Will Grigg to Sunderland | Page 7 | Vital Football

Will Grigg to Sunderland

moonay

Vital Football Hero
Cook signed them. He must have had an inkling how they could fit into his system.
I agree,....... and I'm sure that losing any one - even two - of Grigg, Massey, Jacob and Powell would have been "manageable".

However, for a significant period, we've had often 3, sometimes all 4 of those not available (disregarding selection decisions).

Plan B.......... decent singer........... crackin' Dexys record........ and summat that Cookie tried that didn't work.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital 1st Team Regular
You couldn't make this up:

- do poorly playing the same way all the time...... Slate the Manager.
- do poorly playing in a makeshift Plan B style..... Slate the Manager.

Ah well. I'm sure he'll get both barrels tomorrow whatever the style unless we trounce Villa.
🙄
You aren't describing two separate problems that contradict each other - playing a bad plan B continually is the one problem.

Plan A was fine switching to plan B (trying to be defensive when we cant defend and long ball with no target men) was blatently a far worse idea than trying to carry on with plan A regardless of any injuries and then persisting with something doesn't work.

On the rare occasions we saw glimpses of plan A since September it still worked even with 2, 3 or all 4 of Cooks supposed best front line missing. On some occasions we've left out one of those players we apparently can't function without by choice. Derby second half, Blackburn and first half against Swansea were Plan A and worked great despite the fact Massey only played in 1 of those and the other 3 didn't feature much if at all in any of them. In fact playing more passing football made some of the duds look much better.

If our of our second string were all 6'4 monsters with no pace maybe it would make sense abandoning playing football and going long but the second string are arguably worse equipped to play long ball than the first choice. Macca and Windass couldn't win a long ball if their life depended on it and it nullified their attributes of pace and running with the ball by hoofing it over their heads rather than play to feet.

The first choice front 4 were inherited by Cook (Sharpe said him and Roberto signed Massey) and only cost about 1.3m combined. Cook has signed about 8 players to play accross those positions for about 5m combined so it's alarming he suggests the players he signed cant play his prefered system. Especially since before the start of the season Grigg had Jacobs had struggled at this level and Massey struggled in L1 - the signings in the summer were likely to be considered their replacements if they struggled again so surely were bought to play in Cooks system?

There has been absolutely zero benefit in performance or results in switching away from plan A. It's played against our strengths and to our weaknesses regardless of who is fit or not its been inexplicable and deserves criticising for persisting with it. We even used plan B against teams who were considerably worse than us and effectively deliberately dropped to their level.

If those front 4 were out and we tried to play the same way and it didn't work fair enough maybe you look at changing but we seemed to just give up without even trying and we all couldve guessed our new tactics were destined to fail without any hindsight by simply looking at what the squads strengths and weaknesses were. It was simply bad management. We've just got to hope the penny has finally dropped after that interview and tomorrow plan A will be back. If it is we will at least go down swinging and give ourselves a chance to pull off an upset.
 
Last edited:

moonay

Vital Football Hero
You got me wrong KDZ. I simply meant that if he'd have continued to focus on Plan A ( a la Bob), but failed, he'd have got earache
Instead, he didn't....... But his Plan B was shite.

Either way, he was in for a hard time...... from some.
 
Is that not fairly obvious?

I guess that to play Plan A, you need a certain style of player. Our first XI is full of them. However, our backups are maybe only of League 1 standard. Therefore, given the number of "second string" players we've been forced to field, a Plan B style was deemed a more likely option to get a few points. The Manager got it wrong. He should have stuck to his Plan A.........just like Bob did..... who then got criticised for not employing a Plan B.

🙄
😉
If that's the case, why did we spend 3+ million on just 2 backup players (Garner and Windass) and fail to sign a single backup for left back to this day. The fact we didn't have a left back at all until the day before our first match of the season is bizarre. Are we not better off looking at players who do fit his style instead of looking at who fellow relegation candidates are about to sign and old mates? Naismith is a league 1 standard/backup player but we got him for free, but we're playing him in the wrong position. This interview just seems strange and desperate for excuses.
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
Greeny, who's to know what deals fell through?

All I'm saying is that maybe he bought his "second string" with Plan B in mind. If injuries hadn't enforced so many changes, maybe they'd have continued Plan A.

Like I say...... Damned if he did, damned if he didn't.
 
I think it is great for a team to have a plan B. But plan B should be when Plan A doesn’t work and you need to mix things up to get a result.

Our Plan A for the last 3 months or more has been long ball and ultra defensive because... oh my god Massey is injured and he’s the linch pin of the whole team! Sorry but that is bollocks and we should be playing the attacking and progressive style we were so successful with and with the best personnel available, if we are losing or struggling to break an opposition down then switch to plan B.

To completely change our starting style because a few of our players, whom we have perfectly capable replacements for if they were actually trusted, are out is a nonsense. If Liverpool lose Salah, Mane and Firmino do they put Shaquiri at left back, Henderson on the left wing and start lumping it forward to Sturridge? A successful team needs a footballing philosophy which flows through the whole club from the youth teams through to the first team. Last season I thought Cook had developed that, but this season he has panicked and abandoned it.

I hope this is a learning thing and tomorrow he returns to the successful football style we enjoyed early doors this season. Even a loss with an attacking fearless performance would be reason for cheer. Come on Cook - get back to doing what we loved you for.
 

Roy Race

Vital Youth Team
If that's the case, why did we spend 3+ million on just 2 backup players (Garner and Windass) and fail to sign a single backup for left back to this day. The fact we didn't have a left back at all until the day before our first match of the season is bizarre. Are we not better off looking at players who do fit his style instead of looking at who fellow relegation candidates are about to sign and old mates? Naismith is a league 1 standard/backup player but we got him for free, but we're playing him in the wrong position. This interview just seems strange and desperate for excuses.
People keep going on about how much we paid for garner and windass like we're the PSG of the championship. In effect, what we paid for them is peanuts, especially when teams like Blackburn have spent £7m on Brereton who I don't think has scored yet and Marriott was signed by Derby for about the same and he's score what? .... 5 or 6 goals.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital 1st Team Regular
You got me wrong KDZ. I simply meant that if he'd have continued to focus on Plan A ( a la Bob), but failed, he'd have got earache
Instead, he didn't....... But his Plan B was shite.

Either way, he was in for a hard time...... from some.
No manager gets critasised for sticking with something that is working. So he wouldn't have got critasised for trying to keep it going and if after 2 or 3 games it stopped working and he adapted i dont think he would've got stick either.

He got correctly critasised for pre-emptivly changing from something that was working and potentially may have kept working to something that definitely didn't work and persisted with that. We literally couldnt have done any worse switching to hoof ball than sticking with what brought us success. It was throwing the baby out with the bathwater to abandon a good system because we felt we may not be quite as good at it due to injuries.

It really wasn't a damned if you do / damned if you don't situation, just a really bad decision that didn't make any sense.
 
Just my opinion.

For the record I think the way Cook had us playing early in the season earns him more time and we should back him as long he returns to that Plan A.

and yes - fans will always give the manager a hard time when a team are losing. But more so if they are losing only since the manager seemingly changed things and he subsequently refuses to try anything else, like... hmmmm... maybe the thing that made him successful only a few months ago?
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
KDZ, you're suggesting that it was a "flick of a switch" thing. Plan A working...... switch to plan B which then doesn't work.

I was suggesting the the gradual poor performance brought on the introduction of Plan B.......largely due to the non availability of key players.

If Plan A would've continued to be successful, then regardless of player availability, there'd have been no reason to switch to Plan B.

Common sense.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital 1st Team Regular
People keep going on about how much we paid for garner and windass like we're the PSG of the championship. In effect, what we paid for them is peanuts, especially when teams like Blackburn have spent £7m on Brereton who I don't think has scored yet and Marriott was signed by Derby for about the same and he's score what? .... 5 or 6 goals.
But it is a huge amount for us. Shape said we will probably lose over 10m last season and probably something similar this season if not maybe even more so to spend about about 6 mill in the last window was mega money by our standards and we weren't at all careful with it.

We haven't spent above a million on anyone since the parachute money ran out but we signed 5 in that region this past window and Windass is probably the 3rd or 4th most expensive player we've signed since relegation. So it was a big gamble that didnt at all seem well thought out when the consensus from the own fans is we were being mugged.

