Ratings Vs Man Utd

[Legend10]

Im not sure why anybody is moaning about that performance or saying we had no control, utd had one real chance through Smalling early on until they scored, the pressure and chances they had after that were pretty inevitable after conceding 60 seconds after scoring, it just gave them such a massive lift.

We were the better side for the majority of this game and had great chances through Lennon and Soldado which were beautifully crafted. All of a sudden we look like we are capable of creating chances when we attack!

It's still early days for the changes we have made but i think there is plenty to be optimistic about!

 

[theShiznit]

No, I am sorry but you entirely wrong.

You do not follow defenders across a defensive line, you just pass them on to the next defender.

Again, I can only assume you haven't played much football, or had any coaching.

Can i assume Dawson has had no coaching as well?

Because a few times he seemed to be unaware of this.

None more so obvious than when he came out to right back with Walker seemingly in control of the situation, and Walker was pretty much telling him to fuck off back to Centre back, but he left a gaping hole which the ball was played into and we were lucky not to concede.

 

[Syn_13]

clear cut chances > possession

we had more than utd, we deserved to win. good day.

Remember the United game at WHL a couple of years ago where they beat us 3-1? I remember feeling gutted afterwards as we had a lot more shots and controlled the game. It almost felt like they scored with their only chances and were a lot more clinical to say the least.

 

[Main Man]

How about, sometimes the other side just play a beautiful ball and theres not a lot you can do about it.
Good players make runs and sometimes just dont have enough time to react.
Instead of its all his fault and hes rubbish.
Which by the way is what Main Man has been saying since we signed Vlad.
Did he give Vlad any credit for his good defending or the ball that took the whole of Man Utd midfield out?
No he didnt.
Did he hear Dawson say, Vlad ive lost Welbeck or behind you?
No he didnt, he dosent like Vlad and thinks hes spot with everything he says, which quite frankly is bs.

I have not been a fan of Vlad since we signed him, that is correct.

But I have highlighted his strengths in previous posts, but I think his deficiencies outweigh those at the moment.

As for this pass that took the whole Man United, I didn't notice during live play or the replays the significance of his pace but I will certainly check it out when I get in.

If he deserves credit, I will give him it.

 

[Main Man]

Can i assume Dawson has had no coaching as well?

Because a few times he seemed to be unaware of this.

None more so obvious than when he came out to right back with Walker seemingly in control of the situation, and Walker was pretty much telling him to fuck off back to Centre back, but he left a gaping hole which the ball was played into and we were lucky not to concede.

You are doing it again.

We are talking about Vlad Chiriches, not Michael Dawson.

Why do people keep doing this. I say Vlad is poor at something, and people's counter-argument is 'well Dawson is worse-er'. Seriously?

If this was a Michael Dawson thread I imagine we should share exactly the same views and there would probably be no debate whatsoever! Just one opening thread and several hundred agree ratings.

 

[Main Man]

I am sure he's made a mistake and realizes we won 2-1, but his main point imo is correct.

Yeah I edited my typo a while back, but this guy stalks my posts for some reason...

 

[theShiznit]

You are doing it again.

We are talking about Vlad Chiriches, not Michael Dawson.

Why do people keep doing this. I say Vlad is poor at something, and people's counter-argument is 'well Dawson is worse-er'. Seriously?

If this was a Michael Dawson thread I imagine we should share exactly the same views and there would probably be no debate whatsoever! Just one opening thread and several hundred agree ratings.

I'm not doing anything "again" this goal was in no way the fault of Chiriches. what could he have done differently? he was not engaged with Wellbeck (who was out of his line of sight) he couldn't have cut out the ball, he turned as quick as he could, and Wellbeck was not in touching distance so couldn't even foul him. As Jeez said, sometimes a ball is just too good, the player passing the ball sees the run and plays it into the perfect area, just like from a corner where a man gets a run on a defender, the defenders are not psychic so they will always start their covering run after the attacker, so if the ball is good enough they have no chance.

