Plan B

[Guest Fktf]

12 hours ago, Foxxed said:

To be fair, in 15/16 I don't think we had a plan B. But no one could defeat our plan A.

 

12 hours ago, Stadt said:

By plan B most people think bring ups some big f ucker and launch it into the box like it's a really well though out contingency plan 

Ulloa doesn't count? Season after 15/16 this worked quite well against Athletico in the champions league - we put them under some real pressure by going direct to him. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

11 minutes ago, Fktf said:

 

Ulloa doesn't count? Season after 15/16 this worked quite well against Athletico in the champions league - we put them under some real pressure by going direct to him. 

Route one to the big man in the Champions League Quarter Final. Unreal. 

[The_77]

On 02/03/2020 at 05:13, davieG said:

I'm sure Man City don't have a Plan B but what they do have is massive depth of quality if the starting team isn't doing it then he has so many options, see yesterday brings on De Bruyne and Benardo Silva.

 

We need to give him time to build the team depth and that wont be easy because players will be enticed away and we'll be continually outbid for recruits. It'll take time, recruitment savvy and luck to unearth some more gems like Vardy and Mahrez.

 

Can we do it F-Knows

 

On 02/03/2020 at 05:21, Toddybad said:

This. 100%.

Man city and Liverpool don't change how they play when they're losing. Nor do Barcelona or Madrid. Or Bayern. Or any other serious team.

Just because Newcastle can throw on Andy Carroll doesn't make that a recipe for success.

 

On 02/03/2020 at 05:33, Gerard said:

 

Exactly. If launching it to a big target man was improving our goal expectation then we would do that tactic for 90 mins.

 

Do Barcelona or Man City have a Plan B or do they just play their football?

Sure they do. Man City played three different formations in their last three games.

 

Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce a certain way for you, a player or two just isn't up for it, or a opponent has a glaring weakness or dangerous strength. Every top team has to be able to adapt at various points of games throughout the season.

[davieG]

35 minutes ago, The_77 said:

 

 

Sure they do. Man City played three different formations in their last three games.

 

Sometimes the ball doesn't bounce a certain way for you, a player or two just isn't up for it, or a opponent has a glaring weakness or dangerous strength. Every top team has to be able to adapt at various points of games throughout the season.

Different formations doesn't necessarily mean playing in a different way and Man City play the same way whatever the formation, Rodgers has had different formations but the approach and style is the same.

[Fox92]

On 02/03/2020 at 10:21, Toddybad said:

This. 100%.

Man city and Liverpool don't change how they play when they're losing. Nor do Barcelona or Madrid. Or Bayern. Or any other serious team.

Just because Newcastle can throw on Andy Carroll doesn't make that a recipe for success.

They know when to go direct though. You won't see Liverpool or Man City pissing about with it if they know they need to clear their lines. Look at the amount of times Van Dijk goes longl he knows when to go short and when to go long.

 

We only have Evans who seems to know when to put his foot through it. Maybe that comes with experience. 

Edited 3 March 2020 by Fox92

[The_77]

29 minutes ago, davieG said:

Different formations doesn't necessarily mean playing in a different way and Man City play the same way whatever the formation, Rodgers has had different formations but the approach and style is the same.

But they did change their tactics, especially against Madrid. A "Plan B" isn't just reverting to hoofball or throwing in a target man.

Edited 3 March 2020 by The_77

[Richard]

single pivot (ndidi)

 

double pivot (2 of Ndidi/Tielemans/Praet) with Maddison in #10

 

3 man defence 

 

midfield diamond with 2up top. 
 

 

all of the above have been seen this season so how many more plans do we need? Or do we mean sign a big ****er to flick the ball on to nobody? 

[worth_the_wait]

Nothing wrong with occasionally hoofing the ball down the pitch.   We wouldn't have won the League Cup in 1999-2000 if we hadn't resorted to a simply plan 'B' hoof it strategy.

 

Quarter Final at home to Fulham, 0-2 down after 75 minutes, and going absolutely nowhere.  Tried all night to work it through midfield.   Nothing much doing. 

