Kiev post match reaction thread - PLEASE keep it in here.

[No17]

Who said its not fair that Kiev played defensively? Kiev got their tactics spot on, defend deep and in numbers but break in numbers, it worked, they got it spot on and we didn't, i have no isses with how Kiev played so not sure what you are going on about?

We could have matched up but obviously Mancini wanted to be more attacking, something which a lot of our fans have wanted from his side aswell, unfortunately it left us open at the back and they exploited that

So we're agreed that Mancini was out-thought last night? That he got the tactics and formation wrong? That's all I was saying...

Oh, and it wasn't aimed at you the comment about if being "unfair" that Kyiv defended at home... but quite a few posters have all but whinged that as the home team they should have attacked more!

-- Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:32 am --

The agreed method to counter two deep banks of four is width. We had width, no? It came down to interplay between Silva, Dzeko and Balotelli, and the latter two were too keen to turn and take on their man, rather than pass the ball off quickly and retain possession.

Hopefully, Mancini will tell them 'hold it up better'. That aside, I'm at a genuine loss to see what he should have done differently.

And tactics is all I'm concerned about - not imagined 'divisions in the camp', or 'an angry and critical manager' (what has that got to do with anything, honestly?).

The discussion would be healthier if we stuck to the actual football - why our attacks break down too easily, specifically.

You have a very simplistic view of management. It's quaint.

You don't believe a manager has any influence in terms of motivation or spirit, that an angry manager is less effective than a rational one?

Well, you fly in the face of hundreds of years of management philosophy... but at least it's an original viewpoint!

;-))

just a reminder, chelsea won the title by playing that type of game under mourinho..all they did was wait and then counter...mostly...

 

[Bluemoon115]

all they did was wait and then counter...mostly...

Great.

I'll be over the moon if we start doing that.

 

[Failsworth_Blue]

Who said its not fair that Kiev played defensively? Kiev got their tactics spot on, defend deep and in numbers but break in numbers, it worked, they got it spot on and we didn't, i have no isses with how Kiev played so not sure what you are going on about?

We could have matched up but obviously Mancini wanted to be more attacking, something which a lot of our fans have wanted from his side aswell, unfortunately it left us open at the back and they exploited that

So we're agreed that Mancini was out-thought last night? That he got the tactics and formation wrong? That's all I was saying...

Oh, and it wasn't aimed at you the comment about if being "unfair" that Kyiv defended at home... but quite a few posters have all but whinged that as the home team they should have attacked more!

I thought he got his tactics and formation spot on for the first 20 minutes, i thought we kept possession quite and looked the most dangerous team. Silva was getting space in the hole and Kolarov put in a great ball across that could have resulted in a goal, unfortuantely the goal changed the game, it meant they could sit deep, defend in numbers and play on the counter knowing that they had a lead, they had something to defend. Goals change games and it made it difficult for us as there was no space in behind for Kolarov and Richards where there was prior to the goal. From then on we weren't good enough to break them down, partly down to sloppy play from our plays and because the tactics we adopted didn't work after we went one down

 

[Soulboy]

So we're agreed that Mancini was out-thought last night? That he got the tactics and formation wrong? That's all I was saying...

Oh, and it wasn't aimed at you the comment about if being "unfair" that Kyiv defended at home... but quite a few posters have all but whinged that as the home team they should have attacked more!

-- Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:32 am --




You have a very simplistic view of management. It's quaint.

You don't believe a manager has any influence in terms of motivation or spirit, that an angry manager is less effective than a rational one?

Well, you fly in the face of hundreds of years of management philosophy... but at least it's an original viewpoint!

;-))

just a reminder, chelsea won the title by playing that type of game under mourinho..all they did was wait and then counter...mostly...

So Chelsea play the same way as us... they win numerous trophies while we are in the midst of a dire run of form.

So what could be the difference that makes Chelsea better than us if we both play the same way?

Ahg, yes... you mentioned the manager who was in charge at Chelsea!

So a manager does make the difference then, eh?<br /><br />-- Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:39 am --<br /><br />

So we're agreed that Mancini was out-thought last night? That he got the tactics and formation wrong? That's all I was saying...

Oh, and it wasn't aimed at you the comment about if being "unfair" that Kyiv defended at home... but quite a few posters have all but whinged that as the home team they should have attacked more!

I thought he got his tactics and formation spot on for the first 20 minutes, i thought we kept possession quite and looked the most dangerous team. Silva was getting space in the hole and Kolarov put in a great ball across that could have resulted in a goal, unfortuantely the goal changed the game, it meant they could sit deep, defend in numbers and play on the counter knowing that they had a lead, they had something to defend. Goals change games and it made it difficult for us as there was no space in behind for Kolarov and Richards where there was prior to the goal. From then on we weren't good enough to break them down, partly down to sloppy play from our plays and because the tactics we adopted didn't work after we went one down

So we're agreed that Mancini got his tactics wrong and that he couldn't make the necessary changes when the game changed?

No point in going round in circles with this one... we agree!

 

[No17]

just a reminder, chelsea won the title by playing that type of game under mourinho..all they did was wait and then counter...mostly...

So Chelsea play the same way as us... they win numerous trophies while we are in the midst of a dire run of form.

So what could be the difference that makes Chelsea better than us if we both play the same way?

Ahg, yes... you mentioned the manager who was in charge at Chelsea!

