Ricardo's report v West Ham

[Dubai Mark 0]

Thanks as usual Ricardo, just about sums things up for me. Agree that Howson was definately the MOM, but thought it was the second half when the shape of the team more reflected two up front, in the first half in an amazingly nervy team performance Elmander hardly got a kick either, then when a slight adjustment was made and it was more like two up front he started to come more into the game. Big thanks to their keeper for the nice shot of confidence his error gave us and special mention to Gary Hooper, who not only started to put the graft in but also showed good control and courage to nail the penalty.   

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Ps - their goal wasn''t offside, even though he was in an offside position, because it wasn''t a forward pass

Agree credit to Hooper who is starting to show what he can do.

I hope we go back to 451 at Newcastle

[ron obvious 1,502]

Wasn''t he offside in the build-up?

[im spartacus canary 0]

[quote user="Dubai Mark"]Thanks as usual Ricardo, just about sums things up for me. Agree that Howson was definately the MOM, but thought it was the second half when the shape of the team more reflected two up front, in the first half in an amazingly nervy team performance Elmander hardly got a kick either, then when a slight adjustment was made and it was more like two up front he started to come more into the game. Big thanks to their keeper for the nice shot of confidence his error gave us and special mention to Gary Hooper, who not only started to put the graft in but also showed good control and courage to nail the penalty.   [/quote]keeping snoddy off it was his biggest challenge, whacking it in was the easy bit [:D]

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Wasn''t he offside in the build-up?[/quote]

That was what I was talking about - the initial cross, he was in an offside position but the ball didn''t go forwards so no offside.

[im spartacus canary 0]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]Ps - their goal wasn''t offside, even though he was in an offside position, because it wasn''t a forward pass

Agree credit to Hooper who is starting to show what he can do.

I hope we go back to 451 at Newcastle[/quote]This has always been my interpretation of the offside law, i run the line sometimes for my lads team and once i did it for the oppostion cos they didn''t have anybody and my lads team broke though 2 on 1 on the keeper and the ball was played square and put in the net, when i didn''t raise the flag i nearly got lynched, i called the ref over and he was quite happy with the goal but i had the opposition coach on my case for a very unpleasant 2nd half, i fronted him out and told him to learn the rules of the game if he''s going to coach kids but he wouldn''t have it, what really p1ssed me off was i did him a favour running his line in the 1st place the tw@t but of course you do question yourself when somebody is that upset over it [:D]

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Graham Paddon''s Beard:

If anyone thinks that we really played  442 (just because Sky said we did) I''m afaid is a little bit disillusioned. Very VERY rarely did we, even in possession of the ball, play a traditional "2" ie running into the channels of a back 4, and instead Elmander played a number 10 (I hate that) behind Hooper and looked awful.  out of possession we dropped , and dropped, and dropped. I know we all like to speak of two strikers, but we really have got to understand what we are watching.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, that''s one of the issues when playing a 4-4-2 against a 4-5-1/4-6-0. You can''t really press in the midfield as the loss of positioning can cause even more issues for a midfield that is already outnumbered. Just about every team I''ve seen play 4-4-2 against a 4-5-1 or 4-6-0 tends to drop deep and rely on a good defensive shape. I think there were times when our strikers could have pressed higher (one of the great things about two strikers is that they can press as a pair and you don''t lose any defensive shape, as the midfield and defence can retreat into 2 banks of four) and one of the reasons for the turn around in the second half was that Hooper and Elamander were more agressive in their pressing. As for your assertion that we played more of a 4-4-1-1, I disagree. When defending we certainly did, with one of the strikers dropping deeper in order to make it more of a 5v5 in midfield. But when attacking, it was more of a 4-4-2, albeit with the strikers providing more vertical movement (one go short, one go long) than lateral (working the channels). For proof of this, look a t the average positioning of the players on a site such as whoscored.com, you''ll see that Elmander and Hooper both played very high up the pitch, like a traditional strike partnership.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]Graham Paddon''s Beard:

