Some thoughts re yesterday's game

[Sussexyellow 55]

A few, hopefully rational, thoughts from my somewhat restricted view at Goodison yesterday.

- We played much better and were the better team for the last twenty minutes. Why? Redmond substitution, Martinez handing us the tactical initiative by going 3-5-2, BJ playing much higher up the pitch. Or a combination of these?

- Seb was visibly telling the players to lift themselves up after the second goal. Or that is what it looked like, it might have been to play higher up the pitch in which case add to the fist point.

- Our players were too often isolated on the ball. Where are our triangles to help them out? Could be we are sitting too deep, although they got pressed at the back as well.

- Seb and MO seemed to be carrying knocks throughout the game. Snoddy and Bennett also picked up knocks. Nobody hid or showed lack of heart in my view.

- Leroy gets caught in possession far too often. Have opponents now sussed him? His decision making on when to play the simple ball and when to go try his tricks need to improve. I think he misses having Howson alongside him which makes Howson important to us.

- RvW''s hold up play, close control and tackling when tracking all look like areas for improvement. So needs to bang in a few goals and get a few assists in the meantime to justify his place. He is right out of luck at the moment, denied yesterday by a fantastic save from Howard. He seemed to bemoan his frustration to a teammate after that as well Come on Ricky we all want you to succeed.

- We look completely lost when players run at our area with the ball. Failed to close down a not that quick Barry for the first goal, and made a mess of the tackle on Baines for the second. Happening too frequently. Get it sorted Hoots!

OTBC

[Bill 1,788]

Unfortunately Sussex it is those very triangles you talk of that are one of the cause of our failings. All very pretty and clever but hopelessly flawaed as they require one touch passing and the players to remain static - a tactic that allows the opposition to close us down, mark tight and leave the player with the ball, either seeing his pass intercepted or getting crowded out of the ball. I suspect this comes from Hughton''s belief that our players are not do gufted as the opposition and so should not dwell too long on the ball. You can see this in defence where time and time again we will see double cover whereby a City player will be behind the City defender as extra cover. Fine, but it all too often leaves player unmarked outside of the box, and allows players time on the ball to run at the defence. This method of defence also means that players funnel back to crowd out the penalty box, which encourages the attackers to attack en masse allowing them the freedom to move the ball around outside of the box until there''s a good shooting opportunity.As far as attack goes, yesterday was all too predictable with it looking as if an attack is merely a means of defending our goal by getting the ball as far away from our goal as possible rather than any serious attempt at scoring. Unfortunately tweaking the odd bit of play or getting one or two players to score will not change the underlying problem - one of negativity and too much ''respect'' for the opposition.We may never be in the high grid position in any Grand Prix, but as long as we have Mr Magoo behind the steering wheel we are always going to struggle.A new manager and coaching team is what is needed.

[Sussexyellow 55]

I take your point C1 and agree with much of what you say on how we defend.

I think the issues with the triangles is that ours are based on being static which as you say are predictable and lets the opposition press us. To me Everton''s triangles were fluid, forming, dissolving and reforming again. Always giving the player on the ball options and leaving us chasing shadows.

We talk on here about the creative no. 10 but on Saturday Everton''s attempts at the creative through ball were no better than ours possibly worse. I was sitting in the home seats and their fans were getting frustrated that our defence was continually able to cut them out. But their passing game using fluid triangles (my terminology) gave them another option which too frequently led to a player with the ball bursting into the box in dangerous positions. I contrast that with our style which requires a burst of individual brilliance from Redmond or Snodgrass to achieve the same result. Their way, seems at least, to improve the odds of success and the greater ball retention gives the defence a breather too. Now if we could add that to a bit of brilliance from Redmond or Snodgrass.......!

Now whether that is down to tactics, coaching or a manager not being prepared to take risks I do not know. As far as being a Hughton outer I have never got further than sitting on the fence which I am eyeing again at the moment. But I do sense that I am more in agreement with you than not!