Warnock been sacked

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote use r= "No Pasaran"]

 

Re: Warnock''s limitations... ''The best answer to the tactical query came from Rangers'' two games against Norwich City, in November and January, when in both cases QPR lost after Paul Lambert made substitutions and reconfigured his team, with almost immediate results, while Warnock failed to respond. In the game at Loftus Road, Norwich''s substitutions were followed by Clint Hill, the Rangers left-back, bellowing to the dug-out: "You''ve got to change it! It''s fucking five against four! They''ve got wing backs! You''ve got to change it." Change came there none, and moments later Norwich scored their winner.'' [/quote]

 

What that Guardian piece doesn''t acknowledge is that Warnock''s tactical options at that point were a touch limited since QPR were down to 10 men! They were going to be outnumbered somewhere on the field. That said, it does seem that Warnock wasn''t generally too sassy when it came to tactics.

[Bill 1,788]

"He just takes it all a bit too far."rather reminds me of someone complaining that ...someone else took his seat in a game of musical chairs

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote use r= "No Pasaran"]

 

Re: Warnock''s limitations... ''The best answer to the tactical query came from Rangers'' two games against Norwich City, in November and January, when in both cases QPR lost after Paul Lambert made substitutions and reconfigured his team, with almost immediate results, while Warnock failed to respond. In the game at Loftus Road, Norwich''s substitutions were followed by Clint Hill, the Rangers left-back, bellowing to the dug-out: "You''ve got to change it! It''s fucking five against four! They''ve got wing backs! You''ve got to change it." Change came there none, and moments later Norwich scored their winner.'' [/quote]

 

What that Guardian piece doesn''t acknowledge is that Warnock''s tactical options at that point were a touch limited since QPR were down to 10 men! They were going to be outnumbered somewhere on the field. That said, it does seem that Warnock wasn''t generally too sassy when it came to tactics.

[/quote]

 

I think that the point is that, while you can''t get away from having one player less, your priority is to be solid at the back, which is why the almost invariable response to a sending off is to replace an attacking player with a defender or defensive midfielder (unless you''re Lambert, in which case you put two more strikers on[;)]

As a manager you''re happy to concede possession further up the pitch in order to get men behind the ball and a 4-4-2 faced with wingbacks is potentially going to be overun on both sides, because you have to leave one player up the field as an outlet (otherwise the defence gets no respite). That means your opponents can effectively play with two at the back and flood midfield so that you''re swamped in the middle of defence. If they use wingbacks it then means that your fullbacks can''t tuck in to help the centre backs due to the wide threat. You simply have to go to a 5 or be very, very lucky to survive.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote use r= "No Pasaran"]

 

Re: Warnock''s limitations... ''The best answer to the tactical query came from Rangers'' two games against Norwich City, in November and January, when in both cases QPR lost after Paul Lambert made substitutions and reconfigured his team, with almost immediate results, while Warnock failed to respond. In the game at Loftus Road, Norwich''s substitutions were followed by Clint Hill, the Rangers left-back, bellowing to the dug-out: "You''ve got to change it! It''s fucking five against four! They''ve got wing backs! You''ve got to change it." Change came there none, and moments later Norwich scored their winner.'' [/quote]

 

What that Guardian piece doesn''t acknowledge is that Warnock''s tactical options at that point were a touch limited since QPR were down to 10 men! They were going to be outnumbered somewhere on the field. That said, it does seem that Warnock wasn''t generally too sassy when it came to tactics.

[/quote]

 

I think that the point is that, while you can''t get away from having one player less, your priority is to be solid at the back, which is why the almost invariable response to a sending off is to replace an attacking player with a defender or defensive midfielder (unless you''re Lambert, in which case you put two more strikers on[;)]

As a manager you''re happy to concede possession further up the pitch in order to get men behind the ball and a 4-4-2 faced with wingbacks is potentially going to be overun on both sides, because you have to leave one player up the field as an outlet (otherwise the defence gets no respite). That means your opponents can effectively play with two at the back and flood midfield so that you''re swamped in the middle of defence. If they use wingbacks it then means that your fullbacks can''t tuck in to help the centre backs due to the wide threat. You simply have to go to a 5 or be very, very lucky to survive.

[/quote]

 

Beau, I take that point entirely. I am of the "possession is pretty much everything" persuasion, and if I have a tactical criticism of Lambert it is that he sometimes (as against Spurs) puts out teams that cede midfield. That said, in Warnock''s defence he had at half-time taken off Mackie (who is an attacker?) and brought on Wright-Phillips, so he had made one tactical switch, or perhaps it was just that Mackie was playing badly?

