irving boleyn wrote:I am at a loss.
Do the critics not see a direct correlation between the minimal squad strengthening over the last 3 buying periods and our very weak Team?
That IB is the contradiction. If the football is so much improved....does that mean we really have a weak team?
Or is it that the right tactical choices are not being made (poor substitutions maybe?) leading to poor results.
Or is it that the transfer strategy of weakening
the squad in the summer is actually now coming home to roost?
The amount of turd polishing this year by both managers MUST be taken into consideration.
Players who were bench fodder at best 18 months ago, Cole, LBM,Mullins,Etheringtone etc are now regular choices and almost automatic starters. It should be apparent that we are a poor team and will struggle under any management.
But we didn't last year.
There are a couple of reasons for that which I would suggest.
Firstly, the manager was more experienced and got his tactics right more frequently. Zola needs to learn that side.
Secondly, the board have set about screwing Curbsishley and are now doing the same to Zola.
Should you want to return to the days of Curbishley,and yes,he too,suffered from a weak squad, take a look at his record over the last 12 games of the 07/08 season.
Played 12.Won 2 Drew 3 Lost 7. Goals for 11.Goals against 27
So Zola has hardly had a detrimental effect on performances..
Far too easy to ignore context mate. Our form from March to May was very poor last year.....but was as much a consequence of midtable complacency and a desire to blood youngsters and get our injury prone players fit (the benefit of which we are seeing this year) as any deficiency in tactics / squad.
This year it's down to a small number of poorer players in the squad and inexperience within the management.
I saw a carefully chosen team yesterday which would have been endorsed by most of us play to the best of their abilities at both ends and delay the (on paper) foreseen result for 80 minutes.
Everton, this year, have been mediocre/moderate - and are not a patch on what they were last year. Their defence has leaked like a sieve, while they have been outplayed by Fulham, Stoke and Hull for large parts of each of those games.
They came into yesterdays game with Yakubu, Feillani and Pienaar all missing.
It is perfectly reasonable of the doubters to ask:
1) Why, when Upson got injured, did we not have a centre half available to replace him?
2) Why did Faubert end up at right back when it is clearly not his position ? is it because we didn't have a centre half available to replace Upson, in spite of being able to name 7 subs;
3) Was the substitution of Boa Morte the right thing, given that goals 1 and 2 came down that side after his removal?
4) Why was Parker still on the pitch "running on empty"?
5) Why are we suprised when players who being coached to pass the ball at all costs, give it away in their own half, whilst penned in by the opposition, and that leads to a goal?
6) Why are we suprised, that from a position of having two pretty immobile centre halfs on the pitch, that a forward with decent movement like Saha will eventually take them apart?
It seems increasingly that some basic organisational errors are being made that are undermining what appears to be excellent 1-2-1 and technical skills coaching.
The worrying thing about the errors, which everyone is bound to make occasionally, is that they seem to keep recurring.
Still, I fancy us for 4 points from the next 2 games