The Grim vs the Grecians

[king_dezeeuw06]

It feels like you've made a rod for your own back KDZ. Cos you've said how highly you rate the players, you seem compelled to attribute their failures to the manager and his tactical choices ... even though that doesn't really make sense ... certainly not re the defensive shortfalls and lack of movement.

Maybe we as fans should try and analyse each performance a little less, and enjoy (or not) each game as it comes.

We play well, we play poorly, we win, we lose, we comment, we move on.

2 things can be true at once.

I believe this squad is capable of doing all the good things required to play well (as proven against Peterbough, Oxford, Bolton, Derby, etc). The issue is they aren't doing those good things every week as we saw against Exeter.

Manager and players should both have done better against Exeter, they are far better than what they showed.

 

[BrickLatic]

Quite simple ... analyse and comment are two different words, with totally different meanings ... though maybe I should have said "over-analyse", which makes the difference even greater.

analise and comment are 2 diferent words. i get it. i asked how could you do one bout doing the other.
using what you sed the forum wuld run sommart like this.

miw. shit game last nite.
hindley. agree mate
king. yeah shit wernt it.
mooney. you dont no what your talking about you lot.
runcorn. im teking the positives.
jeffs. it wuld of been a better game in my dey.
zakky. agree mate.
tb. calm down. some thot it were shit some didnt.
frank. fuck off. nobody tells me how to enjoy a game or not.

 

[moonay]

I believe this squad is capable of doing all the good things required to play well (as proven against Peterbough, Oxford, Bolton, Derby, etc). The issue is they aren't doing those good things every week as we saw against Exeter.

Manager and players should both have done better against Exeter, they are far better than what they showed.

Fully agree with that, it's just that the majority of the blame seemed to be being given to the manager, absolving the players of playing to his "tactics".

They just need to develop (and we need to be patient while they do) to be able to do it week in week out, for the full (or at least most of the) game.

 

[moonay]

analise and comment are 2 diferent words. i get it. i asked how could you do one bout doing the other.
using what you sed the forum wuld run sommart like this.

miw. shit game last nite.
hindley. agree mate
king. yeah shit wernt it.
mooney. you dont no what your talking about you lot.
runcorn. im teking the positives.
jeffs. it wuld of been a better game in my dey.
zakky. agree mate.
tb. calm down. some thot it were shit some didnt.
frank. fuck off. nobody tells me how to enjoy a game or not.

Nah, though we obviously comment when we analyse, you don't need to analyse when you comment. You can describe what you saw and give your opinion on it.

Instead, we all make up our own versions of the truth, none of which we know are anywhere near the actual truth.
- what are the manager's tactics?
- what are his instructions to the players?
- what roles have been asked of individuals?
- how happy is the manager with what's going on in the game?
- how happy is the manager with individual players?
- how are the players doing in terms of their stats/fitness?
- is the manager happy with specific decisions taken by players on the field?
etc

We don't know the answer to any of these (and more) so we make up our own version of the truth, and continue to comment, and analyse, from there.

Entertaining, but ultimately only serves to make us more pissed off, cos it seems we all know how to do things better.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Fully agree with that, it's just that the majority of the blame seemed to be being given to the manager, absolving the players of playing to his "tactics".

They just need to develop (and we need to be patient while they do) to be able to do it week in week out, for the full (or at least most of the) game.

Players never blameless as they are the ones on the pitch. But manager always likely to get more credit or blame as they are the ones who pick the team, set the tactics, organise the training.

Against Peterbough the high press tactics won us that game, against Exeter the choice to not repeat that tactic was costly. Both of those are Maloney's.

Against Peterbough the players were all looking for the ball, against Exeter they weren't - Maloney won't have told them to do that so that's on them. But ultimately if it continues the manager can't be at the mercy of the players initiative and has to work out why it happens and how he can fix it.

As I say both manager and players both proven multiple times what they are capable of, I don't think anyone is expecting us to play well and win every week but inconsistentcy in application is the frustration.

 

[moonay]

Players never blameless as they are the ones on the pitch. But manager always likely to get more credit or blame as they are the ones who pick the team, set the tactics, organise the training.

Against Peterbough the high press tactics won us that game, against Exeter the choice to not repeat that tactic was costly. Both of those are Maloney's.

You see, there's a prime example. You are supposing that he made that choice, rather than assuming as I do that he probably sent them with the exact same (or similar) instructions, but the players just weren't able to execute them the same ... (maybe because of the way that Exeter set up???).

