Wednesday post match

[oz was my hero]

11 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

Apart from those two earlier chances we dominated the ball all second half I think the players thought 1 goal was enough without going full pelt and becoming to open at the back unfortunately they managed to get a goal in the dying minutes 

Really? You put the game to bed before taking your foot of the gas . 1 goal is never enough to relax.if they really thought the job was done that is complete arrogance. 

[oz was my hero]

9 hours ago, Qwerty said:

Well why didn’t they beat us then?  

The same reason they haven't beaten anyone else , because  they are completely  shit yet they could have put 4 past us

[Wymsey]

Imagine this place if it was a loss..

[sacreblueits442]

10 hours ago, Rigga said:

Agreed..

 

im glad our rebuild is in the championship rather than PL

 

oppositions  high press will find us out very quickly..

...perhaps we might have kept Barnes, Madders was a question mark and the sales might have been better priced!!!

The team would have had better quality, but yes it is easier to rebuild in the second tier.

[LCFCJohn]

10 hours ago, Matt said:

You joke and that's your prerogative, i'm not even saying that style is right myself, but certain managers have stigmas, rightly or wrongly, get called dinosaurs e.t.c, my question is when does this style (Which let me make clear, put ourselves to one side, i'm talking purely this style, not us per se) get called out for what it is? When is it ok and accepted to criticise, noting it doesn't work for every team and/or all the time?

 

It's the epitome of football snobbery to hold any other opinion.

 

Was just thinking about this, not talking about any styles particularly, but ultimately, football and sport should be about entertainment right. My view is that a key part of entertainment is unpredictability. 
 

This is the issue for me. I’m fine with how we play as a fundamental principle. But we are so awfully predictable which not only makes us easier for opponents to plan for but affects the entertainment value. 
 

Even upping the tempo, overlapping the wingers (which we can’t do as he doesn’t do fullbacks) and loading the box for balls to be cut back would be achieving this. Dare I say it, those are the things I remember working so positively for Rodgers when things were going well.

[Daggers]

7 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Imagine this place if it was a loss..

 

[foxinsocks]

10 hours ago, 5waller5 said:

He’s not impressed so far has he. Shame, I had really high hopes for him

Hone backwards.  His first few games look full of enthusiasm.  Now he wanders around gormlessly

[davieG]

Football fans Home and Away days

3,811 Leicester City fans at Sheffield Wednesday last night

[Summers]

Bit arrogant I thought, seemed like city rolled up thinking it was gonna be an easy one, nice to see so much possession but should have coupled it up with some more direct balls to Jamie Vardy.  When are they gonna learn that 1-0 is not the time to stop trying, at least we're still sitting on top of the table 

[ARM1968]

14 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Adding another string to you now yes, but "just stick a CB up front and smash it at him" went the way of the dinosaurs years ago because it's just really ineffective. People remember the odd goal resulting and forget that it's probably the easiest thing for a defence deal with. The sole remaining adherents of it are flat cap wearers in Huddersfield who think even Lancashire is too exotic

Agreed. I wasn’t really suggesting the CB route, more that we need more dimension to our play. Sure have your style and system, but don’t be afraid to mix it up and for god sake start taking risks at the top end of the field like they do in defence. 

[george55]

On 30/11/2023 at 07:55, dynamark said:

Distinct feeling Enzo was thinking about saturday when he set last nights team  team up, Please try to win the games in order as a point a game will not be enough

 

And the Radio Leics commentary was rubbish last night

yea he thought its a easy 3 points just turn up he needs to stop changeing the team around or go buy couple proven goal scorers vardy for me wouldt be in my first 11 players while hes been a good player for them hes done cause he will score a odd goal 

[Chelmofox]

26 minutes ago, george55 said:

yea he thought its a easy 3 points just turn up he needs to stop changeing the team around or go buy couple proven goal scorers vardy for me wouldt be in my first 11 players while hes been a good player for them hes done cause he will score a odd goal 

He has to rotate! Between 25th Nov and 1st Jan we have 10 games! The irony is that most people are saying he should be changing it around more by changing the formation. Rotation is going to catch our everyone - not just us. It catches the absolute best teams out.  But we can't expect to just knacker the best 11, and for that not to have any consequences. 

 

Regarding 'he thought its a easy 3 points just turn up' , Enzo has always been level headed about this. He has always said there will be dropped points and has made previous comments about the Championship not being playstation. I don't think for one minute he turned up expecting to just win with anything. 

 

As for buying proven goal scorers, we've done stage 1 of the rebuild. Do you think Enzo got everything he wanted? Most on here were pleading to keep Nacho (btw, pleads for that were more nauseous that HMS piss the league), because they said he would be scoring for fun. Priority for Jan is to address those running contracts down if we can, although i cant see it happening. If someone wants Ndidi, Nacho or Praet (ha ha, as if!), then let them go. I expect Daka and Souttar to go as else, and fully expect reinforcements that will get used, rather than bench warmers.

 

Don't disagree about Vards. He still has something to offer, but seems it happens more when hes used for impact.

Edited 1 December 2023 by Chelmofox

[worth_the_wait]

15 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Adding another string to you now yes, but "just stick a CB up front and smash it at him" went the way of the dinosaurs years ago because it's just really ineffective. People remember the odd goal resulting and forget that it's probably the easiest thing for a defence deal with. The sole remaining adherents of it are flat cap wearers in Huddersfield who think even Lancashire is too exotic

Too right we remember the odd goal ... as if it's used occasionally and at the right time it can be very effective.

 

We wouldn't have won the League Cup in 2000 if MON hadn't put a big man up front for the last 10 minutes of the quarter final v Fulham.    

 

We were 2-0 down to Fulham who had got us totally sussed, and every passing attempt through midfield came to nothing.    