 

We pushed Steve Walsh up front, and possibly Matt Elliott as well.   We played it long, and pretty much bypassed midfield altogether.   We scored in the 85th and 87th minutes.  Forced extra time.   Then won on penalties. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOUPCEQHOG0

 

Stuffed Villa in the semis, and beat Tranny in the final! 

[Leeds Fox]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

They know when to go direct though. You won't see Liverpool or Man City pissing about with it if they know they need to clear their lines. Look at the amount of times Van Dijk goes longl he knows when to go short and when to go long.

 

We only have Evans who seems to know when to put his foot through it. Maybe that comes with experience. 

Van Dijk doesn’t really ‘put his foot through it. There’s a difference between putting your foot through it and clipping a ball long into a top quality strikers feet. When Mane or Salah get those long balls, they’re clever/talented enough to make something of it or win a cheap foul. 

[fuchsntf]

All Teams have Plan B,even C & D...

Gets used in every game...

 

They are called substitutes......

[Grebfromgrebland]

If Slimani wasn't our player we'd want to buy him.

[davieG]

1 hour ago, The_77 said:

But they did change their tactics, especially against Madrid. A "Plan B" isn't just reverting to hoofball or throwing in a target man.

I know what Plan B isn't.

[drofmor55]

1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

Nothing wrong with occasionally hoofing the ball down the pitch.   We wouldn't have won the League Cup in 1999-2000 if we hadn't resorted to a simply plan 'B' hoof it strategy.

 

Quarter Final at home to Fulham, 0-2 down after 75 minutes, and going absolutely nowhere.  Tried all night to work it through midfield.   Nothing much doing. 

 

We pushed Steve Walsh up front, and possibly Matt Elliott as well.   We played it long, and pretty much bypassed midfield altogether.   We scored in the 85th and 87th minutes.  Forced extra time.   Then won on penalties. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOUPCEQHOG0

 

Stuffed Villa in the semis, and beat Tranny in the final! 

Never understood why teams wait until the 80th minute to try this ...it may not be pretty football but who cares

[The_77]

31 minutes ago, davieG said:

I know what Plan B isn't.

OK, well, Man City changed tactics and formations. Good chat.

[SoCal Supporter]

Seems to be a chemistry problem lately and substitutes just don't blend-in well.  Manager needs to make strategy adjustments that suit the roster on the field.  Plan B should be a simpler, more direct approach.

[drofmor55]

The reason Newcastle would resort to hoofing it up to Andy Carroll as a Plan B whilst Man City/Barcelona/Real Madrid don't ?...about 300 million quid 

[sacreblueits442]

On 02/03/2020 at 10:33, Gerard said:

 

Exactly. If launching it to a big target man was improving our goal expectation then we would do that tactic for 90 mins.

 

Do Barcelona or Man City have a Plan B or do they just play their football?

... they have got an excellent roster and eventually they will wear teams down with movement and using the ball effectively!! 

 The term plan B is perhaps a misnomer as Ferguson effectively used Solskjaer as a super sub. Making an adjustment to the team when it was called for. Using your players in this way gave your team a different option and added further doubt for your opponents. 

[oxtonfox]

On 02/03/2020 at 03:41, Mike Oxlong said:

Plan B - same as Plan A with a bit more desire 

Sounds like Brendan , you'll be saying "possession with a purpose" is plan B next. 

[worth_the_wait]

1 hour ago, drofmor55 said:

The reason Newcastle would resort to hoofing it up to Andy Carroll as a Plan B whilst Man City/Barcelona/Real Madrid don't ?...about 300 million quid 

and 6'4"

[Guest Fktf]

Having a target man doesn't have to mean route one hoofball. Against a team sat in a deep and narrow block to defend a lead, I can't see the objection to taking advantage of the space out wide, and asking an Albrighton type winger to pick out a tall striker, or ndidi arriving late, with a cross - especially if we've struggled to create anything using 'plan a'. 

Edited 3 March 2020 by Fktf

[ScouseFox]

iheanacho is plan b, the only issue is that vardy has been so rubbish/injured recently that iheanacho has become plan a. and plan b is, er, dunno. 

 

as for everyone saying we don’t have a plan b of just lumping it to the big man, well that’s another issue. it’s probably plan c, so to speak, but when we get desperate we do bring albrighton on to put balls in the box. which is an even stupider plan when you consider we don’t actually have a big player. but never mind. 

