WPM R12 vs Melbourne City | Fri 3rd Jan | 7:00pm | Sky Sport 3

theprof

I dont think this is a club issue, nor is it a lack of players issue. As I've said earlier Cheif has te player he wants at his disposal. Besides Rojas and Colacovski - who are recent injuries. Two injuries to two supposedly influencial players on the pitch(?) should not derail a manager's plans. 
This down turn is totally tactical! Cheif changes things up to a style more of his own liking, he talked about it pre-season and many times in the early interviews. I can see what he is trying to do, but from a playing persepctive it is very difficult and totally different to what most teams would be asking.  I'm hoping he and the squad spend the next week orking out a style of play they can all agree on and manage to put put out on the pitch. Cos at the moment the fluid shape and no structure is not working for anyone.
We have Adelaide on Saturday and then Sydney on Wednesday at home, with Macarthur on monday 20th away. All tough but winnable games. First two are must win to restore some faith from the fans that bother to show up.

Completely agree have said for some time maybe the players just arnt able to deliver what Chief has been talking about and sadly his stubbornness not to change and untimely injuries have lead us into this situation.
Being my normal optimistic self i still think its recoverable but it requires Chief to implement change if he dosnt i think we are done. 

What? Honestly. 

We had a reasonable start to the season. Then we’ve had injuries and we don’t have sufficient depth in our squad. 

After our first five we’d won 3, drawn 1 and lost 1. And that loss was a derby we’d arguably dominated.

We haven’t properly replaced our creative players and without Rufer and with Payne at less than 100% we don’t have enough creativity. 

Then on top of that our plan B in Colakovski is out long term injured and one of our imports is unwanted but still takes squad and cap space.

We were doing fine, but Walker, Brooke-Smith and Piper by themselves are not enough to compensate for these player issues. 

It’s not mysterious tactics that are the problem, it’s that we lack players with experience at A league level and above. It was a thin squad and now it’s simply not enough for us to be competitive. 

martinb

What? Honestly. 

We had a reasonable start to the season. Then we’ve had injuries and we don’t have sufficient depth in our squad. 

After our first five we’d won 3, drawn 1 and lost 1. And that loss was a derby we’d arguably dominated.

We haven’t properly replaced our creative players and without Rufer and with Payne at less than 100% we don’t have enough creativity. 

Then on top of that our plan B in Colakovski is out long term injured and one of our imports is unwanted but still takes squad and cap space.

We were doing fine, but Walker, Brooke-Smith and Piper by themselves are not enough to compensate for these player issues. 

It’s not mysterious tactics that are the problem, it’s that we lack players with experience at A league level and above. It was a thin squad and now it’s simply not enough for us to be competitive. 

Talk about hitting the nail right on the head.
However, it shows with the players we have in selection, something does need to be changed to make us more competitive as the players we currently have aren’t great enough to the play the style Chiefy wants..

I think this just shows how results can really paper over the mood of the team. Last year we had a really similar game away to Melbourne Victory where we got a draw with no shots after winning our first two games and 1 draw so we could forget the performance and take the result. 

If we had beaten MacArthur a few weeks ago which we should've and somehow scraped a draw in this game from that one chance we had with LBS we'd be sitting just outside the 6 with a game in hand to a few of the teams above us and we'd be a whole lot less negative with how we're going.

But I don't think this team is as capable as last years to be able to grind those results so I think Chiefy needs to figure out what team we want to be.

martinb

What? Honestly. 

We had a reasonable start to the season. Then we’ve had injuries and we don’t have sufficient depth in our squad. 

After our first five we’d won 3, drawn 1 and lost 1. And that loss was a derby we’d arguably dominated.

We haven’t properly replaced our creative players and without Rufer and with Payne at less than 100% we don’t have enough creativity. 

Then on top of that our plan B in Colakovski is out long term injured and one of our imports is unwanted but still takes squad and cap space.

We were doing fine, but Walker, Brooke-Smith and Piper by themselves are not enough to compensate for these player issues. 

It’s not mysterious tactics that are the problem, it’s that we lack players with experience at A league level and above. It was a thin squad and now it’s simply not enough for us to be competitive. 

Problem is City had to rely on a lot of youngsters themselves and totally outplayed us, so how come other teams manage to use the kids but we struggle?

martinb

What? Honestly. 