I agree with pretty much else you've written ... it's just that neither of us know which version above is true.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

this.
this tb is exactly what i were on about when i sed i needed to get more info. gently reminded that its not just pleyers that weve lost but the backroomers an all. this helps to join the dots when looking at the big picture.

and i no we have to disagree at times (if we didnt we wuld be putting are joint apps into the happy clapper club together) so my disagreement is about the paitience bit.

we have alredy seen what the teem can do. weve alredy seen that (most of them) the teem are hungry to pleese. weve alredy seen pressing moves. good attaking pley. long cross ball pley. opening up defences. proper footy at times. we saw it at the posh game.

my questeon is. what changes

My only answer to your question mate is the opposition.

As I have said to KDZ in my earlier post sometimes people forget there are two teams on the pitch and the opposition simply don't allow players the freedom.

This, for me, is were the patience comes in, the young players we have are probably being coached on how to create the space but the opposition are also being taught how to close that space down and contain the back three forcing the error.

You also have to take into consideration that sometimes our young inexperienced midfield come up against vastly more experienced players who have been there and done it all and are simply outplayed by those with more guile and nouse.

In some games youth outdoes experience and they give the opposition the run around whereas in other games experience wins out and they are frozen out of the game. It is in games like the latter that needs patience from both the players and the fans because, as we have seen, if a player loses his confidence in that game it upsets the rhythm of the team.

Over the season I have watched Adeeko and Scott Smith start games well and play the ball forward until one or the other makes an error and the confidence drains which then makes them look for the simple ball which is usually sideways or backwards.

 

[BrickLatic]

Nah, though we obviously comment when we analyse, you don't need to analyse when you comment. You can describe what you saw and give your opinion on it.

reet then
analise the game. then coment on it.
ok got it.

 

[moonay]

reet then
analise the game. then coment on it.
ok got it.

Brick, I have every confidence that you'll continue to do whatever you want to do ... as is your absolute right.

So should we all.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

2 things can be true at once.

I believe this squad is capable of doing all the good things required to play well (as proven against Peterbough, Oxford, Bolton, Derby, etc). The issue is they aren't doing those good things every week as we saw against Exeter.

Manager and players should both have done better against Exeter, they are far better than what they showed.

In my mind this is the definition of inconsistency?

Which I attribute to the fact that they are a young and growing side.

Players never blameless as they are the ones on the pitch. But manager always likely to get more credit or blame as they are the ones who pick the team, set the tactics, organise the training.

Against Peterbough the high press tactics won us that game, against Exeter the choice to not repeat that tactic was costly. Both of those are Maloney's.

Against Peterbough the players were all looking for the ball, against Exeter they weren't - Maloney won't have told them to do that so that's on them. But ultimately if it continues the manager can't be at the mercy of the players initiative and has to work out why it happens and how he can fix it.

As I say both manager and players both proven multiple times what they are capable of, I don't think anyone is expecting us to play well and win every week but inconsistentcy in application is the frustration.

But doesn't the fact that the three changes at half time made the difference in the performance and demonstrated that the manager wasn't happy that players were carrying out his instructions either willingly or unable to.

 

[BrickLatic]

My only answer to your question mate is the opposition.

As I have said to KDZ in my earlier post sometimes people forget there are two teams on the pitch and the opposition simply don't allow players the freedom.

This, for me, is were the patience comes in, the young players we have are probably being coached on how to create the space but the opposition are also being taught how to close that space down and contain the back three forcing the error.

You also have to take into consideration that sometimes our young inexperienced midfield come up against vastly more experienced players who have been there and done it all and are simply outplayed by those with more guile and nouse.

In some games youth outdoes experience and they give the opposition the run around whereas in other games experience wins out and they are frozen out of the game. It is in games like the latter that needs patience from both the players and the fans because, as we have seen, if a player loses his confidence in that game it upsets the rhythm of the team.

