So what was the difference?

[Van wink 2,994]

WC

"Gunn was forced into the long kicks because, unlike Sunderland, QPR constantly pressed high and also pressed hard against our mid field"

Don''t entirely agree there WC. Goal kicks were going long as were plays from hand, there were many occasions when the ball could have been given to Pinto or one of the CH''s but it wasn''t done.

Thinking back to the Brighton game Farke was turning his back and putting his hands on his head when we were going long, I didn''t see that reaction last night. I accept that Brighton sat back more and it was very much a different situation but nevertheless it did look like a tactical change.

[king canary 7,580]

@westcoast

I didn''t think we actually ''controlled'' much on Sunday. Sure we had an awful lot of the ball but it was almost all in areas Sunderland were happy to let us have it. Our build up was ponderous and we were slow in transition which meant Sunderland always had time to get their players back in shape before we posed a threat. You could argue by not pressing and letting us pass the ball harmlessly in front of us Sunderland controlled us just us much as we did them.

I couldn''t go last night but it sounded like we sacrificed some of that possession in order to be a bit quicker in attack which worked for us. Watching the highlights we created far more dangerous opportunities last night than we did against Sunderland (I believe we had one shot on target until we were 3-0 down). For me you can only describe the performance on Sunday as ''good'' if you value possession above all else.

[Ray 111]

At goal kicks, when our two CB''s split to either side of the penalty area, they sent two players to mark them, therefore nullifying the opportunity to utilise them, plus they pushed up on our midfield. Consequently Gunn was not left with a great deal of choice than play a longer ball.

[Mickdundee 0]

more defence and more directness

Exactly what was needed, possession for its own sake is pointless

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Apart from the fact that possession is a pretty good way to stop the other team scoring. Last season we did plenty of take it in turns "after you" with the ball. Made for exciting football at times though lots didn''t like that.

[Van wink 2,994]

Mickdundee wrote the following post at 17/08/2017 4:16 PM:

more defence and more directness

Exactly what was needed, possession for its own sake is pointless 👍

[hogesar 9,618]

Completely agree with everything you''ve said Westcoast.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Van wink"]Mickdundee wrote the following post at 17/08/2017 4:16 PM:

more defence and more directness

Exactly what was needed, possession for its own sake is pointless 👍[/quote]But as nutty observes, seeking to dominate possession is not pointless; no team sets out thinking of dominating possession as being an end in itself. On the contrary it is valued as a more successful means to gaining points and winning matches than the alternatives.  The fact that we dominated possession on Sunday, failed to score, and lost the game does not imply anything as silly as pursuing possession for its own sake.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="hogesar"]Completely agree with everything you''ve said Westcoast.[/quote]Do I detect irony hoggy? [:D] Actually I was just keen to get myself over the 1000 posts line ........ And I was hoping it would turn out that Parma agreed too, but he doesn''t [;)]

[Van wink 2,994]

Yes indeed WC.

But we didn''t dominate possession last night and we won.

That in itself has little relevance, the point I was trying to highlight however was this, was there a change in tactics vis a vis dominating possession last night, or was the way the game unfolded a result of the higher press from QPR.

I thought we had made a tactical change.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Van wink

Well, Parma in his latest post on the Masterclass thread agrees with you about the tactical change. I might argue it out with one of you, but not two [:D]

[hogesar 9,618]

Irony? Never!

The QPR game lacked Farkes stamp on how he wants his teams to play, which is a shame in my book. The Sunderland game drew too much criticism in my opinion, but obviously fans are easily clouded in judgement when goals go in either side.

[Van wink 2,994]

westcoastcanary wrote the following post at 17/08/2017 6:51 PM:

@Van wink

Well, Parma in his latest post on the Masterclass thread agrees with you about the tactical change. I might argue it out with one of you, but not two Big Smile [:D]

It''s all about opinion, that''s what makes it so much fun 👍

[westcoastcanary 173]

@hogesar

[Y] I hadn''t then seen your post on the other thread, about NO. Hopefully yesterday was a case of losing the battle to win the war. The surest way of getting the fans onside is to win games. Last night might just turn out to have been an acute move on DF''s part, successful if so -- though the way the game went early on clearly caused him considerable angst.

[Van wink 2,994]

hogesar wrote the following post at 17/08/2017 6:58 PM:

Irony? Never!

The QPR game lacked Farkes stamp on how he wants his teams to play, which is a shame in my book. The Sunderland game drew too much criticism in my opinion, but obviously fans are easily clouded in judgement when goals go in either side.

That''s the way I saw it and to be honest I was a bit disappointed at first, but, my view now is that we have a manger who will change his approach and adapt, game by game , we haven''t seen the last of the possession football.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

This spot the difference stuff has to take the opposition into account. The way they play will effect our game and vice versa. If a team stops us having "easy possession" our share will be less than against a team who stand off us until we are closer to their goal.

[Guest]

There must be times when the style, tactics and personnel have to change. Whereas Carrow Road was a theatre of entertainment and goals last season, it might be that we will be better away from home when we can pass through teams who might be prepared to come out to play.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

But we set up differently from the start. Was that because of the opposition or a tactical decision to have one less defender at home where the emphasis is on the home side to win the game?