A possible explanation...

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Could it be that the players were making a point? That CH demanded the negative one man up front nonsense and that the lads seriously wanted to make it clear it is not how they play? That after Mr Tough they have taken power and are dictating the terms to Mr Softy?

Just a thought...

[Yorkshire Canary 118]

If is was then it would amount to mutiny which is even more of a worry. i doubt this is the case though, more the players we have did not match the tactics

[BroadstairsR 2,163]

The players were just poorly prepared (by three highly paid coaches) in every possible way imaginable.

[Jonzey 0]

It''s a one off freak result, I''m betting on us to win the next game. And finish above Fulham at the end of the season.

[Kings Man 0]

I said it was a freak result myself after the match, but the worrying thing is I don''t know if it was or not.  I''m hoping the former, but fear its the latter.

If this wasn''t, I can''t see on that performance where we will get a win, at least until November.

The defence has got worse, despite Turner, but so has the attack - they are collecively and individually short on confidence - largely on a pre-season without goals or many victories.  The team looked best going forward - I know this is based on something like a total of 10 minutes in the match, but just trying to defend they didn''t believe they could hold out.  In fact the way we got cut apart felt just like last year''s two nil opening period.

[Redders Right Foot 22]

Here''s another possible explanation, the players come on the forums to see what people see, see that a majority of posters expect us to go down, and get disheartened, and couldn''t play.

[BroadstairsR 2,163]

[quote user="Across The Pond Yellow"]Here''s another possible explanation, the players come on the forums to see what people see, see that a majority of posters expect us to go down, and get disheartened, and couldn''t play.

[/quote]

 

I fail to agree with that. The majority of posters have been consistently positive, including me.

 

I''m not so sure now though.

[Ivan Easter 0]

They are payed to play and play they should there was enough fuss made about Holt so I hope that was not the case!

[ZLF 274]

 the negative one man up front nonsense

 

it was the same negative one up front that PL used successfully last year playing attacking enterprising football gaining us a good number of points away from home.

Its not the formation that is to blame.   Just as the 442 england use is not flawed but its the player application that means we dont progress beyond the quarter finals in major competition the problem yesterday was inept performances.    Yesterday we conceeded 3 goals with 4-5-1 and 2 with 442, which was only played for 32 minutes.  Both shots on target came with 4-5-1,  meaning both formations were equally poor.

It did seem that the tactics were to sit far too deep,  from the kick off pilkington and surman were behind their full backs too often and look at the last three goals,  the distance between howson johnson and the back 4 was insufficient,  meaning our defence has too little time to react and fulham have time and space to move the ball.   We have to step up the pitch and defend as a team.   And apply ourselves better.  

Do I think the players were protesting?  No,  it just seemed inept.   If it a player rebellion already they all deserveto be sacked - the players that is - such petulance can not be tolerated.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Agreed Zip. We sat too deep and consequently Holt was isolated and we had no outlet to relieve pressure or build pressure ourselves.

The thing that concerned me most is we didn''t seem to learn from our mistakes. Take the first goal for example, there had been numerous warnings before that happened with diagonal balls played in being both fullbacks before Duff finally broke the deadlock, that seemed to lead to the back 4 becomming stretched and leaving huge gaps for Fulham to pick us off.

[barclay seats 4849 0]

[quote user="Across The Pond Yellow"]Here''s another possible explanation, the players come on the forums to see what people see, see that a majority of posters expect us to go down, and get disheartened, and couldn''t play.

[/quote]

T**T

[Redders Right Foot 22]

[quote user="barclay seats 48 49 "][quote user="Across The Pond Yellow"]Here''s another possible explanation, the players come on the forums to see what people see, see that a majority of posters expect us to go down, and get disheartened, and couldn''t play.

[/quote]

T**T

[/quote]

that''s the way to do it! use your words!

infantile ignoramus.

see, if you''re much more creative, it''s a lot better.

[Bws Cat 0]

I don''t think so. I wouldn''t just sabotage my work because I don''t like where my boss put my desk.

[ImDrunky 0]

No point speculating what''s going on behind close doors, but I wouldn''t have thought that''s what they were doing. But I think we all can agree on that formation don''t work, and I just be wishing all week we will go back to how we used to play.

[Matt Morriss 69]

[quote user="Jonzey"]It''s a one off freak result, I''m betting on us to win the next game. And finish above Fulham at the end of the season.[/quote]

Make no bones about it this was no freak result. You get what you deserve in this game. We played the same v Borussia, that should have been 5-0 but for poor finishing. You replicate the tactics, team formation and performance against a Prem team and you get hammered.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Dean Coneys boots"]Could it be that the players were making a point? That CH demanded the negative one man up front nonsense and that the lads seriously wanted to make it clear it is not how they play? That after Mr Tough they have taken power and are dictating the terms to Mr Softy?

Just a thought...[/quote]"Hello, Nail?  I weren''t at the game today Nail, but that sound like mootiny Nail.  Has that Hooton lost the dressin'' room?  Mootiny for Hooton, tha''s what I heard Nail. That wouldn''t a happened under Lambert Nail, would it?  Wass goin'' on, d''you reckon?  I heard that was to do with shaggin'', Nail."