We had a reasonable start to the season. Then we’ve had injuries and we don’t have sufficient depth in our squad. 

After our first five we’d won 3, drawn 1 and lost 1. And that loss was a derby we’d arguably dominated.

We haven’t properly replaced our creative players and without Rufer and with Payne at less than 100% we don’t have enough creativity. 

Then on top of that our plan B in Colakovski is out long term injured and one of our imports is unwanted but still takes squad and cap space.

We were doing fine, but Walker, Brooke-Smith and Piper by themselves are not enough to compensate for these player issues. 

It’s not mysterious tactics that are the problem, it’s that we lack players with experience at A league level and above. It was a thin squad and now it’s simply not enough for us to be competitive. 

theaucklandphoenixfan

martinb

What? Honestly. 

We had a reasonable start to the season. Then we’ve had injuries and we don’t have sufficient depth in our squad. 

After our first five we’d won 3, drawn 1 and lost 1. And that loss was a derby we’d arguably dominated.

We haven’t properly replaced our creative players and without Rufer and with Payne at less than 100% we don’t have enough creativity. 

Then on top of that our plan B in Colakovski is out long term injured and one of our imports is unwanted but still takes squad and cap space.

We were doing fine, but Walker, Brooke-Smith and Piper by themselves are not enough to compensate for these player issues. 

It’s not mysterious tactics that are the problem, it’s that we lack players with experience at A league level and above. It was a thin squad and now it’s simply not enough for us to be competitive. 

Talk about hitting the nail right on the head.
However, it shows with the players we have in selection, something does need to be changed to make us more competitive as the players we currently have aren’t great enough to the play the style Chiefy wants..

The issues are absolutely with Chiefy atm. His tactics are not working at all and if he doesn't have the players to play the style he wants then he needs to adapt to what he does have, that's all part of being a decent coach. So far he has not shown that he can do that. This isnt the premier league, we can't just buy our way to success. In fact, if Chiefys system doesn't work without having some of the best players in the league then what is he doing here? This is Wellington not Sydney, we don't have the money nor the status.

Zero shots is fudgeing unacceptable tbh, there isn't a world where that should ever be ok. Even the sharktest team in the league, Perth, would have done better than that. It's not losing that's the problem, God knows us Nix fans are used to that, it's how we're losing. That was the most pathetic, limp display of football I've seen in a long time.

Injuries is a bullshark cop out too. We were far better served than City, their Injuries are diabolical, and still they out played us with a squad of kids. You're telling me a team with the fourth highest A-league goal scorer of all time, two J-league veterans, Scott Wooten, All White  Tim Payne and Sam Sutton, veteran Retre amongst others isn't a better team than what City put out? I call bullshark. What's more Chiefy scouted our Japanese imports personally, doesn't say much for him if they aren't any good does it?

Chiefy needs to do a lot better with what he's got.

Let's turn theclock back to how we played for the first few weeks please.

Oi Oi Edgecumbe

Let's turn theclock back to how we played for the first few weeks please.

Erm, am I missing something... To me it seems like in this game we were trying to play a very similar way to our wins against Melb victory, Perth and in both our losses to AFC. Everything certainly looked the same to me with us attempting to pass out of the back. For this game, whatever the reason, we looked hopeless though. The players looked just awful. I'm not sure this is really a coach problem, how can it be if the players simply cannot hold the ball or pass it to the opposition. If we change to a formation which encourages lumping the ball down the field, who will hold up the ball for the other players? Kosta?

I think the formation in this game with the back 5 was going back to what we did last year when we went overseas. From what I can see Chiefy is moving further away from his initial plan this year as the players clearly are not up to it. I think we'll see a further change this next game as we don't even have the players to play the way we were last year.

Point being if you want to blame Chiefy - blame him for the poor player acquisitions and lack of squad depth. Or, his poor read on this last game given the players he had. I don't think that he isn't trying to change the formations or tactics or showing any rigidity to the way he wants to play. He has changed formations quite consistently throughout this season so far.