 

As to Lambert''s up and at ''em strategy you mention, it does remind me of what Marshal Foch said during the Battle of the Marne:

 

“My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote use r= "No Pasaran"]

 

Re: Warnock''s limitations... ''The best answer to the tactical query came from Rangers'' two games against Norwich City, in November and January, when in both cases QPR lost after Paul Lambert made substitutions and reconfigured his team, with almost immediate results, while Warnock failed to respond. In the game at Loftus Road, Norwich''s substitutions were followed by Clint Hill, the Rangers left-back, bellowing to the dug-out: "You''ve got to change it! It''s fucking five against four! They''ve got wing backs! You''ve got to change it." Change came there none, and moments later Norwich scored their winner.'' [/quote]

 

What that Guardian piece doesn''t acknowledge is that Warnock''s tactical options at that point were a touch limited since QPR were down to 10 men! They were going to be outnumbered somewhere on the field. That said, it does seem that Warnock wasn''t generally too sassy when it came to tactics.

[/quote]

 

I think that the point is that, while you can''t get away from having one player less, your priority is to be solid at the back, which is why the almost invariable response to a sending off is to replace an attacking player with a defender or defensive midfielder (unless you''re Lambert, in which case you put two more strikers on[;)]

As a manager you''re happy to concede possession further up the pitch in order to get men behind the ball and a 4-4-2 faced with wingbacks is potentially going to be overun on both sides, because you have to leave one player up the field as an outlet (otherwise the defence gets no respite). That means your opponents can effectively play with two at the back and flood midfield so that you''re swamped in the middle of defence. If they use wingbacks it then means that your fullbacks can''t tuck in to help the centre backs due to the wide threat. You simply have to go to a 5 or be very, very lucky to survive.

[/quote]

 

Beau, I take that point entirely. I am of the "possession is pretty much everything" persuasion, and if I have a tactical criticism of Lambert it is that he sometimes (as against Spurs) puts out teams that cede midfield. That said, in Warnock''s defence he had at half-time taken off Mackie (who is an attacker?) and brought on Wright-Phillips, so he had made one tactical switch, or perhaps it was just that Mackie was playing badly?

 

As to Lambert''s up and at ''em strategy you mention, it does remind me of what Marshal Foch said during the Battle of the Marne:

 

“My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”

[/quote]

 

Good old Marshall Foch, the prototypical Paul Lambert!

I agree completely about our midfield, and I''m a firm believer that it''s been a major factor in our failure to keep a clean sheet so far (other than our awful goalkeeper [:P]). Barton''s goal at QPR is a recent case in point. Ayala and Whitbread had both tracked their men into the box, but the ball was pulled further back where Barton was a full five yards ahead of Lappin who should have been tracking him. I do, however sense a change of tempo in our approach over the Christmas period. Ever since our gung ho approach nearly resulted in us coming away with nothing at Wolves we have been more methodical in our build up. This was particularly noticeable in the second half at Loftus Road, where there were increasingly desperate screams of "Get it forward" as the game entered it''s final 10 minutes, but I thought the tactics were spot on. Use the full width of the pitch, keep the ball and tire the opposition out, because the chance will come, and it did.

[Bill 1,788]

"As to Lambert''s up and at ''em strategy you mention, it does remind me of what Marshal Foch said during the Battle of the Marne:

 “My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”

though speaking English did rather handicap his communications a bit - rather like our own Marechal Lamenbert, some might say

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="City1st"]"As to Lambert''s up and at ''em strategy you mention, it does remind me of what Marshal Foch said during the Battle of the Marne:

 “My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”

though speaking English did rather handicap his communications a bit - rather like our own Marechal Lamenbert, some might say

[/quote]

 

True. If he had said it in English, as opposed to:

 

"Mon centre cède, ma droite recule; situation excellente, j''attaque."

 

And the French, of course, only backs up my earlier point about how Lambert sometimes cedes midfield...[:D]

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"As to Lambert''s up and at ''em strategy you mention, it does remind me of what Marshal Foch said during the Battle of the Marne:

 “My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”

though speaking English did rather handicap his communications a bit - rather like our own Marechal Lamenbert, some might say

[/quote]

 

A perfectly reasonable connection , CF. Lambert is a N French name, and I believe there''s a Belgian Bank called " Banque Lambert" . Perhaps he ought to call in some old family favours for provision of some cash to spend this month ?

 

As regards Colin, it''s difficult to know what to make of his style.  On the one hand, you''d have thought that , knowing his tactical nous limitations, he''d not draw attention to them by making such stupid outbursts so regularly. On the other hand, there''s always the view that he uses  his "good old boy " routine to act as a smokescren to hide them.

 

Having never supported any team he''s managed, frankly I could not care less as to his lilitations or whinging. What I''m not prepared to stomach, however, are the sort of semi-libellous incinuations he made last week about my club''s manager and players.

[Canarino 0]

Hear hear, EPPS. I thought Lambert was very restrained and dignified in his eventual response.

[grantroederdisaster 0]

Thanks for the memories Warnock!

 

Our history would of been better had we appointed him when we had the chance in 1998!