CC post Blackburn

[Holmowl]

4 minutes ago, torryowl said:

looking on the website at close of play tonight it stood at 1866 ......

 

 

Bit of kudos to the fan who buys the 1867th in 2017. Maybe he/she will be told "You pay only £150 for this one".

 

and maybe not.

[torryowl]

[cockneyvillageowl]

14 hours ago, GMOwl72 said:

A lick of paint on the Lepp crossbar away from a draw! 

 

Its that lick of paint that wasn't in the playing budget last year. Dulux matt finish no less. 

[Mick De Lyons]

5 hours ago, torryowl said:

there's nothing wrong with defensive system we play but how we played last night was nothing like how we've played it lately .....when we play it well far better sides than Blackburn never really look like scoring against us, that wasn't the case last night .....we were borderline  pathetic , the defence looked suspect . the mid field struggled against some nonentities I've never heard of , we created nothing in open play .....we were poor anyone who thinks otherwise either has total blind faith or wasn't there .

We don't play with a defensive system. It looks like we do at times, simply because of how the opposition set up against us. Sides that play more physical give us less room to play, as do the lesser teams who put ten men behind the ball. Sides that play football don't close us down as much, so it allows to play football in the space that is created. Its nothing to do with a defensive system being employed on purpose. Just because Blackburn had what you describe as " nonentities ", doesn't mean they are that. If we were poor and got the result, it suggests to me that Carlos is making us hard to beat. There is often a difference between two sides cancelling each other out and playing rubbish. Often our fans confuse the two definitions.

[pazowl55]

We play counter attack the majority of the time when we are winning. This requires you to drop back to a certain degree to draw out the opposition. So although it may look like a defensive formation it is merely us just holding positions and keeping things contained ready to break.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

2 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

We play counter attack the majority of the time when we are winning. This requires you to drop back to a certain degree to draw out the opposition. So although it may look like a defensive formation it is merely us just holding positions and keeping things contained ready to break.

We didn't contain Blackburn too well then did we?

[Holmowl]

3 hours ago, Mick De Lyons said:

We don't play with a defensive system. It looks like we do at times, simply because of how the opposition set up against us. Sides that play more physical give us less room to play, as do the lesser teams who put ten men behind the ball. Sides that play football don't close us down as much, so it allows to play football in the space that is created. Its nothing to do with a defensive system being employed on purpose. Just because Blackburn had what you describe as " nonentities ", doesn't mean they are that. If we were poor and got the result, it suggests to me that Carlos is making us hard to beat. There is often a difference between two sides cancelling each other out and playing rubbish. Often our fans confuse the two definitions.

 

3 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

We play counter attack the majority of the time when we are winning. This requires you to drop back to a certain degree to draw out the opposition. So although it may look like a defensive formation it is merely us just holding positions and keeping things contained ready to break.

 

I think this is a case of a The Emporer's New Clothes.

 

We have a VERY defensive approach, with pretty much a 532 on Friday and Tuesday, and sometimes 5311. Hutch rarely crosses the halfway line. Bannan plays fairly deep. The two widemen tuck in, and for over half our matches we only played one of them. 

 

Carlos's first instinct is defence. So be it, it is sort of working. But it is defensive.

 

Its horrible to watch, but at this stage of the season the excitement and stress kick in even without quality Footie.

[torryowl]

3 hours ago, Mick De Lyons said:

We don't play with a defensive system. It looks like we do at times, simply because of how the opposition set up against us. Sides that play more physical give us less room to play, as do the lesser teams who put ten men behind the ball. Sides that play football don't close us down as much, so it allows to play football in the space that is created. Its nothing to do with a defensive system being employed on purpose. Just because Blackburn had what you describe as " nonentities ", doesn't mean they are that. If we were poor and got the result, it suggests to me that Carlos is making us hard to beat. There is often a difference between two sides cancelling each other out and playing rubbish. Often our fans confuse the two definitions.

your right it certainly looks like we do at times......if carlos wants to play cautiously he'll get no criticism from me as long as it brings in the results (which it as) but how the side played against Blackburn was appallingly bad not in the tactical sense coz we know what to expect and like I have said many times we are very good at playing it BUT to play that way the players still have to perform and on Tuesday they performed terrible ........I cant speak for other fans who you think get confused and don't realise whats happening but ive seen enough football to form my own opinion and  I know a cautious team when I see one .

[pazowl55]

2 hours ago, Andoverowl said:

We didn't contain Blackburn too well then did we?

We concede more goals and not win that I am unaware of then.

If your going to drop so deep and invite them on to you its going require luck sometimes.

It's risk versus reward.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

39 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

We concede more goals and not win that I am unaware of then.

If your going to drop so deep and invite them on to you its going require luck sometimes.