I agree with the above and suggest that the current squad could have got a better result from this game if it was set up differently.  Not offering shots on goal against a relatively inexperienced, if energetic, Melbourne City B team tells me all I need to know.  Our setup on the day did not allow us to get out of our own half often enough, let alone anywhere near the opposition box. 
This is the same team that played well against a few good teams this season, and Rufer alone should not be the difference between losing and not losing a game. 

theprof

I dont think this is a club issue, nor is it a lack of players issue. As I've said earlier Cheif has the players he wants at his disposal. Besides Rojas and Colacovski - who are recent injuries. Two injuries to two supposedly influencial players on the pitch(?) should not derail a manager's plans. 
This down turn is totally tactical! Cheif changes things up to a style more of his own liking, he talked about it pre-season and many times in the early interviews. I can see what he is trying to do, but from a playing perspective it is very difficult and totally different to what most teams would be asking.  I'm hoping he and the squad spend the next week working out a style of play they can all agree on and manage to put put out on the pitch. Cos at the moment the fluid shape and no structure is not working for anyone.
We have Adelaide on Saturday and then Sydney on Wednesday at home, with Macarthur on monday 20th away. All tough but winnable games. First two are must win to restore some faith from the fans that bother to show up.

Agree completely. It's primarily a tactical problem. 

I actually think we have a top 6 squad, but our tactics are just all wrong.

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

martinb

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

We could have the best squad in the league and we still wouldn't come close to silverware playing the way Chiefy had us set up the other day.

Monto

martinb

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

We could have the best squad in the league and we still wouldn't come close to silverware playing the way Chiefy had us set up the other day.

Yeh, what a bs argument. Obviously we set up like that because we didn’t have the players to do what Chief would have preferred to do. 

We put out our best starting 11, but meant 3 at the back. Partly because Chief knew that Payney was on one leg and needed the cover (and the last and decisive goal came because of this in part) and partly because that’s who we had in the squad with a bit of experience. 

If we have a bunch of dazzling dribblers, precision passers and silky strikers we’d play something different. 

We had Kosta, Payne, Sutton and OVH when he came on. And a corked Payne at that. Ishige didn’t have a great game. 

And yeh, City didn’t over run us with their also depleted squad. But it doesn’t mean we had the troops available to take the fight to them, if only we’d tried 433 or six up top. 

martinb

Monto

martinb

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

We could have the best squad in the league and we still wouldn't come close to silverware playing the way Chiefy had us set up the other day.

Yeh, what a bs argument. Obviously we set up like that because we didn’t have the players to do what Chief would have preferred to do. 

We put out our best starting 11, but meant 3 at the back. Partly because Chief knew that Payney was on one leg and needed the cover (and the last and decisive goal came because of this in part) and partly because that’s who we had in the squad with a bit of experience. 

If we have a bunch of dazzling dribblers, precision passers and silky strikers we’d play something different. 

We had Kosta, Payne, Sutton and OVH when he came on. And a corked Payne at that. Ishige didn’t have a great game. 

And yeh, City didn’t over run us with their also depleted squad. But it doesn’t mean we had the troops available to take the fight to them, if only we’d tried 433 or six up top. 

Zero shots on goal.

With re: is it tactics, is it players or is it something in between, I don’t think you can underestimate the two losses to Auckland might have had on this team. In the immediate aftermath of the match, Alex Rufer said he was proud of how the team played but you can tell he was putting on a brave face, he was clearly hurt by losing not once by twice to them in a month. I think that added doubts among the whole club, from the coaches to the young players. The city game was an exercise of them not wanting to LOSE rather go out for the win, and to me that strikes as a coaching staff and playing group that is nervous and unsure about itself. The shackles need to come off eventually in terms of playing attacking football, and trying to go out and win, the approach the team has taken last 2 games is not going to take them anywhere. 

Monto

martinb

Monto

martinb

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

We could have the best squad in the league and we still wouldn't come close to silverware playing the way Chiefy had us set up the other day.

Yeh, what a bs argument. Obviously we set up like that because we didn’t have the players to do what Chief would have preferred to do. 

We put out our best starting 11, but meant 3 at the back. Partly because Chief knew that Payney was on one leg and needed the cover (and the last and decisive goal came because of this in part) and partly because that’s who we had in the squad with a bit of experience. 

If we have a bunch of dazzling dribblers, precision passers and silky strikers we’d play something different. 

We had Kosta, Payne, Sutton and OVH when he came on. And a corked Payne at that. Ishige didn’t have a great game. 

