Plan B

[TonyN11]

6 hours ago, Fox92 said:

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.

You're forgetting his defensive contribution ………. for the opposition!

[urban fox]

All this talk of no plan B baffles me. What on earth do people think we are doing when we change formations mid game? 

 

At various times this season (even in the same game) we have used 4-1-4-1, 4-4-2, 5-3-2,-4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 and one or two in between.

 

Please just stop saying we should have a plan B. We have (several). Why not just come straight out and say what you mean that we should resort to hoofball like like the type of sh!te we used to serve up back in the dark days

It may look like we are playing attacking football by pumping balls into the box, and the TV commentators will all say we are putting pressure on, but in reality all we would be doing is serving up meat and drink to opposition centre halves.  We won the league by forcing teams to go wide and put high crosses into our box where Huth/Morgan simply mopped them up, hence the meanest defence and lots of 1-0 wins.  The way to beat a packed defence/parked bus is to try and pull them out of position or play through, not simply chucking balls into the box willy-nilly which will never get you anywhere in these circumstances.

Yes i too get frustrated when in the dying minutes/seconds of a game we are chasing we keep passing it sideways at the back but the answer is not to simply punt it high forward, we should instead move the ball around at pace looking to find an openings. This relies on the midfield/forwards actually making runs into space. Hoofing it just plays into the hands of defenders.

 

NONE of the top teams resort to these tactics anymore. Some have flirted with a big striker but it never usually works out and they end up a bench warmer and being sold on (Carrol at L'pool for eg).

[LCFCSOULBOY]

On 01/03/2020 at 22:44, 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. 

 

 

Absolutely. We can all remember how Ranieri brought a player or two on at 60 minutes. Shuffled the others around and often got the result. Not seeing that lately. 

[somebum]

**** plan B we ain't even got a plan A

[volpeazzurro]

35 minutes ago, urban fox said:

All this talk of no plan B baffles me. What on earth do people think we are doing when we change formations mid game? 

 

At various times this season (even in the same game) we have used 4-1-4-1, 4-4-2, 5-3-2,-4-2-3-1, 3-5-2 and one or two in between.

 

Please just stop saying we should have a plan B. We have (several). Why not just come straight out and say what you mean that we should resort to hoofball like like the type of sh!te we used to serve up back in the dark days

It may look like we are playing attacking football by pumping balls into the box, and the TV commentators will all say we are putting pressure on, but in reality all we would be doing is serving up meat and drink to opposition centre halves.  We won the league by forcing teams to go wide and put high crosses into our box where Huth/Morgan simply mopped them up, hence the meanest defence and lots of 1-0 wins.  The way to beat a packed defence/parked bus is to try and pull them out of position or play through, not simply chucking balls into the box willy-nilly which will never get you anywhere in these circumstances.

Yes i too get frustrated when in the dying minutes/seconds of a game we are chasing we keep passing it sideways at the back but the answer is not to simply punt it high forward, we should instead move the ball around at pace looking to find an openings. This relies on the midfield/forwards actually making runs into space. Hoofing it just plays into the hands of defenders.

 

NONE of the top teams resort to these tactics anymore. Some have flirted with a big striker but it never usually works out and they end up a bench warmer and being sold on (Carrol at L'pool for eg).

Chelsea used Olivier Giroud last night against Liverpool to very good effect. Just because you have a target man doesn't necessarily mean mindless hoofing into the box unless you're a poor side, there's a big difference between a hoof and a long pass! Clearly at times Chelsea were playing longer crossfield passes up to Giroud last night and it definitely flummoxed Liverpool on several occasions because they're not used to dealing with that. With the right player we could do the same with Albrighton and Tielemans,  clearly players like Perez and Barnes, one or both would have to be sacrificed during a game but it gives the opposition something to think about. The loss of the former from the pitch would hardly be noticed in any case. To keep playing and repeating tippy tappy snails pace slow football is crass if it's clearly not working. Admittedly it may be a bit early for him but, if we were to be doing really well tonight or, we're in the same old situation as the last few weeks, you could do far worse than to give Hirst a try with Tielemans and Albrighton on the pitch with Iheanacho to perhaps clean up from any ensuing mayhem it may cause. If you don't try, you never find out. Rodgers sometimes looks a bit bereft of ideas when things aren't going to  his supposed philosophy and appears reluctant to change things. Whilst it didn't always go to plan, you could always see that Ranieri didn't believe in sitting with his thumb up his arse and would try and change the course or direction of a game.

[Dahnsouff]

Giroud is not exactly an Andy Carroll type target man though is he. He is rather more cultured I would suggest.

[Guest ttfn]

General Melchett:
You look surprised, Blackadder.

Captain Blackadder:
I certainly am, sir. I didn't realise we had any battle plans.

General Melchett:
Well, of course we have! How else do you think the battles are directed?

Captain Blackadder:
Our battles are directed, sir?

General Melchett:
Well, of course they are, Blackadder, directed according to the Grand Plan.

Captain Blackadder:
Would that be the plan to continue with total slaughter until everyone's dead except Field Marshal Haig, Lady Haig and their tortoise, Alan?

General Melchett:
Great Scott! Even you know it!

[volpeazzurro]

5 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Giroud is not exactly an Andy Carroll type target man though is he. He is rather more cultured I would suggest.

My point is about having flexibility and a plan B, nothing to do with Andy Carroll. Either way, Rodgers seems not to have one and looks on bemused when his 'philosophy' fails rather than having an idea how to change it. The most you usually get is, if you're one up near the end, he'll put a more defensive player on. 

[Dan LCFC]

No plan B is just average Joe's translation for "why haven't we brought on a giraffe striker to twat it long to".

 

That's not to say a target man is necessarily the answer but in 90% of cases you will find this is what it means.

[Dahnsouff]

4 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

No plan B is just average Joe's translation for "why haven't we brought on a giraffe striker to twat it long to".

 

That's not to say a target man is necessarily the answer but in 90% of cases you will find this is what it means.

Maybe, I always took “we have no plan B” to mean, “why haven’t we stuck 9 past this shower?”