Relive every moment of every first team game since the beginning of the 2005/06 season. Our archive of matchday threads originally posted in the General Discussion Forum.
Billydinho wrote:
The football is much better. We have more than one attack per game.
You dont get points for having attacks Billy, nor for getting to the edge of the box, and having no idea how to break down the flat back four in front of you.
We don't pass the ball back and forth across the defence for ten minutes any more...
No, we do it across the midfield, and quite often back to the keeper.
Green doesn't launch it to Cole up front and hope for the second ball to drop to our midfield...
No, you are right, we dont. We give it to Green, who launches it forwards, but our midfield are so knackered from playing, and chasing poorly hit five yard balls that they have no chance of getting the second ball.
Status Kev wrote:Granted I only heard the game on the radio but apparently we were pretty good in the first half. As far as the result goes if it was a league game we'd have got a point which is more than we usually get up there. Considering we were missing several first team players I don't think we should be pressing the panic button after that game. Disappointed to go out but my glass is still half full and we'll beat Citeh on Monday and start to climb the table.
How's that for being positive.
I must be mad.
Yes Kev I agree with that ... well, the very last bit anyway
when Zolas team does it it's called "being patient" and "trying to retain possession". Not sure what the long balls to Cole are - maybe "being direct" or "being positive in the final third".
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love double standards :lol:
Went to the game last night. We looked very dynamic in the first 20 minutes, lots of passing and incisive balls and then it just stopped...I think largley because Dyer was blowing out his arse...can't understand how someone with so many injurys is STILL so damn fast!! Unfortunately we were unable to use that pace in any way shape or form.
Hines continued to impress, should've scored when 1 on 1.
Diamante, lots of trickery but no pace, he needs, very much like Tevez under Curbs, to be playing further up the field and more centrally.
Green..we all like the keeper to play it to feet or use a quick throw...but last night he was very guilty of looking for stupid short balls. The number of times he put players under pressure for no reason. In fact the whole defense were guilty of dicking about on the edge of the area.
N'Gala...Looked like he **** himself when he came on...very nervous. Not ready IMO and the defense pretty much crumbled after the substitution of Da Costa who I thought had a very good game.
Noble...my personal boo boy at the moment. sloppy passes, **** free kicks and no movement. Looks like he's either trying too hard or just doesn't know what he's doing.
Parker...Best player we've got by miles.
Formation isn't working for me, we can't get in behind defenses. The passing is laboured and obvious and inevitably side to side (or backwards). It's not even a case of retaining possesion because Bolton let us have the ball last night and we did nothing with it.
I think we've the players to be an alright side, Zola needs to have a serious look at his Formation and tactics though.
Noble...my personal boo boy at the moment. sloppy passes, sh*t free kicks and no movement. Looks like he's either trying too hard or just doesn't know what he's doing.
why was he taking any while Diamante was on the pitch? heard on commentary that noble had a crack at goal from but its surely gotta be down to diamante for any freekicks we get!
Ben wrote:why was he taking any while Diamante was on the pitch? heard on commentary that noble had a crack at goal from but its surely gotta be down to diamante for any freekicks we get!
I have no idea. Got a free kick near edge of their box early in first half..I was thinking here we go Diamante, work the keepr at least...Looked like the two of them were in debate who to take it...Noble then blasts it into the foot of the wall (that didn't seem to even jump!).
I may be reading more into it but seemd like the two of them were bickering all game (diamante seems like a good moan).
Also...we've had some joy from Nobles corners this season, so no problem there...but last night pretty much every corner was played short!!
I personally think the whole reason the formation is not working is because, we dont have dyer, jiminez, or collison playing as the most advanced man of our three central midfielders. Yes we have two attacking players behind cole, but our CM with Noble, Parker and Kovac would hardly know a defence spliting ball if it smashed them in the face.