He then put Steve Walsh up front, and I think he actually put a 2nd CB upfront as well (either Gerry Taggart or Matt Elliott).  I think we went 4-2-4 for the last 10 minutes!

We just by-passed midfield, and it worked a treat.  2 late goals took the game to extra time.  it finished 3-3, and then we won on penalties.   A brilliant night.

 

The point being ... if MON hadn't been flexible and changed something for the last 10 minutes of that match ... we would've been knocked out, and no silverware a month or 2 later.

 

You could also use a similar example in the 1994 playoff final.

Brian Little realised that Derby were the much better "footballing side", so for that one game we just went direct with 3 big men up front.  and won 2-1.

It was just a pure tactical change for the one match.   As he said afterwards, he just did what he thought he had to do to win that one match.

 

As you correctly say, not something you would want to constantly do all the time.   But it can be a very useful tactic when used occasionally

[The Doctor]

5 hours ago, worth_the_wait said:

Too right we remember the odd goal ... as if it's used occasionally and at the right time it can be very effective.

 

We wouldn't have won the League Cup in 2000 if MON hadn't put a big man up front for the last 10 minutes of the quarter final v Fulham.    

 

We were 2-0 down to Fulham who had got us totally sussed, and every passing attempt through midfield came to nothing.    

He then put Steve Walsh up front, and I think he actually put a 2nd CB upfront as well (either Gerry Taggart or Matt Elliott).  I think we went 4-2-4 for the last 10 minutes!

We just by-passed midfield, and it worked a treat.  2 late goals took the game to extra time.  it finished 3-3, and then we won on penalties.   A brilliant night.

 

The point being ... if MON hadn't been flexible and changed something for the last 10 minutes of that match ... we would've been knocked out, and no silverware a month or 2 later.

 

You could also use a similar example in the 1994 playoff final.

Brian Little realised that Derby were the much better "footballing side", so for that one game we just went direct with 3 big men up front.  and won 2-1.

It was just a pure tactical change for the one match.   As he said afterwards, he just did what he thought he had to do to win that one match.

 

As you correctly say, not something you would want to constantly do all the time.   But it can be a very useful tactic when used occasionally

Plan B should be effective (or why is it a plan) but not sustainable for 90 minutes (or why would it not be plan A). Big man up top and hoof it is an archaic style which is not particularly effective and has long since been abandoned by the vast majority of managers

[Dahnsouff]

44 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Plan B should be effective (or why is it a plan) but not sustainable for 90 minutes (or why would it not be plan A). Big man up top and hoof it is an archaic style which is not particularly effective and has long since been abandoned by the vast majority of managers

Would tend to agree, the emergence of sweeping keepers and their increased protection from officialshas rendered that tactic almost obsolete.

[worth_the_wait]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Plan B should be effective (or why is it a plan) but not sustainable for 90 minutes (or why would it not be plan A). Big man up top and hoof it is an archaic style which is not particularly effective and has long since been abandoned by the vast majority of managers

My main example above said last 10 minutes.   Not 90.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, worth_the_wait said:

My main example above said last 10 minutes.   Not 90.

Barely works for 10 minutes. It is obsolete now, like 4-4-2 as a formation. As I said, your plan B should be a very effective one but one that can't be sustained for 90 minutes (if it's effective and sustainable, why is it not plan A?). Smash it at the tall bloke is not effective, it is a tactic consigned to the 90s alongside beanie babies and flared jeans

[Chelmofox]

7 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

My main example above said last 10 minutes.   Not 90.

Why would you do it when you are 1-0 up. Madness. 

[worth_the_wait]

3 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Why would you do it when you are 1-0 up. Madness. 

What are you talking about?

 

I didn't say anything about doing it on  Wednesday night.    I just gave an example of how it can occasionally be effective.

[worth_the_wait]

8 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Barely works for 10 minutes. It is obsolete now, like 4-4-2 as a formation. As I said, your plan B should be a very effective one but one that can't be sustained for 90 minutes (if it's effective and sustainable, why is it not plan A?). Smash it at the tall bloke is not effective, it is a tactic consigned to the 90s alongside beanie babies and flared jeans

I'm not sure why you keep going on about it having to be effective for 90 minutes.

 

My main example was one when used for the last 10 minutes, in one particular match, proved very effective.

[Chelmofox]

11 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

What are you talking about?

 

I didn't say anything about doing it on  Wednesday night.    I just gave an example of how it can occasionally be effective.

Because we are in the Wednesday post match thread, where Enzo is being criticised about not being flexible enough?

[The Doctor]

23 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

I'm not sure why you keep going on about it having to be effective for 90 minutes.

 

My main example was one when used for the last 10 minutes, in one particular match, proved very effective.

I'm explicitly saying it shouldn't be sustainable for 90 minutes dude 

 

34 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 As I said, your plan B should be a very effective one but one that CAN'T be sustained for 90 minutes (if it's effective and sustainable, why is it not plan A?).

 

[worth_the_wait]

12 hours ago, Chelmofox said:

Because we are in the Wednesday post match thread, where Enzo is being criticised about not being flexible enough?

My sincerest apologies.    I didn't realise that in a particular thread, you're not allowed to make any other related comments.

[worth_the_wait]

11 hours ago, The Doctor said:

I'm explicitly saying it shouldn't be sustainable for 90 minutes dude 

 

 

This is classic messageboard stuff dude.     I'm saying a plan B might be something you'd occasionally try in the last 10 minutes, and you keep going on irrelevantly about sustainability over 90 minutes.

 

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

This is classic messageboard stuff dude.     I'm saying a plan B might be something you'd occasionally try in the last 10 minutes, and you keep going on irrelevantly about sustainability over 90 minutes.

 

 

Learn to read.

Edited 2 December 2023 by The Doctor