Our inability to set up properly for big games

[Ajm1985]

Chelsea.

Aside from the fact that Chelsea's form showed they couldn't be considered as good, didn't really press or counter, that is 1 game. Stating it as fact that a 2 man midfield works is as ignorant as saying it doesn't. It would be more accurate to say on current form, it hasn't worked.

 

[PragueBlue]

We were the better team for 75 minutes.

I can't agree with that. We were the better team first half but they were far superior to us 2nd half.

 

[bluegaz13]

In fairness bluegaz, I am not defending Pellars as such. More so I am attacking false claims about what out tactics were, and why they didn't work.

What most do here is use a red herring argument to attempt to show Pellars is shit. I.e Attribute something bad to someone, and then acusse the person of being bad for doing what you attributed to them.

Example, he played a high line. He played slow defenders and midfielders like Kola Demi Yaya, and played Delph out of position. And then conlude these tactics and selection was why we lost. Thus, Pellars suck.
My point for most of this thread, is simply saying well Kola was good defensively, Delph was deployed left to help defend Mahrez, Yaya played well actually, and Demi was his only available senior CB.

So my claim is not that Pellars is good, but rather that these claims don't prove his bad, and worse still they mostly miss the most significant problems in the game.

It's a nuanced point I know, but its one worth making.

Disagree about kolerov being good defensively.... The first goal and foul leading up to it..... He should have done better
Delph on the left wing has not worked on at least two occasions previously.
Could he not have played Sagna at centre half....don't like mentioning Van Gaal but he has blooded quite a few young kids this season...even in important games ( Humphreys could have played previously and maybe he'd have then been an alternative on Saturday)
Don't disagree abut Yaya.... However I feel Pellers left him exposed in what in effect was yet again a 2 man midfield.

 

[Dax777]

Ok, apologies for not reading your post but honestly I just haven't got the time or inclination. I don't know what clever tactical (and presumably factual) stuff you have explained to prove that we didn't play with a high line and I do not for one minute claim to be hot on football tactics but what I will say is that on Saturday I ended up in hospitality rather than my usual seat so I was sat in level 2, bang on the half way line and I promise you we defended with a high line. I was having fucking kittens at the amount of space they had to play the ball into behind us before the passes were being made...you could see it coming a mile off. Remarkably, the more we got caught out and they had one on ones, the further we seemed to defend up the pitch. This thing you have about facts is doing you no favours IMO. There are so many facets of football that you can't boil down to a provable fact. It's the kind of nonsense that leads people to think everything about a match can be understood by stats whereas the truth is that using your eyes is often just as helpful. No goal may have been conceded as a direct result of the high line but I am not sure how helpful that "fact" is because it is ignoring so much like the pattern of the game, momentum, confidence, all sorts of stuff that despite you discounting as arguments because they supposedly aren't facts, are incredibly relevant to the outcome of football matches and can have just a slightly less direct influence in us conceding a goal. It is a football match not a scientific experiment after all. But there you go, I know we will not agree on anything so the discussion is more or less pointless.

It will be easier to discuss this if we were both watching the same thing at the same time. I thought we were tactically set up well.

Contrary to popular claims we played both CBa on Vardy, one in front, and one behind him. And we held line atop the 18. Vardy strayed offside 3ice o n Counters and played himself out of the procession in those instances.

Delph on the left in the 1st 45 also worked well, he was where he was supposed to be but got beat by Mahrez on the free kick. And the set play gave them the goal.

But tactically we were fine. Zaba had some problems but that was individual, so did Demi on the set plays and the one good over the top chance Vardy got. Both individual errors and not tactical ones.

I don't disagree that momentum and the like can have effects on outcome. I just don't think they did here for the most part. Leicester made some errors too but we didn't capitalize. Fernando free header that their keepers leg saved. The back pass by Simpson, Silva they ball to Sterling behind their defense. Silva in their box cut back. Yet they were for the most part tactically right in their set up, just like we were in ours. They capitalized on our errors and we didn't on theirs

 

[BlueMoonz1977]

You will get no arguments from me O the above. Our movement is pedestrian. This has been the case under every manager here since Adug, with the exception of Pellars first season. Some of it is due to the player, and some due to our reluctance to lose possession.

That said, I am a big believer in trying Raheem on the right, so he can run at players first down the line then cutting across inwards. He does this sparingly on the left. He'd do it better on the right I believe. As for flourishing under Pep, well I hope so. He'd be also more comfortable with hiscteam by then.





In a response to Lance Flucket, I did a vomit of what we did tactically against Leicester. I'll try not to do that now. The high line claim is a mirage. It's a function of possesion. Unless it's a counter and you are trying to outrun the opposition in a 3 v3 or better with open space, generally teams move up together as a unit. That's just good footballing philosophy. If we are camped outside their box trying to penetrate everyone comes up. The last defender seats on the half line. This is normal. Even Leicester did it in possession. And yes we tried to hit them over the top 2ice and failed. But because we dominated possession, by natural happenstance, they get more opportunity to try hitting over the top. They had 11 tries of this sort, and were successful once. I wouldn't get into the weeds with examples and how we matched them. If you are interested, said a little in my response to Lance.


