Stevo985 Posted August 24, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 24, 2015 Well we've just spent 9m on a LB. You'd expect him to have the technical ability and 'technical skills' at that price right? We spent 12 million on Ayew, you would think he may have a goal in him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weedman Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Yes. It does. It wasn't a bad pass. It wasn't even a risky pass. It was the sort of pass that's made dozens of time a game in every single game. Amavi turned it into a risky pass by doing the wrong thing with it and landing us in the shit. I disagree for reasons that I've outlined previously. At the very best it was a poor option as Crystal Palace had pushed their CB up, meaning their defence was out of position. There were better options available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by Brad If Guzan's thinking about the win, why has he not played the ball beyond their CB that has pushed up into our half? He's not thinking, and that's the problem. He's neither protecting the point, nor starting an attack. Schmeichal back in the day, used to know how to start an attack with quick distribution. This was nothing like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 24, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 24, 2015 THe only forward of ours who would win a long ball forward was in our half. The long punt upfield would have gone to nobody. The best option was to keep possession. Which is what he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weedman Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by BradIf Guzan's thinking about the win, why has he not played the ball beyond their CB that has pushed up into our half? He's not thinking, and that's the problem. He's neither protecting the point, nor starting an attack. Schmeichal back in the day, used to know how to start an attack with quick distribution. This was nothing like that.Played the ball up beyond their center back to who? Counter attacking isn't about launching the ball forward aimlessly and keeping your fingers crossed someone gets on the end of it Edited August 24, 2015 by weedman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by Brad If Guzan's thinking about the win, why has he not played the ball beyond their CB that has pushed up into our half? He's not thinking, and that's the problem. He's neither protecting the point, nor starting an attack. Schmeichal back in the day, used to know how to start an attack with quick distribution. This was nothing like that. Played the ball up beyond their center back to who? Counter attacking isn't about launching the ball forward aimlessly and keeping your fingers crossed someone gets on the end of it Scott Dann was pushed well up into our half, beyond Gabby, Gestede, Traore - as evidenced by the fact that he was the one that dispossessed Amavi. The reason Guzan gets a tougher time from me in this instance is because he had the luxury of time to make his decision. In any sequence of play players get a split second to decide what they're going to do. The keeper is sometimes the exception. Let me ask you this. If you could have the time over again, would you still want Guzan to roll the ball to Amavi? Or, would you rather he rolled it in front of him, bought another few seconds for our attackers to make themselves available for the long ball? Did he need to release the short ball when Palace are up the field and pressing our defence? The margins are fine in this league. It's probably harsh on Guzan, and this is in no way absolving Amavi from the critical mistake he made, but it's a harsh league and an experienced keeper should make better choices. I fear that Guzan hasn't used the time that was afforded to him - time that players in other positions rarely get - to make the best decision he could, hence why he gets some of the blame in a very poor passage of play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by Brad If Guzan's thinking about the win, why has he not played the ball beyond their CB that has pushed up into our half? He's not thinking, and that's the problem. He's neither protecting the point, nor starting an attack. Schmeichal back in the day, used to know how to start an attack with quick distribution. This was nothing like that. He had time to throw it out to Adama who was on the half way line. If he got the ball his marker wouldn't have stood a chance. He shouldn't have thrown it out as Caragher just proved on Sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weedman Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Its very easy to say now that "it was the wrong decision" after Amavi lost the ball and they subsequently scored, I wonder if it would still be the wrong decision if Amavi had breezed passed Dann and suddenly we had a counter attack on with players bursting forward and our left back and best player recently well in advance of their center back? Point is, it's not a clear cut thing, Guzan taking an extra 3 seconds to ponder his move probably wouldn't have made a difference, and if passing to a player is considerd wrong if there's an opposition player within 15 yards of him then Guzan was at fault, if passing to a player with an opposition player within 15 yards is completely normal (as it is) then he cannot be held accountable for it - otherwise, like someone said earlier, whoever passed the ball back to Guzan before his mistake at City would have to take some of the blame for that goal too 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by Brad Its a valid point you make. but if you watch the body language of Scott Dann when Guzan picks up the ball, you will know what wanting to win means......He never took his eyes off him (whilst the majority of our players were ambling back up the pitch) and then set about squeezing our full back....thats what going for the win is.....winning the ball in the oppositions last third. Its about concentration and awareness. Tim Sherwood is set up to win....He just needs to get his players to buy in to it. Ps setting up to win......... is as much about mental approach as it is about formations. Edited August 24, 2015 by TRO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killeen30 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I'm a big Guzan fan but it was a poor decision to release the ball so quickly, should have given Palace players time to retreat then roll it out if need be. Although Amavi takes the majority of the blame. As soon as Scott Dann turns towards Amavi Clark is pointing for him to boot it up field and he tried to play it out, silly boy. Point dropped. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 With everyone saying we would have had a point otherwise I should say, we (and by we I mean Tim Sherwood and therefore the team) didn't want a point. We weren't playing for a point, we were going for a win. Guzan was not thinking, "how can I play this safe so we have the least chance of conceding", he was thinking, "let's get this going quickly and we can counter...oh look there's Amavi". If Amavi had played it into midfield quickly and they had brought the ball forward and scored no one would complain about the "risky" pass This is a Tim Sherwood team, everyone is being trained to take risks and to try and score rather than try and not concede. You want aimless (safe) long balls forward every time we potentially have a point against a mid table team then we should have just kept Lambert. 5 mins to go, 1-1, 2 choices, try and win or try and not lose? Tim Sherwood will try and win virtually every time and sometimes that will mean we lose, but it also means that sometimes we'll bang in an 89th minute winner in everyone will be ecstatic Back on topic, there's no way in a million years that was a mistake by Brad Its a valid point you make. but if you watch the body language of Scott Dann when Guzan picks up the ball, you will know what wanting to win means......He never took his eyes off him (whilst the majority of our players were ambling back up the pitch) and then set about squeezing our full back....thats what going for the win is.....winning the ball in the oppositions last third. Its about concentration and awareness. Tim Sherwood is set up to win....He just needs to get his players to buy in to it. Ps setting up to win......... is as much about mental approach as it is about formations. well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Well we've just spent 9m on a LB. You'd expect him to have the technical ability and 'technical skills' at that price right? We spent 12 million on Ayew, you would think he may have a goal in him? Is this a cryptic way of saying you think Ayew's crap and should be thrown down the stairs? Edited August 25, 2015 by CrackpotForeigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 25, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Let me ask you this. If you could have the time over again, would you still want Guzan to roll the ball to Amavi? Or, would you rather he rolled it in front of him, bought another few seconds for our attackers to make themselves available for the long ball? Did he need to release the short ball when Palace are up the field and pressing our defence? I'd honestly rather he rolled it to Amavi. With a few minutes left I'd much rather we kept possession than punt it forward, especially as Guzan's accuracy on long balls isn't great. Now I don't know if Amavi was the absolute best option. There might have been someone else in even more space. But he certainly wasn't a bad option. And I genuinely think rolling it to a fullback is better than punting it upfield. People keep giving the fact there was only a few minutes left as a reason for not passing it short. That baffles me. I think that's exactly the reason he SHOULD have kept it short. It's much less risky to keep possession. We've been crying out for months, years even, for our team to not sit deep and just hoof it forward when we're trying to see out a game. Possession is the best defence. We just got unlucky that Amavi bottled it. Edited August 25, 2015 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Keeping possession would be a lot easier if you hold the ball until the opposition have gone back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted August 25, 2015 VT Supporter Share Posted August 25, 2015 That's kind of irrelevant though. If you can't pass the ball to your teammate when they're in 15 yards of space then you'd hardly ever pass the ball to anybody. It was a simple pass. Amavi **** it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 He did completely but that doesn't change my point. Much easier to keep possession when the opposition aren't still pushed up waiting to press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Didn't Carragher say it was Guzan's fault? Just to point out that a pundit has looked at it and blames Guzan for it, so this no blame lies with Guzan is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killeen30 Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 He did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weedman Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Carragher saying it doesn't make it true, pundits opinions aren't any more valid than anyone else's you know? We were all complaining earlier when all our season previews all the pundits predicted we'd struggle as we hadn't signed anyone and sold our best players despite us signing loads of very promising players. Pundits aren't always right, hell they aren't even often right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts