Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Chelsea defeat is your fault

Recommended Posts

Norwich could have achieved a point today. That they didn''t has been influenced by some unnecessarily negative criticism.

Norwich''s shape held up extremely well throughout the game, despite the strategic night are if an early goal concession.

The defeat stemmed from unnecessary positivity, arguably caused by criticism of the opposite.

Unlike Lambert, believe that Hughton is sensitive to the fans and wishes to build a united, long term structure into the future.

The like-for-like substitution of RVW for Hooper offered a good platform for the newer signing, despite his game not appearing immediately suited to the single forward pivot role. This answered clamouring from the fans, despite RVW being thorough involved throughout. This is fine and did not alter the pattern of play in the midfield are, where our structure performed exceptionally well for the majority if the game.

The game was finely poised prior to the substitution of Redmond and our shape was excellent. On the balance if okay we were as likely to score as Chelsea, which is as good as we can hope to do, given the disparity in individual quality if the 22 on show.

Hughton gave the dans what they wanted and went "ultra-positive" and introduced Redmond. I was hugely concerned by this and felt we were doing as well as possibly could strategically. The dans were happy, but the reality is that against superior teams, Redmond DOES increase our chances if scoring, but conversely he increases the chances of (high quality) opposition scoring to an even greater degree. This was sbsurely not the time to do it and demonstrated a willingness to listen and appease the wishes of fans. A desire for love, acceptance and popularity if you will.

Today was a perfect example of one of the occasions when the much-clamoured for positivity is actual fact the complete opposite. We were doing as well as we could, which was exceptionally well.

Hughton was not to blame for defeat, you were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Far too sensible for some to understand but I don''t think it was the Redmond substitution that lost it for us. Pilks looked shot and Olsson committed himself to far forward for that corner.I have no argument in going for it with 20 minutes to go but not keeping enough men behind the ball in the final 5 minutes was not smart play. Only one man has to make a mistake and there is no cover. When you expend so much effort to get back into a game against superior opposition it is criminal to chuck it all away with schoolboy errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
err.......... I think it''s supposed to be a pee takenot a very good one but I am sure he is pleased with itshame on you for falling for it Ricardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He brought Redmond on because of Cole coming off and them having no recognised left back plus pilks and snoddy looked exhausted. At the time i thought it was right move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Redmond certainly had an attacking impact on the game, but I thought at the time it might be a bit gung-ho. There''s no doubt it was the substitution the majority of fans around me wanted.What do you prefer? Attacking entertaining football with the possibility of nicking a win, or the best chance of taking a point from a game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hughton is the manager. It is his responsibility. If he is a weak man who goes against his better judgement due to the fans, maybe he is not strong enough to manage a Premiership side.

Of course he may just have thought Redmond was the right change to make, and I would agree with him. With Ashley Cole off the pitch Redmond could run rampant, and he did until the goal.

Today we lost because Tettey, in an otherwise stellar performance, made an individual mistake when he should have lamped it out of play or knocked it back to the keeper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Unfortunately it was a combination of 2/3 individual errors that lead to their second. It was very disappointing given how we had performed prior to this, but on another day Redmond would have squared it to Hooper and we would have gone 2-1 up.There''s also no guarantee that had we changed system and brought on a Johnson/Garrido that Chelsea wouldn''t have found a way through too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No-one who has been reading Parma''s always interesting posts on tactics and the grown-up way to play football would think for one moment the OP was a wind-up. Whether this particular point is correct would be better judged by posters who saw the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]No-one who has been reading Parma''s always interesting posts on tactics and the grown-up way to play football would think for one moment the OP was a wind-up. Whether this particular point is correct would be better judged by posters who saw the game.[/quote]City 1st has obviously never read them.Parma is no idiot and nor is it a wind up. Some will disagree but at the end of the season one point could make all the difference and one point was needlessly surrendered today.Many will prefer a gung ho defeat, me I would have been a bit more cautious in the last 5 mins.But then I''m not the manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
City1st wrote the following post at 06/10/2013 8:34 PM:

