Cizzler Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Guzan 7 - Clean sheet, with a few good stops and a good command of his area. Lowton 6 - Torn apart by Jarvis but was depressingly our only quality going forward. Put in a good cross when Benteke rattled the bar. Vlaar 8 MOTM - Our best defender. Comfortable on the ball. He looks quicker and stronger this season. A massive factor as to why the 3-5-2 is notably less disastrous this season. Baker 6 - Meh. He's good in the air but terrible in possession. Clark 7 - Seems to have cut out his habit of infuriating mistakes. I prefer him to Baker. Bacuna 6 - Did as well as could be expected against Downing considering he was in a completely new position. KEA 3 - A three may be harsh, but I can't stand him. He's weak, slow, can't control a ball, shoot or pass. He's shite. Westwood 5 - Probably the pick of our midfielders, depressingly. He put in a good ball to Weimann's one-on-one but he's also weak and painfully unimaginative. Sylla 4 - Gets a better mark than KEA cos he's actually quick and strong. He's shite in possession. That shot into the upper-tier almost made me sick. Benteke 6 - Unfortunately he deserves to be at a better club. Played like he knew it and hardly ran all game but I doubt he's fully fit and his two chances were almost the difference. Weimann 4 - God awful. He's crap. i can't recall if he was crap last season but scoring and blighting my judgement. But he's just complete crap this season. He can't keep missing one-on-ones and staying in the team. Also pathetic in a tussle with Morrison - hardly Hulk bloody Hogan. Kozak 5 - At least he gave the West Ham defence something different to think about and gave Benteke some space. We played crap. Our players are crap. I don't really blame Lambert. Luna and Bennett were injured which didn't leave him much choice. I agree with him that Bacuna at LWB is preferable to Baker out at LB. Baker can barely play football. Ultimately, we missed Delph and Gabby. Our midfield without Delph is turgid, weak and technically abysmal. How Lambert has managed to create a midfield that can't retain the ball is a talent - but it's not like he's pissed money away. He has his hands tied behind his back by Lerner. I said in the match threat his job is impossible. We are miles away from Everton and Southampton. Let alone Man City and Chelsea. I'd like to see this formation with Delph, Gabby and Luna back. Let's see Benteke and Gabby up front. Delph, Westwood and Bacuna in the middle. Okore instead of Baker and that's a far better side. Anyway, At least our defence is better this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Decent result, shit performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poitier Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 When Kozak came on for Weimann I got the same feeling of despondency that I always get when Bowery comes on for Gabby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Decent point away at a currently tough West Ham. Both sides similarly spectacularly average but West Ham seem to have spent more than us so have a few more older journeymen. If you can't win a game, just make sure you don't lose it. I think the formation was forced on Lambert today with the lack of Gabby and Delph. Not a lot else he could do really. What? 5 at the back was forced? Don't be daft. Not sure if you saw the game, but West Ham threw lots of balls into our box. All the time. It's what they always do. If you can have 3 physical central defenders in there you'll have half a chance of stopping them due to having more of a chance of getting to loose balls etc first. Then when picking the best players, with Gabby and Delph out of contention, Bacuna pretty much picked himself and we needed to bring Lowton back in as another experienced player. The players available with their respective abilities dictated the formation. They threw balls into our box, yet they had 0 strikers. We just didn't need 3 CB's. If you're going to put 3 in there, move Vlaar in front of them at least. So negative considering West Ham's recent record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Just 3 points off the bottom 3. One more loss could see us in it!!! Have you seen Palace, Norwich and Sunderland? They are all shite. Relax we will not go down. We wont get top 10 either but there you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchard Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Just 3 points off the bottom 3. One more loss could see us in it!!! Have you seen Palace, Norwich and Sunderland? They are all shite. Relax we will not go down. We wont get top 10 either but there you go. And we are what? SIX HOURS without a goal ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Decent point away at a currently tough West Ham. Both sides similarly spectacularly average but West Ham seem to have spent more than us so have a few more older journeymen. If you can't win a game, just make sure you don't lose it. I think the formation was forced on Lambert today with the lack of Gabby and Delph. Not a lot else he could do really. What? 5 at the back was forced? Don't be daft. Not sure if you saw the game, but West Ham threw lots of balls into our box. All the time. It's what they always do. If you can have 3 physical central defenders in there you'll have half a chance of stopping them due to having more of a chance of getting to loose balls etc first. Then when picking the best players, with Gabby and Delph out of contention, Bacuna pretty much picked himself and we needed to bring Lowton back in as another experienced player. The players available with their respective abilities dictated the formation. They threw balls into our box, yet they had 0 strikers. We just didn't need 3 CB's. If you're going to put 3 in there, move Vlaar in front of them at least. So negative considering West Ham's recent record. Doesn't matter if they're strikers or not, they're still in the box. They still need defending against. My argument is, we didn't set out to be negative, the game turned out that way because neither sides have a lot of quality and both press very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chappy Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 The fans Vlaar Weimann Guzan Everyone else What a dull 90 minutes. Only positive is the 3rd away clean sheet on the bounce (something which we can actually be proud about). We have shite all going forward though which is worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Villain4Life Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I thought both Vlaar and Clark had a reasonable game and voted for Clark as MOTM because the rest of you voted for Vlaar .. In other news : 4 games or 360 minutes of football without scoring a goal. We are old Stoke with McLeish as manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 We didn't set out to be negative? 