Curtains Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 All i'm saying is that we let them have too much possession in our half. This was most notable in the first 20 minutes when we conceded. We seemed to improve after that but we definitely lost the first 2 rounds. Towards half time we retained possession better and higher up the pitch....and scored.If Ward had scored from brilliant Hendrick play on the right at the start of the 2nd half we would have breezed it and also 1st half Hendrick just failed to get on the end of an incisive cross from the left from Martin i think it was. We are a far more incisive team going forward than crappy Brighton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 If Ward had scored from brilliant Hendrick play on the right at the start of the 2nd half we would have breezed it and also 1st half Hendrick just failed to get on the end of an incisive cross from the left from Martin i think it was. We are a far more incisive team going forward than crappy Brighton. But you have to have the ball to score I don't buy this argument that we are somehow better off without it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 All i'm saying is that we let them have too much possession in our half. This was most notable in the first 20 minutes when we conceded. We seemed to improve after that but we definitely lost the first 2 rounds. Towards half time we retained possession better and higher up the pitch....and scored. I actually think it was (for the most part) a deliberate tactical decision to stand off and encourage them onto us. We've had plenty of games this season where teams have sat very deep against us and we've struggled to break them down, but by letting them pass their way into midfield and then nick the ball back and break quickly we created plenty of decent situations. In the 2nd leg, there's a decent argument for going the other way, as they'll have to come at us anyway at some point. So maybe take Hendrick out and put in Hughes, which makes us slightly less effective on the counter, but means we'll retain the ball better and we can just pass the ball to death and frustrate Brighton. The other side of it, is that Brighton put far more effort into the first leg than we did - they did a hell of a lot of running closing us down while we just stood off and kept our shape. I don't see them being able to put in a 90 minute effort like that again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Brighton ...did a hell of a lot of running closing us down while we just stood off . No further questions m'lud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanjwitham Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 No further questions m'lud Well done, selective quoting to completely change the point I was making. There's more than one way to play football, and more than one way to defend. Running around like headless chickens isn't always that productive. That expended masses of effort and got maybe 4 decent chances and a goal. We expended very little and got at least as many chances and more goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Well done. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 All i'm saying is that we let them have too much possession in our half. This was most notable in the first 20 minutes when we conceded. We seemed to improve after that but we definitely lost the first 2 rounds.Towards half time we retained possession better and higher up the pitch....and scored. That is entirely linked to us falling behind, scoring and gaining momentum. There is no way we would have continued to sit back if we were in a losing position - that would have been barmy. I can guarantee that if we went in behind 2-1 at HT we would have dominated the second-half possession stats. But you have to have the ball to score I don't buy this argument that we are somehow better off without it. Whilst I agree in principal, teams don't need to chase the game when winning and it's common mentality to sit back - especially away from home. Also it's dependable on your players. Carlo Ancelotti recently said that Real Madrid purposely sit back becase they don't have the players to play the possession game. He said that Di Maria, Ronaldo and Bale's best attributes are running into space beyond the defence and that's precisely why they do it. Now, I'm not saying we're anything like that. But it was blatantly evident from the game at Brighton that Jonny Russell and Jamie Ward enjoyed the space given to them to run at - and beyond - the Brighton backline. I can't stress how bemused I am at the idea that we were poor because we only had 40% away from home against in a winning position against the Championship's leading possession-based team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I didn't say 'poor'. Funny how nigel clough got slated if we ever sat back deep to defend? Come back nigel, all is forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I didn't say 'poor'. Funny how nigel clough got slated if we ever sat back deep to defend? Come back nigel, all is forgiven. Sorry I thought you said we were poor, or was that of the 40% possession stats? Nigel Clough got slated because his side's sat back and just hoofed it forward. Against Brighton, we played it forward on the deck at a speed that a Clough team has never ever produced and we ripped Brighton to shreds... Before we go any further, let's see how we do in the home leg and how we line up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 We ripped brighton to shreds? One shot on target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boycie Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I do agree that while we had one shot on target, our approach play on the break was top end. Even the sky commented on it. No end result, but it would have stayed in their minds for the next game at the iPro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Our approach play when we attack is very good. But we are not dependant on hitting the ball into space for wide men to go belting after. We pass thro them. Get the ball. Push up. Cut them open with quick short passing and win with high possession. Or sit back. Defend deep. And invite pressure in the belief that we can run faster than the opposition? We are a passing side. We want the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 "We've got to be on the front foot. We can't sit back and relax like we did in the second half, we've got to take our game to them, get the crowd behind us and the players have to fight to maintain this result". Steve mcclaren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 We ripped brighton to shreds? One shot on target. On three separate occasions, Brighton cynically hacked down the player in possession before the inevitable final ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 On three separate occasions, Brighton cynically hacked down the player in possession before the inevitable final ball. Ok....but you wouldn't say we ripped brighton to shreds would you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Ok....but you wouldn't say we ripped brighton to shreds would you. Definitely not. Cut them to ribbons perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Sorry I thought you said we were poor, or was that of the 40% possession stats? Nigel Clough got slated because his side's sat back and just hoofed it forward. Against Brighton, we played it forward on the deck at a speed that a Clough team has never ever produced and we ripped Brighton to shreds... Before we go any further, let's see how we do in the home leg and how we line up. We played some great football under Clough much like we play some great football under SM. You were the only one on here who claimed we hoofed it forward. Please explain one thing Bris. At one point in that game did we 'rip Brighton to shreds'? Please could you expand a little more on that as the game that I saw they played as least as well as Derby and actually created the better chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L_J_DCFC Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 I found we played good football under Clough but it was limited. He did not develop it like Steve has done and when things went wrong, instead of sticking at it and being patient, we hit the long ball and panicked. Some people may see it differently but I also believe that the foundations were set by Clough to play a really good style of play. That first game against Brighton away from home in August this season was probably the best passing performance in a long, long time. Absolutely sublime! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Vegas Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 We played some great football under Clough much like we play some great football under SM. You were the only one on here who claimed we hoofed it forward. Please explain one thing Bris. At one point in that game did we 'rip Brighton to shreds'? Please could you expand a little more on that as the game that I saw they played as least as well as Derby and actually created the better chances. I've given up explaining, as I've clearly found someone as stubborn as myself. One incident I was left bemused by though was when Jonny Russell was in on goal at an angle. Why did he try and lay it across first-time? Could have easily just took it closer to goal and had an effort himself - and probbaly would have scored. Was such a good opportunity at the time completely wasted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Also Sammon had a great chance late on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.