Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

Poor signings, no identity.. MOTD has a pop at us

Recommended Posts

And they are right. Does not excuse the fact that most of them are a bunch of idiotic morons, but hey broken clock twice a day and all that..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonderful insightful 2minute appraisal of our season.  🤣… Sadly we have proved national media right, I even phoned up that total t&@@@ Adrian Durham early in the season to argue our case, gutted that they were right.

I do believe however we will bounce back and find our identity again.  Otbc 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth will often hurts.  But their assessment of no identity and very poor transfer dealings looks absolutely correct. None of the signings have performed at anywhere near the level required, they are just not good enough.  The Club treasure gained by the selling of Buendia was wasted , resulting in the poorest squad in the Premiership. This is a result that can only be laid at Webber’s door, he owns that problem and the consequences are catastrophic. A sad, embarrassing season .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a pop it's the absolute truth. We've been an absolute embarrassment and shambles all season. Most weeks we look like a team that's won a magazine competition to play against some professionals

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said:

What does having an 'identity' mean?

 

I think it's generally used in terms of a style of play, or type of threat. 

For example in the good old days Barca were tikitaka, Stoke were route one.

I'd say they are wrong and we do have an identity, we're ****

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under DF we had an identity. Now we haven't. Quite true.

At the same time, to say Deano hasn't had time is stupid and wrong. What he has had time for is to completely lose any style or tactics. We don't string a series of moves together. We don't get people up in support. And we don't defend as a unit and that is why Hanley has to throw himself around so much because nobody else is at home.

WE were poor under DF because he didn't have the players good enough to play his style. That was his crime. To be let down.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, AJ said:

I think it's generally used in terms of a style of play, or type of threat. 

For example in the good old days Barca were tikitaka, Stoke were route one.

I'd say they are wrong and we do have an identity, we're ****

fair to say we had an identity under Farrke, more so in the championship with the close player and fanbase unity and Farkeball and all. Do we have any of that now?

Edited by cambridgeshire canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weird thing is, folks say we were better last time out, Murphy called us the "best ever bottom side" or something along those lines. We had a clear style, identity, approach, etc etc etc.

Yet somehow the table looks fairly similar. Conceding too many, not scoring enough. Very similar tallies in both columns. Same points on the board at the moment, though this team has four games left to change that.

We abandoned that philosophy and style under Farke at the start of the season. I think the Bournemouth game may have shown us what was trying to be done, in that we'd mix it up more, try both. Gunn seemed to have been told to hit it long if the short options weren't looking good. When they sat back to deal with that a bit, we'd pass it out again. Bournemouth couldn't deal with it and we ran them ragged.

Just didn't have the ability to deliver in the prem. And just like last time, passing it out from the back is great, but teams will learn that's what we do pretty quickly and push up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chicken said:

We abandoned that philosophy and style under Farke at the start of the season.

Exactly. Much as I love DF, we started the season very poorly and right from the start seem to have abandoned his 4231 system in favour of 433. Unfortunately, it didn't improve us defensively and further neutered our attack.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think identity is one of those buzzwords thrown about in football that doesn't really mean much.

Do Brighton really have that much more defined an identity than us? Or West Ham? Man Utd? Everton?

There are a couple, such as Southampton who are 'the' pressing monsters, but really most teams come down to athletics, not making errors and the occasional momebt of brilliance. Granted, we're bad at all of those, but call it what it is.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We sold Buendia and lost Skipp - and their replacements - Normann and Rashica - were not good enough to make enough of a difference and who will probably be off anyway at the end of this season.  Gilmour has been a disappointment too and Cantwell has contributed practically nothing.

Sargent/Tzolis/PLM were never going to be on their best game this season - but we will see better from them next season - they will prove their worth.

So I would agree - players brought in not good enough for this season, the manager at the time doing the best with what he had, then taking the blame for it when he should have been supported. Smith taking it on and doing the best he could too, but it was never going to be enough.

However, once we get over this season, we have a the players that look set to do well next season. Too late for this one, but you have to look ahead and forget this one - put it behind us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not convinced about the optimism surrounding Tzolis for next season. I had high hopes this season but it didn't work out and he was frozen out of the squad for large parts. Players returning from injury were given the nod above him. Is this going to be as simple as suddenly bringing him back for the championship and he plays a blinder? Probably not. 

He may be a player we will seek to offload in the summer. 

I've seen nothing to suggest he's going to tear up the championship. It's become a bit of a pipe dream for a lot of fans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

And they are right. Does not excuse the fact that most of them are a bunch of idiotic morons, but hey broken clock twice a day and all that..

 

I would be more impressed if they said such things at the start of the season. My recollection is that they were full of praise for signings like Rashica, Gilmour, Williams, Kabak, et al. As for "No identity"; can't say I have any real idea what that is really supposed to mean, and how it is supposed to substantively effect the team's performance. It's easy to toss off vague comments such as Farke's team was all out attacking, or that Smith's team is counter-attacking etc. but such "identity" descriptions are so much fluff. All teams in the latter two-thirds of the PL need to adapt  according to the opposition rather than exert some fictitious identity. Problems occur because of a failure of strategy and/or the ability to carry out a strategy effectively; "identity" has little or nothing to do with it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

I think identity is one of those buzzwords thrown about in football that doesn't really mean much.

Do Brighton really have that much more defined an identity than us? Or West Ham? Man Utd? Everton?

There are a couple, such as Southampton who are 'the' pressing monsters, but really most teams come down to athletics, not making errors and the occasional momebt of brilliance. Granted, we're bad at all of those, but call it what it is.

