Game Management

[ZiderEyed]

Bit depressing that, mind.

I was absolutely screaming at the telly for LJ to make subs, take off Diedhiou earlier (looked shattered), take off Kent (had to take off Brownhill with his knock), stop them playing the ball over to their right winger and the overloads on that side, and to stop the balls straight between Pack and Smith to Lasogga that creates space (if a centre half goes with him) and gives the room to runners straight at our back line.

Not really angry, just a bit flat is all.

 

[Slack Bladder]

Last week we went for it and got our fingers burnt.

This week, we clearly sat back in the 2nd half and tried to see the game out

Fingers crossed the return of Baker might help.

[Fiale]

Maybe a chat with dad about how to shut up shop, it's a bit of a bad run 2 wins in 10 now or 1 in 6. I was hoping this type of form was behind us for a while after last seasons lessons.

[Pezo]

The thing that bugs me is we used all the tactics and gamesmanship that I have thought in the past that we didn't have and seemed a little naive and it still didn't work out.

We needed a change after 60 mins as you could tell they were getting back into it as we tiered but it seems the only people that thought we could stretch it out were the management team.

[Gert Mare]

4 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

Bit depressing that, mind.

I was absolutely screaming at the telly for LJ to make subs, take off Diedhiou earlier (looked shattered), take off Kent (had to take off Brownhill with his knock), stop them playing the ball over to their right winger and the overloads on that side, and to stop the balls straight between Pack and Smith to Lasogga that creates space (if a centre half goes with him) and gives the room to runners straight at our back line.

Not really angry, just a bit flat is all.

 

Probably easier for us to see it with the benefit of Sky cameras.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Cheesleysmate said:

Probably easier for us to see it with the benefit of Sky cameras.

I know what you’re saying, but there’s other people around (his asistants and the analysts) to give opinion.  I’d be interested in what "info / advice" they provided.

If LJ is pig-headed (he might be!)to listen, that’s a bigger problem.

@ZiderEyed - pretty much aligned to my view....on the telly.

[havanatopia]

4 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

Bit depressing that, mind.

I was absolutely screaming at the telly for LJ to make subs, take off Diedhiou earlier (looked shattered), take off Kent (had to take off Brownhill with his knock), stop them playing the ball over to their right winger and the overloads on that side, and to stop the balls straight between Pack and Smith to Lasogga that creates space (if a centre half goes with him) and gives the room to runners straight at our back line.

Not really angry, just a bit flat is all.

 

You know why they pumped it over to the right wing don't you? Sunderland did exactly the same thing. And other teams before. They all know that Bryan is a spent force about mid way through the 2nd half. Time and again he is getting caught out at left back and the reason why is because he is belting up and down that left wing as well as doing left back duties. Its too much for him. Play him left midfield for goodness sake. Oh but we don't have a spare left back do we. Shucks. 

[old_eastender]

11 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

Bit depressing that, mind.

I was absolutely screaming at the telly for LJ to make subs, take off Diedhiou earlier (looked shattered), take off Kent (had to take off Brownhill with his knock), stop them playing the ball over to their right winger and the overloads on that side, and to stop the balls straight between Pack and Smith to Lasogga that creates space (if a centre half goes with him) and gives the room to runners straight at our back line.

Not really angry, just a bit flat is all.

 

 

7 hours ago, Cheesleysmate said:

Probably easier for us to see it with the benefit of Sky cameras.

 

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I know what you’re saying, but there’s other people around (his asistants and the analysts) to give opinion.  I’d be interested in what "info / advice" they provided.

If LJ is pig-headed (he might be!)to listen, that’s a bigger problem.

@ZiderEyed - pretty much aligned to my view....on the telly.

Well if LJ and his management team cannot see when players need subbing 'cos their half spent from the touchline, then they need someone in the stands who can help out! From watching on Sky, it was clear Fammy needed replacing after about 60 mins and that Brownhill was struggling to get up and down like he normally does. One of the problems when Fammy tires is that Smith and Pack end-up doing more forward pressing 'cos Fammy isn't, which leaves holes to be exploited. Said it on other threads but sub Fammy & Brownhill whilst we are still 2-0 up, and I think we don't end up dropping points.

