumsy. One QPR goal came after he was wrongsided at full back , tried his slide and hook back but didn't do enough to halt the winger. Prince and Amos appear to have no rapport at all.
For my part I have no idea what neil said at half time or what adjustments he made other than repositioning Pratley and Davies. But I do believe he fired them up because we did do better in the second half and it looked to me as if we did better at the things we were trying to do in the first half
Brentford made substitutions at 68,74 and 81 minutes. It seemed to me that the arrival of fresh legs boosted them and certainly the counter attack threat returned
Dobbie's arrival was timed at 90 minutes. I think I have seen this pattern repeatedly and conclude that Neil either has no confidence in his benches or just wants to hang on and not rock the boat. My observation is that most managers most of the time use a substitution strategy closer to Carsley's? In this game I felt that we fizzled out and thanks to Amos's save only just avoided paying the ultimate price