You are the one talking about how well coached you are and know more than us, so I am pointing out that actually you must know more than Dawson too, as several occasions this well known coaching point was not adhered to by him.

As for defenders being passed onto other defenders I know not what that nonsense is about. (but then again i haven't had your superior level of coaching )

 

[CheeseGromit]

My vote went to Ade because it proves that when ou apply yourself good things come from it Ade applied himself I just hope his enthusiasm does not wain after the end of January

Good hardworking performance by just about everybody. I think we could have been a little more controlled as mentioned by Sherwood.

For me a special mention for Capoue ( 0ne of the new boys) who does look cultured on the ball and effective screen off it he and Dembele looked good

Vlad for his age showed a really good performance and real option for teams that play fast smaller players up front ( I would really have liked to see him play Suarez)

Good stuff from Hugo Lloris but again a couple of hair raising moments.

 

[Spursidol]

I'm still stunned by Sherwood playing a form of 442, which he rarely played with the development squad, usually it was a variation of 4231/433.

But the 442 was such a flexible syastem (unlike AVB's veery fixed system), .where Adebayor goes wide and deep, Soldado goes wide, Eriksen dips inside with Lennon also cutting inside on the right. The 442 formation adapts and changes in such a flexible fashion it must be horrendous to defend against. And that's why we are making so many chances - whilst I'd have liked to have seen more posession, at OT I'm not sure we would have got more than 40%. What is important is the number of clear cut chances made - and even with Lennon and Soldado memorably (for me) missing great chances, we took enough to win. This win will give a lot of confidence to all the players - and that in turn will probably help our conversion rate of chances to improve.

Whilst Rose didn't look completely fit and probably was the poorest performer on the night, even his performanvce was not poor in absolute terms. We could certainly have played better, but overall it was possible to admire all the players for some part they played in a good victory - and that is reflected .on the ratings given by others with no clear cut winner of the MOTM.

I voted for Adebayor for his all round running - and we certainly missed him when we went off, but I can see a case for Erikssen, Chirches, Lloris and others. But the great thing was the overall team effort.

 

[yiddopaul]

Isn't it amazing that, despite injuries to several quality players, we can still field a fantastic team. Not that long ago, an injury to players of Sandro and Verts quality, would have screwed us

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I agree to an extent - it was their inability to capitalise, however Sherwood has acknowledged that it was far from perfect. I liked the way he spoke after the game.

But the overriding point here, IMO of course, is that we created the better chances - and had we taken a few of them we could of won comprehensively.

I don't think that should be the overriding point. I don't like us sitting back and having so little control of the ball but if we are going to play passive football the least we can do is work hard off it and press the ball properly, this will actually create more than the 4 (in 90 minutes) chances we created.

How can you call AVB's tactics "defensive" and call sitting back in your own third making a handful of breaks an "attacking" tactic.

Our two games with ManU are very interesting. Both yielded similar possession split. But the home game didn't feel as negative. That's because our high line and pressing condensed the play into the middle third. The territory split was very even at home 51.5 to 48.8, yesterday was 58/42. Again this is because we were far more disciplined, pressed better and were more coherent without the ball.

Both games we were 2-1 up, the big difference being the home game Walker gifted Rooney and they were awarded a dubious penalty and in the away one they weren't given a stonker. We also had a couple of other great chances (Soldado clean through for example)

The home game they hit 3 successful crosses from 27 tried. Yesterday they hit 9 from a wapping 48.
They went through twice on the first 4 minutes. Welbeck was put through early in the second half (which was as good a chance as the ones we scored from). Lloris also made two or three great saves later on, including the one at close range from Hernandez and Lennon cleared one off the line.

After 30 minutes they'd made 54 passes in our 3rd, we had made 14 in theirs.

The chance created when Soldado played the ball (intentionally ???) through the legs of Evans for Lennon was virtually the first time we'd been in their half.