It's risk versus reward.

It's a risky game to play but ultimately if we get our reward we won't complain, not too good for the health tho

[Mick De Lyons]

3 hours ago, Holmowl said:

 

 

I think this is a case of a The Emporer's New Clothes.

 

We have a VERY defensive approach, with pretty much a 532 on Friday and Tuesday, and sometimes 5311. Hutch rarely crosses the halfway line. Bannan plays fairly deep. The two widemen tuck in, and for over half our matches we only played one of them. 

 

Carlos's first instinct is defence. So be it, it is sort of working. But it is defensive.

 

Its horrible to watch, but at this stage of the season the excitement and stress kick in even without quality Footie.

We don't play a defensive system. We never play five at the back. The centre backs split at times and Hutchinson goes forward from his defending midfield role and at other times acts as an added centre back, but its not static. The side is dedigned to use fluid formation changes, dependant upon where we are on the pitch and whether we have the ball or they do. It is true that we don't go hell for leather at teams this season, but again our tactics allied to how the opposition sets up often can give the impression of being defensive. Wigan was horrible to watch, Birminghamwas just an average game to watch as examples, but fans seem to label every game we don't dominate a side as " poor ", when often we were just average. With three wins on the bounce, the results are coming regardless.

[Mick De Lyons]

4 hours ago, torryowl said:

your right it certainly looks like we do at times......if carlos wants to play cautiously he'll get no criticism from me as long as it brings in the results (which it as) but how the side played against Blackburn was appallingly bad not in the tactical sense coz we know what to expect and like I have said many times we are very good at playing it BUT to play that way the players still have to perform and on Tuesday they performed terrible ........I cant speak for other fans who you think get confused and don't realise whats happening but ive seen enough football to form my own opinion and  I know a cautious team when I see one .

I think in all honesty Torry, its a mixture of us not playing at our best, the way sides set up against us and the expectations for the team to get certain results creates what you described as a cautious approach. Whilst we are winning, then fans to a degree will accept these performances, but a few possible defeats and the mood will turn. One possible reason for it could be that the team as a whole isn't balanced. Weve had changes up front and at the back, which will alter how the whole team play. For a start, lee is now out of the side. Weve had Fox come in at left back and Lees has been out injured. Rhodes and Winnall are now in the starting eleven and have only played a few games for us. Reach has spent half his time as a make shift left back and half his time in the left wing. In a lot of games he has been moved to left back half way through a game. These aren't excuses, but accomadating new players, losing some key players will upset the balance and roles in the side. A more settled side should hopefully see improved performances.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Mick De Lyons

[Sham67]

13 hours ago, Captain Sl-OWL-ly said:

 

Thanks.

Anybody know if thats better or worse than this time last year?

 

Whooooooooooosh

[Waddling Owl]

59 minutes ago, Mick De Lyons said:

I think in all honesty Torry, its a mixture of us not playing at our best, the way sides set up against us and the expectations for the team to get certain results creates what you described as a cautious approach. Whilst we are winning, then fans to a degree will accept these performances, but a few possible defeats and the mood will turn. One possible reason for it could be that the team as a whole isn't balanced. Weve had changes up front and at the back, which will alter how the whole team play. For a start, lee is now out of the side. Weve had Fox come in at left back and Lees has been out injured. Rhodes and Winnall are now in the starting eleven and have only played a few games for us. Reach has spent half his time as a make shift left back and half his time in the left wing. In a lot of games he has been moved to left back half way through a game. These aren't excuses, but accomadating new players, losing some key players will upset the balance and roles in the side. A more settled side should hopefully see improved performances.

I agree with the above and I honestly think the loss of Lee has been central to the dip in performance (sorry if already been said) 

 

He's such an important player for us in terms of linking the defence and attack together and I think that's why we now appear to be sitting further back. The prospect of him bursting into the box and linking up with Rhodes and his hold up play is massively exciting. If there's any chance at all he's back in time for the play-offs it could be a difference maker for us. Wishful thinking I know...

[Mick De Lyons]

10 minutes ago, Waddling Owl said:

I agree with the above and I honestly think the loss of Lee has been central to the dip in performance (sorry if already been said) 

 

He's such an important player for us in terms of linking the defence and attack together and I think that's why we now appear to be sitting further back. The prospect of him bursting into the box and linking up with Rhodes and his hold up play is massively exciting. If there's any chance at all he's back in time for the play-offs it could be a difference maker for us. Wishful thinking I know...

I don't think people truly appreciate the difference losing a few key players can make. A side get's used to playing with each other. Where playing make runs, who covers who, who will close down, who will back off etc etc. Change a few players around or take some out and that balance and understanding goes pretty quickly, particularly in positions such as at centre back.