And yeh, City didn’t over run us with their also depleted squad. But it doesn’t mean we had the troops available to take the fight to them, if only we’d tried 433 or six up top. 

Zero shots on goal.

The point people are trying to make is that if we set up in a more offensive way it possibly would have gone worse. If we allowed the game to open out we would have been more exposed and potentially conceded many more goals. We had Nagasawa and Retre who have been poor defensively supporting our back line made up of kids, Wootton and an injured Payne. 

I wouldn't be surprised if in setting up more offensively we might have shipped 5 or more goals. You could see how fragile our team was on the park - the defence was clearly not up to an open game. So then the question is - do you want to play exciting football but never be in the contest or play shark football but have a chance of a point.

Totally disagree, we had no need to go into that City game with a defensive mindset! They were fielding their second string lineup with almost and entire first team list of injuries. That game was the one game we needed to come out all guns blazing. We played into their hands. They were expecting us to be slow a defensive and rolled all over us. 
The tactics were so obvious and just too easy to overcome. As soon as we conceded early it was game over!

If the Nix ever want to win the league then we have to stop trying to just survive away games. Sure losing is never the way to go, but going into games with a "we wont lose" attitude will not win games or the league.

I think vs a normal City team, the defensive setup would've absolutely been needed or it would've been a 5/6-0 rout.

I was at the game and it was an extremely hot day too - we had players hobbling around out there from the get  go, Payne could barely run. Generally on a day like that, teams are forced to play slower or you run out of gas by the 60th min and get overrun.

However, knowing in hindsight what team City put out, obviously I think we respected them far too much.

I do think criticising the approach when last year it got us our best away results in our history is hilariously reductive though.

For this game the approach was the same as last years for sure, however different season and we are in a different place to last eyar at the same time so we could afford to play "not to lose". AND they XI we played against was not Melb C's youth team. We should have come out to score 1 early and then park the bus! Instead of parking up from the first whistle. Then if they score it's 1-1.

anaveragestem

Monto

martinb

Monto

martinb

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

We could have the best squad in the league and we still wouldn't come close to silverware playing the way Chiefy had us set up the other day.

Yeh, what a bs argument. Obviously we set up like that because we didn’t have the players to do what Chief would have preferred to do. 

We put out our best starting 11, but meant 3 at the back. Partly because Chief knew that Payney was on one leg and needed the cover (and the last and decisive goal came because of this in part) and partly because that’s who we had in the squad with a bit of experience. 

If we have a bunch of dazzling dribblers, precision passers and silky strikers we’d play something different. 

We had Kosta, Payne, Sutton and OVH when he came on. And a corked Payne at that. Ishige didn’t have a great game. 

And yeh, City didn’t over run us with their also depleted squad. But it doesn’t mean we had the troops available to take the fight to them, if only we’d tried 433 or six up top. 

Zero shots on goal.

The point people are trying to make is that if we set up in a more offensive way it possibly would have gone worse. If we allowed the game to open out we would have been more exposed and potentially conceded many more goals. We had Nagasawa and Retre who have been poor defensively supporting our back line made up of kids, Wootton and an injured Payne. 

I wouldn't be surprised if in setting up more offensively we might have shipped 5 or more goals. You could see how fragile our team was on the park - the defence was clearly not up to an open game. So then the question is - do you want to play exciting football but never be in the contest or play shark football but have a chance of a point.

Well we weren't in the contest with defensive football were we. We were played off the park. In fact we didn't even threaten their goal. 

Where were we competitive? Or did we not watch the same game?

Also, who is the guy that decided that Nagasawa and Retre should start? Oh right, the same guy that wanted them in the first place.

Monto

anaveragestem

Monto

martinb

Monto

martinb

Cool, cool. 
Cool, cool, cool. 

We’ve got a top 6 squad. 

Have we even got 6 players who’d start at other teams in yesterday’s starting 11? 

Kosta would. Wootton might. Sutton might.

I think that’s it. 

To me, that seems like a squad depth issue. Unleash the handbrake on a bunch of players who wouldn’t make the other teams! It’s not Foden and co. It’s not Ben Old. It’s not even Jason Hicks. 

You can’t say that ignoring the times we have injury problems we have a top 6 squad. That’s what the squad part means. We don’t have a good enough squad. Maybe we have a good enough first team, with everyone fit, which is a very rare occurrence across a whole season. 

