LCFC - West Ham Post Match Thread 2-2

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, Lambert09 said:

Bowen is deceptively quick for sure but big dans certainly lost a yard of pace since his injury.  Brendan has always been a fan of a high line and its always irked me. 

....nothing wrong with a high line, so long as you have the personnel to play it!!!

It is criminal to put Vestergaard in that position to carry that policy out, all down to a lack of understanding by Rodgers.

[Harpenden Fox]

I've made myself watch the equaliser loads of times now. As daft as the decision to disrupt our defence on 90 minutes was, and I genuinely think it led to us confusing ourselves, the trouble for me is Kasper. The ball is headed by Dawson around five yards out. Kasper makes a forward movement, realises he can't get there, and flaps, so is basically out of position. Surely he either needs to come for the ball and punch it, or stay on his line to give himself the best chance of making the save? He's totally in no man's land.

[Lambert09]

1 hour ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....nothing wrong with a high line, so long as you have the personnel to play it!!!

It is criminal to put Vestergaard in that position to carry that policy out, all down to a lack of understanding by Rodgers.

Oh agreed, its more of a personnel issue on our part. But it really does have to be horses for courses 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

36 minutes ago, Harpenden Fox said:

I've made myself watch the equaliser loads of times now. As daft as the decision to disrupt our defence on 90 minutes was, and I genuinely think it led to us confusing ourselves, the trouble for me is Kasper. The ball is headed by Dawson around five yards out. Kasper makes a forward movement, realises he can't get there, and flaps, so is basically out of position. Surely he either needs to come for the ball and punch it, or stay on his line to give himself the best chance of making the save? He's totally in no man's land.

Kasper sticks to his line a lot of the time it seems. It’s his Achilles heel and is literally chained to the goal line!

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, Harpenden Fox said:

I've made myself watch the equaliser loads of times now. As daft as the decision to disrupt our defence on 90 minutes was, and I genuinely think it led to us confusing ourselves, the trouble for me is Kasper. The ball is headed by Dawson around five yards out. Kasper makes a forward movement, realises he can't get there, and flaps, so is basically out of position. Surely he either needs to come for the ball and punch it, or stay on his line to give himself the best chance of making the save? He's totally in no man's land.

...it looks like the more important thing to do at the time was to clear Vestergaard out of the way in order to get anywhere near the ball!!!

[gerblod]

22 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

The problem with using the Fergie era as an examples it that it comes from a pre-VAR era, and VAR now gives refs a great get out.*

After the game VAR said the ref was unsighted (which tbf he was). Players surrounding the ref would have been told "I didn't see it, VAR is looking", while VAR then proceeds to fall back on the 'clear and obvious error' line for a decision they just admitted was bollocks because the ref couldn't see the bloody thing

*the other problem is all the players swarming round the ref like angry wasps is shit behaviour

* Which I qualified by stating that I "hated it" (that behaviour). I loathed Fergie, because of his win-at-all-costs mentality. 

 

My knee-jerk reaction to that dubious goal was a knock-on from the crucial issue of why Rodgers had, yet again, failed to continue keeping (this time) West Ham on the back foot. Had he kept Maddison and Tielemans on then there remained the basis of the attacking formation which had, for example, forced Moyes to change his right-back.

 

It's not VAR or the ref which took away the possibility of three points. It's Rodgers lamentable in-game decisions. Apparently the 'it's obviously not working, but let's try it once more' thinking is an idee‐fixe in the dugout. 

It's been referred to as 'stubborn' or 'arrogant'. I don't believe it's at all conscious - but comes from an inherent cautiousness and an inability to adapt appropriately at key moments.

As it is he placed Vestergaard in a situation which will knock his confidence and continue to get our makeshift defence mocked by the Premier world.

 

 

[The Guvnor]

14 hours ago, Harpenden Fox said:

I've made myself watch the equaliser loads of times now. As daft as the decision to disrupt our defence on 90 minutes was, and I genuinely think it led to us confusing ourselves, the trouble for me is Kasper. The ball is headed by Dawson around five yards out. Kasper makes a forward movement, realises he can't get there, and flaps, so is basically out of position. Surely he either needs to come for the ball and punch it, or stay on his line to give himself the best chance of making the save? He's totally in no man's land.

Kasper is an incredible shot stopper, one of the best, commanding his penalty area is unfortunately not one of his strengths.