I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about wins like yesterday. I felt the same last year (AVB) and the same on other occasions (Liverpool at home last year for example under AVB) Arsenal away under Redknapp, and home the year we qualified for the CL amongst others. If you are going to set up to play a pragmatic, passive aggressive game you still press the ball and work really hard off it. You don't allow 48 crosses into your box and you don't allow nearly 60% of the game to be played in your third.

People are very fond of posthumously declaring wins like this pragmatic genius. For me there was too much wrong with that performance to be the perfect execution of an intentional tactical master plan. That would have involved us stopping them creating much (like at home) and/or creating more than 4 chances and relying less on fortune and a benevolent ref.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I'm still stunned by Sherwood playing a form of 442, which he rarely played with the development squad, usually it was a variation of 4231/433.

But the 442 was such a flexible syastem (unlike AVB's veery fixed system), .where Adebayor goes wide and deep, Soldado goes wide, Eriksen dips inside with Lennon also cutting inside on the right. The 442 formation adapts and changes in such a flexible fashion it must be horrendous to defend against. And that's why we are making so many chances - whilst I'd have liked to have seen more posession, at OT I'm not sure we would have got more than 40%. What is important is the number of clear cut chances made - and even with Lennon and Soldado memorably (for me) missing great chances, we took enough to win. This win will give a lot of confidence to all the players - and that in turn will probably help our conversion rate of chances to improve.

Whilst Rose didn't look completely fit and probably was the poorest performer on the night, even his performanvce was not poor in absolute terms. We could certainly have played better, but overall it was possible to admire all the players for some part they played in a good victory - and that is reflected .on the ratings given by others with no clear cut winner of the MOTM.

I voted for Adebayor for his all round running - and we certainly missed him when we went off, but I can see a case for Erikssen, Chirches, Lloris and others. But the great thing was the overall team effort.

Did Sherwood actually ever pick sides and tactical deployment though ?

I don't think 4 chances is "a lot" for a team that sat back on the break and took a lead that the other team went all out the recover (finishing with 6 attacking outfield players, plus two tracking fb's). I don't think Adebayor's was clear cut at all, it was a cross to a player who was marked, the defender did a bad job and Adebayor did fantastically well to turn that cross into a goal. The chance Soldado had was only a half chance, ball whipped across that came fast, ahead of his stride and high. And the second goal wouldn't have happened if the ball hadn't taken that deflection off their defender. Basically Lennon did well to be in the positions he got into but wasted every one and got lucky with that last cross. Although it was a decent attempt to find Soldado in the first half.

I do agree that the 442 was not a traditional one, Eriksen spent very little time hugging his flank, it was more like a 4213 at times, also 433. I don't mind the version of 442 being used, but we must play a higher tempo and harder pressing game from the front, no matter what we play.

 

[Legend10]

I don't think that should be the overriding point. I don't like us sitting back and having so little control of the ball but if we are going to play passive football the least we can do is work hard off it and press the ball properly, this will actually create more than the 4 (in 90 minutes) chances we created.

How can you call AVB's tactics "defensive" and call sitting back in your own third making a handful of breaks an "attacking" tactic.

Our two games with ManU are very interesting. Both yielded similar possession split. But the home game didn't feel as negative. That's because our high line and pressing condensed the play into the middle third. The territory split was very even at home 51.5 to 48.8, yesterday was 58/42. Again this is because we were far more disciplined, pressed better and were more coherent without the ball.

Both games we were 2-1 up, the big difference being the home game Walker gifted Rooney and they were awarded a dubious penalty and in the away one they weren't given a stonker. We also had a couple of other great chances (Soldado clean through for example)

The home game they hit 3 successful crosses from 27 tried. Yesterday they hit 9 from a wapping 48.
They went through twice on the first 4 minutes. Welbeck was put through early in the second half (which was as good a chance as the ones we scored from). Lloris also made two or three great saves later on, including the one at close range from Hernandez and Lennon cleared one off the line.

After 30 minutes they'd made 54 passes in our 3rd, we had made 14 in theirs.

The chance created when Soldado played the ball (intentionally ???) through the legs of Evans for Lennon was virtually the first time we'd been in their half.

I think there is a lot of nonsense talked about wins like yesterday. I felt the same last year (AVB) and the same on other occasions (Liverpool at home last year for example under AVB) Arsenal away under Redknapp, and home the year we qualified for the CL amongst others. If you are going to set up to play a pragmatic, passive aggressive game you still press the ball and work really hard off it. You don't allow 48 crosses into your box and you don't allow nearly 60% of the game to be played in your third.

People are very fond of posthumously declaring wins like this pragmatic genius. For me there was too much wrong with that performance to be the perfect execution of an intentional tactical master plan. That would have involved us stopping them creating much (like at home) and/or creating more than 4 chances and relying less on fortune and a benevolent ref.

A cock eyed and in areas imho largely inaccurate analysis.

 

[Legend10]

Did Sherwood actually ever pick sides and tactical deployment though ?

I don't think 4 chances is "a lot" for a team that sat back on the break and took a lead that the other team went all out the recover (finishing with 6 attacking outfield players, plus two tracking fb's). I don't think Adebayor's was clear cut at all, it was a cross to a player who was marked, the defender did a bad job and Adebayor did fantastically well to turn that cross into a goal. The chance Soldado had was only a half chance, ball whipped across that came fast, ahead of his stride and high. And the second goal wouldn't have happened if the ball hadn't taken that deflection off their defender. Basically Lennon did well to be in the positions he got into but wasted every one and got lucky with that last cross. Although it was a decent attempt to find Soldado in the first half.

I do agree that the 442 was not a traditional one, Eriksen spent very little time hugging his flank, it was more like a 4213 at times, also 433. I don't mind the version of 442 being used, but we must play a higher tempo and harder pressing game from the front, no matter what we play.

Can you stop saying we had 4 chances, i can remember 5 very good ones straight off the top of my head.

Lennon's cross to Soldado in the first half was a 'decent attempt'?

Shakes head with disbelief!

We must play a higher tempo? Thats exactly what we are doing, yet you defended AVB's slow slow slow possesion football all season?

 

[Damian99]

As Jeez said, sometimes a ball is just too good, the player passing the ball sees the run and plays it into the perfect area, just like from a corner where a man gets a run on a defender, the defenders are not psychic so they will always start their covering run after the attacker, so if the ball is good enough they have no chance.

To be fair neither does the attacker? . It's about anticipation, reading the game and from set plays attacking the ball.

In my opinion their goal was poor play by us not a good bit of play by them. A simple slide rule pass and a run off the back of a defender, you can see those most sunday mornings. Not wanting to get into a great debate about the goal, but both CBs should have dealt with that situation, for me.

Vlad is ball watching, you say he doesn't see Welbeck but he really should be aware of him, imo. Also i'm not sure who is over on the left but they have to get tighter to the man on the ball, you can't give a player that much space to pick out those passes.

Between the two CBs and who ever is over on our left, nearest to the player with the ball should have dealt with it much better.

 

[Spursidol]

Did Sherwood actually ever pick sides and tactical deployment though ?

I don't think 4 chances is "a lot" for a team that sat back on the break and took a lead that the other team went all out the recover (finishing with 6 attacking outfield players, plus two tracking fb's). I don't think Adebayor's was clear cut at all, it was a cross to a player who was marked, the defender did a bad job and Adebayor did fantastically well to turn that cross into a goal. The chance Soldado had was only a half chance, ball whipped across that came fast, ahead of his stride and high. And the second goal wouldn't have happened if the ball hadn't taken that deflection off their defender. Basically Lennon did well to be in the positions he got into but wasted every one and got lucky with that last cross. Although it was a decent attempt to find Soldado in the first half.