If anyone thinks that we really played  442 (just because Sky said we did) I''m afaid is a little bit disillusioned. Very VERY rarely did we, even in possession of the ball, play a traditional "2" ie running into the channels of a back 4, and instead Elmander played a number 10 (I hate that) behind Hooper and looked awful.  out of possession we dropped , and dropped, and dropped. I know we all like to speak of two strikers, but we really have got to understand what we are watching.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, that''s one of the issues when playing a 4-4-2 against a 4-5-1/4-6-0. You can''t really press in the midfield as the loss of positioning can cause even more issues for a midfield that is already outnumbered. Just about every team I''ve seen play 4-4-2 against a 4-5-1 or 4-6-0 tends to drop deep and rely on a good defensive shape. I think there were times when our strikers could have pressed higher (one of the great things about two strikers is that they can press as a pair and you don''t lose any defensive shape, as the midfield and defence can retreat into 2 banks of four) and one of the reasons for the turn around in the second half was that Hooper and Elamander were more agressive in their pressing. As for your assertion that we played more of a 4-4-1-1, I disagree. When defending we certainly did, with one of the strikers dropping deeper in order to make it more of a 5v5 in midfield. But when attacking, it was more of a 4-4-2, albeit with the strikers providing more vertical movement (one go short, one go long) than lateral (working the channels). For proof of this, look a t the average positioning of the players on a site such as whoscored.com, you''ll see that Elmander and Hooper both played very high up the pitch, like a traditional strike partnership.

[/quote]

 

 

That was sort of what I meant philip and I was comparing it with the the old traditional "leave two up and hit it in the channels" of the past. You do sort of contradict yourself by saying we didn''t , but then we did. That''s my point. Our shape chages when we lose possession and it takes a long time to get back into the "2" sometimes. 

 

All good debate. Always like to hear your opinion Phillip.  

[south of the border 0]

"Thanks a fantastic result, we finally got the bit of luck we''ve been missing.

442 was a disaster - as you pointed out, west ham bossed the

midfield with 60% possession up to the equaliser and but for woeful

finishing by them the game would''ve been out of sight by half time

Fortunately after we drew level they resorted to route 1 which

wasted their midfield superiority and Howson produced a super strike

from a rare foray into the attack - without a holding midfielder he

could attack much less than normal. When they fell behind you could see

west ham lose confidence and we were able to see out the game,

reverting to 451 near the end which again gave Leroy the scope to get

forward for the 3rd at the death

So for me a great comeback inspired by the bit of luck we were

missing against Cardiff or indeed any of our recent games. I just hope

it doesn''t make people think 442 would be a good idea because it nearly

gifted the game to west ham today"

Pretty much the way I saw it CF, but thankfully we made the most of our

good fortune last night, against a better side the game could have been

over by half time & it nearly was had it not been for  2/3 good

saves by Ruddy!However, in our position it really doesn''t matter how

you get the points & the fact that we were able to turn it round in

the 2nd half & not necessarily play that well bodes well for the

future...I think!OTBC

[Phillip J Fry 0]

Graham Paddon''s Beard:

That was sort of what I meant philip and I was comparing it with the the old traditional "leave two up and hit it in the channels" of the past. You do sort of contradict yourself by saying we didn''t , but then we did. That''s my point. Our shape chages when we lose possession and it takes a long time to get back into the "2" sometimes. 

 

All good debate. Always like to hear your opinion Phillip.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don''t think I explained it properly then. What I''m trying to say is that when we were attacking, we played a 4-4-2. You could argue that because of the fact one of the strikers tended to drop deep in order to link up play when we had the ball, it was a 4-4-1-1 but, IMO, in a 4-4-1-1 the ''1'' behind the striker is constantly deeper then his forward partner, he rarely advances past the more advanced player. This wasn''t the case against WHU, one of the striker might come deep, but as soon as he had recieved and passed the ball, he then pushed up to join his strike partner. My point about the defensive shape was meant to illustrate that when we were defending one of the strikers usually dropped into the midfield in order to try and make it a 3v3 central battle. Your point about us taking a while to get back to the 2 is a good one, and it was one of the issues in the first half. In the second half, whoever came deeper would very quickly get closer to his partner making him less isolated. I don''t think that the slowness was a deliberate ploy, more of an issue of instructions being carried out on the pitch. I think that''s why we saw such a noticeable change in the second half.

[:)]

[Ginja 26]

Yeh Fer did run to celebrate with Bassong, Hughton seemed to look on awkwardly and none of the players acknowledged him, which seemed rather strange. Just repeating what I saw from the stream.