[BKLFox]

Why Brendan Rodgers' controversial Leicester City substitution was the right decision - by Jordan Blackwell

 

Vestergaard introduction was not needless tinkering

Before that injury-time leveller – which still does deserve scrutiny – there was a substitution that has caused as much fury as the goal itself.

Jannik Vestergaard was brought on for Tielemans and within two minutes West Ham had equalised. For many, that was not a coincidence.

That is understandable given City have not won a Premier League game in which Vestergaard has started this season. It is clear that his style does not suit City’s style and overall, it has been a bust of a transfer.

But this was not Rodgers making a change for the sake of it. There was plenty of sound reasoning behind Vestergaard’s introduction.

If West Ham had kept attacking by the same routes, then City didn’t need to change, certainly not positionally. Maybe they could have brought Hamza Choudhury or Papy Mendy on to provide a late burst of energy to the midfield.

But West Ham did make a change. They pushed Craig Dawson up front, just like City used to do with Matt Elliott in the Martin O’Neill days. It was clear what they were going to do: lump balls up the pitch.

Those launches into the penalty box would bypass the midfield by and large, so it made sense to take off the midfielder with the least energy, which was Tielemans, and replace him with someone who can defend the box from an aerial bombardment.

As much as he doesn’t fit in at City, this is what Vestergaard can do, and has done well in a couple of his substitute appearances. When balls are put into the box, and he doesn’t have to chase it, he can read it and win his headers.

Correlation is not causation, as much as it would be simple if it were. Vestergaard’s introduction was not the sole reason for City conceding the last-minute equaliser.

This was not Rodgers needlessly tinkering, it was a manager responding to an opposition’s tactic and trying to counteract it. That seems preferable to a manager standing idle and doing nothing.

So with the set-piece itself, who was at fault? Because in effect, Vestergaard did not change City’s approach. They kept Daniel Amartey and Wilfred Ndidi on the runners, careful not to tinker with a set-up that, to that point, had served them well. Vestergaard instead went and stood in the six-yard box, protecting Kasper Schmeichel from Michail Antonio.

The first error was Amartey’s in that he got tied up in keeping track of Dawson, and did little to halt his progress, allowing him a clear enough run at the ball to leap at it.

Schmeichel may also be partly culpable in that he half-attempted to come for the ball, but then changed his mind, the goalkeeper caught in no man’s land and unable to make an attempt to keep out Dawson’s effort.

He was partly impeded by Vestergaard, who in his attempt to outmuscle Antonio got in his own goalkeeper’s way.

The problem then was that Schmeichel tried to push his centre-back out of the picture to allow him to go for the ball, stopping him from jumping to head it.

Between the three of them, there were a few mistakes. So while Rodgers may point out that a lack of desire to get a head on the ball is the “primary” reason behind City’s woes, there are still organisational deficiencies too.

 

 

Is he wrong, that's how i saw it but i feel a lot just see Rodgers making a sub that sub being Vestergaard & booooooo when the reality is 3 professionals mixed themselves up in trying to simply defend, it can't all be on Rodgers.
95% of our goals conceded come from individual errors we very rarely get opened up by any team, there's not a single goal i can think of off the top of my head where i thought wow or fair play good goal that

Edited 15 February 2022 by BKLFox

[filbertway]

The moment he made that substitution is the moment he said "Okay West Ham, we've not given you much of a sniff, but here's 4 minutes for you to pin us back and get balls in the box".

 

That's the reality. It took away any momentum and gifted it to West Ham, Rodgers can't spot that and clearly he's able to convince other people that letting teams just pump balls into you box is a great tactic. Probably because we've had lucky escapes in the past. 

 

The Rodgers of 19/20 would have had us going for the kill and have West Ham more concerned about conceding a 3rd than even thinking of having the chance of sustained attacks. He's a different man now, a lesser manager who consistently out thinks himself and makes decisions that result in poor outcomes.

[BKLFox]

33 minutes ago, filbertway said:

The moment he made that substitution is the moment he said "Okay West Ham, we've not given you much of a sniff, but here's 4 minutes for you to pin us back and get balls in the box".

 

That's the reality. It took away any momentum and gifted it to West Ham, Rodgers can't spot that and clearly he's able to convince other people that letting teams just pump balls into you box is a great tactic. Probably because we've had lucky escapes in the past. 

