Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
I am a Banana (All Grown Up)

It's simple Glen

Recommended Posts

If you pick a team and they win then they stay together for the next game, If the team loses then it may need changing. If a player gets an injury or is suspended then changes must be made.

 If Wenger, Coppell or Sven doesn''t like/or understand  it then tough. Let them have the players back.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn''t agree more, I''d have to say that the first half today would rank as the most shambolic tactical managerial performance since the  infamous Megson new years day ''96 baseball ground debacle (anyone who was there will remember).

 The negative starting formation of 4-5-1- was clearly to keep all 3 central midfielders happy to the detriment of the shape of a side who have been succesful playing two strikers, not to mention the non-inclusion of Cureton a striker with 3 goals in the last 3 games.

If your playing this 4-5-1 system, your two wide men better be pretty good attacking palyers- not Ryan Bertrand.

Velasco was obviously having a nightmare and when Roeder replaced him with Pearce I assumed that he thought that he could do a good job at full back - but amazingly chose to move Doherty accross. Against a quick,small winger like Tabb we were always asking for trouble and I lay the blame for his sending off squarely at Roeders door.

He then mid-way tries to rectify the starting team by replacing Camara with Cureton. You could argue that he should be applauded for doing this early in the game, for me this just shows how horribly wrong he got it to start with.

In my opinion the 3 defeats in recent weeks are in no small part down to poor team selections,

 the Henry/Huckerby debate at Leicester,  The amazing decision to pick Gibbs ahead of Pattsion against Blackpool and this first half shambles today.

 You''ve done a fine job Roeder, don''t throw it all away now by letting prejudices/ favourtism cloud what is our best team and formation for the last 9 games, otherwise I fear that the end of the season may still be more uncomfortable than we would like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both well said.I don''t think Croft or Bertrand got wide at all before the ''mess'' started (sendings off).I agree about Pearce/Doherty - I actually believe Roeder hadn''t done his homework on Tabb.  I couldn''t believe it when Doherty moved over to right back - it was a hiding to nothing.Fortunately for me I got £15 from Tabb to score the 1st goal - I''d rather have taken the 1/3 pt(s) but there you go.I will say this - we played much better with 9 men!  Yes Cov had the attacks naturally, but their 1st touch was awful and they got nervous about getting that 2nd goal.  I thought Pearce, Shacks, Dublin and Bertrand (and Marsh of course) did pretty well at the back and I was proud of them keeping the score down at the end.Maybe we''ll get out of the blocks against Stoke a bit quicker - we need to or its definitely ''squeaky bum'' time.  The game of footy may be about scoring goals, but speed gets you places, we need faster players, or we''ll never get out of this division, trouble is they all reside in the Premiership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if Glenn''s fiddling about to see how squad members react to different tactics/combinations, plus keeping the Prem clubs sweet by playing their loan players on a regular basis. I reckon he thinks relegation/ top six isn''t on the cards ( he knows he can select a team capable of picking up enough points to avoid the former, but not achieve the latter), so he''s having a bit of a play. It''s all about next season now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also felt the original formation was an attempt to fit Russell back into the midfield while keeping Pattison and Fotheringham who didn''t deserve to be dropped. Russell should have had to wait for his chance rather than change the system to accommodate him. I don''t blame Roeder for picking Velasco, but when he was struggling we should never have taken our best central defender out of position to replace him. Why disrupt two positions. I would have brought on Evans and gone 442 with Russell at right back. We missed Evan''s running and workrate up front beside Dublin yesterday.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

Couldn''t agree more, I''d have to say that the first half today would rank as the most shambolic tactical managerial performance since the  infamous Megson new years day ''96 baseball ground debacle (anyone who was there will remember).

 The negative starting formation of 4-5-1- was clearly to keep all 3 central midfielders happy to the detriment of the shape of a side who have been succesful playing two strikers, not to mention the non-inclusion of Cureton a striker with 3 goals in the last 3 games.

If your playing this 4-5-1 system, your two wide men better be pretty good attacking palyers- not Ryan Bertrand.

Velasco was obviously having a nightmare and when Roeder replaced him with Pearce I assumed that he thought that he could do a good job at full back - but amazingly chose to move Doherty accross. Against a quick,small winger like Tabb we were always asking for trouble and I lay the blame for his sending off squarely at Roeders door.

He then mid-way tries to rectify the starting team by replacing Camara with Cureton. You could argue that he should be applauded for doing this early in the game, for me this just shows how horribly wrong he got it to start with.

In my opinion the 3 defeats in recent weeks are in no small part down to poor team selections,

 the Henry/Huckerby debate at Leicester,  The amazing decision to pick Gibbs ahead of Pattsion against Blackpool and this first half shambles today.

 You''ve done a fine job Roeder, don''t throw it all away now by letting prejudices/ favourtism cloud what is our best team and formation for the last 9 games, otherwise I fear that the end of the season may still be more uncomfortable than we would like.

