Sledgehammer and Walnut to Cake and Eat It

[Davefevs]

Only just got in, so apologies if covered in other post.

Last week I questioned LJs subs, comparing the decision to go 5212 and playing well to 442 on 57 minutes as him needing to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, when perhaps subtle tweaks were required.  Especially as we’d responded well with chances after Preston equalised.

Today, although frustrated that it took 20 minutes of pressure from Reading from 50th-72nd minute time go to the back 5, I did see the tweaks in player position / system during that period in an attempt to rectify it.  They didn’t stem the tide, but at least LJ didn’t panic.  Even in that period when Fam became knackered he still had the energy to fashion a chance for Massengo, but that was his gasket fully blown.

He went 5 across the middle, to moving Weimann left and O’Dowda in behind Fam, before changing it up.  The back 5 then stopped the exploitation of the gaps between RB and RCB, LB and LCB.

I’m not saying we saw the remaining 18 minutes (plus 4 mins injury) out trouble free, but we looked far more solid.

So today I think LJ tweaked, learned, tweaked again.  That’s encouraging from my point of view.  I can’t have my cake and eat it by expecting him to make big changes when I criticised him last week.

[Dr Balls]

The midfield was crying out for an extra player after 10 minutes of the second half. We needed someone creative who could hold onto the ball i.e. Kasey Palmer. How this wasn’t obvious to LJ and the coaching team, I have no idea. Instead of rushed decisions, they seemed almost paralysed.

[Up The City!]

10 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

The midfield was crying out for an extra player after 10 minutes of the second half. We needed someone creative who could hold onto the ball i.e. Kasey Palmer. How this wasn’t obvious to LJ and the coaching team, I have no idea. Instead of rushed decisions, they seemed almost paralysed.

As fans we rarely see the whole picture, LJ and his staff and the analysists do see that whole picture, they are far more qualified than you or I. LJ has shown he is not affraid to make early changes so therefore one must assume that they must have had a very good reason for not bringing on that extra man in the midfield. 

[Dr Balls]

1 minute ago, Up The City! said:

As fans we rarely see the whole picture, LJ and his staff and the analysists do see that whole picture, they are far more qualified than you or I. LJ has shown he is not affraid to make early changes so therefore one must assume that they must have had a very good reason for not bringing on that extra man in the midfield. 

I sometimes wonder if stood pitch side that managers and coaches can’t see what Is clearer from 20+ rows up in the stand, where with all respect to the football experience of the coaching team, you do get a much better overall view of the play. That’s why rugby coaches don’t sit pitch side. Of course in football, Shteve McClaren did it at least for the first half if games but got so much stick that he eventually gave up.

We were being overrun in the second half, we had no midfield outlet, and Bentley was being forced to kick high and long, which generally meant just immediately losing possession and watching the ball coming straight back up our end. For long periods of the second half, Reading were camped in our half and we couldn’t get out. As soon as Palmer eventually came on, we had a midfield outlet who could hold onto the ball. The difference was striking, but was at least 20 minutes late.

[Major Isewater]

5 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

The midfield was crying out for an extra player after 10 minutes of the second half. We needed someone creative who could hold onto the ball i.e. Kasey Palmer. How this wasn’t obvious to LJ and the coaching team, I have no idea. Instead of rushed decisions, they seemed almost paralysed.

Whilst we could all see that , perhaps, just maybe LJ saw something else which made him wait to change ; perhaps KP is carrying an injury or is not a hundred percent well ?

We don’t know so it’s a big  unfair to bash the coach with this one. Nobody is perfect and I believe being in the top six after eleven games with all our injuries that our coaching staff are getting more right than wrong so should be cut a bit of slack .

[Lanterne Rouge]

6 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

I sometimes wonder if stood pitch side that managers and coaches can’t see what Is clearer from 20+ rows up in the stand, where with all respect to the football experience of the coaching team, you do get a much better overall view of the play. That’s why rugby coaches don’t sit pitch side. Of course in football, Shteve McClaren did it at least for the first half if games but got so much stick that he eventually gave up.

We were being overrun in the second half, we had no midfield outlet, and Bentley was being forced to kick high and long, which generally meant just immediately losing possession and watching the ball coming straight back up our end. For long periods of the second half, Reading were camped in our half and we couldn’t get out. As soon as Palmer eventually came on, we had a midfield outlet who could hold onto the ball. The difference was striking, but was at least 20 minutes late.

Schtick surely?

[spudski]

What frustrates me more than Subs, is how we let teams dictate our tempo.

For the majority of the first half, Reading gave us huge amounts of space. Their players seemed to be going through the motions, very little energy and urgency. It almost felt like a pre season friendly. We were dominating and moving the ball well, making the most of the space given.

We scored...and then it goes flat. And this happens a lot against poorer sides, regardless of the opposition's personnel.

Why can't LJ get them to continue with the energy and kill off the game.

We let ourselves drop down to their levels. This in turn allows the opposition to gain confidence. And when this happens, the opposition start to find space, energy and start playing with more confidence and freedom.

Having dropped down to their levels, we often struggle to get going again. Sitting back and looking clueless going forward.

And this is when LJ tinkers.

We are so often better when we are chasing a game...the energy rises.

Imo...we have a big weakness when going ahead...and that is not continuing with the same game plan and high energy and press. 

We are reactionary in many ways, rather than being Pro active.

[Robbored]

7 hours ago, Up The City! said:

As fans we rarely see the whole picture, LJ and his staff and the analysists do see that whole picture, they are far more qualified than you or I. LJ has shown he is not affraid to make early changes so therefore one must assume that they must have had a very good reason for not bringing on that extra man in the midfield. 

Spot on.

There are plenty fans who always see tactics/formations/substitutions  of any manager at any club as questionable.Thats the way football has been for years even before the arrival of social media. I go back far enough to remember discussing the same topics in the pub post match...........

 I take a close interest in formations and tactics but I rarely criticise LJ if he makes a change of any kind - as you say we fans rarely, if ever have the whole picture and on the occasions that LJ has explained his changes post match it always makes perfect sense. 

He and his assistants are professional coaches and know their stuff and I’m not a professional coach and these days I accept what they do - they obviously have their reasons even if it’s not obvious to those watching.

[cidered abroad]

22 minutes ago, spudski said:

What frustrates me more than Subs, is how we let teams dictate our tempo.

For the majority of the first half, Reading gave us huge amounts of space. Their players seemed to be going through the motions, very little energy and urgency. It almost felt like a pre season friendly. We were dominating and moving the ball well, making the most of the space given.

We scored...and then it goes flat. And this happens a lot against poorer sides, regardless of the opposition's personnel.

Why can't LJ get them to continue with the energy and kill off the game.

We let ourselves drop down to their levels. This in turn allows the opposition to gain confidence. And when this happens, the opposition start to find space, energy and start playing with more confidence and freedom.

Having dropped down to their levels, we often struggle to get going again. Sitting back and looking clueless going forward.

And this is when LJ tinkers.

We are so often better when we are chasing a game...the energy rises.

Imo...we have a big weakness when going ahead...and that is not continuing with the same game plan and high energy and press. 

We are reactionary in many ways, rather than being Pro active.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

We appear to base our tactics in every game to counter the opposition. Rarely, if ever, do we look as if we are trying to impose our formation and effort over the other side.

It will be our downfall in the promotion stakes as it is the unexpected that wins tight games. Yesterday, we allowed a poor Reading side to dominate and cause a lot of confusion throughout the second half. If they had a decent strike force, I dread to think what the final score might have been.

[Numero Uno]

Dasilva, Kalas, Nagy, Baker, Smith and Afobe all unavailable yesterday following two tough away games in a row for differing reasons and yet people are still whingeing like **** cos we ground out a one niller.

[Son of Fred]

40 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

We appear to base our tactics in every game to counter the opposition.

This.....

It's clear LJ is growing as a head coach but to me this seems to be his biggest challenge to overcome - 'maybe a bit more of "look at us,,this is what we can do"...

[spudski]

20 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Dasilva, Kalas, Nagy, Baker, Smith and Afobe all unavailable yesterday following two tough away games in a row for differing reasons and yet people are still whingeing like **** cos we ground out a one niller.

I think that's rather unfair. We rode our luck, against a better team I don't think we would have won.

We looked lost and totally devoid of what to do with the ball in the second half.

Our back 4 and Messengo played very well imo, the rest of our outfield players seem devoid of any organisation. It was like they'd never played together.

Brownhill since Captaincy works hard, but has lost his creativity and buzz. Eliasson is a one trick pony...couple step overs and cross. Offers very little else, and a weakness defensively. Other teams have worked him out... he's stalled in his development imo. Odowda buzzed around a lot, with very little end product. Weimann worked hard, but again never a danger to the opposition.

I get the injuries...and I'm nit picking, but yesterday was a poor performance in many ways. We rode our luck...some would prefer to call it grinding out a result.