 

The Rodgers of 19/20 would have had us going for the kill and have West Ham more concerned about conceding a 3rd than even thinking of having the chance of sustained attacks. He's a different man now, a lesser manager who consistently out thinks himself and makes decisions that result in poor outcomes.

what momentum in that moment the ball was only going 1 way & they had deployed Dawson in the box to lump balls into to at the very least get a corner, the thinking was sound the execution of defending was not.

[gerblod]

9 hours ago, BKLFox said:

9 hours ago, filbertway said:

The moment he made that substitution is the moment he said "Okay West Ham, we've not given you much of a sniff, but here's 4 minutes for you to pin us back and get balls in the box".

 

That's the reality. It took away any momentum and gifted it to West Ham, Rodgers can't spot that and clearly he's able to convince other people that letting teams just pump balls into you box is a great tactic. Probably because we've had lucky escapes in the past. 

 

The Rodgers of 19/20 would have had us going for the kill and have West Ham more concerned about conceding a 3rd than even thinking of having the chance of sustained attacks. He's a different man now, a lesser manager who consistently out thinks himself and makes decisions that result in poor outcomes.

 

My pov concerned the substitutions of both Maddison and Tielemans. For much of the second-half we'd held the upper hand, were ahead and looked like scoring again.

The season is essentially over and, although we're not perilously close to the relegation zone, the team is perilously close to losing its frail cohesion.

One game where we can stop the rot by keeping the pressure on a team worth beating (some victories are worth more in terms of bolstering the players' confidence) and BR takes the heat off them. To quote an old but not disproven adage, 'attack is the best form of defence'. He needed to protect this shaky defence by keeping West Ham on the back foot. Instead he opens up the game for them by a substitution for a supposed threat. And it turned real precisely because of the substitution.

Edited 15 February 2022 by gerblod
My reply found its way into the quote

[BKLFox]

3 minutes ago, gerblod said:

 

But...
The Maddison change WAS an attacking change Lookman came on to attack in the 73rd minute when the game was 2:1
The Tielemens change was to counter West Ham shoving Dawson in the box in the 89th minute that wasn't a change that was done to early which invited pressure for 20+minutes the pressure was there & they were lumping balls into the box for Dawson.
Nothing wrong with the changes in my eyes

[deep blue]

8 hours ago, BKLFox said:

....

 

 

Is he wrong, that's how i saw it but i feel a lot just see Rodgers making a sub that sub being Vestergaard & booooooo when the reality is 3 professionals mixed themselves up in trying to simply defend, it can't all be on Rodgers.
95% of our goals conceded come from individual errors we very rarely get opened up by any team, there's not a single goal i can think of off the top of my head where i thought wow or fair play good goal that

Three things you're not taking into account here.

 

1, Without the substitution we probably would have been able to continue controlling the game and might not have ended up giving away a corner.

 

2. Making such a change at the death severely risks disrupting a defence which, in this case, had coped well up to that point., 

 

3.  The addition of an extra defender in the box at a corner was the reason that "3 professionals mixed themselves up".  The sub only got in the way.  There have been so many examples in previous games where an extra defender causes problems rather than helps because the communication between them gets confused  e.g.  2 defenders close to the ball and both hesitating expecting the other to move for it - fatal hesitation.

[David Hankey]

9 minutes ago, deep blue said:

Three things you're not taking into account here.

 

1, Without the substitution we probably would have been able to continue controlling the game and might not have ended up giving away a corner.

 

2. Making such a change at the death severely risks disrupting a defence which, in this case, had coped well up to that point., 

 

3.  The addition of an extra defender in the box at a corner was the reason that "3 professionals mixed themselves up".  The sub only got in the way.  There have been so many examples in previous games where an extra defender causes problems rather than helps because the communication between them gets confused  e.g.  2 defenders close to the ball and both hesitating expecting the other to move for it - fatal hesitation.

However you analyse it and whichever way you look at it we are talking about professional footballers who should a) know what they are doing and b) be able to see a game out that we had already won.

 

The blame game as to what Brendan did or didn't do really is hogwash and a deflection from the real issue - the mindset of the players.

[st albans fox]

19 minutes ago, deep blue said:

Three things you're not taking into account here.

 

1, Without the substitution we probably would have been able to continue controlling the game and might not have ended up giving away a corner.

