Poor selection

[Alph]

14 minutes ago, KCG said:

Not really sure what your point is.

Alex Fergusson was an average footballer. How many great footballers, have been great managers?

My point is that its irrelevant.

How many great players have gone into management? 

How many 'meh' players have gone into management. 

Which has the higher success rate? What benefit does not being a great player give you? I'm assuming there must be a benefit if "great players don't often make great managers"

Nobody pays attention when Leyton Orient's Joe Bloggs takes charge of Stevenage Boro. But when a great player steps into management then ofcourse their career headlines. 

They say plenty of great players fail as managers and I'm saying hundreds of ordinary players fail as managers too. 

Paul Clement the PE teacher or Mourinho the translator. Carlo Ancelotti or Pep. Zidane or Keegan. There's no pattern other than some ex players become good managers and some don't. Some have never played before and some have won it all as a player. 

Totally irrelevant. It's a different job. Requires a whole different set of skills. 

Who had Lee Bowyer down as a student of tactics? 

The proof of Lampard's management ability will be from what he does. Not from what Keegan did or Zola or Zidane or Gerrard.

"Great players don't always make for great managers" is the most irrelevant sentence. It's as daft as saying "crap players don't always make crap managers" 

Sorry, ever since reading that when Lampard took over it's done my head in. There's fewer great players than non greats. 

[KCG]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

There's a reason why Grealish and Abraham were pretty anonymous.

Just saying playing Marriott/Waghorn instead of Huddlestone/Bennett would have led to us scoring more and winning is just silly. 

It's quite possible it could have led to Grealish/Abraham having more of an effect on the game.

1. Abraham was anonymous against WBA because he's not match fit.

2. Waghorn should have come on later, as he did (see Abraham), but Marriott should have started with Bennett.

3. We have been most effective this season when we have concentrated on our own game and not abandoned it to worry about the opposition.

4. The changes were made too late, but what effect did Grealish or Abraham have when we were pressing in the last 20 mins?

[Alph]

Just now, KCG said:

1. Abraham was anonymous against WBA because he's not match fit.

2. Waghorn should have come on later, as he did (see Abraham), but Marriott should have started with Bennett.

3. We have been most effective this season when we have concentrated on our own game and not abandoned it to worry about the opposition.

4. The changes were made too late, but what effect did Grealish or Abraham have when we were pressing in the last 20 mins?

They were holding onto a lead. They were sitting in looking to counter. That's natural in most games. They weren't looking to sit in from the start. They didn't need to push for more goals when Marriott came on. 

Even still, they had 2 counters that were defended brilliantly that they would feel were great chances to kill the game.

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, KCG said:

1. Abraham was anonymous against WBA because he's not match fit.

No, idea if that is true or not. But I imagine having 2 defensive midfielders in front of him may have limited his supply.

2. Waghorn should have come on later, as he did (see Abraham), but Marriott should have started with Bennett.

Who should have been sacrificed for this?

3. We have been most effective this season when we have concentrated on our own game and not abandoned it to worry about the opposition.

Kind of agree but our biggest thrashings have also come when we've played attacking football and left gaps in the middle of the park.

4. The changes were made too late, but what effect did Grealish or Abraham have when we were pressing in the last 20 mins?

None because they were sat deep, defending a lead.

 

[BaaLocks]

5 hours ago, Ram8 said:

I don’t really want another management change at Derby, but he has exposed himself as absolutely clueless in consistently choosing the wrong players at the wrong times, and yesterday was the ‘king’s new clothes’ moment when Saint Frank was exposed for what he is, yet another famous footballer without the right credentials to succeed at the top level. Maybe Jody Morris could do better on his own .. 

Utter, undiluted arse gravy of a post

[KCG]

2 hours ago, Shaftesbury st said:

When the popular opinion amongst fans and ex pros, commentators all match then it’s a little more than whinging, moaning. 

I think I’m quite balanced, been a good season, it could have gone better at times too so lots of positives. 

Now the three major guys leave we will see for sure what Lampard is made of. 

Look you'll learn that we all have to be happy clappers, and that even if we are making a reasonable judgment, based on the way we have seen the game, we are the enemy. Even had one idiot calling me something very unpleasant. Not sure he'd do it to my face!

[Van der MoodHoover]

17 hours ago, R@M said:

Has anyone mentioned yet that we only scored When Mings got injured? And how did that happen? By having to play against the strongest and most committed forward player out there today. He might not be the finisher of Marriott or all rounder ofWaghorn but he is a bulldozer and could still improve in a similar way to Deeney later in his career. Waghorn was probably still not match fit. 

I agree with this post. Speaking to some villa fans on the walk back to wembley central and they said Mings was prone to cramping up and that f he did then inevitably it seemed to be a game ender for him.

So how did he get cramp? Not just by facing Jack for 20 mins - it was the ground work put in by Mason that wore him down. So from that lens, Frank had done his homework and had laid a reasonable plan. We couldn't quite carry it through unfortunately.