[Numero Uno]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think that's rather unfair. We rode our luck, against a better team I don't think we would have won.

We looked lost and totally devoid of what to do with the ball in the second half.

Our back 4 and Messengo played very well imo, the rest of our outfield players seem devoid of any organisation. It was like they'd never played together.

Brownhill since Captaincy works hard, but has lost his creativity and buzz. Eliasson is a one trick pony...couple step overs and cross. Offers very little else, and a weakness defensively. Other teams have worked him out... he's stalled in his development imo. Odowda buzzed around a lot, with very little end product. Weimann worked hard, but again never a danger to the opposition.

I get the injuries...and I'm nit picking, but yesterday was a poor performance in many ways. We rode our luck...some would prefer to call it grinding out a result.

Yes, we played poorly and rode our luck but our undoubted resilience got us the win. I will leave the micro analysis and presumably “fair” comments about Semenyo bring Downs League standard to everyone else.........

[Bar BS3]

I think that after 10 games unbeaten and only 1 defeat in pretty much a quarter of a season, sitting 2 points off the top of the division, that LJ might have some idea about what he’s doing..! 

  

[cidercity1987]

16 minutes ago, spudski said:

I think that's rather unfair. We rode our luck, against a better team I don't think we would have won.

We looked lost and totally devoid of what to do with the ball in the second half.

Our back 4 and Messengo played very well imo, the rest of our outfield players seem devoid of any organisation. It was like they'd never played together.

Brownhill since Captaincy works hard, but has lost his creativity and buzz. Eliasson is a one trick pony...couple step overs and cross. Offers very little else, and a weakness defensively. Other teams have worked him out... he's stalled in his development imo. Odowda buzzed around a lot, with very little end product. Weimann worked hard, but again never a danger to the opposition.

I get the injuries...and I'm nit picking, but yesterday was a poor performance in many ways. We rode our luck...some would prefer to call it grinding out a result.

I know it must have pained you to see that we won yesterday due to a ‘play’ that you despise so intensely, but it’s most definitely a strange time to call Eliasson a one trick pony. 

Keep assisting Eliasson, bloody brilliant cross. Job done.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

I know it must have pained you to see that we won yesterday due to a ‘play’ that you despise so intensely, but it’s most definitely a strange time to call Eliasson a one trick pony. 

Keep assisting Eliasson, bloody brilliant cross. Job done.

Funnily...I actually called the team selection in the pub prior to the game...said both Eliasson and Famara would start. Reading were the type of team to play that configuration.

Doesn't pain me...I want every player to do well.

But imo, both Famara and Eliasson have stagnated in their development. Even LJ has said Eliasson can only really play in a 442.

Not being funny...but I thought Moses had appeared when the Reading defenders parted and gave Famara so much space to score. Awful defending.

[Rudolf Hucker]

4 hours ago, Major Isewater said:

Nobody is perfect

Ahem

[WECANDO]

9 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

I sometimes wonder if stood pitch side that managers and coaches can’t see what Is clearer from 20+ rows up in the stand, where with all respect to the football experience of the coaching team, you do get a much better overall view of the play. That’s why rugby coaches don’t sit pitch side. Of course in football, Shteve McClaren did it at least for the first half if games but got so much stick that he eventually gave up.

We were being overrun in the second half, we had no midfield outlet, and Bentley was being forced to kick high and long, which generally meant just immediately losing possession and watching the ball coming straight back up our end. For long periods of the second half, Reading were camped in our half and we couldn’t get out. As soon as Palmer eventually came on, we had a midfield outlet who could hold onto the ball. The difference was striking, but was at least 20 minutes late.

But did Palmer hold onto the ball? I thought he lost it to easily trying to be clever.

[cidered abroad]

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

I think that after 10 games unbeaten and only 1 defeat in pretty much a quarter of a season, sitting 2 points off the top of the division, that LJ might have some idea about what he’s doing..! 

  

My earlier comments may appear to be negative but not meant that way. I'm very pleased that we got a home win and only one defeat in eleven games. But the point I make is that we appear to have achieved this by a negative type of tactics in which we seem to worry more about how the other side will set up and play.

Rather than making them worry about us a bit more. As I see it, yesterday's match is a very good example. In the second half, we conceded space to the opposition. We conceded possession. If they had scored, which team would have been up for getting the winner? 

The side which had gained new confidence with possession and a goal, or the one that had tried to defend a 1-0 lead for forty five minutes and failed?

Just go back to Wolves at Christmas two years ago and you have the answer. 