You’re right that injuries shouldn’t derail plans, but the squad was thin to begin with and now it’s obvious.

We need injury replacements and probably reinforcements to be competitive. 

We could have the best squad in the league and we still wouldn't come close to silverware playing the way Chiefy had us set up the other day.

Yeh, what a bs argument. Obviously we set up like that because we didn’t have the players to do what Chief would have preferred to do. 

We put out our best starting 11, but meant 3 at the back. Partly because Chief knew that Payney was on one leg and needed the cover (and the last and decisive goal came because of this in part) and partly because that’s who we had in the squad with a bit of experience. 

If we have a bunch of dazzling dribblers, precision passers and silky strikers we’d play something different. 

We had Kosta, Payne, Sutton and OVH when he came on. And a corked Payne at that. Ishige didn’t have a great game. 

And yeh, City didn’t over run us with their also depleted squad. But it doesn’t mean we had the troops available to take the fight to them, if only we’d tried 433 or six up top. 

Zero shots on goal.

The point people are trying to make is that if we set up in a more offensive way it possibly would have gone worse. If we allowed the game to open out we would have been more exposed and potentially conceded many more goals. We had Nagasawa and Retre who have been poor defensively supporting our back line made up of kids, Wootton and an injured Payne. 

I wouldn't be surprised if in setting up more offensively we might have shipped 5 or more goals. You could see how fragile our team was on the park - the defence was clearly not up to an open game. So then the question is - do you want to play exciting football but never be in the contest or play shark football but have a chance of a point.

Well we weren't in the contest with defensive football were we. We were played off the park. In fact we didn't even threaten their goal. 

Where were we competitive? Or did we not watch the same game?

Also, who is the guy that decided that Nagasawa and Retre should start? Oh right, the same guy that wanted them in the first place.

Please let me know who you would've started instead of Nagasawa and Retre, I'm all ears.

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

martinb

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

Just chuck all the 14 year olds on, go four four fudgein two and cross it in lads

No one's saying players don't matter, that's just a sharkty strawman, but if you don't think we could do better with what we have then I've got a bridge to see you.

We aren't gong to get the best players in the league, its not in the budget, so we better find a fudgeing good way to play with what we've got. What's we've seen so far isn't it at all.

valeo

martinb

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

Just chuck all the 14 year olds on, go four four fudgein two and cross it in lads

Looking at the youngest player we have in the starting squad I'd take all his mates in the youth setup at the moment.

Monto

No one's saying players don't matter, that's just a sharkty strawman, but if you don't think we could do better with what we have then I've got a bridge to see you.

We aren't gong to get the best players in the league, its not in the budget, so we better find a fudgeing good way to play with what we've got. What's we've seen so far isn't it at all.

Again what? 

We played the same tactics last season and at the start of the season. We had sufficient players with the ability to advance to the play and get results. 

We took all those players out, using the same tactics, and couldn’t advance the ball. 

We either hold the ball or we let them have the ball outside the box, then we play through their press and hit them in transition. We restricted their attack well, but we couldn’t manage to play through the midfield. We lacked the players we had with hold up and dribbling skills and a range of passing. As well as ball speed. 

We aren’t playing mysterious defensive tactics, we’re lacking players that are able to break a press in the midfield. And City pressed well, despite who they fielded.

We are short of like-for-like players to take the ball from Payne or Sutton or the CB and advance the play. 

Brooke-Smith and Walker are worse than Old or Kraev. We are worse without Rufer and with an injured Payne. 

I miss the offseason.

theprof

valeo

martinb

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

Just chuck all the 14 year olds on, go four four fudgein two and cross it in lads

Looking at the youngest player we have in the starting squad I'd take all his mates in the youth setup at the moment.

So he’s better than Marco? Than Colacovski? Than Old? 

He’s started brightly, but that is a ridiculous way to build a team. He’s certainly not Messi. You can’t have a cherry on top of cake, without, you know, the cake and the icing. 

martinb

theprof

valeo

martinb

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

Just chuck all the 14 year olds on, go four four fudgein two and cross it in lads

Looking at the youngest player we have in the starting squad I'd take all his mates in the youth setup at the moment.