[KCG]

1. Abraham was anonymous against WBA because he's not match fit.

No, idea if that is true or not. But I imagine having 2 defensive midfielders in front of him may have limited his supply.

Disagree that the midfield stopped Abraham, but he has been lacking matches recently.

2. Waghorn should have come on later, as he did (see Abraham), but Marriott should have started with Bennett.

Who should have been sacrificed for this?

Huddlestone

3. We have been most effective this season when we have concentrated on our own game and not abandoned it to worry about the opposition.

Kind of agree but our biggest thrashings have also come when we've played attacking football and left gaps in the middle of the park.

Johnson has made a big difference there.

4. The changes were made too late, but what effect did Grealish or Abraham have when we were pressing in the last 20 mins?

None because they were sat deep, defending a lead.

Villa dropped deep from the off when we had possession, watch the game again. Difference in last 20 is that we attacked rather than fannied around with it at the back.

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

 

[YorkshireRam]

Some truly idiotic, very reactionary posts on here. Neither Marriott nor Waghorn were match fit, Lampard knew they could both play but not for the full 90 effectively. He clearly then decided Bennett would be a good option to tire their defence and try and make himself a nuisance before he brings our 2 main strikers on to try and influence the game later. It worked at Leeds and without Bennett, Marriott doesn't open the scoring, changing the game so tactically sound. 

Do people really, truly believe that if Marriott and Waghorn were fully fit, he picks Bennett on merit? 

[Alph]

4 minutes ago, KCG said:

Look you'll learn that we all have to be happy clappers, and that even if we are making a reasonable judgment, based on the way we have seen the game, we are the enemy. Even had one idiot calling me something very unpleasant. Not sure he'd do it to my face!

Not true. 

I wanted Marriott to start just as much as you. As soon as I saw him not named I was more worried. And after 3 or 4 times seeing Huddlestone arrive too late or refuse to turn around in space i was screaming in my head for Waghorn or Marriott to come on and give our left side a threat. 

However that isn't the same as saying that we'd have won if Marriott started. 

100% with my own eyes I saw Grealish get deeper and deeper during the first half to try and get more on the ball. Clearly not finding enough space in dangerous areas like he did in the first 8 or so minutes. So maybe Marriott would have gave us more in attack but given Grealish the space. I'd be happy to see that happen. I agree with you on that. 

But we could have been 3-0 up or 3-0 down. Who knows? 

They wouldn't be sitting back defending a lead though

[LB_DCFC]

2 minutes ago, KCG said:

Look you'll learn that we all have to be happy clappers, and that even if we are making a reasonable judgment, based on the way we have seen the game, we are the enemy. Even had one idiot calling me something very unpleasant. Not sure he'd do it to my face!

You say this all the time, and you are being rather hypocritical in the process. You claim that others hold their opinion in higher regard to yours, but then you call their mentality one of a 'happy clapper' and yours 'reasonable'.  People aren't looking down on you because they think they're superior, but that they disagree with your standpoint and have valid responses that counteract your viewpoint. Just because you say stuff a multitude of people disagree with doesn't mean that 'you are the enemy'.  (of course name calling isn't OK, by the way)

Football isn't binary. If we had not started Hudds, it doesn't mean that we would've performed better and won, and it may have meant that villa's key men such as grealish performed better and won more convincingly. 

I, like many, prefer to hold a more positive outlook on things, but that doesn't mean that, because I'm a 'happy clapper', my judgement is not also reasonable.

 

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Do people really, truly believe that if Marriott and Waghorn were fully fit, he picks Bennett on merit? 

Honest answer yes, he played well against Leeds and so kept the shirt.

[KCG]

2 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Not true. 

 

Why make the assumption I meant you? You are usually one of the more level-headed and I've seen you criticise in the past.

If you had seen the thread I was replying to you would know who I was referring to.

[KCG]

3 minutes ago, LB_DCFC said:

You say this all the time, and you are being rather hypocritical in the process. You claim that others hold their opinion in higher regard to yours, but then you call their mentality one of a 'happy clapper' and yours 'reasonable'.  People aren't looking down on you because they think they're superior, but that they disagree with your standpoint and have valid responses that counteract your viewpoint. Just because you say stuff a multitude of people disagree with doesn't mean that 'you are the enemy'.  (of course name calling isn't OK, by the way)

Football isn't binary. If we had not started Hudds, it doesn't mean that we would've performed better and won, and it may have meant that villa's key men such as grealish performed better and won more convincingly. 

I, like many, prefer to hold a more positive outlook on things, but that doesn't mean that, because I'm a 'happy clapper', my judgement is not also reasonable.

 

Look your comment is wrong about me on so many counts, but I just can't be arsed to argue the toss. I honestly respect people's right to have an opinion, but you are wrong to think others think the same right should be given to me or others when we point out deficiencies. They really are happy clappers!

[YorkshireRam]

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Honest answer yes, he played well against Leeds and so kept the shirt.