I want us to be more positive especially in home games. Not reckless but pushing the other defence into errors more than we do.   

[Davefevs]

51 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

My earlier comments may appear to be negative but not meant that way. I'm very pleased that we got a home win and only one defeat in eleven games. But the point I make is that we appear to have achieved this by a negative type of tactics in which we seem to worry more about how the other side will set up and play.

I guess there’s a balance between being blasé about your opponents and worrying too much about them.

Rather than making them worry about us a bit more. As I see it, yesterday's match is a very good example. In the second half, we conceded space to the opposition. We conceded possession. If they had scored, which team would have been up for getting the winner?

Reading changed their system, it got them back in the game.  Sometimes you don’t drop back, you are forced back.  There were flaws in our response to their changes that they exploited.

The side which had gained new confidence with possession and a goal, or the one that had tried to defend a 1-0 lead for forty five minutes and failed?

I don’t think we tried to defend it  it’s not LJ’s way....we just couldn’t get a foothold.

Just go back to Wolves at Christmas two years ago and you have the answer.

that’s not a good comparison.  Strange old game that one.

I want us to be more positive especially in home games. Not reckless but pushing the other defence into errors more than we do.   
we tried.  Massengo raving into the box, set up by Fam, wasn’t a holding midfielder told to sit in at all costs.

Frustrating second half, but Reading are no mugs.  Fine margins n all that.

 

[Bar BS3]

1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

My earlier comments may appear to be negative but not meant that way. I'm very pleased that we got a home win and only one defeat in eleven games. But the point I make is that we appear to have achieved this by a negative type of tactics in which we seem to worry more about how the other side will set up and play.

Rather than making them worry about us a bit more. As I see it, yesterday's match is a very good example. In the second half, we conceded space to the opposition. We conceded possession. If they had scored, which team would have been up for getting the winner? 

The side which had gained new confidence with possession and a goal, or the one that had tried to defend a 1-0 lead for forty five minutes and failed?

Just go back to Wolves at Christmas two years ago and you have the answer. 

I want us to be more positive especially in home games. Not reckless but pushing the other defence into errors more than we do.   

Valid points and, I’m sure, the way every teams’ fans would like to see  their side play. But, in such a tough division, with so many first choice players unavailable, I think we are unable to stamp as much authority on games as we might like too, and the ability to adapt to get what we’ve got is very impressive. 

[Major Isewater]

6 hours ago, cidered abroad said:

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.

We appear to base our tactics in every game to counter the opposition. Rarely, if ever, do we look as if we are trying to impose our formation and effort over the other side.

It will be our downfall in the promotion stakes as it is the unexpected that wins tight games. Yesterday, we allowed a poor Reading side to dominate and cause a lot of confusion throughout the second half. If they had a decent strike force, I dread to think what the final score might have been.

‘It will be our downfall in the promotion stakes as it is the unexpected that wins tight games. ‘

I agree with most of what you say but the phrase I have highlighted from your post surely if the unexpected wins games then t with LJ at the helm you should put your money on City for the title ? 

Only a brave man would guess his starting eleven. 

[Major Isewater]

5 hours ago, Rudolf Hucker said:

Ahem

You are unbelievable, I was actually going to add a caveat ‘ except Rudolph ‘ but decided that it was a given .

[RedRock]

11 hours ago, spudski said:

I think that's rather unfair. We rode our luck, against a better team I don't think we would have won.

We looked lost and totally devoid of what to do with the ball in the second half.

Our back 4 and Messengo played very well imo, the rest of our outfield players seem devoid of any organisation. It was like they'd never played together.

Brownhill since Captaincy works hard, but has lost his creativity and buzz. Eliasson is a one trick pony...couple step overs and cross. Offers very little else, and a weakness defensively. Other teams have worked him out... he's stalled in his development imo. Odowda buzzed around a lot, with very little end product. Weimann worked hard, but again never a danger to the opposition.

I get the injuries...and I'm nit picking, but yesterday was a poor performance in many ways. We rode our luck...some would prefer to call it grinding out a result.

Strange game. For the first 20 minutes I thought we were bordering sublime, fluent, flowing and in total control. Remaining 25 minutes of first half we got worse and worse.

Half-time, thought we might sort a bit of a shape out. 

Nope, for the second-half, it genuinely looked like we had 2 players less than Reading. Beyond the back 5 and Hano we were, frankly, a total shambles. No attacking threat, non-existent midfield and punts upfield.

How we escaped with a 1-0 was amazing.

We did. Maybe, at last, this is our season.