[ZiderEyed]

8 hours ago, havanatopia said:

You know why they pumped it over to the right wing don't you? Sunderland did exactly the same thing. And other teams before. They all know that Bryan is a spent force about mid way through the 2nd half. Time and again he is getting caught out at left back and the reason why is because he is belting up and down that left wing as well as doing left back duties. Its too much for him. Play him left midfield for goodness sake. Oh but we don't have a spare left back do we. Shucks. 

Spot on this. Prefer Bryan MASSIVELY as a left midfielder, really not convinced with him as a left back, especially not with someone like Kent in front of him.

[Phileas Fogg]

13 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

Bit depressing that, mind.

I was absolutely screaming at the telly for LJ to make subs, take off Diedhiou earlier (looked shattered), take off Kent (had to take off Brownhill with his knock), stop them playing the ball over to their right winger and the overloads on that side, and to stop the balls straight between Pack and Smith to Lasogga that creates space (if a centre half goes with him) and gives the room to runners straight at our back line.

Not really angry, just a bit flat is all.

 

Agreed. I can understand bringing Woodrow on to preserve a comfortable lead away from home, but after their goal I’d have probably ripped that up and thrown on Diony instead.

Unknown quantity, quick and unpredictable. I just had a bad feeling we had no chance of winning after that substitution. Not that he touched the ball much.

So frustrating because we were in so much control! Leeds were horrible in the first half. If Diedhiou had played in Kent instead of over hitting to Smith I think we’d have scored..

 

[ZiderEyed]

2 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Agreed. I can understand bringing Woodrow on to preserve a comfortable lead away from home, but after their goal I’d have probably ripped that up and thrown on Diony instead.

Unknown quantity, quick and unpredictable. I just had a bad feeling we had no chance of winning after that substitution. Not that he touched the ball much.

So frustrating because we were in so much control! Leeds were horrible in the first half. If Diedhiou had played in Kent instead of over hitting to Smith I think we’d have scored..

 

That's whats particularly grating about the last 2 results - Leeds were absolutely terrible really, long balls and hopeful punts (not bitter, they really offered nothing), and Sunderland were equally diabolical. 

I think it's fair to say Woodrow is a write off at this point, done the square root of **** all for us and he's stealing a wage as it goes. I thought he'd have brought Diony on really, for exactly the reasons you just outlined.

[Phileas Fogg]

2 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

That's whats particularly grating about the last 2 results - Leeds were absolutely terrible really, long balls and hopeful punts (not bitter, they really offered nothing), and Sunderland were equally diabolical. 

I think it's fair to say Woodrow is a write off at this point, done the square root of **** all for us and he's stealing a wage as it goes. I thought he'd have brought Diony on really, for exactly the reasons you just outlined.

I think given a run of games Woodrow is probably a reasonable player, but not for a top 6 side.

Despite that - he doesn’t seem to be better at many things that our current forwards aren’t already. Granted he hasn’t started much though.

I wonder when we bought him in whether we were anticipating being top 6. Probably not. 

Shame for him because at this stage a L1 loan would be far better for his development.

[ZiderEyed]

2 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

I think given a run of games Woodrow is probably a reasonable player, but not for a top 6 side.

Despite that - he doesn’t seem to be better at many things that our current forwards aren’t already. Granted he hasn’t started much though.

I wonder when we bought him in whether we were anticipating being top 6. Probably not. 

Shame for him because at this stage a L1 loan would be far better for his development.

Probably would be, I just don't see any way he's going to force himself in to the starting XI based on previous performances. We don't really help him with our style of play, when he was banging in the goals at Burton he had 2 quick wingers either side of him teeing up crosses the whole game. Think he'd do a job for a team fighting relegation, like Burton last season.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Funny, it's been awful since the QPR game.

Vs Sunderland there was complacency no doubt about it, everyone- from crowd to team probably even if subconciously thought that one was won. That's dangerous, especially v a side fighting for their lives. Diony sub was definitely a mistake.