3 CB's and 3 DM's? Seems the epitome of negative to me. It's what has bugged me more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 I remember when McLeish was here i suggested that the reason why he set us up so defensively was that we just weren't good enough to play any other way to get enough points to stay in the Premiership. It looks as though Lambert did the same today. But these are the sort of games that we usually at least try and win away. Lambert changed the entire set-up and why? Just because our left-backs were out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) Just 3 points off the bottom 3. One more loss could see us in it!!! Have you seen Palace, Norwich and Sunderland? They are all shite. Relax we will not go down. We wont get top 10 either but there you go. And we are what? SIX HOURS without a goal ffs. Also haven't conceded in our last 3 away games. Edited November 2, 2013 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cizzler Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) They threw balls into our box, yet they had 0 strikers. We just didn't need 3 CB's. If you're going to put 3 in there, move Vlaar in front of them at least. So negative considering West Ham's recent record. We had to play 3-5-2 because our two left backs are injured and it's the only formation without LB's we are familiar with. Everyone saw how shite Baker was there against Everton. Lambert didn't want Downing to have that opportunity. So 3-5-2. As for Vlaar in defensive midfield? What a bizarre and pointless suggestion. What difference would it have made?! He was our best defender and depressingly started most of our attacks from deep cos he was the only defender calm enough on the ball to attempt to pass it out on occasion. Edited November 2, 2013 by Cizzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 We didn't set out to be negative? 3 CB's and 3 DM's? Seems the epitome of negative to me. It's what has bugged me more than anything. 3 CBs as required. Or would you have preferred to have lost to a free-kick or corner, but at least not looked like we were set up to be defensive? Who says Westwood, Sylla and KEA are DMs? Surely they pick themselves as the 3 best CMs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 You mean away games? Just need to remember to win some home games and everyone would be happy. Or slightly less moaney. It appears this season we are more solid at the back ( good point) but lack the spark which we had for the last third of last season (bad point). Or we could just overeact and say its a crisis. I am good either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fun Factory Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 (edited) We didn't set out to be negative? 3 CB's and 3 DM's? Seems the epitome of negative to me. It's what has bugged me more than anything. 3 CBs as required. Or would you have preferred to have lost to a free-kick or corner, but at least not looked like we were set up to be defensive? Who says Westwood, Sylla and KEA are DMs? Surely they pick themselves as the 3 best CMs? Isa would say its Westwood's job to protect the midfield. Which he doesn't do. Which means he shouldn't play for us. Edited November 2, 2013 by The Fun Factory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 They threw balls into our box, yet they had 0 strikers. We just didn't need 3 CB's. If you're going to put 3 in there, move Vlaar in front of them at least. So negative considering West Ham's recent record. We had to play 3-5-2 because it's the only formation we are familiar with and our two left back's are injured. Everyone saw how shite Baker was there against Everton. Lambert didn't want Downing to have that opportunity. So 3-5-2. As for Vlaar in defensive midfield? What a bizarre and pointless suggestion. What difference would it have made?! He was our best defender and depressingly started most of our attacks from deep cos he was the only defender calm enough on the ball to attempt to pass it out on occasion. I'm not saying play him there, please read. I'm saying that our manager should have some nous and see that we didn't need 3 CB's and push him on a little bit. As you said, he was our only player today with a bit of presence on the ball. We needed more presence going forward. As much as I have defended Lambert, he doesn't seem to know how to change a game. We didn't need to play 3-5-2 today. You say we couldn't play Baker at LB and that's the reason we played 3-5-2, yet we still played Bacuna at LWB. Kinda invalidates your argument a tad doesn't it? We should have been more positive. Guzan, Lowton, Clark, Vlaar, Bacuna, Sylla, Westy, KEA, Tonev, Benteke, Weimann. The 4-3-3 has been proven to work away from home. Why change it to respect a frankly terrible, negative West Ham side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 We didn't set out to be negative? 3 CB's and 3 DM's? Seems the epitome of negative to me. It's what has bugged me more than anything. 3 CBs as required. Or would you have preferred to have lost to a free-kick or corner, but at least not looked like we were set up to be defensive? Who says Westwood, Sylla and KEA are DMs? Surely they pick themselves as the 3 best CMs? I like Westy and Sylla as players, but forward thinking CM's they aren't. That's fine if you have a positive player in front of them. We're not in crisis or any bollocks like that, but I'm just irked at how negative we were against a West Ham team that have lost their last 3 at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Wanted more from this, but with all left wing backs, Delph and Gabby out, not a bad result. Several spurned chances by us, this remains the most worrying problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 Lambert doesn't seem to trust, or believe the signings he has made can make a difference other than kozak. Helenius should have been on instead of kozak who looked off the pace again. Id have taken a point before the game so can't complain about the result, just the way we went about getting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts