Lincoln City: "Dark-hearted and cynical" | Page 3 | Vital Football

Lincoln City: "Dark-hearted and cynical"

  • Thread starter Deleted member 10554
  • Start date
graemetheexile said:
Sadly Preece was on this podcast, and didn't really say much in Lincoln's defence. Earlier in the season he cocked up quite a bit on the Lincoln focus section as well, but there we are.

I'm beginning to suspect I'm not very fond of this podcast.
Click to expand...

Different podcasts (though under the same family of podcasts) though they might have discussed it on The Totally Football Show one (which Preece was on) and I've just not heard it.

The one that was originally referenced was The Totally Football League Show podcast.
 
Red Wimp said:
If you saw the C5 highlights Colin Murray said to them he was sat close to the dug-out and wouldn't want to be 4th official, who Danny was in his ear all game. They remind me a bit of certain drivers, mild mannered & reasonable until they get behind the wheel. Same with once the whistle blows for them !
Click to expand...

Having seen Danny up close and personal in the FA Trophy game at Boring Wood, I concur with this statement .

I accidentally bought a ticket in the away stand and the toilets are bang next to the dressing rooms. On my way there at half time, Danny was invading the ref's space and giving his opinions in a forthright manner outside. He may be measured off the pitch, but it goes out the window in the heat of the game and long may it continue.
 
I think there is a lot of 'rose tinted spectacles' stuff on the forum. We are a direct and physical team and by that I mean we punt the ball up the field at the earliest opportunity and hope that the 'athleticism' of our forward line produces results. BTW, Rhead's ?challenge at the final was an absolute disgrace and can't, in any way, be defended.

Interesting to hear that Danny says he'll adapt to whatever situation we find ourselves in and, I guess, a more passing and moving game might emerge as we climb through the leagues. This isn't a criticism though. I love watching a team that wins games, cups, championships, but let's not kid ourselves, much of what we've seen this season amounts to hoofball, IMO.
 
much of what we've seen this season amounts to hoofball, IMO.
Click to expand...

Depends what the definition is, I guess. I regard John Beck and Dave Bassett as hoofball, and we're far more sophisticated than that.
 
Jaggy Imp said:
I think there is a lot of 'rose tinted spectacles' stuff on the forum. We are a direct and physical team and by that I mean we punt the ball up the field at the earliest opportunity and hope that the 'athleticism' of our forward line produces results. BTW, Rhead's ?challenge at the final was an absolute disgrace and can't, in any way, be defended.

Interesting to hear that Danny says he'll adapt to whatever situation we find ourselves in and, I guess, a more passing and moving game might emerge as we climb through the leagues. This isn't a criticism though. I love watching a team that wins games, cups, championships, but let's not kid ourselves, much of what we've seen this season amounts to hoofball, IMO.
Click to expand...


I don't think anyone has tried to defend Rhead to be fair.
It is interesting how upset people get about how direct and physical we are. The crazy gang were direct and very physical and they were perceived as plucky Wimbledon, why are we not perceived as plucky Lincoln...
 
"The crazy gang were direct and very physical and they were perceived as plucky Wimbledon"

That's not my recollection of how they were perceived (except for the cup final they won of course)
 
Sincilbanks said:
"The crazy gang were direct and very physical and they were perceived as plucky Wimbledon"

That's not my recollection of how they were perceived (except for the cup final they won of course)
Click to expand...

It is most certainly mine. Fined by the FA being overly physical. They were direct through the divisions and even more so when Bassett took over and became, even more, one dimensional when Fash signed, they were in division 2 now championship when Fash signed and were very physical and very direct. If your memories of them are different we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Just to add that is not me being critical of them as they were bloody good at what they did and defied the odds doing so.
 
At the end of the day call our style what you like the truth of the matter is that it is clearly entertaining because our stadium is nearly full if not full every week.

For example reading the Carlisle fans comments about what a terrible team we were and how it's not football blah blah made me laugh. Do they play some great attractive football that gets the fans flocking in and they are royally entertained? Well not on the evidence that I saw as all 4,450 of them who filled their ground up made barely a sound or whimper for 90 minutes! I know what team I would rather be watching and it's not the one up by the Scottish border!

I love it when they moan fantastic bring it on, who gives a fig about them anyway. We are entertained, we win, we are on the up, we have the largest attendances since 1960. Hurrah long may it continue :grinning:
 
Impartiality said:
It is most certainly mine. Fined by the FA being overly physical. They were direct through the divisions and even more so when Bassett took over and became, even more, one dimensional when Fash signed, they were in division 2 now championship when Fash signed and were very physical and very direct. If your memories of them are different we will have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Ah, my bad. I meant the "plucky Wimbledon" bit, not the other stuff..
 
Casperimp said:
At the end of the day call our style what you like the truth of the matter is that it is clearly entertaining because our stadium is nearly full if not full every week.

For example reading the Carlisle fans comments about what a terrible team we were and how it's not football blah blah made me laugh. Do they play some great attractive football that gets the fans flocking in and they are royally entertained? Well not on the evidence that I saw as all 4,450 of them who filled their ground up made barely a sound or whimper for 90 minutes! I know what team I would rather be watching and it's not the one up by the Scottish border!

I love it when they moan fantastic bring it on, who gives a fig about them anyway. We are entertained, we win, we are on the up, we have the largest attendances since 1960. Hurrah long may it continue :grinning:
Click to expand...

I did find the Carlisle comments amusing they had 4 bookings one of which was a 2nd yellow so a red to our 1 yellow and we were dirty.
 
Jaggy Imp said:
I think there is a lot of 'rose tinted spectacles' stuff on the forum. We are a direct and physical team and by that I mean we punt the ball up the field at the earliest opportunity and hope that the 'athleticism' of our forward line produces results. BTW, Rhead's ?challenge at the final was an absolute disgrace and can't, in any way, be defended.

Interesting to hear that Danny says he'll adapt to whatever situation we find ourselves in and, I guess, a more passing and moving game might emerge as we climb through the leagues. This isn't a criticism though. I love watching a team that wins games, cups, championships, but let's not kid ourselves, much of what we've seen this season amounts to hoofball, IMO.
Click to expand...
We don't 'punt' the ball at all.

We're direct, not long ball. The latter is smashing it 80 yard in any direction, with the former being more aimed to a focal point i.e. Rhead in our case or Green in the channels.
 
cowley is pragmatic - it is a ruthless search for advantage.
we play the percentages. very interested to read the '26 crosses' comment... as watching some matches it feels like we will continue doing something for ninety minutes even if it appears not to be working.

at our level defenders under pressure will lose concentration and make mistakes more often - miss the ball completely; give the ball away; slice the ball out for corners and throw ins; or find all kinds of crazy ways to mess up... so getting the ball quickly into the forward area gives a better chance of this happening. and prevents it from happening around our defence.

try it at higher league level and better defenders will just say thank you very much and retain possession.

listen to cooper ranting every week about his defence. i am sure the league 2 goals scored following a defender's mistake far outweigh the brazilian/messi style goals scored by carlisle et al this season. and i imagine cowley has some stats to back this up.
 
nlondonimp said:
cowley is pragmatic - it is a ruthless search for advantage.
we play the percentages. very interested to read the '26 crosses' comment... as watching some matches it feels like we will continue doing something for ninety minutes even if it appears not to be working.

at our level defenders under pressure will lose concentration and make mistakes more often - miss the ball completely; give the ball away; slice the ball out for corners and throw ins; or find all kinds of crazy ways to mess up... so getting the ball quickly into the forward area gives a better chance of this happening. and prevents it from happening around our defence.

try it at higher league level and better defenders will just say thank you very much and retain possession.

listen to cooper ranting every week about his defence. i am sure the league 2 goals scored following a defender's mistake far outweigh the brazilian/messi style goals scored by carlisle et al this season. and i imagine cowley has some stats to back this up.
Click to expand...

