- Jun 24, 2004
- 5,310
- 8,839
None of our team are, but he’s the most natural 6 we have. Can it be any worse than what we’re currently trying to do?Because he's not good enough in possession playing out under a press.
None of our team are, but he’s the most natural 6 we have. Can it be any worse than what we’re currently trying to do?Because he's not good enough in possession playing out under a press.
Not a chance that Levy is anywhere near the mindset that some of the doubters on here have.You can find many answers to this if you're genuinely curious - from Kulusevski's article to interviews with players, from journalists who've covered Ange to posts in this very thread explaining why people are convinced Ange is the solution. However, It seems you've decided that he's not the answer, which is fine, but it doesn't really feel like you're open to having your mind changed here.
An alternative to pragmatism would be to have one or two players who can dribble through/ round. Suspect they are being looked at?I felt that three of our four goals allowed yesterday were down to errors. The corner was the most concerning of all the goals, as it had been coming. And clearly we are struggling against set pieces but don’t seem to be addressing the issue.
Also at fault yesterday was our pedestrian and weak attacking movements. Too many were making errors, playing it safe, or simply not brave enough. Moreover, the pressing was pathetic. Which put immense pressure on our defense.
Ange has to be less cavalier and dogmatic in his approach. Some pragmatism against tricky opponents should be considered. Continuing with Biss, Madders, and Porro lately has been strange. As they are all a little off form. Admittedly we don’t have many better options, but let’s say we had started yesterday with PEH instead of Biss and Royal and Davies instead of Porro and Udogie. I wonder if there would be a difference?
That's more Paratici than Ange, and if he pushes for the Werner signing it kind of undermines it anyway.He might not be the final answer for us or he might be , but he has done painful rebuilds which previous coaches haven't been prepared to do and if he does leave he will leave us with a balanced, young squad which a new coach can alter if they want without having deadwood on high wages.
You have to have a coach that's prepared to work with inexperienced players.That's more Paratici than Ange, and if he pushes for the Werner signing it kind of undermines it anyway.
Yes, the Brighton model.You have to have a coach that's prepared to work with inexperienced players.
I pretty much think we have with the structures we have in place, from Munn downYes, the Brighton model.
That is why Paratici is the most important person in the entire organisation.
He should lead player procurement, and get in managers that suit those players and that philosophy.
Just like Brighton.
We desperately need to move away from manager led signings.
That is what leads to Frankenstein squads that constantly need to be rebuilt.
Exactly this.And besides, different players will inevitably (organically) change the ‘system’.
Yes.None of our team are, but he’s the most natural 6 we have. Can it be any worse than what we’re currently trying to do?
I’d say Maddison’s post injury form has been the biggest problem in terms of our attack.This is spot on.
Werner and Johnson is midtable quality and we rely on them for goals currently.
Sadly, Richarlisson and Kulusevski is not much better, if at all.
Even Son is in declining form. You could say that's expected from someone his age that relies on pace more than technique, and it won't be any better next season.
Need a major overhaul in the forwards area if we're going to do anything
This is such a good point. Early in the season, Bissouma was possibly the best midfielder in the league, Maddison was the best attacking midfielder. I can't see how it is our tactics or being 'found out' that has made them decline. The more obvious answer is the injuries/suspension/ACN. But there is also a marked lack of dynamism that is completely at odds with how we started the season and with Postecoglou's general philosophy.We didn’t lose yesterday because of Ange's style of football tactics, and we didn’t lose/get thumped because they have better players than us - like Fulham, they dont.
We lost because some of our better players like Bissouma and Maddison are not playing to anything like their potential and because VDV who has had an outstanding first season made two uncharacteristically bad errors in a two minute spell.
Players lose form, players make mistakes. That’s why you have big squads.
But what is unacceptable is that the other main reason we lost is that they physically outfought us to every loose ball and were first to every loose ball. They showed balls and grit and fight and we were timid.
I said after the Fulham game, that Ange would have made his mark at this club when results like yesterday and Fulham are as rare as a comet rather than sadly predictable.
Fingers crossed.I pretty much think we have with the structures we have in place, from Munn down
Was that LWOS again? Who ever it was is taking rubbish. We have 34 points since then, Man Utd have 32 and Chelsea 29.Apparently, since the Chelsea game we have taken less points than Man Utd, and only two more points than Chelsea.
Two clubs that are supposed to be in complete disarray.
It's technically accurate if you include Gameweek 11 (the Chelsea game), because obviously we lost and the other two won. But equally, who cares? We're still 10 and 16 points clear of sides with much higher budgets.Was that LWOS again? Who ever it was is taking rubbish. We have 34 points since then, Man Utd have 32 and Chelsea 29.
Incorrect - I posted on Saturday that I want him given time (2+ seasons unless we are at risk of relegation) becuase I am fed up of chop and chnge - but that I do not know if he has what it takes to become a winner in the Prem becuase he has never won anything at this level.You can find many answers to this if you're genuinely curious - from Kulusevski's article to interviews with players, from journalists who've covered Ange to posts in this very thread explaining why people are convinced Ange is the solution. However, It seems you've decided that he's not the answer, which is fine, but it doesn't really feel like you're open to having your mind changed here.
Ok. I'll play.Incorrect - I posted on Saturday that I want him given time (2+ seasons unless we are at risk of relegation) becuase I am fed up of chop and chnge - but that I do not know if he has what it takes to become a winner in the Prem becuase he has never won anything at this level.