So he’s better than Marco? Than Colacovski? Than Old? 

He’s started brightly, but that is a ridiculous way to build a team. He’s certainly not Messi. You can’t have a cherry on top of cake, without, you know, the cake and the icing. 

I'd take LBS over Rojas any day, even when Rojas was young. He's very young but more robust, still raw but he has Old-like potential at 16! If we have anyone else in the academy like him then they should be playing over Piper at least.

theprof

martinb

theprof

valeo

martinb

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

Just chuck all the 14 year olds on, go four four fudgein two and cross it in lads

Looking at the youngest player we have in the starting squad I'd take all his mates in the youth setup at the moment.

So he’s better than Marco? Than Colacovski? Than Old? 

He’s started brightly, but that is a ridiculous way to build a team. He’s certainly not Messi. You can’t have a cherry on top of cake, without, you know, the cake and the icing. 

I'd take LBS over Rojas any day, even when Rojas was young. He's very young but more robust, still raw but he has Old-like potential at 16! If we have anyone else in the academy like him then they should be playing over Piper at least.

That is insane. Rojas was special, LBS looks promising but give him more than one game first!

It's interesting as all the hype was around Sloane-Rodridgues

martinb

Monto

No one's saying players don't matter, that's just a sharkty strawman, but if you don't think we could do better with what we have then I've got a bridge to see you.

We aren't gong to get the best players in the league, its not in the budget, so we better find a fudgeing good way to play with what we've got. What's we've seen so far isn't it at all.

Again what? 

We played the same tactics last season and at the start of the season. We had sufficient players with the ability to advance to the play and get results. 

We took all those players out, using the same tactics, and couldn’t advance the ball. 

We either hold the ball or we let them have the ball outside the box, then we play through their press and hit them in transition. We restricted their attack well, but we couldn’t manage to play through the midfield. We lacked the players we had with hold up and dribbling skills and a range of passing. As well as ball speed. 

We aren’t playing mysterious defensive tactics, we’re lacking players that are able to break a press in the midfield. And City pressed well, despite who they fielded.

We are short of like-for-like players to take the ball from Payne or Sutton or the CB and advance the play. 

Brooke-Smith and Walker are worse than Old or Kraev. We are worse without Rufer and with an injured Payne. 

This is spot on. It's driving me mad that people are wilfully ignoring the fact that we played this way - successfully, actually, the most successfully in our entire history - for an entire season.

martinb

Monto

No one's saying players don't matter, that's just a sharkty strawman, but if you don't think we could do better with what we have then I've got a bridge to see you.

We aren't gong to get the best players in the league, its not in the budget, so we better find a fudgeing good way to play with what we've got. What's we've seen so far isn't it at all.

Again what? 

We played the same tactics last season and at the start of the season. We had sufficient players with the ability to advance to the play and get results. 

We took all those players out, using the same tactics, and couldn’t advance the ball. 

We either hold the ball or we let them have the ball outside the box, then we play through their press and hit them in transition. We restricted their attack well, but we couldn’t manage to play through the midfield. We lacked the players we had with hold up and dribbling skills and a range of passing. As well as ball speed. 

We aren’t playing mysterious defensive tactics, we’re lacking players that are able to break a press in the midfield. And City pressed well, despite who they fielded.

We are short of like-for-like players to take the ball from Payne or Sutton or the CB and advance the play. 

Brooke-Smith and Walker are worse than Old or Kraev. We are worse without Rufer and with an injured Payne. 

Ok, so knowing that it's unlikely that we will get particularly good reinforcements in Jan what should the plan be? I don't disagree that we don't have the best squad atm and that it's a lot weaker than last season but there's nothing that can really be done about that now.

The only solution is to try something new that might suit the players we have better rather than persisting with last seasons tactics and hoping it comes right.

I don't think it's exclusivly down to the quality of players we have either, teams have somewhat figured us out now and know how to play against us, we haven't adapted to it. We were hardly great at playing out of a press last season either, in fact often we where terrible at it, most of out attacking movement came from fast counters rather than the endless slog that is out build up.

valeo

theprof

martinb

theprof

valeo

martinb

Players don’t matter. 

Get some 14 year olds and release the handbrake! 

I want to win the crosses into the box stat like we used to.

