So what was it last night then?

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

This is what I mean though, our performance at Norwich was not excellent for 80 mins, though it was substantially better than last nights offering. Luton, a club in a similar position, ran Norwich ragged by taking the game to them, and putting pressure on their vulnerable defence. Their performance might merit the term excellent, ours did not.

 

Given the way we'd set up though it absolutely was an excellent performance for 80 minutes.

 

If you set up to counter-attack, you're not going to have a lot of possession, and you're not going to have wave after wave of attacks.

 

You refuse to acknowledge that it was an excellent performance for 80 minutes because you don't like the way we set up. Even had we won that game and not conceded 2 in the last 10 minutes you still wouldn't have liked the way we set up, so there's no way for you to see a performance as being excellent unless it conforms to you're notion of a what an excellent performance would be i.e. taking the game to them.

[Paddyowl]

1 hour ago, FreshOwl said:

A lack of effort or fatigue? Because something clearly wasn’t right 

They all looked tired and jaded but then again they also looked very poor technically, this twinned with a complete lack of a will to win and a desire to wear the Wednesday shirt could all be a factor.

 

Take your pick.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Paddyowl

[gurujuan]

Just now, cowl said:

 

Given the way we'd set up though it absolutely was an excellent performance for 80 minutes.

 

If you set up to counter-attack, you're not going to have a lot of possession, and you're not going to have wave after wave of attacks.

 

You refuse to acknowledge that it was an excellent performance for 80 minutes because you don't like the way we set up. Even had we won that game and not conceded 2 in the last 10 minutes you still wouldn't have liked the way we set up, so there's no way for you to see a performance as being excellent unless it conforms to you're notion of a what an excellent performance would be i.e. taking the game to them.

But my point is still, how was it an excellent performance? We sat off Norwich, and invited them to try and break us down. A similar tactic to the one we’ve unsuccessfully used in other games. We saw how Norwich could be beaten, the previous week at Luton, by adopting a more aggressive approach. 
Norwich have good technical players, and if you stand off and let them play, they will eventually find a way through That’s exactly what happened

[cowl]

Just now, gurujuan said:

But my point is still, how was it an excellent performance? We sat off Norwich, and invited them to try and break us down. A similar tactic to the one we’ve unsuccessfully used in other games. We saw how Norwich could be beaten, the previous week at Luton, by adopting a more aggressive approach. 
Norwich have good technical players, and if you stand off and let them play, they will eventually find a way through That’s exactly what happened

 

If you have a game plan and then execute it effectively, then is it unreasonable to call the performance excellent?

 

Few but the Greeks would've enjoyed Greece's 2004 Euro's title win. Entertainment-wise, I mean. But how can the tactical victory not be admired? Their performances absolutely were excellent. As were Iceland's performances 4 years ago.

 

All you're repeating here is that you don't like the way we set up; you're criticizing the tactics. Fine. But it's a different issue.

 

Essentially, you're saying that given the way we set up, there's no way you could've possibly acknowledged the performance as being excellent.

[gurujuan]

Just now, cowl said:

 

If you have a game plan and then execute it effectively, then is it unreasonable to call the performance excellent?

 

Few but the Greeks would've enjoyed Greece's 2004 Euro's title win. Entertainment-wise, I mean. But how can the tactical victory not be admired? Their performances absolutely were excellent. As were Iceland's performances 4 years ago.

 

All you're repeating here is that you don't like the way we set up; you're criticizing the tactics. Fine. But it's a different issue.

 

Essentially, you're saying that given the way we set up, there's no way you could've possibly acknowledged the performance as being excellent.

The key point is, that the Greeks were successful, we were not, so our tactics were wrong. Luton triumphed over Norwich because they got their tactics right. 
I don’t like the way we play, no, but had we beaten Norwich, which we did not, then the plaudits would be justified

[Sefton owl]

So far under the new manager we’ve looked defensively sound, a good shape and starting to have some sort of plan/identity (sitting deep and breaking with crosses into the box). 
 

Whilst it’s obvious we need another striker or two, we have to accept that sometimes we will be off it from a defensive point of view. 
 

When you have good strikers and players who can create something from nothing, you can get yourself back into games even when you aren’t defending well. 
 

It might sound obvious, but we are therefore relying on our defence to be very good in every single game if we are to stand any chance of collecting points. 