Yesterday was harder to explain, though I think our agriculture to get a grip on Hernandez played a part for sure- he may not have been as flashy as Lassoga, but a lot seemed to go through him and in the 2nd half especially. As with v Sunderland, I think us sitting in consciously for 15-20 mins and then looking to exploit ruthlessly major gaps could have been a policy worth pursuing- because psychologically they seemed to get a foothold before the goal whereas if purely frustrated, they may have become more reckless more early and given us better chances on the break.

[Cowshed]

13 hours ago, ZiderEyed said:

 in an effort Bit depressing that, mind.

I was absolutely screaming at the telly for LJ to make subs, take off Diedhiou earlier (looked shattered), take off Kent (had to take off Brownhill with his knock), stop them playing the ball over to their right winger and the overloads on that side, and to stop the balls straight between Pack and Smith to Lasogga that creates space (if a centre half goes with him) and gives the room to runners straight at our back line.

Not really angry, just a bit flat is all.

 

What is game management?

Is it a player losing possession via incessant dribbling of the ball, a Keeper who never (?) now plays the ball to feet and a team that launches the ball quickly upfield leading to players having to exhaust themselves to press and get in shape behind the lost ball?

Your post is full of reaction to what the opponents are doing in possession. Proactive game management would be stop  giving the ball to to them so freely.

[Phileas Fogg]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

What is game management?

Is it a player losing possession via incessant dribbling of the ball, a Keeper who never (?) now plays the ball to feet and a team that launches the ball quickly upfield leading to players having to exhaust themselves to press and get in shape behind the lost ball?

Your post is full of reaction to what the opponents are doing in possession. Proactive game management would be stop  giving the ball to to them so freely.

His primary points were about substitutions? 

[havanatopia]

We can talk all day long about the relative merits or demerits of shuffling the front or middle lines but until the management get a solid back line with back up this sort of thing will continue to happen. Only Baker and Flint deserve to be in the starting line up. Pisano when he is fit and a new left back. Rocket science it isn't; always, always, build from the back. We have not completed that job in two years and then exacerbated it by the huge mistake of selling Ayling; no player should be sold because he had one infraction. Quite insane. Still, we are 6th. No complaints.

[Phileas Fogg]

2 minutes ago, havanatopia said:

We can talk all day long about the relative merits or demerits of shuffling the front or middle lines but until the management get a solid back line with back up this sort of thing will continue to happen. Only Baker and Flint deserve to be in the starting line up. Pisano when he is fit and a new left back. Rocket science it isn't; always, always, build from the back. We have not completed that job in two years and then exacerbated it by the huge mistake of selling Ayling; no player should be sold because he had one infraction. Quite insane. Still, we are 6th. No complaints.

What if Ayling wanted the move? Leeds are a big club, not every day you get that opportunity.

[ZiderEyed]

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

What is game management?

Is it a player losing possession via incessant dribbling of the ball, a Keeper who never (?) now plays the ball to feet and a team that launches the ball quickly upfield leading to players having to exhaust themselves to press and get in shape behind the lost ball?

Your post is full of reaction to what the opponents are doing in possession. Proactive game management would be stop  giving the ball to to them so freely.

Agree with all of that, but game management is perhaps a more pragmatic thread title than "Mistakes by the coaching staff in dealing with the threats posed by Leeds/our own obvious weaknesses".

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, Phileas Fogg said:

His primary points were about substitutions? 

The topic is game management.

The subs would not alter the decision for the Keeper for instance to launch the ball upfield (or off it) to invite more pressure on the team unless they were instructed to alter that aspect of the game plan.

 

 

[Phileas Fogg]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

The topic is game management.

The subs would not alter the decision for the Keeper for instance to launch the ball upfield (or off it) to invite more pressure on the team unless they were instructed to alter that aspect of the game plan.

 

 

I don’t really want to get into the nuances of what game management means to different people, but to me ‘managing a game’ also includes use of your subs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Could the return of Diedhiou have disrupted a lot of what we did well, odd though it may sound? With the resultant impact on game management.

I rate him and think he's a good player and offers abilities...but Paterson behind Reid in a sort of 4-4-1-1 was our best, most cohesive run of form. In the Autumn/early Winter we definitely did not look like crumbling like this- think Boro and Forest at home, think Sheff Utd away and up to and including Reading at home- we absorbed some pressure at times and in the game at Sheff Utd tbh got very lucky but the vulnerability factor just was not there- that setup with generally- but not always- Paterson behind Reid- gave us a combination of flexibility and protection IMO.