Over the season I have watched Adeeko and Scott Smith start games well and play the ball forward until one or the other makes an error and the confidence drains which then makes them look for the simple ball which is usually sideways or backwards.

absolutly mate and i read your reply to king erlier and noted your (some of) valid points. but. i still think its a bit of a cop out.

as ive sed in my thots on this. the use of the 6 p's (proper planing prevents piss poor preformance) in the class and on the trg feeld shuld prep the teem for all opositeon. i meen i get it when you sey up agenst more mature and more xperienced opositeon but at leest be prepared for them. and at times they look in a diferent world. 3 subs at half time is a crime of both the pleyers and the mon who selected them. ive also talked about there confedince issues an all wich shuld be taken into consederateon. bit i come back to kings word of the dey. inconsistency.

i think if you ask even them caling for more atacking footy, more pasing. more entertanement (and that includes me an all) then deep down we want the best for are club and will be patient but it only goes so far. if for exampel we get to 50 points and its ovious were safe and he continues with the same ol same ol without trying to at leest entertane us then that mite just be the last straw for some and a mesure of his coaching ceiling.

a pleasre as alweys tb.

 

[BrickLatic]

In my mind this is the definition of inconsistency?

Which I attribute to the fact that they are a young and growing side.


But doesn't the fact that the three changes at half time made the difference in the performance and demonstrated that the manager wasn't happy that players were carrying out his instructions either willingly or unable to.

but he picked them to start.

 

[TRUE BELIEVER]

but he picked them to start.

True, but didn't get the performance out of them that he did the previous week and had the sense to change that at half time.

Again, it's easy to blame the manager and say that he got his selection wrong but all three replaced were in the team the previous week and by most accounts we played well in that game.

Credit were credits due and all that.

 

[BrickLatic]

True, but didn't get the performance out of them that he did the previous week and had the sense to change that at half time.

Again, it's easy to blame the manager and say that he got his selection wrong but all three replaced were in the team the previous week and by most accounts we played well in that game.

Credit were credits due and all that.

agenst a diferent opositeon.
6 p's tb. the buck stops with him.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

You see, there's a prime example. You are supposing that he made that choice, rather than assuming as I do that he probably sent them with the exact same (or similar) instructions, but the players just weren't able to execute them the same ... (maybe because of the way that Exeter set up???).

I agree with pretty much else you've written ... it's just that neither of us know which version above is true.

Not assumption, observation.

Against Peterbough we pressed man for man with 5, against Exeter we pressed with 3 more guarding space. It was visibly a different tactic.

Much like when you see the formation change you don't assume the players did it themselves, you know the instruction came from the manager.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

In my mind this is the definition of inconsistency?

Which I attribute to the fact that they are a young and growing side.


But doesn't the fact that the three changes at half time made the difference in the performance and demonstrated that the manager wasn't happy that players were carrying out his instructions either willingly or unable to.

I agree you can do the same thing 2 weeks running with varying results, my issue is i don't think we are doing the same thing from week to week. We might have to agree to disagree on that.

The manager was clearly unhappy to make 3 changes, but the change of press i was talking about was clearly a deliberate tactic as we were visibly committing men into completely different areas (last week we had 5 men on the edge of their box on goal kicks, this week was only 3 with 2 wider players sitting about 20 yards deeper). So the 3 coming off was probably down to their individual poor performances rather than the press.

 

[moonay]

Not assumption, observation.

Against Peterbough we pressed man for man with 5, against Exeter we pressed with 3 more guarding space. It was visibly a different tactic.

Much like when you see the formation change you don't assume the players did it themselves, you know the instruction came from the manager.

You're assuming that the manager told the players to only press with 3. This wasn't a formation issue.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

You're assuming that the manager told the players to only press with 3. This wasn't a formation issue.

Then by the same logic last week i assumed the manager instructed them to press high and with 5. Maybe he didn't and i've been wrongly giving him praise for that excellent decision that won us the game.

 

[moonay]

Then by the same logic last week i assumed the manager instructed them to press high and with 5. Maybe he didn't and i've been wrongly giving him praise for that excellent decision that won us the game.

Eggzacklee.

All I'm saying is that based on what we see, we make judgements and assume they're right. They maybe, abut just as often, they may not be.

 

[king_dezeeuw06]

Eggzacklee.

All I'm saying is that based on what we see, we make judgements and assume they're right. They maybe, abut just as often, they may not be.

Yes but we've got to apply consistent standards.

If we aren't questioning if the players are following the managers instructions and are happy to give the manager credit for his choices when the tactics work well.

Then we can't start to question if the players are following instructions and not question the managers choices when the tactics don't work.

Anyway it's just going round in circles at this point. No point continuing to argue it as we both said our piece and we got another game to worry about tonight that will hopefully be one we can agree the manager got it right.