I do agree that the 442 was not a traditional one, Eriksen spent very little time hugging his flank, it was more like a 4213 at times, also 433. I don't mind the version of 442 being used, but we must play a higher tempo and harder pressing game from the front, no matter what we play.

I'd say that we had more than 5 clear cut chances - but whatever number its a lot more than we made in most games under AVB despite AVB getting much more posession.

Erikssen has looked much more like the Ajax player that we bought in the last couple of games than any game (except maybe his debut) in scoring one and assisting another. Soldado looks really motivated and despite not scoring (and missing several decent chances - more than he has had in games under AVB) his passing, dropping off and crossing means that he's starting to look a good player. With luck he'll continue to improve. As for Adebayor, its all been said before, why could a manager exclude him totally - absolute madness.

Other players, such as Paulhino in the last game, seemed to have looked better than before.

IMO its down to spped and movement of the players making us far less predictable. Erikssen and Lennon both play a bit of inverted wingers - but both do it in bits throughout the match. So there is a lot of solid tactics, but all mixed up in different segments of the game..

As you know a traditional 442 is played with 2 orthodox wingers - Spurs play with one winger who can switch between traditional winger and invertted winger whilst Erikssen seems to alternate between a no 10 and an inverted winger, whilst Adebayor dropping deep and wide again defied the traditional rules of 442. After Soldado went off, the formation changed to a 4231.

Whilst Sherwood is definitely the boss, I suspect that Ramsey suggests a lot of the formation and tactics - its a partnership which was notorious for changing the formationn and tactics several times during the u21 and u19 NextGen games, something not that commonly done. Both guys (and Ferdinand) seem highly regarded by the development squad, so I suspect that each of them is seen as playing a part in the management of that squad.

IMO they have done well in the initial tranche of games, and its highly likely that the systems being used will evolve over the rest of the season.

It should be an interesting ride to watch.

 

[Main Man]

I'm not doing anything "again" this goal was in no way the fault of Chiriches. what could he have done differently? he was not engaged with Wellbeck (who was out of his line of sight) he couldn't have cut out the ball, he turned as quick as he could, and Wellbeck was not in touching distance so couldn't even foul him. As Jeez said, sometimes a ball is just too good, the player passing the ball sees the run and plays it into the perfect area, just like from a corner where a man gets a run on a defender, the defenders are not psychic so they will always start their covering run after the attacker, so if the ball is good enough they have no chance.

You are the one talking about how well coached you are and know more than us, so I am pointing out that actually you must know more than Dawson too, as several occasions this well known coaching point was not adhered to by him.

As for defenders being passed onto other defenders I know not what that nonsense is about. (but then again i haven't had your superior level of coaching )

I think you are trying to tell me that goal was completely undefendable?

He could have taken a step back and got goal side of Welbeck then he would have seen his run as soon as it started. If you can't defend the ball in behind then you do have to get touch tight and goal side because that way you will always start the race for the ball ahead of the attacker.

I will be honest, I saw what was going to happen (and so did Michael Dawson and Danny Welbeck) but Vlad didn't.

He never does.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Can you stop saying we had 4 chances, i can remember 5 very good ones straight off the top of my head.

Lennon's cross to Soldado in the first half was a 'decent attempt'?

Shakes head with disbelief!

We must play a higher tempo? Thats exactly what we are doing, yet you defended AVB's slow slow slow possesion football all season?

No we did not. We didn't press at all, close down at a high tempo, move at a high tempo anywhere near enough. We got into their third about 6 times in 90 minutes.

 

[Mr Pink]

No we did not. We didn't press at all, close down at a high tempo, move at a high tempo anywhere near enough. We got into their third about 6 times in 90 minutes.

That's just plain wrong.

Got into their third six times in 90 minutes? You're having a laugh.

 

[Spurger King]

No we did not. We didn't press at all, close down at a high tempo, move at a high tempo anywhere near enough. We got into their third about 6 times in 90 minutes.

Did you not enjoy the game?