err.......... I think it''s supposed to be a pee take

not a very good one but I am sure he is pleased with it

shame on you for falling for it Ricardo

eh

your not very bright are you

OP raises a fair point

just because you don''t agree with it does not make it a piss take

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]No-one who has been reading Parma''s always interesting posts on tactics and the grown-up way to play football would think for one moment the OP was a wind-up. Whether this particular point is correct would be better judged by posters who saw the game.[/quote]City 1st has obviously never read them.Parma is no idiot and nor is it a wind up. Some will disagree but at the end of the season one point could make all the difference and one point was needlessly surrendered today.Many will prefer a gung ho defeat, me I would have been a bit more cautious in the last 5 mins.But then I''m not the manager. [/quote]That is nonsense Ricardo. It was not a gung ho (is that the current buzzword ?) defeat. Chelsea were well and truly on the back foot and if a goal was to come from anywhere it would have been us. The line up was pretty much the same with the substitutes being like for like so it was no more than a continuation of what had been happening - not ''gung ho''To say we should not attack when we are in the dominance and at home is absurd - likewise there is no guarantee that opting to defend ensures the score remains as it does. The reality is that the game has it''s own dynamic and we were in the ascendancy.As to a point being valuable then so is two points and as things were we were more likely to score which changes the odds of 2-1 in our favour to a bigger margin in our favour - and as any statitician will tell you project those odds over a longer time frame (more games) and you will be aheadA head of trying to grovel for a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unbelievable ''Hughton is too defensive'' ''Hughton is too attacking'' ''Hughton doesn''t make any subs'' ''Hughton makes too many subs'' ''Hughton didn''t pull on the shirt score a hatrick and flip the bird to Mourinho'' the man can do no right I swear. The final goal had absolutely nothing to do with Redmond or Hooper it was individual errors from pilks tettey and ruddy and it would have happened anyway jeeeeeeeeezzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We didn''t lose because we went gung-ho, we lost because of a bit of poor defensive covering and abit of poor goal keeping, individual errors which are part of football. There is no guarantee had we sat in for the last 10 mins that we would have got a result. To suggest that it''s the fans fault that we actually played well today seems alittle bit on the ridiculous side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]No-one who has been reading Parma''s always interesting posts on tactics and the grown-up way to play football would think for one moment the OP was a wind-up. Whether this particular point is correct would be better judged by posters who saw the game.[/quote]City 1st has obviously never read them.Parma is no idiot and nor is it a wind up. Some will disagree but at the end of the season one point could make all the difference and one point was needlessly surrendered today.Many will prefer a gung ho defeat, me I would have been a bit more cautious in the last 5 mins.But then I''m not the manager. [/quote]That is nonsense Ricardo. It was not a gung ho (is that the current buzzword ?) defeat. Chelsea were well and truly on the back foot and if a goal was to come from anywhere it would have been us. The line up was pretty much the same with the substitutes being like for like so it was no more than a continuation of what had been happening - not ''gung ho''To say we should not attack when we are in the dominance and at home is absurd - likewise there is no guarantee that opting to defend ensures the score remains as it does. The reality is that the game has it''s own dynamic and we were in the ascendancy.As to a point being valuable then so is two points and as things were we were more likely to score which changes the odds of 2-1 in our favour to a bigger margin in our favour - and as any statitician will tell you project those odds over a longer time frame (more games) and you will be aheadA head of trying to grovel for a point.

[/quote]
I agree with City1st. He''s dead right. We have shown time and again we do not have the defence to cope with holding out for a point. I am proud of the team performance today, and if it were not for those 2/3 individual errors, we would have gotten a point or 3 against most teams outside the top 6. If we had that team verse Hull, with that passion and cohesive understanding between them, I wouldn''t have been suprised to see us score 3 goals and win 3-1 at the KC.
a point a game isn''t enough, and we were and never are guaranteed that in any game. Today is a platform to move forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

an apologyhaving taken then advice and looked for other postings by Parma''s ham I now realise the OP was not a send up, it was actually what it was. A load of  psycho babble interspersed with a number of current must use ''in words'' Elsewhere we have had this meaningles gibberish " an occasional short term spike, before outcomes return to the mean"Well I would have thought that one of the defining features of a spike is that it goes down the other side otherwise it would not be a spike but a rise............................ so there will be a bit of it returning to the mean ...ie going down the other side. But hey ho, never mind the content check those groovy words baby ... outcomes. Yep, football outcomes ........... dearie me.However when we do go beneath the corporate newspeak what we find is contradictory nonsense. Todays loss is blamed on the actions of one man Hughton, yet previously we were told "The irony is that managers have considerably less impact on the success