[cowl]

Just now, gurujuan said:

The key point is, that the Greeks were successful, we were not, so our tactics were wrong. Luton triumphed over Norwich because they got their tactics right. 
I don’t like the way we play, no, but had we beaten Norwich, which we did not, then the plaudits would be justified

 

It doesn't mean the tactics were wrong though, does it?! We conceded 2 in the last 10 minutes—it's not like that was an inherent part of the plan.

 

Teams that attack, attack, attack lose games too. Every time they do what do you say of their tactics? Or are you more willing to acknowledge their goals conceded as mere errors that ought to have been avoided?

[CalmJimmers]

Lack of leaders in the team - as soon as the chips are down you just know we won't be winning. 

 

Remember when we played Huddersfield and they went 2 up early on in our promotion year? Rob Jones was constantly rallying the players, and we turned it around but for Reda not whacking Rhodes and a ref playing until they scored. 

 

Been desperate since Loovens left for a proper captain, we just don't have anybody. 

[gurujuan]

6 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

It doesn't mean the tactics were wrong though, does it?! We conceded 2 in the last 10 minutes—it's not like that was an inherent part of the plan.

 

Teams that attack, attack, attack lose games too. Every time they do what do you say of their tactics? Or are you more willing to acknowledge their goals conceded as mere errors that ought to have been avoided?

True, but we need wins, we are not going to draw our way to safety. Sitting off Norwich was always unlikely to work, they were always going to find a way through. That it took them 80 mins to get their act together is neither here nor there, football is about 90 mins. This is not to take anything away from our defensive resolve, we made Norwich work hard for their win, but at the end of the day, it was another game without a win. In none of the games under Pulis, could we even say we deserved to win

[Johnny Concrete]

11 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

It doesn't mean the tactics were wrong though, does it?! We conceded 2 in the last 10 minutes—it's not like that was an inherent part of the plan.

 

Teams that attack, attack, attack lose games too. Every time they do what do you say of their tactics? Or are you more willing to acknowledge their goals conceded as mere errors that ought to have been avoided?

 

To be fair you only have to look at when Warnock was at Cardiff, that season they got promoted, most games they averaged around 30-40% possession but they were effective when on the ball. His tactics/style of play was spot on.

[flash]

A combination of:

- fatigue 

- confidence 

- player ability 

- no reaction formation/subs by TP once we were 2-0 down (70+ mins he changed things).

- Possibly all the away game travel may have impacted too on recovery.
 

As much as TP wants to keep using the same players he will need to freshen things up at times and rotate some of the tired legs! Problem is that he obviously doesn’t fancy the likes of Izzy Brown, Kachunga, Penney, etc which is why we don’t press teams high up the pitch and let them have the ball/come at us - it’s like they’re told to save their energy! 

[cowl]

2 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

True, but we need wins, we are not going to draw our way to safety. Sitting off Norwich was always unlikely to work, they were always going to find a way through. That it took them 80 mins to get their act together is neither here nor there, football is about 90 mins. This is not to take anything away from our defensive resolve, we made Norwich work hard for their win, but at the end of the day, it was another game without a win. In none of the games under Pulis, could we even say we deserved to win

 

Teams at the bottom will usually get beaten by teams at the top no matter what they do. Obviously, when they do lose it's always the other tactical approach they should've gone with.

But again, you're just restating your objection to the approach. It's a different issue to that of assessing a single performance's success. The reality is that it absolutely wasn't the case that Norwich ‘were always going to find a way through’; we looked comfortable, and they, on the contrary looked to have run out of ideas.

 

I've watched many games in which when we have conceded I felt ‘it was coming’. It's frustratingly frequent and very familiar feeling so I know it full well. I didn't feel that at all when Norwich scored. Anger and annoyance as per usual at conceding, but not a sense of us only getting what we deserved.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, flash said:

 As much as TP wants to keep using the same players he will need to freshen things up at times and rotate some of the tired legs! Problem is that he obviously doesn’t fancy the likes of Izzy Brown, Kachunga, Penney, etc which is why we don’t press teams high up the pitch and let them have the ball/come at us - it’s like they’re told to save their energy! 

This looks definitely true

 

For instance I think he's told the strikers to save the energy in their legs by not shooting

[Musn't Grumble]

Not good enough. Simple as.

 

Instead of inheriting the family silver, Pulis has inherited some scrap metal...