So a manager does make the difference then, eh?

I kept saying that on various threads, and I never liked Mancini while he was at Inter...I do like him now because he was unable to change the tactics when we beat you at CoMS...and he hasn't managed to change anything against birmingham, fulham, wigan (a lucky win) and last night in kiyev, at times (especially when seing Dzeko or Tevez in DM positions or Dzeko wide left I get to think he throws players in certain positions just hoping they can deliver, without thinking if that player is suited for the task he gives (if he gives any)

But hey I'm just a regular person, working in the office and he's paid millions to do that job

 

[Failsworth_Blue]

just a reminder, chelsea won the title by playing that type of game under mourinho..all they did was wait and then counter...mostly...

So Chelsea play the same way as us... they win numerous trophies while we are in the midst of a dire run of form.

So what could be the difference that makes Chelsea better than us if we both play the same way?

Ahg, yes... you mentioned the manager who was in charge at Chelsea!

So a manager does make the difference then, eh?

-- Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:39 am --

I thought he got his tactics and formation spot on for the first 20 minutes, i thought we kept possession quite and looked the most dangerous team. Silva was getting space in the hole and Kolarov put in a great ball across that could have resulted in a goal, unfortuantely the goal changed the game, it meant they could sit deep, defend in numbers and play on the counter knowing that they had a lead, they had something to defend. Goals change games and it made it difficult for us as there was no space in behind for Kolarov and Richards where there was prior to the goal. From then on we weren't good enough to break them down, partly down to sloppy play from our plays and because the tactics we adopted didn't work after we went one down

So we're agreed that Mancini got his tactics wrong and that he couldn't make the necessary changes when the game changed?

No point in going round in circles with this one... we agree!

If only things were that simple in football. His tactics are influenced by the players and their roles within the formation he selects, i can understand players underperforming to the extent which they did last night if they were played out of position but most of the players last night played in their most favoured positions yet continually were sloppy in possession, you can play any tactics you want but if the personel in those tactics aren't doing the basics you are going to struggle. This isn't to say Mancini wasn't to blame because from my point of view at half time i'd have brought Nige on for Zab as we didn't have anyone in the middle of the park to just keep things ticking over and when they countered they had loads of space in the middle of the park, i think Mancini got it wrong by playing Zab out of position thats for sure but Yaya, Silva, Balo and Dzeko were far too sloppy at times aswell

 

[Anonymous]

So the players are badly underperforming (that's the gist of what i'm reading from a few posters) - why is that not Mancini's fault. One player or two you blame the player. When the team consistently underperforms surely the manager carries the can...

 

[blueinsa]

So Chelsea play the same way as us... they win numerous trophies while we are in the midst of a dire run of form.

So what could be the difference that makes Chelsea better than us if we both play the same way?

Ahg, yes... you mentioned the manager who was in charge at Chelsea!

So a manager does make the difference then, eh?

-- Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:39 am --




So we're agreed that Mancini got his tactics wrong and that he couldn't make the necessary changes when the game changed?

No point in going round in circles with this one... we agree!

If only things were that simple in football. His tactics are influenced by the players and their roles within the formation he selects, i can understand players underperforming to the extent which they did last night if they were played out of position but most of the players last night played in their most favoured positions yet continually were sloppy in possession, you can play any tactics you want but if the personel in those tactics aren't doing the basics you are going to struggle. This isn't to say Mancini wasn't to blame because from my point of view at half time i'd have brought Nige on for Zab as we didn't have anyone in the middle of the park to just keep things ticking over and when they countered they had loads of space in the middle of the park, i think Mancini got it wrong by playing Zab out of position thats for sure but Yaya, Silva, Balo and Dzeko were far too sloppy at times aswell

Damocles makes an impassioned and reasoned argument for Bobby and his belief in a system called "Universality". On the face it is the perfect system in that players all over the park can fill and slot in as and when required and in theory, it should be unbeatable but the problem arises when as a manager, you either fail or just cant get the message across to a squad and they completely fail to but into the plan.

That is Bobby's problem and battle and its one he has been loosing for a long time and one he just wont win imo.

The players have to believe....

 

[ST Coleridge]

You have a very simplistic view of management. It's quaint.

You don't believe a manager has any influence in terms of motivation or spirit, that an angry manager is less effective than a rational one?

Well, you fly in the face of hundreds of years of management philosophy... but at least it's an original viewpoint!

;-))

Uck, keep it civil mate.

My point is that I don't buy into these 'divisions' - we had Carlos handing in a transfer request (two weeks after Rooney, presumably in a bid to get a similarly-improved deal).
On the pitch last night, they were motivated - you only have to look at the effort put in in the last quarter of the match. In recent games where there's been 'aggro', the players have waded in for each other (see Villa - Toure, Balotelli, Hart, Kolarov) - this shows unity. Training reports point to good morale.

I just want to discuss actual facts, and not vague assertions relating to 'body language', and other such stuff.

Add to the fact that a fair few successful managers (Capello, Ferguson for example) aren't one bit interested in being the players' mate, and can you see why I think the issue's being given a little too much weight in these discussions?

 

[Bluemoon115]

So the players are badly underperforming (that's the gist of what i'm reading from a few posters) - why is that not Mancini's fault. One player or two you blame the player. When the team consistently underperforms surely the manager carries the can...

Nope.