or otherwise of football teams than is perceived from the outside".
Whereas those of us lesser mortals who are happy to use the language (and it''s true meaning) that has served us for a fair old few decades, and hold that todays''s loss was due to no more than player error are told that this cannot be so as "players must never be named or criticized". The context being that no fan ever criticises players rather than it being an instruction. Well we do. As seen on numerous threads today.But still what ever contradictions the OP holds we can comfort ourselves with these two thoughts...."W have a stable, capable, clear-thinking black manager, with plenty to prove in football and societal terms" and in regard to how well we do" Classic matrices are wages/points, transfer success ratio, resources/targets achieved"though personally I would prefer a manager who is just ''good at his job'' and is part of a club that keeps us as high up the PL as possible - and when either is not achieved that is down to them, not usNo amount of idiotic mumbo jumbo will change that fact either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nopenothing to do with me at allsomeone somewhere ......................

hmmmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, it was a good gameYes, the present line up looks our best and will hopefully serve us well against some of the lesser lightsYes, we attacked well and had chances to win it.Yes, we might have gained a couple of points instead of losing oneButThe fact still remains that we were tactically naive in the closing minutes and finished up with nothing.I fail to see why this is such a problem for people to accept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]No-one who has been reading Parma''s always interesting posts on tactics and the grown-up way to play football would think for one moment the OP was a wind-up. Whether this particular point is correct would be better judged by posters who saw the game.[/quote]

City 1st has obviously never read them.

Parma is no idiot and nor is it a wind up. Some will disagree but at the end of the season one point could make all the difference and one point was needlessly surrendered today.

Many will prefer a gung ho defeat, me I would have been a bit more cautious in the last 5 mins.

But then I''m not the manager.
[/quote]

That is nonsense Ricardo. It was not a gung ho (is that the current buzzword ?) defeat. Chelsea were well and truly on the back foot and if a goal was to come from anywhere it would have been us. The line up was pretty much the same with the substitutes being like for like so it was no more than a continuation of what had been happening - not ''gung ho''

To say we should not attack when we are in the dominance and at home is absurd - likewise there is no guarantee that opting to defend ensures the score remains as it does. The reality is that the game has it''s own dynamic and we were in the ascendancy.

As to a point being valuable then so is two points and as things were we were more likely to score which changes the odds of 2-1 in our favour to a bigger margin in our favour - and as any statitician will tell you project those odds over a longer time frame (more games) and you will be ahead

A head of trying to grovel for a point.


[/quote]

 

Neither the OP or Ricardo said we should not attack. The OP said the match was finely poised as it was and Ricardo not only said he was not against the Redmond substitution but there was nothing wrong in going for it during the last 20 minutes. The mistake, as Ricardo pointed out was not keeping adequate cover behind the ball during the last 5 minutes. It does not mean you don''t attack if you can but you do it judiciously. Foghorn says Tettey making the mistake is what cost us. Seattle says we should not just apply a defensive approach. That''s true but I don''t see those you are debating with suggesting we should. We were opened up at the end because when we attacked we did not have adequate cover when Chelsea broke and we panicked.

 

Surely, by now, we are all smart enough to realize that teams like Chelsea are more likely to capitalize on mistakes during the last few minutes of a game because a) they have more clinical finishers than teams such as Norwich and b) they have much more experience and quality at dealing with and managing risk-taking in the closing stages of a game than we do. In summary, we should look for the opportunity to attack late in the game when at home but we need to be smart about how we go about it or the opposition will slice us open like a hot knife through butter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Norwich could have achieved a point today. That they didn''t has been influenced by some unnecessarily negative criticism.

Norwich''s shape held up extremely well throughout the game, despite the strategic night are if an early goal concession.

The defeat stemmed from unnecessary positivity, arguably caused by criticism of the opposite.

Unlike Lambert, believe that Hughton is sensitive to the fans and wishes to build a united, long term structure into the future.

