Rovers13 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Lol it is NOT a 352. We do not play it like a 352 at all. First half it was. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MessiWillSignForVilla Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 villalad, you aren't reading my posts properly, the point you've just argued has nothing to with what that post you've just quoted says. Read the bit in bold, then read my post. Maybe I should have bolded the sentence before too. You still haven't answered me. What do you mean by us playing different and bader in the second half? We played the exact same way. You obviously agreeing with Lamberts tactics, based on the fact that you said "at certain teams we have to play in a different way". Well i hope for your sake that the guy in your profile pic is back soon, maybe we can nag in some 0-0 draws then. I've not said any different, read my posts properly. Lambert failed to adapt to how the game unfolded, and we lost because of it. 1 page back, and it's not the only time I've said it. And yes, you do have to play certain teams differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 You love to exaggerate, don't you villalad? MessiWillSignForVilla is basically saying we set up well against Everton, but when Martinez changed the game with his subs Lambert didn't have an adequate response and it cost us the game. Perhaps in your world that makes him "Lambert in disguise" and means his arguments are a joke that you can't take seriously...but I think it's a perfectly valid stance to have. You may be surprised to learn it is possible to think the manager is doing things some thing right AND some things wrong, rather than him being a complete clown who knows nothing at all and is in charge of a team that is already relegated (despite sitting in the top half of the table). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 villalad, you aren't reading my posts properly, the point you've just argued has nothing to with what that post you've just quoted says. Read the bit in bold, then read my post. Maybe I should have bolded the sentence before too. You still haven't answered me. What do you mean by us playing different and bader in the second half? We played the exact same way. You obviously agreeing with Lamberts tactics, based on the fact that you said "at certain teams we have to play in a different way". Well i hope for your sake that the guy in your profile pic is back soon, maybe we can nag in some 0-0 draws then. I've not said any different, read my posts properly. Lambert failed to adapt to how the game unfolded, and we lost because of it. 1 page back, and it's not the only time I've said it. And yes, you do have to play certain teams differently. No you dont. You need to play the way your team are most suitable to play. On saturday we did the opposite. We dont have the players to defend for a whole game. If the past 1.5 season has teached us something it is that a free attacking 4-3-3 formation is the only way we can play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 You're seriously suggesting that football teams don't play differently against different opposition? The mind boggles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 You love to exaggerate, don't you villalad? MessiWillSignForVilla is basically saying we set up well against Everton, but when Martinez changed the game with his subs Lambert didn't have an adequate response and it cost us the game. Perhaps in your world that makes him "Lambert in disguise" and means his arguments are a joke that you can't take seriously...but I think it's a perfectly valid stance to have. You may be surprised to learn it is possible to think the manager is doing things some thing right AND some things wrong, rather than him being a complete clown who knows nothing at all and is in charge of a team that is already relegated (despite sitting in the top half of the table). Lambert did the right thing in the first half? To sit back and defend and basically doing nothing? All i'm saying is that i don't agree with that approach and i dont think that was to "set up well" the goal were coming either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) You're seriously suggesting that football teams don't play differently against different opposition? The mind boggles. Of course that happens. And if you have a team that are suitable for two complete styles then ok. But you can't play in a different way if you dont have the players to it. Edited February 3, 2014 by villalad21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 But anyway MessiWillSignForVilla I understand what you are saying, but i also understand i am saying. We are obviously on to different sides about the first half performance. I thought it was terrible and i stand by that. You might agree or disagree with me but thats football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srsmithusa Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 And villa lad is WRONG !!!!!! IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 just before Everton got their equaliser, there was many posts on here saying the goal was coming or words to that effect. so it was clear, that Lambert would have thought the same.....Pienaar coming on obviously had an effect, as it has in many games against them ,so that is nothing new. with 17 minutes left, we just simply could'nt see the job through as has been the case many times..... we cannot deal with sustained pressure, without conceding ground and free kicks. we are the architect of our own demise. I think if we played that game again with the same team, you would get a similar result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 And villa lad is WRONG !!!!!! IMO I think I know what he means....players with limited ability, have less chance of applying themselves to alternative tactics. I think we all make it too complicated at times, the best players are able to keep the ball, when they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 It's a complete fallacy that we defended well or had the game under control. We defended because IT'S THE ONLY THING we were trying to do. It's like the crystal palace game against arsenal. They had 6 back