It's all relative to the size of your budget.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital 1st Team Regular
KDZ, you're suggesting that it was a "flick of a switch" thing. Plan A working...... switch to plan B which then doesn't work.

I was suggesting the the gradual poor performance brought on the introduction of Plan B.......largely due to the non availability of key players.

If Plan A would've continued to be successful, then regardless of player availability, there'd have been no reason to switch to Plan B.

Common sense.
But it was pretty much a flick of a switch wasnt it. At first it was just away the tactics switched and then we switched them at home too. It wasn't like anyone has ever said our pass and move was an issue but long ball worked, every game that went well it was due to the lack of long ball and every game that went badly was because of the over use of long ball if not exclusive use of it. We had games like Rotherham and Hull at home where we played them off the park on the deck then late in the game started to just pump it in a panic and got battered so we started doing what didn't work so well in the last 10 mins of games and started doing it from the start.

You could see the mechanics of the play change to deliberately change to a long ball style quite noticeably. Particularly in the way we used Evan and Morsy and playing the ball out from the back - we used to be set up to give Walton at least 3 if not 6 options to pass out meaning the 1 or 2 opposition strikers couldnt man mark us into going long. But we started giving Walton zero options as everyone pushed up field for the big hoof. It was certainly tactical and made zero sense on paper or in practice no matter who is or isn't fit.
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
I think you've now been hoisted by your own petard!

You say that we switched to plan B in the last 10 mins cos plan A wasn't working. That's my point. If he hadn't have switched, he'd have got earache for being too single minded.

The fact that he then gradually used plan B as his main tactic (which didn't work) is maybe more down to selection availability.

Whatever he did, (& however flexible he was) he was going to get no credit if results weren't forthcoming.
 

king_dezeeuw06

Vital 1st Team Regular
I think you've now been hoisted by your own petard!

You say that we switched to plan B in the last 10 mins cos plan A wasn't working. That's my point. If he hadn't have switched, he'd have got earache for being too single minded.

The fact that he then gradually used plan B as his main tactic (which didn't work) is maybe more down to selection availability.

Whatever he did, (& however flexible he was) he was going to get no credit if results weren't forthcoming.
You seem to be conflating people being critical of switching to non sensical tactics and the switching of tactics in general.

No one wants a manager to not be flexible as needed but the tactical switch actively made everything worse in every way but neither do they want a manager to switch needlessly. It's not a one or the other but we've had the worst of both worlds most weeks for the past few months - switch to style that doesnt work and then too often refuse to change it.

The drop in results was because of the switch not in spite of it - it wasnt a case of whatever he did he'd get stick he just went down the path of guaranteed failure by trying to play a style we literally dont have the players capable to make work.

Neither a front 4 of Vaughan, Windass, Roberts and Byrne or a front 4 of Grigg, Powell, Massey and Jacobs would see the long ball defensive style work. Injuries just don't make the tactical switch make any sense.
 
People keep going on about how much we paid for garner and windass like we're the PSG of the championship. In effect, what we paid for them is peanuts, especially when teams like Blackburn have spent £7m on Brereton who I don't think has scored yet and Marriott was signed by Derby for about the same and he's score what? .... 5 or 6 goals.
But we're not the PSG of the Championship, nor Blackburn or Derby, who have moderately priced tickets, high attendance and a great youth academy to sell future prospects. We have none of that, nor have we spent 7m cash on one player, even when in the premier league. Our only income is TV money and to buy cheap then sell high.

I'm not saying we shouldn't spend 1-3 million on players, just that they should be initially for the 'plan A' team, not 'plan B'. Backup players should be free or on the cheap, like Naismith, Gibson, Jones, Vaughan, Walker, Roberts and Mcamanaman. But to spend that much money on backup players when we have no left back and our best player is on his final year of his contract that will easily be covered by that 3 million and wages on top.

Also it looks like you're saying Marriott has done nothing, but yet he scored more than any of our players and has a higher goals per game ratio and can easily get in our 'plan A' team, while Windass and Garner can not, they're even struggling to get into our plan B team at times.
 

moonay

Vital Football Hero
KDZ, with your last post, you've more or less made the same point I initially made.

He switched....... unnecessarily........ unsuccessfully...... but if he hadn't switched, and remained unsuccessful, he'd have been slated for not switching.

That's all.