You are right, injuries forced selections, and vi disagree with some of them, but my overall claim here, is that the moan is often about the irrelevant decisions made.

Agree that he should be tried on the right, again he would do this with Liverpool

Another one I noticed (as some others my have as well I hope) against Leicester was that we would occasionally have one player pressing for the ball and the others not supporting. This then left gaps in the midfield areas to which they exploited. Common sense states that you have to press as a team not on an individual basis,

I just hope that we change tact against the Spuds

 

[Lancet Fluke]

It will be easier to discuss this if we were both watching the same thing at the same time. I thought we were tactically set up well.

Contrary to popular claims we played both CBa on Vardy, one in front, and one behind him. And we held line atop the 18. Vardy strayed offside 3ice o n Counters and played himself out of the procession in those instances.

Delph on the left in the 1st 45 also worked well, he was where he was supposed to be but got beat by Mahrez on the free kick. And the set play gave them the goal.

But tactically we were fine. Zaba had some problems but that was individual, so did Demi on the set plays and the one good over the top chance Vardy got. Both individual errors and not tactical ones.

I don't disagree that momentum and the like can have effects on outcome. I just don't think they did here for the most part. Leicester made some errors too but we didn't capitalize. Fernando free header that their keepers leg saved. The back pass by Simpson, Silva they ball to Sterling behind their defense. Silva in their box cut back. Yet they were for the most part tactically right in their set up, just like we were in ours. They capitalized on our errors and we didn't on theirs

Well all I can say is that I want to get a seat where you sit because you make it sound like a close thing but from where I was sat it looked like we were out performed in pretty much every area of the pitch. That is only my opinion though and not a fact.

 

[Dax777]

Disagree about kolerov being good defensively.... The first goal and foul leading up to it..... He should have done better
Delph on the left wing has not worked on at least two occasions previously.
Could he not have played Sagna at centre half....don't like mentioning Van Gaal but he has blooded quite a few young kids this season...even in important games ( Humphreys could have played previously and maybe he'd have then been an alternative on Saturday)
Don't disagree abut Yaya.... However I feel Pellers left him exposed in what in effect was yet again a 2 man midfield.

By good defensively, I'm saying positionaly he was almost always in play. Even in the foul, he was there, Mahrez is just a good footballer. I don't consider other teams bad when Aguero vlows by their defenders. Aguero is good at that. Mahrez is even better. And quite likely would have blown past Clichy or anyone else 8 of 10 tries. So that to me is not poor. I just raise my hat to the talent of the striker.

Pellars knew this and put his 2nd best defender out wide to help. I can't fault him for that. That is the attention to detail he is often accused of not showing. He put Dihno man on Okazaki. Played one high one low on Vardy. All these tactical choices are easy to spot. Yet he is accused often of not consideinf his opponents. That I simply can't agree with.

As for the youth players, well he didn't play them, but had he and we lost, the argument would simply have gone ' why play kids in the biggesr match of the season'. This is my issue. Blaming Pellars is an after the fact paastime here.

 

[Dax777]

Well all I can say is that I want to get a seat where you sit because you make it sound like a close thing but from where I was sat it looked like we were out performed in pretty much every area of the pitch. That is only my opinion though and not a fact.

Ha! You making me out to be mossideblue. He'd like that.

 

[Dax777]

Agree that he should be tried on the right, again he would do this with Liverpool

Another one I noticed (as some others my have as well I hope) against Leicester was that we would occasionally have one player pressing for the ball and the others not supporting. This then left gaps in the midfield areas to which they exploited. Common sense states that you have to press as a team not on an individual basis,

I just hope that we change tact against the Spuds

A lot of the non pressing was duecto our fear of Leicester's speed. Hence why I continue to point out we really didn't play a high line. Fernandihno often just stayed close to Okazaki, and the CBs (mostly) played the over and under on Vardy too. But every now and then Otamendi would go Rambo for the ball. Fortunately, none of these cost us.

But watching strictly from a tactical rigidity point of view, Silva Zab and Ota were the three worst players tactically. Zab and Silva were particularly bad. Aguero too was very poor tactically and often giving our players no outlet up front by coming down into the middle.

This lack of a Striker outlet early was a big part of our leisurely pace. But since fans don't want to be totally honest here, they often pick on the easy targets.

Watch someone accuse me of slagging Aguero next :)

 

[Dax777]

I can't agree with that. We were the better team first half but they were far superior to us 2nd half.

They scores 3 goals in the 2nd, so I'd be silly to say we were better. But barring the last 20 minutes when we were already 3-1 down, we were actually the team creating more chances in the first 22 or so minutes before they scored their 3rd. But I get it, that's just slicing favorable portions.

So yes, you are right in the second half they were better.