defending but would you call it good defending? Not really, it's just playing negatively. WWasn't one of the points of getting rid of McLeish was that we wouldn't have to see a team set up defensively and try to steal a point? It's utter madness to think setting up 532 was the "right" thing to do 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14K_away Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 it was 5-3-1 (or 3-5-1) depening who wins that one, Holt was never going to get any traffic so we were essentially down to 10 anyway. I dont see an issue with the smash and grab that HAS worked for us quite well away but without Gabbys legs (or Albrighton who should have been on from the start in this case) that tactic did/does not work.. as we saw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avflife Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) You love to exaggerate, don't you villalad? MessiWillSignForVilla is basically saying we set up well against Everton, but when Martinez changed the game with his subs Lambert didn't have an adequate response and it cost us the game. Perhaps in your world that makes him "Lambert in disguise" and means his arguments are a joke that you can't take seriously...but I think it's a perfectly valid stance to have. You may be surprised to learn it is possible to think the manager is doing things some thing right AND some things wrong, rather than him being a complete clown who knows nothing at all and is in charge of a team that is already relegated (despite sitting in the top half of the table). Lambert is a complete clown though, in 24 games this season he has probably made two correct decisions tactically to help us win/draw a game, bringing on Lowton allowing Bacuna to play a more advanced roll against Cardiff and playing a midfield diamond against Liverpool at Anfield. Everton was sit back for 90 minutes and hoped we got a draw, McLeish in disguise. Edited February 3, 2014 by Avflife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted February 3, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted February 3, 2014 he has probably made two correct decisions tactically to help us win/draw a game 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 have to say saturday has put Lambert further down in my respect for him not by the result but by his actions and tactics. We played brilliant attacking vs Liverpool and WBA and then we go to a team with low conficdence after a thrashing and we meekly surrender. Vlaar should have been rested as Everton was a bonus game and we need him for the games after it. McLeishesque 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raver50032 Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 We got rid of the " Why Paul Lambert should get the sack" too early imo. It's all the same story, we get a good result and then in the following games we take 2 steps back. How is this progression? These next weeks will be crucial for us! West Ham (h) 1 pt Cardiff (a) 0 pts Newcastle (a) 0 pts Norwich (h) 1 pt We are relegation condenders, I can't see us picking up many points in the upcoming games. I thought Lambert where on to something, but yesterday he really showed he's true picture. All those games are winnable, even the game against Newcastle who have been severely weakened by losing their best player. They are winnable games Morph... We need an improvement for sure in this next run of winnables in comparison with our previous set of winnables pre-Christmas and over Christmas. This team is more than capable of winning games - they need to make sure they don't just flourish for a single 45 minutes and regularly. Let's hope we can pile some more misery on 'Square Head' this Saturday. Sorry for being childish but... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supermon Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 We'll get 12 points from the next 4 games, I believe! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 It's a complete fallacy that we defended well or had the game under control. We defended because IT'S THE ONLY THING we were trying to do. It's like the crystal palace game against arsenal. They had 6 back defending but would you call it good defending? Not really, it's just playing negatively. I don't see why playing negatively is seen as something that should NEVER EVER HAPPEN. Like, we should go into games and just play attacking football all day long because we cannot possibly be negative. There's a time and a place for it. Chelsea had something like 37 shots against West Ham, but mainly from long range and rarely troubled their keeper. The result? West Ham gain a valuable point which could well keep them up. Imagine them playing attacking football and getting hammered 8-0 like we did last season? Could well put them down. That's the decision you have to make in football sometimes. I'm not saying we were "right" to do this against Everton, but they are a possession-based team which holds the ball and passes their way through - much like Arsenal, but less gifted. Our tactics worked perfectly for 45 minutes to an hour, we managed to take the lead and soak up most of their attacks. Surely this is defending well? Even if you don't like it, it's playing well in a defensive context. Football isn't just about attacking. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I'm not saying we were "right" to do this against Everton, but they are a possession-based team which holds the ball and passes their way through - much like Arsenal, but less gifted. Our tactics worked perfectly for 45 minutes to an hour, we managed to take the lead and soak up most of their attacks. Surely this is defending well? Even if you don't like it, it's playing well in a defensive context. Football isn't just about attacking. Yes odd that a team with no recognised striker couldn't score against a team with 5 defenders on the pitch, its almost a shame we didnt try to make more of that situation before Everton did bring a striker on. Course ignoring that your argument would stand even further up if the team we had put out to defend could also hit on the counter better but of course that was hindered by starting with Holt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts