Jump to content
TeemuVanBasten

Positive signs but...

Recommended Posts

We still need to crack the code when it comes to working out how to get players in the box in games where were playing a team we'd expect to dominate the possession.

We pretty much played without a number 10 today. A mate of mine said that Rashica's end product was terrible like Hernandez, but just looks to me like he's getting in behind then has nobody to aim for. 

I can take a lot of positive signs out of that game, but when a player did get forward it was usually Rupp, but his 0 goals in 50 games for us shows that he's not the player you'd want fulfilling this role. 

I'm hoping that against weaker / mid table sides we'll be going with a more conventional number 10, and that this could actually be Sargent behind Pukki or Idah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our end product in terms of crossing was a mixture of poor deliveries and/or no one being in the right position. A good delivery would often be met with nobody being on the receiving end, and players on the receiving end would often be met with a bad delivery..

All round really wasteful.

But it does also feel like we weren’t really servicing Pukki in the way he would’ve wanted, quite a lot of balls into the box, rarely enough players forward to create any meaningful fortune, it all just feels a bit hopeful doesn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t understand our purchase of wingers, when we don’t seem to set ourselves up to use them properly - they get in, put over a cross and there’s never anyone in the end of it as we don’t get enough bodies forward  It’s a little odd.

Edited by Branston Pickle
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

I think our end product in terms of crossing was a mixture of poor deliveries and/or no one being in the right position.

 The opposition having quite possibly the world's best centre back could be thrown into that mix as a third factor I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rashicas final ball was fine, just as you say no sod in the box, our movement was very slow at times, they will need to be improved upon at this level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But being on the end of crosses into the box simply isn’t Teemu’s game. If we want to play like that we’d have been better off with Sargent starting up front.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Rashica did ok. Had the audacity to commit TAA down the line and stood a decent ball up to the far post, little jinking dribble and cross etc

The problem wasn’t so much Pukki but a combination of tiredness and Liverpool forcing us a bit deeper meaning that we didn’t have the legs to get/have anyone ghosting in at said back post to take advantage. 

It’s apparent we’ll both get fitter and play worse opposition where that kind of play will cause real problems. We did look seriously “underdone” today, Max running in custard for their third a prime example. Aarons is a serious athlete but the game took its toll today. He’s going to have a very different season this time around. We all know what Emi brought to the side in a creative sense but his defensive work, while acknowledged, was talked about less. It was apparent that he didn’t have the same in front of him today and if we intend to play a similar system with the same players, he’s going to have to develop a Drury-esque mentality and awareness when Ads had Hucks ahead of him. 

I think we (as if we didn’t suspect it already) need a better screen for the back four to allow PLM and Gilmour to operate in more advanced areas. Both players were highly promising despite the result. 

All in all, it wasn’t bad. The friendlies we missed would have brought higher fitness levels and more familiarity and a better understanding. I’m far from despondent despite the result and the outcome after going behind feeling oh-so-familiar.

We do need 1 or 2 more though. I can dream, but Skipp for Rupp (who did ok for the most part and will still be a useful option), in that side and I think we’re properly competitive.

But it doesn’t get any easier in the immediate future, does it? 



 

Edited by Duncan Edwards
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I thought Rashica did ok. Had the audacity to commit TAA down the line and stood a decent ball up to the far post, little jinking dribble and cross etc

The problem wasn’t so much Pukki but a combination of tiredness and Liverpool forcing us a bit deeper meaning that we didn’t have the legs to get/have anyone ghosting in at said back post to take advantage. 

It’s apparent we’ll both get fitter and play worse opposition where that kind of play will cause real problems. We did look seriously “underdone” today, Max running in custard for their third a prime example. Aarons is a serious athlete but the game took its toll today. He’s going to have a very different season this time around. We all know what Emi brought to the side in a creative sense but his defensive work, while acknowledged, was talked about less. It was apparent that he didn’t have the same in front of him today and if we intend to play a similar system with the same players, he’s going to have to develop a Drury-esque mentality and awareness when Ads had Hucks ahead of him. 

I think we (as if we didn’t suspect it already) a better screen for the back four to allow PLM and Gilmour to operate in more advanced areas. Both players were highly promising despite the result. 

All in all, it wasn’t bad. The friendlies we missed would have brought higher fitness levels and more familiarity and a better understanding. I’m far from despondent despite the result and the outcome after going behind feeling oh-so-familiar.

We do need 1 or 2 more though. I can dream, but Skipp for Rupp (who did ok for the most part and will still be a useful option), in that side and I think we’re properly competitive.

But it doesn’t get any easier in the immediate future, does it? 



 

Respectfully an honest appraisal of today. Bar the caveat of the last sentence. I would say both Liverpool and Man City could be viewed as the pre season friendlies we missed against the best teams in the league. 

I just hope we take the mentality we showed today into games against Brentford, Wolves and Southampton. The teams we should be going toe to toe with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our 4-1-4-1 formation when in possession left Pukki fairly isolated. We really needed Dowell in as an orthodox number 10 to link the midfield to the attack. Pukki thrives on through-balls, not crosses.

 

I assume Farke wanted the added defensive protection of a three man central midfield. As we played 4-5-1 when out of possession. Maybe this will change if we buy a proper defensive midfield replacement for Skipp. Allowing Dowell to come in and play closer to Pukki.

Edited by Pyro Pete
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought there was an obvious hole in front of the defence which meant they were able to get the ball in to the feet of their forwards to easily and an obvious hole behind Pukki which meant he was exposed and we didn’t have enough bodies in the box when attacking.

in fairness both were in part because Liverpool pressed us well at times.

we tried to counter the former by dropping Gilmour back which worked to a degree but he does not have the athleticism to play the defensive role in that position.

as I know has been said many, many times we desperately need that defensive midfielder in the side to play next to Gilmour. Not taking it has meant we’ve had to move away from our 4-2-3-1 formation. Get someone in there and not only will it shield the defence better but it will also enable us to support Pukki better.

I like some of the signings but I am hugely disappointed that position has not been addressed. It’s almost negligent. If we can’t sort it before Saturday then may as well play Sorensen there as he’s the only viable option really. 

Edited by Jim Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our problem is that we are a footballing side. Those who survive at bottom of premiership tend not to be. I see nothing to suggest this attempt will be different to the last one/ plenty of pretty phases but lacking the physicality in the middle and the killer touch up front. That strong CDM is desperately needed to inject some steel 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pyro Pete said:

Our 4-1-4-1 formation when in possession left Pukki fairly isolated. We really needed Dowell in as an orthodox number 10 to link the midfield to the attack. Pukki thrives on through-balls, not crosses.

 

I assume Farke wanted the added defensive protection of a three man central midfield. As we played 4-5-1 when out of possession. Maybe this will change if we buy a proper defensive midfield replacement for Skipp. Allowing Dowell to come in and play closer to Pukki.

Fully agree with this, Pukki got the majority of goals( Emi feeding) from through balls were space was created from no where, he rarely scores from conventional winger crosses. As said a proper defensive midfielder is what we lack and that recruitment will dictate our season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POSITIVES: We will undoubtably improve through getting to know each other as a team and new signings before end Aug, plus this was Liverpool! Passed ball out from defence much better than last premier league appearance.

NEGATIVE: Amazed we had 14 shots, didn’t feel like we were creative enough. Opposition teams may figure out our system and negate it. Then what do we do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Not taking it has meant we’ve had to move away from our 4-2-3-1 formation. Get someone in there and not only will it shield the defence better but it will also enable us to support Pukki better.

The exact formation we played we played the last time we were in the PL. There is no magical solution to guarantee both optimum defensive solidity and optimum attacking potential. Personally I thought the midfield three showed a lot of promise for large parts of the game, certainly enough promise to persevere with it for more than one game against a top four side. Against lesser teams there is enough fluidity and talent in that formation for one of those three to get further forward in support of the striker. Given that the team was severely disrupted in its pre-season preparations, I wouldn't be so quick as to judge the efficacy of Farke's planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, horsefly said:

The exact formation we played we played the last time we were in the PL. There is no magical solution to guarantee both optimum defensive solidity and optimum attacking potential. Personally I thought the midfield three showed a lot of promise for large parts of the game, certainly enough promise to persevere with it for more than one game against a top four side. Against lesser teams there is enough fluidity and talent in that formation for one of those three to get further forward in support of the striker. Given that the team was severely disrupted in its pre-season preparations, I wouldn't be so quick as to judge the efficacy of Farke's planning.

Yes snd we played it without the right personel although Amadou was not given a fair chance. Skipp is the closest we’ve come to sorting it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Yes snd we played it without the right personel although Amadou was not given a fair chance. Skipp is the closest we’ve come to sorting it. 

So you think if we would have had Skipp in a defensive midfield two the result would have been different? Pure speculation of course, but somehow I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We still need to crack the code when it comes to working out how to get players in the box in games where were playing a team we'd expect to dominate the possession.

We pretty much played without a number 10 today. A mate of mine said that Rashica's end product was terrible like Hernandez, but just looks to me like he's getting in behind then has nobody to aim for. 

I can take a lot of positive signs out of that game, but when a player did get forward it was usually Rupp, but his 0 goals in 50 games for us shows that he's not the player you'd want fulfilling this role. 

I'm hoping that against weaker / mid table sides we'll be going with a more conventional number 10, and that this could actually be Sargent behind Pukki or Idah?

This was pretty much going to be my first post on this board (long long time lurker!), and definitely agree regarding Rachica (rather than with your mate), there were just so few options when we did break away.

Farke seemed to like the "bigger" #10 in Stiepermann (spelling? sorry forum police not going to check) at times before so we might see Sergeant there, personally I hope so and think it's the way to go. Easy with hindsight, but wished we had gone with that yesterday in fact, with him looking lively when he came on. 

I guess that's football - Farke gets criticised for not adapting against the "better" teams in the past, but yesterday (hindsight again, no criticism) we may well have got more from the game with our usual formation/tactics.

Of course its hard to tell when already 3 down (were), but there was definitely was a spark there towards the end. 

Encouraged either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

So you think if we would have had Skipp in a defensive midfield two the result would have been different? Pure speculation of course, but somehow I doubt it.

We may not have won against Liverpool but yes I think if you had Skipp (or someone of the DM ilk) sitting next to Gilmour it would make a huge difference defensively as well as allowing us to play a midfielder up closer to Pukki and therefore get more bodies in the box. That is the sort of signing we desperately need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Our problem is that we are a footballing side. Those who survive at bottom of premiership tend not to be. I see nothing to suggest this attempt will be different to the last one/ plenty of pretty phases but lacking the physicality in the middle and the killer touch up front. That strong CDM is desperately needed to inject some steel 

Agree with this we are to slow and predictable and carry almost zero goal scoring threat . Teams that survive tend to play with pace and passion and a will to win like we did with Lambert in charge . Oh for a Grant Holt up front now .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

We may not have won against Liverpool but yes I think if you had Skipp (or someone of the DM ilk) sitting next to Gilmour it would make a huge difference defensively as well as allowing us to play a midfielder up closer to Pukki and therefore get more bodies in the box. That is the sort of signing we desperately need. 

And there we definitely differ. The idea that two unproven youngsters at PL level would have made the difference you claim is quite some speculation without anything to back it up. I thought Gilmour did well yesterday, but there were clearly a number of occasions when his inexperience led to him giving the ball away (more so than Rupp and PLM). We tried two defensive midfielders last time round and shipped a record number of goals against. Playing a number ten (pretty much every game) did not result in a very impressive goals-for column did it! As I said above, there really isn't some magical solution to this issue, and I'm pretty confident that Farke is well aware that he will need to be fluid in team formation to give us the best chance of securing the results we need according to the team we are facing. Yes we need another defensively minded midfielder but that won't automatically result in a return to 4-2-3-1 and a return of a number 10. Frankly, I think Farke knows better than you or I how to get the best out of this squad, but I'm willing to bet we will see a three man midfield many times during the course of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, horsefly said:

And there we definitely differ. The idea that two unproven youngsters at PL level would have made the difference you claim is quite some speculation without anything to back it up. I thought Gilmour did well yesterday, but there were clearly a number of occasions when his inexperience led to him giving the ball away (more so than Rupp and PLM). We tried two defensive midfielders last time round and shipped a record number of goals against. Playing a number ten (pretty much every game) did not result in a very impressive goals-for column did it! As I said above, there really isn't some magical solution to this issue, and I'm pretty confident that Farke is well aware that he will need to be fluid in team formation to give us the best chance of securing the results we need according to the team we are facing. Yes we need another defensively minded midfielder but that won't automatically result in a return to 4-2-3-1 and a return of a number 10. Frankly, I think Farke knows better than you or I how to get the best out of this squad, but I'm willing to bet we will see a three man midfield many times during the course of the season.

It’s not about Skipp personally he is an example of the type of player we need. In fact preferably we need someone physically stronger than him but he at least has the athleticism to cover the ground needed.

watford and Brentford both have pace and power through the middle that we still lack. Yes they had easier games than us but we do still need to address this so that our superior passing and technical ability shines through. Too many times yesterday they were able to play a simple pass into the feet of Mane or Salah on the edge of our box under no pressure. The centre backs need to get tighter but we desperately need that screen in front of the defence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not about Skipp personally he is an example of the type of player we need. In fact preferably we need someone physically stronger than him but he at least has the athleticism to cover the ground needed.

watford and Brentford both have pace and power through the middle that we still lack. Yes they had easier games than us but we do still need to address this so that our superior passing and technical ability shines through. Too many times yesterday they were able to play a simple pass into the feet of Mane or Salah on the edge of our box under no pressure. The centre backs need to get tighter but we desperately need that screen in front of the defence. 

Much to agree with there, Jim. Going to be an interesting final 2 weeks of the window but I’m sure we’ll get that big strong CDM (or two?) that we need. Then it’s just down to all these new team mates gelling together which thankfully shouldn’t take too long. I got the impression that Rashica may suit playing with Sargent, who impressed me with his cameo, more. Despite the defeat I could see plenty of positives, I think we’ll be up to speed come that run of very winnable games soon. Shame we didn’t get to play Arsenal yesterday as Brentford caught them at a great time, I didn’t realise that, 2 or 3 quality players aside, they have probably their worst overall squad of players for decades, and can’t see them making the raft of signings they need prior to our game thankfully (not that Edu’s signings to date have been particularly impressive).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

We still need to crack the code when it comes to working out how to get players in the box in games where were playing a team we'd expect to dominate the possession.

We pretty much played without a number 10 today. A mate of mine said that Rashica's end product was terrible like Hernandez, but just looks to me like he's getting in behind then has nobody to aim for. 

I can take a lot of positive signs out of that game, but when a player did get forward it was usually Rupp, but his 0 goals in 50 games for us shows that he's not the player you'd want fulfilling this role. 

I'm hoping that against weaker / mid table sides we'll be going with a more conventional number 10, and that this could actually be Sargent behind Pukki or Idah?

There was a moment yesterday when Rashica got free on the left hand channel with Pukki next to him and he put a cross in but absolutely nobody from the midfield had got forward to offer an option or a late run. I don't think you necessarily need a proper 'number 10' for that but you need one of Rupp or Lees Melou breaking forward. Maybe McLean is the best option for this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

There was a moment yesterday when Rashica got free on the left hand channel with Pukki next to him and he put a cross in but absolutely nobody from the midfield had got forward to offer an option or a late run. I don't think you necessarily need a proper 'number 10' for that but you need one of Rupp or Lees Melou breaking forward. Maybe McLean is the best option for this?

With Rashica being a team mate of Sargent for the past couple of years, I'm most interested in seeing how Farke can incorporate Pukki, Rashica and Sargent into the same XI.  

And I wonder whether we should just rest Pukki for Man City, don't want him going on a confidence destroying dry spell, just use the game to give Sargent and Idah the minutes, or bring Pukki on for 30 minutes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of positive signs if you ask me but we simply lost against a much better side, no shame in that at all. Really enjoyed watching the new signings.

Rashica looked lively and he will only get better, his final ball was lacking somewhat but once he gets to grips with his teammate’s movements you would expect it to improve. 
 

Gilmour impressed me, very willing to get on the ball and clearly has confidence in abundance. A few passes went astray but again, you would expect him to improve as the season goes on.

 

Yet to form an opinion on Lees-Melou as I didn’t think he was particularly that involved yesterday, but he’s a big lad and wasn’t afraid to get stuck in which was nice to see.

 

Very impressed by Sargent’s cameo at the end, willing to work hard and didn’t really put a foot wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Our problem is that we are a footballing side. Those who survive at bottom of premiership tend not to be. I see nothing to suggest this attempt will be different to the last one/ plenty of pretty phases but lacking the physicality in the middle and the killer touch up front. That strong CDM is desperately needed to inject some steel 

Exactly. Are Brentford a footballing side? Generally I think they are but they exploited an opposition weakness to score with a throw in and a header. You have to mix it up at top level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...