Personally i want to see
Parker Behrami
Jiminez
Diamanti Hines
Cole
If we have no creativity then, i say we all give up and go home (or possibly play 442)
Agree Stu...loads of space last night but no one making the runs into it. Never let Hines use his pace against the defense. Haven't seen Jimenz play yet so not sure about him. We really miss Collison and Behrami who are out and out action players who seem to make things happen. Them combined with steady-eddy Parker are our best bet I think.
smuts wrote:
Billy....are you in a parallel universe? The above is exactly what we do.
How?
There's more pace and more fluency to our attacks. The ball is on the ground more and yes Cole maybe relied on to hold the ball up, but other than when we're defending, I don't see Green/centre back lumping it in the air to him.
Upson did a couple of times against Liverpool but other than that, I like the way we try to build an attack.
I think it's funny how Curbs was slated and Zola was the messiah. Now Zola's lost a few, the mood has completed flipped. Zola is tactically inept and Curbishley had to "ground" out results. Such as a dour 2-1 win against Derby, where McCartney wore the clock down by the corner flag.
Some people need to realise that in football, teams do lose. Sometimes they lose a few in a row.
Billydinho wrote:
The football is much better. We have more than one attack per game.
Got to disagree on one point Billy and it's a the heart of my frustration at the moment. I don't believe the good football gets transfered into attacks at all. Our attacking play is poor, meaningless and no end product, we don't score goals from free play enough. I call our attacks isolated incidents of getting near the opponents goal because that's all they are, nothing with momentum or domination.
davids cross wrote:
Got to disagree on one point Billy and it's a the heart of my frustration at the moment. I don't believe the good football gets transfered into attacks at all. Our attacking play is poor, meaningless and no end product, we don't score goals from free play enough. I call our attacks isolated incidents of getting near the opponents goal because that's all they are, nothing with momentum or domination.
I can see your point but we still are far more attacking and threatening than under Curbishley. If we ever took the lead, he'd put ten men behind the half way line for the rest of the game. It was atrocious. I used to dread taking an early lead...
Billydinho wrote:
There's more pace and more fluency to our attacks. The ball is on the ground more and yes Cole maybe relied on to hold the ball up, but other than when we're defending, I don't see Green/centre back lumping it in the air to him.
Upson did a couple of times against Liverpool but other than that, I like the way we try to build an attack.
I think it's funny how Curbs was slated and Zola was the messiah. Now Zola's lost a few, the mood has completed flipped. Zola is tactically inept and Curbishley had to "ground" out results. Such as a dour 2-1 win against Derby, where McCartney wore the clock down by the corner flag.
Some people need to realise that in football, teams do lose. Sometimes they lose a few in a row.
I think you'll find that not every one slated Curbs....................... and players wearing the clock down to actually win matches....what a heinous crime
Billydinho wrote:
I can see your point but we still are far more attacking and threatening than under Curbishley. If we ever took the lead, he'd put ten men behind the half way line for the rest of the game. It was atrocious. I used to dread taking an early lead...
But Billy...we done that on Saturday when we were drawing 2-2.
I really wished we could have seen how we would have played in Curbs only full season with a fit Bellamy alongside Cole (i'm not including Ashton in the equation)...........perhaps we might not have had to grind out wins...........rather than our current system of grinding out defeats and draws.
smuts wrote:
I think you'll find that not every one slated Curbs....................... and players wearing the clock down to actually win matches....what a heinous crime
But against a team who had won one all season? It was the perfect opportunity to build some confidence in our own ranks, but that never really appealed to Curbs.
I'm not turning this into a Curbs debate but people need to realise we are in better shape now than before. Despite us inexplicably losing a couple of games...
Billydinho wrote:
I can see your point but we still are far more attacking and threatening than under Curbishley. If we ever took the lead, he'd put ten men behind the half way line for the rest of the game. It was atrocious. I used to dread taking an early lead...
smuts wrote:
But Billy...we done that on Saturday when we were drawing 2-2.
I really wished we could have seen how we would have played in Curbs only full season with a fit Bellamy alongside Cole (i'm not including Ashton in the equation)...........perhaps we might not have had to grind out wins...........rather than our current system of grinding out defeats and draws.
The difference is we done it against Liverpool, where as under Curbishley we done it against everyone.