I disagree. I think most teams have their own style within the three or four normally used.

In the last two seasons, the very top teams have gone 433 but each different to each other. Liverpool's style is forward looking all the time, ManC's style is keep possession within that style. But each push men further forward up the pitch and bring the defence forward. And the full backs can go forward past the three in the middle.

I think DF wanted to adapt us to that style. No more two sitting but more of the total football of the seventies. Its attractive for the fans and leads to goal chances galore.

Unfortunately, the personnel for a 433 was PLM, Gilmour and McLean and Teemu, Sargent and Rashica. And aarons and whoever was left back found Gibson was not able to play in that system and would go narrow in defence, be out of position and be unable to counter attack.

In other words, the plan was good but the execution impossible with the players available. The top teams personnel can move the ball at pace within that system but ours couldn't and we looked laboured when trying to do it. But I wouldn't criticise DF for doing it. Football is progressive and he wanted to move with it. Personally, I am not sure Deano can or even wants to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing all those signings in one list really highlights what a ****ing awful job Webber did. I pity the cleaner responsible for the wall that money was pis5ed up.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfair to blame Farke for abandoning his style when he lost the 2 key players for implementing it; Skipp and Emi. The replacements were well off the mark.

Smith has failed to get anything out of them either which to me says a lot about him as well as the quality of the players.

Share this post


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

I disagree. I think most teams have their own style within the three or four normally used.

In the last two seasons, the very top teams have gone 433 but each different to each other. Liverpool's style is forward looking all the time, ManC's style is keep possession within that style. But each push men further forward up the pitch and bring the defence forward. And the full backs can go forward past the three in the middle.

I think DF wanted to adapt us to that style. No more two sitting but more of the total football of the seventies. Its attractive for the fans and leads to goal chances galore.

Unfortunately, the personnel for a 433 was PLM, Gilmour and McLean and Teemu, Sargent and Rashica. And aarons and whoever was left back found Gibson was not able to play in that system and would go narrow in defence, be out of position and be unable to counter attack.

In other words, the plan was good but the execution impossible with the players available. The top teams personnel can move the ball at pace within that system but ours couldn't and we looked laboured when trying to do it. But I wouldn't criticise DF for doing it. Football is progressive and he wanted to move with it. Personally, I am not sure Deano can or even wants to.

In essence then, identity refers to the style of the incumbent manager?

I think the problems come about by a lack of conviction. Whilst we 'ignored the noise' last time and got battered, we chopped and changed the approach pre-season (added to the covid disruption) & we've ended up with a strategy neither here nor there.

 

Share this post


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

Exactly. Much as I love DF, we started the season very poorly and right from the start seem to have abandoned his 4231 system in favour of 433. Unfortunately, it didn't improve us defensively and further neutered our attack.

Spot on, but from things he’s said since his departure it seems very likely this was an attempt to combat not getting the players he asked for from Webber to make the system work. I still think abandoning his philosophy was probably a big mistake, but we literally had no natural DM and no natural RW to make the system work so he had to adjust with what we had. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

fair to say we had an identity under Farrke, more so in the championship with the close player and fanbase unity and Farkeball and all. Do we have any of that now?

We still had much of that at Brentford in Daniel's last game. Certainly more than at any time since.

But there was a growing feeling that Daniel wasn't good enough for the PL. Now we can say that either Smith also isn't good enough or that the problem was elsewhere. Whichever I haven't felt any connection to Smith at any point since he's been here and for me he's done nothing more than Farke would have done.

It's entirely possible and I think likely that if he'd stayed the crowd would have turned against Daniel and I'm glad he was saved that. But how much happier would we all be now if Daniel was still in place for next season.

Farke's on a horse...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I disagree. I think most teams have their own style within the three or four normally used.

In the last two seasons, the very top teams have gone 433 but each different to each other. Liverpool's style is forward looking all the time, ManC's style is keep possession within that style. But each push men further forward up the pitch and bring the defence forward. And the full backs can go forward past the three in the middle.

I think DF wanted to adapt us to that style. No more two sitting but more of the total football of the seventies. Its attractive for the fans and leads to goal chances galore.

Unfortunately, the personnel for a 433 was PLM, Gilmour and McLean and Teemu, Sargent and Rashica. And aarons and whoever was left back found Gibson was not able to play in that system and would go narrow in defence, be out of position and be unable to counter attack.

In other words, the plan was good but the execution impossible with the players available. The top teams personnel can move the ball at pace within that system but ours couldn't and we looked laboured when trying to do it. But I wouldn't criticise DF for doing it. Football is progressive and he wanted to move with it. Personally, I am not sure Deano can or even wants to.

I'd argue the personnel on that slightly. At the very start of the season, the intent would have been:

Cantwell, Pukki, Rashica
Lees-Melou, Norman, Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With Watford now being relegated for the second time in 3 years and only 1 point above us, can we expect a load of articles about them being a waste of a premier League place and an embarrassment as well?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

With Watford now being relegated for the second time in 3 years and only 1 point above us, can we expect a load of articles about them being a waste of a premier League place and an embarrassment as well?

Nah! They've built up a debt of £139m, and there's no better demonstration of real ambition than being prepared to imperil your club by spending way beyond what you can afford. Just ask Sunderland, Portsmouth and Bolton fans.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will MOTD being having a pop at ManUre tonight because they had one of the strongest identities of all at one time and that is now all gone. They really are utter garbage.

  • Thanks 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...