Just chuck all the 14 year olds on, go four four fudgein two and cross it in lads

Looking at the youngest player we have in the starting squad I'd take all his mates in the youth setup at the moment.

So he’s better than Marco? Than Colacovski? Than Old? 

He’s started brightly, but that is a ridiculous way to build a team. He’s certainly not Messi. You can’t have a cherry on top of cake, without, you know, the cake and the icing. 

I'd take LBS over Rojas any day, even when Rojas was young. He's very young but more robust, still raw but he has Old-like potential at 16! If we have anyone else in the academy like him then they should be playing over Piper at least.

That is insane. Rojas was special, LBS looks promising but give him more than one game first!

It's interesting as all the hype was around Sloane-Rodridgues

Rojas was special, we saw glimpses of it when we first played him, same as LBS he looks like ghe could be very special - he is only 16, and he looks unbreakable. Unlike the very fragile Rojas, who if you remove your rose-tinted glasses you'll recall spent a large portion of his time with us injured (just like he is now). Regardless of his talent - Rojas never reached his full potential because his body wasnt up to it. End of. 
My point being - our two playmakers are injred. We are without them for the next 3-4 weeks. If there are young players like LBS we have nothing to lose from playing them - they'll at keast be keen to prove themselves which might get some results - or at least attempts on goal.

valeo

martinb

Monto

No one's saying players don't matter, that's just a sharkty strawman, but if you don't think we could do better with what we have then I've got a bridge to see you.

We aren't gong to get the best players in the league, its not in the budget, so we better find a fudgeing good way to play with what we've got. What's we've seen so far isn't it at all.

Again what? 

We played the same tactics last season and at the start of the season. We had sufficient players with the ability to advance to the play and get results. 

We took all those players out, using the same tactics, and couldn’t advance the ball. 

We either hold the ball or we let them have the ball outside the box, then we play through their press and hit them in transition. We restricted their attack well, but we couldn’t manage to play through the midfield. We lacked the players we had with hold up and dribbling skills and a range of passing. As well as ball speed. 

We aren’t playing mysterious defensive tactics, we’re lacking players that are able to break a press in the midfield. And City pressed well, despite who they fielded.

We are short of like-for-like players to take the ball from Payne or Sutton or the CB and advance the play. 

Brooke-Smith and Walker are worse than Old or Kraev. We are worse without Rufer and with an injured Payne. 

This is spot on. It's driving me mad that people are wilfully ignoring the fact that we played this way - successfully, actually, the most successfully in our entire history - for an entire season.

We got very lucky last season, the stats don't lie there. Paulsen, Surman and Rufer had massively overperforming seasons and relying on them to make tackles and saves like that would never be sustainable over multiple seasons.

We had the highest number of clearances in the league last season, averaged the 4th most saves per match, we also maintaind the lowest xG with one of the higher xGAs in the league. It wouldn't last forever.

Yeh sure. Getting through a press is similar to a counter in that you move the ball forward quickly and leave the defenders up field and most likely in your own half. 

What can be done is a question for a different thread, but we can do at least as well as J2 and the bench in India! Retre and Nagasawa have qualities, but neither seems to be capable of completely deputising Rufer or replacing Pennington, either defensively or creatively in this system. Both were very fit and ran and ran. 

Retre has shown us he has a goal in the locker, which has won us a game.

It seems to me we agree we’re not playing well recently. We disagree about why and what should be done. 

I think we have to try to find some short term solution to try to stop the bleeding. We needed extra players anyway in my opinion. 

One or two players with a bit more experience than this year’s academy grads might be enough to stabilise things and get more ball to Kosta. Or a la Retre or more pointedly Kraev, threaten the scoresheet by themselves. Very freaked about the possibility of losing Wootton. 

Edit: and on our defense- we were holding a 1-0 comfortably for most of that game which ended 21-1 on shots.  We do want to evolve those tactics, but the defense side is still working fine. It’s our attack which has dropped off a cliff.

Monto

valeo

martinb

Monto

No one's saying players don't matter, that's just a sharkty strawman, but if you don't think we could do better with what we have then I've got a bridge to see you.

We aren't gong to get the best players in the league, its not in the budget, so we better find a fudgeing good way to play with what we've got. What's we've seen so far isn't it at all.

Again what? 

We played the same tactics last season and at the start of the season. We had sufficient players with the ability to advance to the play and get results. 

We took all those players out, using the same tactics, and couldn’t advance the ball. 

We either hold the ball or we let them have the ball outside the box, then we play through their press and hit them in transition. We restricted their attack well, but we couldn’t manage to play through the midfield. We lacked the players we had with hold up and dribbling skills and a range of passing. As well as ball speed. 

We aren’t playing mysterious defensive tactics, we’re lacking players that are able to break a press in the midfield. And City pressed well, despite who they fielded.

We are short of like-for-like players to take the ball from Payne or Sutton or the CB and advance the play. 

Brooke-Smith and Walker are worse than Old or Kraev. We are worse without Rufer and with an injured Payne. 

This is spot on. It's driving me mad that people are wilfully ignoring the fact that we played this way - successfully, actually, the most successfully in our entire history - for an entire season.

We got very lucky last season, the stats don't lie there. Paulsen, Surman and Rufer had massively overperforming seasons and relying on them to make tackles and saves like that would never be sustainable over multiple seasons.

We had the highest number of clearances in the league last season, averaged the 4th most saves per match, we also maintaind the lowest xG with one of the higher xGAs in the league. It wouldn't last forever.

I really disagree that a team can be 'lucky' over an entire season. Most of the shots we let through were low percentage, which was the whole point.  There were many games where the opposition had a lot of shots and 90% were outside the box. Obviously Paulsen was a difference maker, but in saying that - no one thought he was at the start of that season. If we kept the same or similar team, we would've been more expansive this year - unfortunately, the reality is that we lost too many and we didn't replace properly.

Reality is that you're never gonna keep the same team for long in this league, especially of you have some success. Look at what happened to CCm when they won it - losy half of their team to off shore - which is great for the bank balance but means you're rebuilding the following year - when expectation has been created.
 This season started with us losing the leagues best keeper, plus one of our defensive unit (surman) and one of our more creative players in Old. Thye havent been replaced with like for like.

theprof

Reality is that you're never gonna keep the same team for long in this league, especially of you have some success. Look at what happened to CCm when they won it - losy half of their team to off shore - which is great for the bank balance but means you're rebuilding the following year - when expectation has been created.
 This season started with us losing the leagues best keeper, plus one of our defensive unit (surman) and one of our more creative players in Old. Thye havent been replaced with like for like.

 Yeah pretty much, and look where CCM are this season. They lost too many as well. There's a cliff where you go off if you lose 1 or 2 too many at the same time. We've been extremely lucky with youth players coming through, and now we're not so lucky, and we haven't been lucky with the import selection for the first time in several seasons.

We were seconds or 3 metres from our first title last season. We started the season brightly this year. I don’t think we should be in a hurry to throw out our approach. Imo Brooke-Smith is a good news distraction attempt! 

We need players who can get us through the period Rufer, Payne and Marco are out or do the job they were doing with results similar or better.

I like Walker, Piper and Pounds, but they are projects at this stage, not players who should be given the responsibility for our results. 

I’d say it’s not luck with youth selections. Paulsen, Old and Surman had been around the first team for ages. We’re seeing LKH taking a similar path to Finn. In the main team doing a fairly good job, but then out for a while. Hughes and Sheridan came in last season, and have been about what we’d expect. 

We’ve done a lot of managing and drip feeding our youth players through cup and sub appearances over the last few years. 

It’s like first album with your career to date of songs v second album with 6 months worth. 

This year we’ve pushed a few players and depended on youth players to start without back up. This is a different approach that has hurt us too. There’s no Ball, BK or others in the team to support them in the same way. 

Last year our fundamentals were strong. Our spine rarely changed: Paulsen, Wootton, Surman, Rufer, Pennington, Kosta. Throw in Payne, Old , Al-Taay and BK who played minutes most games. OVH with a lot of bench appearances. None of our spine was really youth or new to the club, with Paulsen and Surman being called for in the previous season. 

The youth were cherry on top, bonus players. They weren’t relied on to do the heavy lifting. 

Edit: And dare I say it- perhaps the imports and Retre have had some miscalculation on Chief’s part. Bearing in mind we had a very disrupted preseason with 3 AWs tournament too. Our imports last season iirc were all in their second season with us at least, so were more bedded in.