You don't think Marriott played better then? And more to the point, Lampard didn't see that and recognise Marriott was the form striker? If Lampard started Marriott, he could/would have been burned out in the first half and thus totally ineffective in the 2nd, same with Waghorn. This left him with a dilemma, start Marriott and risk looking totally ineffective in attack towards the end of the game because Bennett is the impact sub, or start with a slightly weaker attacking personnel but have a bang in-form Marriott to come on and try and change the game... I think he made the right call

Bear in mind, this game could have been 120 minutes long, he had to try and plan for every conceivable scenario with only 1 fully fit striker

[BaaLocks]

1 hour ago, KCG said:

Alex Ferguson was an average footballer. How many great footballers, have been great managers?

By nature of the fact that there aren't that many great players then not many. It's like saying 'why is there only ever one goal of the season?'.

But some pretty good footballers also go on to be pretty successful managers - you might argue about many of these having a right to be in one or both camps but Shankley, Busby, Cruyff, Deschamps, Ancelotti, Dalglish, Zidane, Simeone, Toshack, Beckenbauer, Klinsmann, Trapatonni, Heynckes, Guardiola, del Bosque, plus a certain Brian Clough are a few who won more than a couple of run outs for the local village XI and also won more than the school rounders tournament as a coach.

Yes, you can argue that there's also a load of the likes of Wenger, Klopp, Mourinho who didn't make it as players. The link is purely causal - and the only real reason you have a higher chance of having a good manager who wasn't that good as a player is for no other reason than that there were much more players who didn't make it to the top.

I actually was surprised myself when I looked into it and - for me - I think Frank is going to go far in management, he's not there yet but he shows all the signs of being very capable.

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

You don't think Marriott played better then? And more to the point, Lampard didn't see that and recognise Marriott was the form striker? If Lampard started Marriott, he could/would have been burned out in the first half and thus totally ineffective in the 2nd, same with Waghorn. This left him with a dilemma, start Marriott and risk looking totally ineffective in attack towards the end of the game because Bennett is the impact sub, or start with a slightly weaker attacking personnel but have a bang in-form Marriott to come on and try and change the game... I think he made the right call

Bear in mind, this game could have been 120 minutes long, he had to try and plan for every conceivable scenario with only 1 fully fit striker

I wouldnt have disagreed with his starting lineup. 

Hindsight is a wonderful for all of us.

I can guarantee the people saying they knew we would lose as soon as they saw the lineup would have been saying exactly the same thing before the Leeds match.

[ramboy63]

24 minutes ago, YorkshireRam said:

Some truly idiotic, very reactionary posts on here. Neither Marriott nor Waghorn were match fit, Lampard knew they could both play but not for the full 90 effectively. He clearly then decided Bennett would be a good option to tire their defence and try and make himself a nuisance before he brings our 2 main strikers on to try and influence the game later. It worked at Leeds and without Bennett, Marriott doesn't open the scoring, changing the game so tactically sound. 

Do people really, truly believe that if Marriott and Waghorn were fully fit, he picks Bennett on merit? 

The selection FL made was indeed geared up to having a go in the last 30mins or so and hoped it would of still been goalless.Its this that backfired on him because the game had virtually gone once the two strikers came on.If they were not match fit i would of still gambled in a winner takes all game and tried to get our noses in front then taken them off not the other way round.

Like most people on hear once i saw the team selection i thought we were giving them a massive advantage.

Give Bennett his due but come on he is a squad member at best not our lead striker in a game of this importance

[LB_DCFC]

23 minutes ago, KCG said:

Look your comment is wrong about me on so many counts, but I just can't be arsed to argue the toss. I honestly respect people's right to have an opinion, but you are wrong to think others think the same right should be given to me or others when we point out deficiencies. They really are happy clappers!

Fair enough, I don't know you personally so I won't comment further, just the impression you give lead me to that assumption. If it's wrong I apologise. I'm sure that many of those 'happy clappers' mentioned would be able to pick out fault with many things but choose not to, because it's counterproductive in many instances.

Also, many judgements criticising are full of hindsight on something unpredictable in many ways . Like saying Marriott should've started, I understand that view but also I understand Lamp's thinking behind his starting 11, and without a few individual errors leading to the goal I think that 1st half would've finished exactly as planned, an ineffectual Villa growing in frustration, best players not performing, and then unleashing Jack and Waggy on a more anxious and tired defence, after being occupied by a busy Bennett and (slighty less but still busy) Lawrence. I think he should've made both changes earlier and at the same time, but still in the 2nd Villa got their only chance from a keeper clanger.  You may call me a happy clapper for this, but I don't thing Frank got *that* much wrong in his initial approach, and of course we don't know the personal situations regarding match fitness etc

[KCG]

9 minutes ago, BaaLocks said:

I actually was surprised myself when I looked into it and - for me - I think Frank is going to go far in management, he's not there yet but he shows all the signs of being very capable.

As you say we could argue the toss about the names and if there's been a successful cross over. If Zidane goes onto manage us and makes us Champion League winners I'll accept he's on the same level as Brian ?

But that really wasn't my point. I didn't really see the analogy that was being made, was my point.