Discuss Pellegrini (Pt 2)

[simon23]

Surely an ideal scenario would be a manager who can adopt various tactics and formations to suit the opposition?

I thought this was what we were getting with MP.

....

Not really. Ferran has stated that they want a recognisable style of play and they do not want a manager changing formations/tactics from game to game and certainly not during the game. In that sense Pellers is their ideal manager and no doubt part of his brief is to create that style of play. How much interference there is I don't honestly know but I suspect its no more than 'here is the brief and you have to work within that brief'.

At least we won't have to go through all that moaning about 'the manager has no plan B' as the club policy is 'we have no interest in plan B'.

How this plays out is going to be intriguing to say the least.

well that would worry me as every team we play ever will know exactly how to beat us...pack the midfield and overrun us or even more simply just play a long ball over the top/diagonal and there you go!!!!

plus at the moment do we have the rogth payers to play the system thaey want? or will it require even more investment??????

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I credit Pellegrini and the players with a good win, especially coming from behind, against a hitherto unbeaten Everton side. My great concern remains what it has been since the early part of the season. We defend a high line - a very high line at times - and we couple this with an offside trap. Neither of these will work if we don't press the ball. Yesterday, Everton's goal was the result of the confusion that afflicts the team: no pressure on the ball, Joleon trying to play Lukaku offside while Vinnie was hanging back and Lukaku too quick. When there is no pressure on the ball you have to drop deep, but Joleon tried to reform the high line by trying a tackle which Lukaku evaded with contemptuous ease. Kolorov hadn't come in to cover and we were 1-0 down. That was not the only time we were caught out - Lukaku penetrated our line in the first 2 minutes, and in the second half Miralas was put through but Joe smothered. Replays show Miralas was offside, but as Villa showed last week, linesmen often simply aren't quick enough and the decision tends to go to the home, or the attacking team. One of the problems is that pressing is a highly disciplined, organised, team activity because the team, not two or three are pressing the ball, and it won't work if there's a simple pass on, so I do accept these are early days and we aren't "used to it" yet. But a greater concern is that we don't have the personnel for it. Fernandinho is ideal, Ya Ya isn't, Milner is (what an excellent match he had stopping Baines getting into the game!) but Merlin isn't really. They all have to play their part all the same but I wonder if a change in formation isn't necessary

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Surely an ideal scenario would be a manager who can adopt various tactics and formations to suit the opposition?

I thought this was what we were getting with MP.

....

Not really. Ferran has stated that they want a recognisable style of play and they do not want a manager changing formations/tactics from game to game and certainly not during the game. In that sense Pellers is their ideal manager and no doubt part of his brief is to create that style of play. How much interference there is I don't honestly know but I suspect its no more than 'here is the brief and you have to work within that brief'.

At least we won't have to go through all that moaning about 'the manager has no plan B' as the club policy is 'we have no interest in plan B'.

How this plays out is going to be intriguing to say the least.

Did Ferran really say he doesn't want a manager changing formations or tactics? I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know what he said but wanting the team to have a recognisable style of play is one thing and not unreasonable but saying that the manager can't change tactics or formations seems nuts to me and I'd be a bit worried if he has said that.

 

[cibaman]

Surely an ideal scenario would be a manager who can adopt various tactics and formations to suit the opposition?

I thought this was what we were getting with MP.

....

Not really. Ferran has stated that they want a recognisable style of play and they do not want a manager changing formations/tactics from game to game and certainly not during the game. In that sense Pellers is their ideal manager and no doubt part of his brief is to create that style of play. How much interference there is I don't honestly know but I suspect its no more than 'here is the brief and you have to work within that brief'.

At least we won't have to go through all that moaning about 'the manager has no plan B' as the club policy is 'we have no interest in plan B'.

How this plays out is going to be intriguing to say the least.

Did Ferran really say he doesn't want a manager changing formations or tactics? I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know what he said but wanting the team to have a recognisable style of play is one thing and not unreasonable but saying that the manager can't change tactics or formations seems nuts to me and I'd be a bit worried if he has said that.

They've said they want the juniors to play 4-3-3 because they believe that's the best way for them to acquire the full range of skills necessary to play at the top level.

They also said they didn't want new managers to radically change the style of play, for example, by playing long ball

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Not really. Ferran has stated that they want a recognisable style of play and they do not want a manager changing formations/tactics from game to game and certainly not during the game. In that sense Pellers is their ideal manager and no doubt part of his brief is to create that style of play. How much interference there is I don't honestly know but I suspect its no more than 'here is the brief and you have to work within that brief'.

At least we won't have to go through all that moaning about 'the manager has no plan B' as the club policy is 'we have no interest in plan B'.

How this plays out is going to be intriguing to say the least.

Did Ferran really say he doesn't want a manager changing formations or tactics? I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know what he said but wanting the team to have a recognisable style of play is one thing and not unreasonable but saying that the manager can't change tactics or formations seems nuts to me and I'd be a bit worried if he has said that.

They've said they want the juniors to play 4-3-3 because they believe that's the best way for them to acquire the full range of skills necessary to play at the top level.

They also said they didn't want new managers to radically change the style of play, for example, by playing long ball

But did he say that the manager of the first team should play one formation and not change it, which is what seemed to have been suggested by Bob?

 

[wayne71]

Fuckinell Wayne..If Everton are average what the fook are Villa and Cardiff??

Shit?

:)

 

[samharris]

Fuckinell Wayne..If Everton are average what the fook are Villa and Cardiff??

Shit?

:)

werent they just :)

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Did Ferran really say he doesn't want a manager changing formations or tactics? I'm not saying you're wrong because I don't know what he said but wanting the team to have a recognisable style of play is one thing and not unreasonable but saying that the manager can't change tactics or formations seems nuts to me and I'd be a bit worried if he has said that.

They've said they want the juniors to play 4-3-3 because they believe that's the best way for them to acquire the full range of skills necessary to play at the top level.

They also said they didn't want new managers to radically change the style of play, for example, by playing long ball

But did he say that the manager of the first team should play one formation and not change it, which is what seemed to have been suggested by Bob?

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

 

[OB1]

Just watched some of the after match stuff on BT sport and Warnock made a point that I liked about Pellegrini being happy to play 10 against 10. His point being that MP basically sacrificed Milner to nullify Baines, who was the best supply line in the league last season. Surely that couldn't be a bit of tactical pragmatism from our gung-ho manager!

Probably. I made the point a while back that whilst our formation/set up is fairly set in stone there was room for emphasis on a more defensive mind set and using Milner for Navas was the most obvious - just as England do when using Milner instead of Walcott.

That said I was impressed by Milner's attacking threat as anything else and seeing Silva and Milner working so well together and with Lescott back in defence it was almost like having old friends back. Kind of gave me a warm glow of familiarity.

Milner had one of his better games. He does work well with Silva.

 

[OB1]

They've said they want the juniors to play 4-3-3 because they believe that's the best way for them to acquire the full range of skills necessary to play at the top level.

They also said they didn't want new managers to radically change the style of play, for example, by playing long ball

But did he say that the manager of the first team should play one formation and not change it, which is what seemed to have been suggested by Bob?

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

Perhaps Bob can put you in your place with a link to a well chosen quote?