The like-for-like substitution of RVW for Hooper offered a good platform for the newer signing, despite his game not appearing immediately suited to the single forward pivot role. This answered clamouring from the fans, despite RVW being thorough involved throughout. This is fine and did not alter the pattern of play in the midfield are, where our structure performed exceptionally well for the majority if the game.

The game was finely poised prior to the substitution of Redmond and our shape was excellent. On the balance if okay we were as likely to score as Chelsea, which is as good as we can hope to do, given the disparity in individual quality if the 22 on show.

Hughton gave the dans what they wanted and went "ultra-positive" and introduced Redmond. I was hugely concerned by this and felt we were doing as well as possibly could strategically. The dans were happy, but the reality is that against superior teams, Redmond DOES increase our chances if scoring, but conversely he increases the chances of (high quality) opposition scoring to an even greater degree. This was sbsurely not the time to do it and demonstrated a willingness to listen and appease the wishes of fans. A desire for love, acceptance and popularity if you will.

Today was a perfect example of one of the occasions when the much-clamoured for positivity is actual fact the complete opposite. We were doing as well as we could, which was exceptionally well.

Hughton was not to blame for defeat, you were.[/quote]
The OP has sensationalised/exaggerated this greatly, but there is an underlying point there somewhere, because actually.... I thought the same.
Bringing on Redmond for Snodgrass at that stage of the game against Chelsea was very unlike Hughton, and I did wonder whether he was doing what he thought the fans wanted to see - which was us trying to win the game. 
That probably is what the fans wanted to see, but I wonder whether Hughton last season would have tried to play out the last ten minutes for a point - perhaps with Elmander and Snodgrass running the ball into the corner.
The OP has a point. Although a redundant one, because Chelsea could have won that game either way, and if we''d have brought Johnson and Elmander on to try and close the game as a draw and we lost we would have people on here demanding Hughton''s sacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We were opened up at the end because when we attacked we did not have adequate cover when Chelsea broke and we panicked."absolute nonsensethe cover was adequate for our player to have the ball at his feet but did not deal with it correctlythe subsequent shot hit the keeper and went under his bodyneither of those actions were a consequence of the manner of Chelsea''s attack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]"We were opened up at the end because when we attacked we did not have adequate cover when Chelsea broke and we panicked."

absolute nonsense

the cover was adequate for our player to have the ball at his feet but did not deal with it correctly

the subsequent shot hit the keeper and went under his body

neither of those actions were a consequence of the manner of Chelsea''s attack



[/quote]

 

City 1st, you are so "absolute" in your opinions while, at the same time, in your initial reactions to the OP and Ricardo, displaying a good deal of naivety in both understanding and digesting what others write as well as a good understanding of how teams like Chelsea regularly exploit teams like Norwich in the late stages of a game.

Of course Tettey did not deal with the ball correctly. That is what can happen when you panic. We were opened up for both goals because of what I pointed out earlier. Express your opinion by all means but try ( even though it''s difficult for you ) to not be so obtuse about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I personally thought several players from both sides were looking very tired, and Snoddy had been better than the other games, but still ineffective, and set pieces getting worse.

If Hughton goes for it more when 1-1 with 20mins to go, and on top. Against a lot of sides, we will either draw (1-1 or 2-2) or win, and be a net positive than settling for draws and getting defeats and draws.

You honestly saying a tired Wolfy/Snoddy is going to last the last 20 without a remarkable drop off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"]The fact still remains that we were tactically naive in the closing minutes and finished up with nothing.I fail to see why this is such a problem for people to accept.[/quote]Because the goals we conceded were not a result of tactical errors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Baracouda"]You honestly saying a tired Wolfy/Snoddy is going to last the last 20 without a remarkable drop off.[/quote]
I think a few people thought that Pilkington looked more knackered than Snodgrass. 
Although it was nice to see Redmond played on the right wing rather than the left. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes he was looking very tried, but having a cracking game. To say, they are the wrong subs..maybe someone could enlighten us what the right ones were.

Alternatively, we could have brought Garrido on, took Pilks off, moved Olsson up. Took Snoddy off but Whittaker on, and stuck Elmander on and played long ball??

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...