[BarnzFM]

The reason Bryan gets caught out is generally the person playing in front of him offers little protection (Kent/Patterson) we do much better with him at left mid because he himself offers the left back protection 

[Frenchay Red]

12 minutes ago, Phileas Fogg said:

What if Ayling wanted the move? Leeds are a big club, not every day you get that opportunity.

I don't know of course, but I strongly suspect that Lansdown wanted the Ayling move.

[Phileas Fogg]

1 minute ago, Frenchay Red said:

I don't know of course, but I strongly suspect that Lansdown wanted the Ayling move.

Me too actually, but we don’t know.

[Cowshed]

12 minutes ago, ZiderEyed said:

shAgree with all of that, but game management is perhaps a more pragmatic thread title than "Mistakes by the coaching staff in dealing with the threats posed by Leeds/our own obvious weaknesses".

The threats posed were being created by the coaching staffs tactics leading to virtually no retention of the valuable football.

I find it almost inexplicable that when leading 2-0 Frank Fielding's distribution is now so poorly thought of that he is not trusted to pass it ten metres to a player short. Bristol City have been good at that, very good at times, playing through the thirds was a strength that shielded weakness.

Tactics from kick off being employed yesterday concede possession and accentuate weakness - Game management also starts from the first minute.

[RidgeRed]

10 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The topic is game management.

The subs would not alter the decision for the Keeper for instance to launch the ball upfield (or off it) to invite more pressure on the team unless they were instructed to alter that aspect of the game plan.

 

 

Really annoys me that punt from FF to the wing for Flint. one early occasion yesterday didn't work, Leeds broke quickly & we were short at the back with AF busting a gut to get back from the wing. Not the first time it's happened either.

[Simon79]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Could the return of Diedhiou have disrupted a lot of what we did well, odd though it may sound? With the resultant impact on game management.

I rate him and think he's a good player and offers abilities...but Paterson behind Reid in a sort of 4-4-1-1 was our best, most cohesive run of form. In the Autumn/early Winter we definitely did not look like crumbling like this- think Boro and Forest at home, think Sheff Utd away and up to and including Reading at home- we absorbed some pressure at times and in the game at Sheff Utd tbh got very lucky but the vulnerability factor just was not there- that setup with generally- but not always- Paterson behind Reid- gave us a combination of flexibility and protection IMO.

I said the same to a mate of mine last night. I also said that I feel the new signings have almost disrupted things, not that they are not good players in their own right. Just that I feel that it’s disrupted our style of play. COYR 

[ZiderEyed]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

The threats posed were being created by the coaching staffs tactics leading to virtually no retention of the valuable football.

I find it almost inexplicable that when leading 2-0 Frank Fielding's distribution is now so poorly thought of that he is not trusted to pass it ten metres to a player short. Bristol City have been good at that, very good at times, playing through the thirds was a strength that ielded weakness.

Tactics from kick off being employed yesterday concede possession and accentuate weakness - Game management also starts from the first minute.

Which is all the root of the problem, but LJ not dealing with the things I outlined in the mid second half is a mistake in itself.

Bizarrely, with Fielding, I believe with the ball at his feet he is a very, very good keeper. It's his kicking when the ball is on the ground that is massively lacking. At the Etihad, he was picking out our midfield and bypassing their press, as well as finding Brownhill on the right with brilliant long balls.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Simon79 said:

I said the same to a mate of mine last night. I also said that I feel the new signings have almost disrupted things, not that they are not good players in their own right. Just that I feel that it’s disrupted our style of play. COYR 

I think we needed the extra depth tbh, and in the medium-long run they will be decent assets- especially if we can get Kent again next year, but the problem position was surely right back given Pisano is made of glass.

However yeah, we seem to have changed the shape and it's had a bit of an impact 2nd half moreso of late. That fragility last 2 games...didn't feel it in the Autumn/early Winter (i.e. up to an hour in v Wolves at home), not at all!