[/quote]The non-inclusion of Curo first. Against two centre halves who were WELL OVER 6 foot. Cant blame a manager for that. We have all seen Curo disappear against big defenders. I will say we looked far better with him on the pitch, for my money it should have been Ched starting instead of Dion if we were going to play 451 - purely for his chasing and hassling of defenders.I thought Doc did a good job at RB and to blame the manager because a player gets himself booked twice? Are you really that stupid?Yeah he did get it wrong, i think he would admit that. Credit where it''s due though. He rectified it within half an hour. It takes a big man to admit his mistakes.In my opinion, the three defeats are in no small part down to the players not bloody performing. How can you blame Roeder for Fozzy and Pattison''s woeful  showings yesterday? Is it his fault they could not wait to give possession away? Is that what he told them to do in his team talk?"The amazing decision to pick Gibbs over Patty"...... You can not seriously be saying Gibbs would have been worse than Patty yesterday?Prejudices and favourites....? Prove it. Any single concrete shred of proof and i will retract all of this and parade round the City in a scum shirt. This is all lies and rumours spread by idiots. Hucks doesn''t get picked because he is not good enough. In fact you could have accused the past 2 regimes of favouritism for Hucks. Even when he was playing S**T he was still first name on the team sheet. Just because he is not the favourite does not mean Roeder has a personal issue, maybe he just is a bit more objective than the Huckerby loving fans and can see Huckerby is nigh on useless now. Dont get me wrong, great guy, WAS a great player, but is past it. Get him off the wage bill now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huckerbys still got more skill in his little toe than most of the wasters pulling on a yellow shirt nowadays , as for Roeder well maybe most of you have it wrong and hes not god after all , lets face it hes hardly been a roaring success at the other clubs hes managed has he .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Huckerbys still got more skill in his little toe than most of the wasters pulling on a yellow shirt nowadays , as for Roeder well maybe most of you have it wrong and hes not god after all , lets face it hes hardly been a roaring success at the other clubs hes managed has he .[/quote]Roeder was at Newcastle, took them to 7th in his first season, their best league position in the past decade. He also took Wet Sham to the same position, also their best league finish in a decade. Yes he got WH relegated, but in his defence, he did have a brain tumour to contend with.That is a success story in my opinion.Huckerby does have more skill, agreed, unfortunately he doesn''t have the pace to back it up. Or the intelligent decision making of say, Dion. (Although Dion was very poor on Sat.) Maybe most of you have it wrong and he''s not God after all, lets face it, he''s hardly been a roaring success at the other clubs he''s played for has he....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree with kick it off.

Also, every single decision Roeder makes is criticised by someone. He obviously knows more than all of us on here and thats why he is the manager and we are not!  I think some people would moan even if Roeder asked the team to train in yellow shirts and not green shirts!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="kick it off"]Roeder was at Newcastle, took them to 7th in his first season, their best league position in the past decade.[/quote]

Except from when they finished 3rd, 4th and 5th of course [;)]

West Ham finished 5th in 1999, too...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I also felt the original formation was an attempt to fit Russell back into the midfield while keeping Pattison and Fotheringham who didn''t deserve to be dropped. Russell should have had to wait for his chance rather than change the system to accommodate him. I believe Roeder actually said he played three across the middle to match the Coventry line up, having watched them midweek against QPR, not just to accommodate Russell. I don''t blame Roeder for picking Velasco, but when he was struggling we should never have taken our best central defender out of position to replace him.  Surely if Doherty is as you put it our best defender he should be able to play in either of the right sided positions.  Why disrupt two positions. I would have brought on Evans and gone 442 with Russell at right back.  I know what you mean as Russell has played there before.  We missed Evan''s running and workrate up front beside Dublin yesterday.  I agree with Evans up front, but I still think Dublin, with his reading of the game, would be better off in the centre of defence.

 

 

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="silver fox"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I also felt the original formation was an attempt to fit Russell back into the midfield while keeping Pattison and Fotheringham who didn''t deserve to be dropped. Russell should have had to wait for his chance rather than change the system to accommodate him. I believe Roeder actually said he played three across the middle to match the Coventry line up, having watched them midweek against QPR, not just to accommodate Russell. I don''t blame Roeder for picking Velasco, but when he was struggling we should never have taken our best central defender out of position to replace him.  Surely if Doherty is as you put it our best defender he should be able to play in either of the right sided positions.  Why disrupt two positions. I would have brought on Evans and gone 442 with Russell at right back.  I know what you mean as Russell has played there before.  We missed Evan''s running and workrate up front beside Dublin yesterday.  I agree with Evans up front, but I still think Dublin, with his reading of the game, would be better off in the centre of defence.

 

 

[/quote][/quote]

This post is a mess now.

What I was trying to say was that I thought that Roeder wanted to fit the three central midfielders he had available into a team. He may well have done it to match the Coventry line up after what he saw against QPR. But for whatever reason it didn''t work. When it was obvious it wasn''t working and that the right back needed replacing I would have brought on Evans, moved Russell to right back and gone 442. My point about Russell moving to right back was that as we already had two other central midfielders on the pitch it wouldn''t have compromised two positions. Although Russell has played right back before I would never play him there to fit him in the team. We did that against Bury the last time we tried to play the three together and that didn''t work either. But needs must, and with no right back on the bench I thought putting Russell there was the best option.

For me: Dublin is our best centreforward so keep him there. Doherty is our best centre back so keep him there. I always think when changes our forced they should be made with the least disruption to the rest of the team possible. This is not criticism of Roeder, he knows more than I ever will (as did Worthington and Grant) it''s just my opinion of the way I see things.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Huckerbys still got more skill in his little toe than most of the wasters pulling on a yellow shirt nowadays , as for Roeder well maybe most of you have it wrong and hes not god after all , lets face it hes hardly been a roaring success at the other clubs hes managed has he .[/quote]

[quote user="kick it off"]Maybe most of you have it wrong and he''s not God after all, lets face it, he''s hardly been a roaring success at the other clubs he''s played for has he....[/quote]

 

Greatest comeback on here for a while. Lol

Kick it off is absolutly correct. Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kick it off"]Roeder was at Newcastle, took them to 7th in his first season, their best league position in the past decade. He also took Wet Sham to the same position, also their best league finish in a decade. Yes he got WH relegated, but in his defence, he did have a brain tumour to contend with.That is a success story in my opinion.[/quote]Roeder also nearly relegated newcastle. His end at newcastle was 1 win in 10 games. Including an embarssing draw to watford, a thumping loss to blackburn, a draw against whu at home, and a loss to wigan. Hardly any of them being world beaters. I call that a failure in my book, but hey, it''s subjective.He also got WHU relegated, nearly relegated the gills out of the league entirely with them staying up by their teeth. He was sacked from watford with them dead bottom. They eventually got relegated and taylor took over them and saw them rise to the prem. He was also an assistant at burnley where they only just survived relegation as well. I''m starting to see a pattern emerging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="kick it off"]
Roeder was at Newcastle, took them to 7th in his first season, their best league position in the past decade. He also took Wet Sham to the same position, also their best league finish in a decade. Yes he got WH relegated, but in his defence, he did have a brain tumour to contend with.

That is a success story in my opinion.

[/quote]

Roeder also nearly relegated newcastle. His end at newcastle was 1 win in 10 games. Including an embarssing draw to watford, a thumping loss to blackburn, a draw against whu at home, and a loss to wigan. Hardly any of them being world beaters. I call that a failure in my book, but hey, it''s subjective.

He also got WHU relegated, nearly relegated the gills out of the league entirely with them staying up by their teeth. He was sacked from watford with them dead bottom. They eventually got relegated and taylor took over them and saw them rise to the prem. He was also an assistant at burnley where they only just survived relegation as well.

I''m starting to see a pattern emerging...

[/quote]

 

Fellas - you sound like you want Glen to fail. You shouldnt be called a fan. Just want to be proved right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fellas"]Roeder also nearly relegated newcastle. His end at newcastle was 1 win in 10 games. Including an embarssing draw to watford, a thumping loss to blackburn, a draw against whu at home, and a loss to wigan. Hardly any of them being world beaters. I call that a failure in my book, but hey, it''s subjective.[/quote]

He also had an injury list that season that you could have fielded another Premiership side with! They also finished 13th, not too far away I know, but that was mainly down to the injuries and the general mess the club is in. Just look at them now, Keegan is the second manager they''ve had since Roeder. What does that tell you?

The flak that Roeder is getting on here saddens me, it really does. He has took a club that was rock bottom and 5 or 6 points away from safety in November and has steered us up to almost within touching distance of the top 10 (No, I don''t mean play-offs). We were doomed when he came in. Yes, he''s not perfect (If he was, he''d be managing a top Premiership club - and no, not Newcastle!), yes he''s made the odd mistake, but for crying out loud even people like Arsene Wenger make mistakes! Bascially, if anyone had offered me 13th place by the start of March or by the end of the season, then I wouldn''t have just snapped both their hands off, I''d have snapped both their arms off too!

So take that into consideration and lay off him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigmark, I don''t think anybody is bashing roeder. They are just pointing out that he has made some very very bad tactical mistakes. Now I put this to you, if it was grant or worthy who had made those mistake everybody would have been up in arms and calling for them to be sacked. He has to hold his hands up and say: "I was wrong, sorry", and not keep making snides at the fans and media. They have every right to question some of his bizarre decisions. I am genuinely concerned that we will keep getting this "don''t question the manager" mentality again that oh so often has hurt us in the past 3 seasons. I would be delighted on staying up this season, but I won''t be delighted if we end the season limping in by the odd point and only 1 win in 10. That is not the right mind-set to end the season. I am very concerned because roeder''s former after his honey-moon''s, well to be frank, is abysmal. I''m am seriously concerened we''ll have KTFer''s who will be pleased with us being 21st next season just because he kept us up last season. I really hope that that doesn''t happen. I hope we do as good as we can next season and are challenging for the play-offs or better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although we have had a poor run, to be fair to Roeder perhaps he is using the remainder of this season towards next season and experimenting so we can hit the ground running next time.........just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dangerous experiment imo, do that once we pass the points needed. I kept saying the run was papering over the cracks, i still believe that, we are way off where we should be, just hope Roeder gets the backing needed.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...