frannylee wrote:Just look at the goal difference for the current top 4 teams - we are the only ones with a single figure goal difference. If we want to be serious Top 4 / Title contenders, we need to score more goals.
Simples !!
Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.
At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.
johnpb78 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.
At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.
3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............
Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after.
Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards. By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do.
Ted Hughes wrote:johnpb78 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.
At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.
3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............
Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after.
Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards. By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do.
We had Balotelli, Silva & Ade. They weren't defending apart from as a token gesture. You're referring to how 'Mancini's teams' play but the team plays differently & lines up differently every game, which imo is the problem. Imagine if, as you say, the wide players come back & defend in one game but then suddenly don't in the next? If you're a defender who's used to lining up one way then suddenly that happens & you're also playing next to different players every game, is it not pretty obviously difficult to stay organised & confident in what's happening? Then of course the midfield have to line up differently to fill those gaps. Then in the midst of it all you're all supposed to spring forward & attack like Barcelona?
Too many changes, too soon.
johnpb78 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:johnpb78 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:We aren't yet functioning properly as an attacking unit it's true. I don't think anyone can accuse Mancini of not trying to attack in recent games though, quite the opposite imo. We started with 3 attacking players yesterday.
At the start of yesterday's game, for a short period, we looked like the best attacking team in the country imo & we even put in some decent crosses. When it went wrong though we failed as a unit & became disorganised. I recon that's down to players losing focus on their jobs because their jobs & their partners, keep changing.
3 attacking players? Wow, how very generous of him.............
Although notionally they are there to attack, the two wide players in Mancini's teams are there primarily to defend. When they eventually do get the ball in an attacking sense, they are usually so isolated that they have little in terms of options, so we usually end up defending again soon after.
Contrast that to Chelsea, or even the rags' midfield, and they all start with a minimum of 5 "attacking" players, all getting involved going forwards. By constant pressure at one end of the pitch, they restrict the amount of defending they need to do.
We had Balotelli, Silva & Ade. They weren't defending apart from as a token gesture. You're referring to how 'Mancini's teams' play but the team plays differently & lines up differently every game, which imo is the problem. Imagine if, as you say, the wide players come back & defend in one game but then suddenly don't in the next? If you're a defender who's used to lining up one way then suddenly that happens & you're also playing next to different players every game, is it not pretty obviously difficult to stay organised & confident in what's happening? Then of course the midfield have to line up differently to fill those gaps. Then in the midst of it all you're all supposed to spring forward & attack like Barcelona?
Too many changes, too soon.
I agree 100% about the changes aspect.
I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.
United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.
That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.
It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.
You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.
Ted Hughes wrote:johnpb78 wrote:
I agree 100% about the changes aspect.
I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.
United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.
That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.
It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.
You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.
Tbh though you're basically describing what Hughes was tring to do & that didn't work either, as he was sacked half way through. Either way imo, all managers fuck up. Ferguson took years to get the rags playing like that & he dropped loads of bollocks on the way (& for a season or two they were boring as fuck & my mate, a seasonticket holder, called it 'the graveyard'). He's still dropping bollocks now but the team unit survives. He was given time & eventually got it right. Imo, unless the manager makes an absolute arse of it, they have to be allowed to make mistakes & find their own solutions, which are often the opposite to what fans predict they should do. Even if it's frustrating for us to take, we just have to put up with it. I can do that provided I don't have to read people telling me it's tactical genius when it's actually all over the fucking shop!
petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.
Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.
petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.
Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.
johnpb78 wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:johnpb78 wrote:
I agree 100% about the changes aspect.
I am sick to fucking death of seeing Manchester City attract the best players in the world, only to worry about how Karl Fucking Henry or Bret Ormerod is going to influence the game.
United setup the same way for every game in the league - with the very odd exception. They have the mindset that they will create the problems, score one more than the opposition even if it means conceding. That approach for United, Chelsea, Arsenal, over the years has led to them having the best defensive records - surely that is not a coincidence, and Mancini would do well to study Bacon's approach on this aspect.