The Winning Formula by Charles Hughes way back in the early 90's did some analysis on different methods of play and more goals were scored by teams who were direct. I wonder if still holds true and if it does why are so many people so anti.
 
Anyone trying to liken Lincoln to 1980s Wimbledon obviously was not around then. Wimbledon were genuinely long-ball - they hammered the ball up the pitch towards the wings where the grass was grown long. The midfield existed mainly to win the ball back from the opposition, not necessarily to be part of an attacking formation. Crosses whacked into the box were met by a scrum of incoming players who trampled on anyone stupid enough to get in their way. It was football at its most elemental, and has not been equalled since - the closest I have seen to it was Barrow last season - and was the football equivalent of changing a plug with a hammer. The old gag about the ball being carred off at half time on a stretcher was created in their honour.

By contrast, Lincoln seek to play more intelligent crosses towards Rhead, often on a relatively shallow diagonal from Habergham or Eardley. Rhead - in the No.10 position - then uses his great touch to lay the ball off to the supporting cast while Green runs the channels. Call that direct if you like, but it isn't Wimbledon for sure.

I am sure Neal Eardley in particular would take issue if accused of 'punting' the ball forward. I believe his crossing ability is second to none outside the Premier League.
 
Impartiality said:
The Winning Formula by Charles Hughes way back in the early 90's did some analysis on different methods of play and more goals were scored by teams who were direct. I wonder if still holds true and if it does why are so many people so anti.
Click to expand...

I realise this is probably going to take this a bit off topic but I picked up an F.A. coaching book by Charles Hughes in a bargain bin a few years ago and when I read it realised he is possibly the most wilfully misunderstood coach in English history.

Nowhere did he preach the long ball game that his name became synonymous with and reviled for - he insisted that long passes were important but he meant accurate ones of the type that Hoddle used to produce. Instead his analysis showed that 90% of goals (even by Brazil) were scored from four passes or fewer - or from set-pieces that had come as a result of four passes or fewer.

In order to do this he advocated pressing the opposition as near to their own goal as possible.

These sort of ideas are the same as used today by all the top coaches. His analysis was ridiculed and scorned in the 70s and 80s, mostly I think because Hughes was a teacher turned coach, which put a lot of noses out of joint amongst the ex-pros who dominate coaching - and certainly did back then.

Does any of this background sound remarkably familiar?

So it turns out that dear old Charles Hughes was a bit of a visionary, rather ahead of his time.
 
Find the book "The numbers game: Why Everything You Know About Football is Wrong", it talks quite a lot about his theories and due to the explosion in data captures available now disproves many (but not all) of them before going into its own findings.
 
Brendan Bradley said:
I realise this is probably going to take this a bit off topic but I picked up an F.A. coaching book by Charles Hughes in a bargain bin a few years ago and when I read it realised he is possibly the most wilfully misunderstood coach in English history.

Nowhere did he preach the long ball game that his name became synonymous with and reviled for - he insisted that long passes were important but he meant accurate ones of the type that Hoddle used to produce. Instead his analysis showed that 90% of goals (even by Brazil) were scored from four passes or fewer - or from set-pieces that had come as a result of four passes or fewer.

In order to do this he advocated pressing the opposition as near to their own goal as possible.

These sort of ideas are the same as used today by all the top coaches. His analysis was ridiculed and scorned in the 70s and 80s, mostly I think because Hughes was a teacher turned coach, which put a lot of noses out of joint amongst the ex-pros who dominate coaching - and certainly did back then.

Does any of this background sound remarkably familiar?

So it turns out that dear old Charles Hughes was a bit of a visionary, rather ahead of his time.
Click to expand...

Actually his data collection that he based his findings on was, how shall we say, less than adequately rigorous for the statistical findings he made from them...
 
Sincilbanks said:
Actually his data collection that he based his findings on was, how shall we say, less than adequately rigorous for the statistical findings he made from them...
Click to expand...

I'm sure, but applying stats to football at that time was revolutionary, and considered fundamentally wrong-headed.

In principle, the general ideas are now the fashionable ones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.