 

Windass couldn't get a start with a poor relegated Wigan squad, Dunkley has been injured for a year, Marriott couldn't even get on the bench at Derby (their poorest squad for decades)., Rhodes hasn't done anything of note for four years, Van Aken went on loan because he couldn't even get close to the first team squad a couple of seasons ago but now he's almost first pick... and so on.

 

I'm speechless at the overall recruitment of Jos and Monk but, Bannan and possibly Iorfa apart, we looked mid/bottom League One last night and each game we play gives me no reason to think that League 1 players in their peak years are suddenly going to become Championship players that are capable of winning games soon.

 

Unless we can scrape the odd draw here and there to at least stay in contention, so that the overhauled squad we get in January have a fighting chance, we will be down by March.

 

I do not envy Pulis' job and unlike his predecessors he does know what's required but credit to the bloke for taking it on.

[@owlstalk]

6 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said:

Not good enough. Simple as.

 

Instead of inheriting the family silver, Pulis has inherited some scrap metal... 

 

He inherited the family silver, has dropped it on the floor, then tried picking it up and accidentally knocked it into a massive pile of dog poo, tripped over his own laces and tumbled to the ground and as he wipes himself down, tries to stand up and goes to pick the mucky silver up it gets run over by a tractor and then falls down a drain

His start has been a scene out of an old classic Ealing comedy

 

 

[S36 OWL]

49 minutes ago, Paddyowl said:

They all looked tired and jaded but then again they also looked very poor technically, this twinned with a complete lack of a will to win and a desire to wear the Wednesday shirt could all be a factor.

 

Take your pick.

 

I said during the Reading game how technically superior they were compared to us. 

[mcmigo]

5 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said:

Not good enough. Simple as.

 

Instead of inheriting the family silver, Pulis has inherited some scrap metal...

 

Windass couldn't get a start with a poor relegated Wigan squad, Dunkley has been injured for a year, Marriott couldn't even get on the bench at Derby (their poorest squad for decades)., Rhodes hasn't done anything of note for four years, Van Aken went on loan because he couldn't even get close to the first team squad a couple of seasons ago but now he's almost first pick... and so on.

 

I'm speechless at the overall recruitment of Jos and Monk but, Bannan and possibly Iorfa apart, we looked mid/bottom League One last night and each game we play gives me no reason to think that League 1 players in their peak years are suddenly going to become Championship players that are capable of winning games soon.

 

Unless we can scrape the odd draw here and there to at least stay in contention, so that the overhauled squad we get in January have a fighting chance, we will be down by March.

 

I do not envy Pulis' job and unlike his predecessors he does know what's required but credit to the bloke for taking it on.

Jos signed one player - Pelupessy - who didnt play last night.

 

Bruce, who always escapes these threads - signed Iorfa, Borner, Harris, Luongo - 4 who did.

 

Why does Steve Bruce always get away scot free in these threads?

 

 

[Matt_1]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

Tony Pulis is a set piece manager why do we not have anyone at the club that can take a free kick or a bloody corner, Bannan delivery most of the time is awful he need taking off corners then I saw Harris attempt toward the end last night he fired it over everyone and out for a goal kick.

 

Two so call good players who have been awful for most of this season and big chunks of last. They have so far this season 2 assists in a combined 31 games, simple not good enough and for me both need dropping. 

 

He hasn't had a transfer window to get those people.

[mcmigo]

Just now, mcmigo said:

Jos signed one player - Pelupessy - who didnt play last night.

 

Bruce, who always escapes these threads - signed Iorfa, Borner, Harris, Luongo - 4 who did.

 

Why does Steve Bruce always get away scot free in these threads?

 

 

I meant start of course, re JP, not play.

[cowl]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Concrete said:

To be fair you only have to look at when Warnock was at Cardiff, that season they got promoted, most games they averaged around 30-40% possession but they were effective when on the ball. His tactics/style of play was spot on.

 

Agreed. And just to be clear, I don't like this way of playing. I'd much rather Wednesday adopt a more positive way of playing. Nor am I convinced that our current squad makes Pulis' way of playing the most sensible way to get the most out of the squad. I didn't even want Pulis.

 

But Pulis is here now. We know what he's going to do. There's no point being resistant to every thing he does and the way he does it.

 

There way well come a point where it's clear it's not worked at all and won't work under Pulis. It'll then still probably take DC another 10 to 15 games to agree and make yet another managerial change. Right now though, we're just 6 games into a Pulis' tenure. It just seems like the natural thing to me to give a manager (however much I was opposed to his appointment) more than 6 games.