That is just how English football is, and I think Mancini is trying to be overly analytical in how he sends out his sides. Football is a very simple game, tackle> pass > move. If you have players who can pass and move better than the opposition (which we almost certainly do), then scoring more goals than your opposition should never be a problem.
It is when fuckwits come in with their convoluted idea of how football should be played, that it all goes tits up as footballers on the whole are too uncultured to understand the finer details of a complicated tactical masterplan.
You can maybe avoid losing by concentrating on not conceding, but you certainly can't win without scoring some goals along the way.
Tbh though you're basically describing what Hughes was tring to do & that didn't work either, as he was sacked half way through. Either way imo, all managers fuck up. Ferguson took years to get the rags playing like that & he dropped loads of bollocks on the way (& for a season or two they were boring as fuck & my mate, a seasonticket holder, called it 'the graveyard'). He's still dropping bollocks now but the team unit survives. He was given time & eventually got it right. Imo, unless the manager makes an absolute arse of it, they have to be allowed to make mistakes & find their own solutions, which are often the opposite to what fans predict they should do. Even if it's frustrating for us to take, we just have to put up with it. I can do that provided I don't have to read people telling me it's tactical genius when it's actually all over the fucking shop!
Ultimately, the tinkering of the defensive aspect of the team was the downfall of Hughes too. I wasn't all that bothered about the little run we had just before he was sacked, as I thought we would have finished 5th or above under Hughes too.
The fault with Hughes was over-analysing how we play away from home, and the insistence of playing players regardless of form (Robinho). They way Hughes took the game to the opposition at home was a joy to watch most of the time and of course there will be blips when you play that way, but you take them on the chin, dust yourself down and murder the next team you play. He got it in his head that he primarily had to stop the opposition breaking us down away from home - exactly the type of 180 degree change from week to week that we have already agreed are too hard to make.
If you are going to attack, then you play the same way home and away. Prior to our takeover, can you ever remember, Arsenal, Chelsea or United coming to Maine Road and being defensive? That approach, when mated to the best players is why they are consistently at the top of the league, there is no magical secret to it.
Ted Hughes wrote:petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.
Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.
That's a bit childish mate & nobody is suggesting 'hell for leather' football so it's unneccessarily argumentintive too. The rags & Liverpool have done pretty well in Europe over the years & if Italian tactics are the way to go, how come Spain won the World Cup? There's no single way to play football. Lots of styles have their pro's & cons. It's about getting it right.
petrov wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:petrov wrote:Yeah i mean what did anyone ever achieve playing the Italian way... the english hell for leather has always being more successful. Oh wait, despite serie A being at its weakest of all time,Italian clubs have 3 Champs league titles to the english leagues 2 in the last 10 years. Italy have also won a world cup using simular tactics.
Enough of the tactics are wrong, theirs no tactic in the world that should make Wolves beat us, neither on our side or theres. With our defence and team, theirs no way we should be conceding 2 against them, none.
That's a bit childish mate & nobody is suggesting 'hell for leather' football so it's unneccessarily argumentintive too. The rags & Liverpool have done pretty well in Europe over the years & if Italian tactics are the way to go, how come Spain won the World Cup? There's no single way to play football. Lots of styles have their pro's & cons. It's about getting it right.
sorry mate, wasn't having a go at you personally and maybe i worded it a bit harshly. Sorry for that, my knickers are still in a twist over last night. Mancini dropped a bollock yes with the Ade sub but imho thats the height of it.
But we should beat Wolves regardless of what shape we take the field in. If anyone here says they thought we were going to lose yesterday after 20 minutes despite our tactics than imho they are talking crap. Our tactics didn't change, we just stopped playing.
United, Spain and Barca etc.. have won with style but only with truly great teams behind them. Liverpools CL victory saw them play the Italian way, while Milan played the attacking football. And United's most recent CL success saw them play as negative as can be to eliminate Barca.
Imho its not his negative tactics that I think is costing us (despite the fact its not easy on the eye), its the fact that he couldn't motivate a team to come out after a heavy defeat to Arsenal and play with some passion.
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: belleebee, craigmcfc, CTID Hants, Google [Bot] and 484 guests