 

2. Making such a change at the death severely risks disrupting a defence which, in this case, had coped well up to that point., 

 

3.  The addition of an extra defender in the box at a corner was the reason that "3 professionals mixed themselves up".  The sub only got in the way.  There have been so many examples in previous games where an extra defender causes problems rather than helps because the communication between them gets confused  e.g.  2 defenders close to the ball and both hesitating expecting the other to move for it - fatal hesitation.

We weren’t controlling the game post 80/85 mins ….. they had plenty up top and we were struggling to stay with the pace of the game as they upped the ante 

 

there was no hesitation on the goal apart from kasper and we know he wouldn’t have got to the ball anyway ….amartey was just beaten in the air by Dawson. 

[Plastik Man]

23 hours ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

Kasper sticks to his line a lot of the time it seems. It’s his Achilles heel and is literally chained to the goal line!

On a very short chain! 

[BKLFox]

8 minutes ago, deep blue said:

Three things you're not taking into account here.

 

1, Without the substitution we probably would have been able to continue controlling the game and might not have ended up giving away a corner.

 

2. Making such a change at the death severely risks disrupting a defence which, in this case, had coped well up to that point., 

 

3.  The addition of an extra defender in the box at a corner was the reason that "3 professionals mixed themselves up".  The sub only got in the way.  There have been so many examples in previous games where an extra defender causes problems rather than helps because the communication between them gets confused  e.g.  2 defenders close to the ball and both hesitating expecting the other to move for it - fatal hesitation.

1. Keyword ‘probably’ bit of the coulda/woulda/shoulda’s about it no guarantee we win if left alone, also we were not ‘in control’ of the game at that point.

2. Agree someone coming in that late isn’t up with the dynamics of the game but it’s done week in week out to waste time and break flow which we needed.

3. A bit of 2 in that yes he did look lost in where to position himself but he was told to go in the 6yard box to head anything out & protect Kasper & leave Dan/Cags with runners, it’s then explained in original post what happens with the issue with Kasper coming/not coming.
 

I’ve read a few ex players having their say on our corner issues recently this is Dean Ashtons take:

The former striker also outlined where the blame lies in the set piece problems haunting City.

“Just regarding set plays, whether it’s man-to-man or zonal, that is purely the player’s fault, nobody else, not the manager, not the coaches, nobody else but the player,” he added. “It is me vs you for that ball, that’s all it is.”

 

I couldn’t put that last bit better myself, they know what to do it’s basic stuff and my god I bet they have been drilled for hours on defending corners but I suspect due to fear, confidence & lack of aggression they are not fully committing to the ball during a match.

[gerblod]

7 hours ago, BKLFox said:

But...
The Maddison change WAS an attacking change Lookman came on to attack in the 73rd minute when the game was 2:1
The Tielemens change was to counter West Ham shoving Dawson in the box in the 89th minute that wasn't a change that was done to early which invited pressure for 20+minutes the pressure was there & they were lumping balls into the box for Dawson.
Nothing wrong with the changes in my eyes

Maddison is the pivotal player in the team - his ability to keep the ball is possibly unmatched in the Prem. He's a constant threat - whether in beginning a move or taking a shot. Once or twice he was keeping two or three of the opposition tied up trying to dispossess him.

As for countering Dawson - didn't work, did it? While we were dominating them the defence had much less pressure to deal with. I couldn't manage a football team, but I sighed when he took Madders off.

I'm a great advocate of 'if it's working, don't f**k about with it'. It's not the first time it's happened.

[Mike Oxlong]

Just watched the highlights 

 

1) Great penalty and performance from Tielemans

2) Harvey played well but needs to try crossing with his right foot more often to mix it up, like the one that Patson almost put in 

3) Jannik fvcked up twice on their equaliser. Blocked Kasper from getting to the ball, then didn’t jump himself 

4) But it should have been disallowed as the ball was in contact with Dawson’s arm below the sleeve IMO 

[foxinsocks]

9 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Just watched the highlights 

 

1) Great penalty and performance from Tielemans

2) Harvey played well but needs to try crossing with his right foot more often to mix it up, like the one that Patson almost put in 

3) Jannik fvcked up twice on their equaliser. Blocked Kasper from getting to the ball, then didn’t jump himself 

4) But it should have been disallowed as the ball was in contact with Dawson’s arm below the sleeve IMO 

Harvey better in second half by driving to tbe byeline (he tends to want to cut in). He needs to replicate his 2nd half performance.