Jump to content

Fitness levels


FindernRam

Recommended Posts

There has been much negativity around the teams age and ability to keep running. Many were convinced 2 games in 3 days would be our undoing.

Well, I didn't see too much leggedness at Fulham. I thought almost everyone kept good energy levels right to the end. 

Credit to the fitness coaches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, FindernRam said:

There has been much negativity around the teams age and ability to keep running. Many were convinced 2 games in 3 days would be our undoing.

Well, I didn't see too much leggedness at Fulham. I thought almost everyone kept good energy levels right to the end. 

Credit to the fitness coaches.

I can't agree with this statement, sorry!

I can't fault the effort put in by the players, but particularly in late second half at home and second leg I though several players were running on empty.

Jerome was absolutely knackered after first leg, Huddlestone in second leg, it was one of his worst performances for Derby, he was completely immobile, Davies was not the sharp centre half of the first leg, and it's not a complaint, they gave their all. But age takes no prisoners.

One thing I can't complain about though was the entire teams effort, they literally gave everything, but for me Rowett needs to radically alter the average age of our team. 

To sustain a realistic challenge next season we need some new younger legs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Smyth_18 said:

Quite the opposite for me. Every single one was out of steam. Which is why Mitrovic got away on so many occasions, we created nothing and the goals were so sloppy.

He got away because he is a good player and he learned from the first leg. Get the ball and take a step forward to either draw a foul from Davies or get some space.

Not every tough game is because we're rubbish, you can sometimes give credit where it's due.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tombo said:

He got away because he is a good player and he learned from the first leg. Get the ball and take a step forward to either draw a foul from Davies or get some space.

Not every tough game is because we're rubbish, you can sometimes give credit where it's due.... 

The teams not rubbish,the tactics were...so a combination of that and Fulham being very good indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought we looked tired and probably the main reason we didn't have a proper go at Fulham when they sat off us. I don't think our fitness levels is the main issue though, more the personnel and they're mobility. A fully fit Tom Huddlestone still lacks the energy we require in CM, the same could be said for Bradley Johnson. They haven't got the legs or energy to support our counter attacks and when they finally do we're then susceptible to being caught out ourselves. I'm sure it's something GR will address this summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

The teams not rubbish,the tactics were...so a combination of that and Fulham being very good indeed.

Then how come everyone on SKY kept saying the tactics were spot on?

Clearly you know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

Then how come everyone on SKY kept saying the tactics were spot on?

Clearly you know better.

I watched the game with a neutral mate, and he thought it was a very good game, because it could go either way. Kept telling him our main problem would be with the final ball and wasting opportunities to have attempts at goal, which was down to a lack of technical quality. Unfortunately, that proved to be the case.

There was nothing wrong with the tactics, and we had plenty of attacking opportunities. We should, from our play, have had more than enough shots/headers to have at least drawn the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there want much in the tank after first leg

second leg  - didn't really see a problem

the only problem was  - lack of intent and final execution to put the piggin ball in the net!!

just as well. - as if someone had scored me and my lad would have probably had our heads kicked in. - at the back of P4!!

I would have taken that for the team. - for 2 goals!  - one each for both of us lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, KCG said:

There was nothing wrong with the tactics, and we had plenty of attacking opportunities. We should, from our play, have had more than enough shots/headers to have at least drawn the game.

 I think that's where we disagree really, I can't just blank out the three guilt edge chances Fulham missed in the first half, I don't see the point in pretending they weren't all over us and missing big chances to put the game away a lot earlier than they actually did. 

We never looked likely to test their keeper properly and didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think that they were out on their feet at the end of the first leg, and probably a bit early in the second, but that doesn’t mean that the fitness levels are poor or that it’s because of the average age. The system we play requires a hell of a lot of effort. However, if you manage to score on your counter attacks then the opposition naturally start to drop deeper as they don’t want to be hit on the break again. We need to take more care of the ball when we have it, then we won’t need to run around so much at the end of the game. I thought that Villa at home was a perfect example of how to use the system successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KCG said:

I watched the game with a neutral mate, and he thought it was a very good game, because it could go either way. Kept telling him our main problem would be with the final ball and wasting opportunities to have attempts at goal, which was down to a lack of technical quality. Unfortunately, that proved to be the case.

There was nothing wrong with the tactics, and we had plenty of attacking opportunities. We should, from our play, have had more than enough shots/headers to have at least drawn the game.

I don't agree with you about there being nothing wrong with the tactics. I thought we battled really well and can't fault the effort, but invited too much pressure on to ourselves.

For Fulham corners and free kicks in our half we pulled everyone back which gives us no 'out-ball'. Also, if everyone is defending a corner, I cannot understand why we had no one on the posts. Their winner, even though it was an excellent header (helped by inept defending), should(would) have been cleared if there had been a defender on the back post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, KCG said:

I watched the game with a neutral mate, and he thought it was a very good game, because it could go either way. Kept telling him our main problem would be with the final ball and wasting opportunities to have attempts at goal, which was down to a lack of technical quality. Unfortunately, that proved to be the case.

There was nothing wrong with the tactics, and we had plenty of attacking opportunities. We should, from our play, have had more than enough shots/headers to have at least drawn the game.

The players looked more mentally tired than physically tired in my opinion. The back 7 players (inc 2 DM’s). Had to be switched on for most of the 2 nd part of the first game, plus the entirety of the second game. There was little respite and that’s what told in the end. Concentration dropped and 2/0 down. As for the tactics we will have to disagree on that. Dropping your best forward and in doing so disrupting the Weimann/ Forsyth  combo on the left was lunacy. I noticed Fulham didn’t use this genius tactical masterclass and drop Mitrovic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wolfie said:

Then how come everyone on SKY kept saying the tactics were spot on?

Clearly you know better.

Sky pundits lauded Gary for the first leg and with justification. They didn’t in the second and on many occasions, described sitting back and not having the Golden boot winner on the pitch as a dangerous game. The only person I heard praising Gary on his 2 nd leg tactics was ironically Gary himself. Choosing to put it down to a lack of quality ( not effort) from his players. This continues to be my major worry with Gary, I don’t feel he is learning from his mistakes. Because I don’t feel he thinks he’s ever made one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
7 hours ago, Hathersage Ram said:

I can't agree with this statement, sorry!

I can't fault the effort put in by the players, but particularly in late second half at home and second leg I though several players were running on empty.

Jerome was absolutely knackered after first leg, Huddlestone in second leg, it was one of his worst performances for Derby, he was completely immobile, Davies was not the sharp centre half of the first leg, and it's not a complaint, they gave their all. But age takes no prisoners.

One thing I can't complain about though was the entire teams effort, they literally gave everything, but for me Rowett needs to radically alter the average age of our team. 

To sustain a realistic challenge next season we need some new younger legs. 

I don't think it's just about age or fitness levels . Our style of play is that we concede too much possession. So we are chasing shadows trying to get the ball back. And because we are playing so deep the likes of jerome has to do a ridiculous amount of running to chase after the ball when it is hoofed forward. If we had players who could pass the ball it would save on energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...