[Fox92]

7 hours ago, ScouseFox said:

iheanacho is plan b, the only issue is that vardy has been so rubbish/injured recently that iheanacho has become plan a. and plan b is, er, dunno. 

 

as for everyone saying we don’t have a plan b of just lumping it to the big man, well that’s another issue. it’s probably plan c, so to speak, but when we get desperate we do bring albrighton on to put balls in the box. which is an even stupider plan when you consider we don’t actually have a big player. but never mind. 

This is so annoying. Happened at Norwich on Friday again.

 

Brining a player on who isn't really going to do anything aside from lob balls into the box and we have nobody in there never mind no big man.

[TheCryptoPoet]

The real plan B people mean when they say it is direct to a target man. It's long ball stuff as others have intimated on here. The only time I've heard it talked about and backed up with any suggestion is when it's related to buying some unknown striker who's good in the air. Or to bring Slimani back...

 

If anything we have too many plans at the moment what with Rodgers tinkering with systems and formations. Seems the only thing he hasn't tried is that elusive 'plan B' 

[Guest Cujek]

On 02/03/2020 at 06:44, Mack said:

I have to say that I don't agree.

In my opinion there are times during a season where a manager has got it selection or tactically wrong from the first whistle, the game doesn't pan out the way you anticipated or you have some bad luck and get punished. 

In addition it might be that the set up and style have been negated by the opposition tactics or one or two players are having a stinker of a game, and when some of this is the case and a game is going to end in getting nothing from it what is the harm in having something different on the bench?

Nothing ventured nothing gained?

Maybe it won't end up working out but at least you've challenged the opposition and given them something else to think about, something outside of the realms of the preparation that they have done, and yes at times something simpler and a bit more 'industrial.'

Plenty of managers have done it with great success down the years for example look at Alex Ferguson's record with Ole Gunnar Solskjaer from the bench. If my memory serves me right it won them the European cup.

And yes I absolutely agree that the lack of urgency and insistence in fidgeting the ball around the back four when we are losing with only a few minutes left is absolutely infuriating and I'm baffled as to why Rodgers is not up on his feet and screaming at them to get it forward. 

 

 

exactly this to be honest.

 

we have been found out tactically and physically on a number of occasions recently.

 

just for example in the last match, we bring Albrighton on to presumably bang in crosses...

 

But to who? we havent got a big lump, i mean we have Hirst who isn't worthy of a bench spot when 1 of your only 2 strikers is injured, but other than that, nothing.

 

we bring Ndidi on to hold out for a draw against the bottom of the league team.

 

we seem to insist on trying to work Chilwell into a team at all costs, even though the guy is so out of form.

 

its not just a lack of a plan b its a lack of players to perform a plan b, we went into this season with only 2 strikers, although Kelechi has started to look a bit better, at the start of the season, i dont think anyone would have had much confidence in him, now Vardy is injured we have 1 striker, its poor not to have a back up.

 

we are lucky soyonchu has come good or it would have been Evans and Morgan at centre back.

 

i dont really know what to think anymore, i do know we have problems, but i feel guilty about moaning about it because of the dross i have seen over the years of supporting Leicester City.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

18 hours ago, Leeds Fox said:

Van Dijk doesn’t really ‘put his foot through it. There’s a difference between putting your foot through it and clipping a ball long into a top quality strikers feet. When Mane or Salah get those long balls, they’re clever/talented enough to make something of it or win a cheap foul. 

This is what surprises me, Rodgers in our first season (at Celtic) wasn't afraid of doing this, quite often when the possession based stuff wasn't bearing any fruit we'd go direct to Dembele, into feet or more usually over the top and it really worked as an effective plan B.  However, after the first season we completely stopped doing it, it was so obvious you can only assume this was under instruction.

 

Having watched a lot of Leicester games this season, the approach, certainly the second half of the season anyway mirrors Rodgers last two seasons here in terms of a reluctance to go direct now and again.  I don't understand it either because Vardy is perfect to play that sort of game on occassion with his pace to run in behind and getting centre back's having to turn.