Ankergren?

[D'Angelo Saxon]

It still amazes me the amount of people in the stands who STILL fail to grasp that our ultra-patient style of football is the MAIN reason we are top of the league.

Crazy, innit.

 

[stss30]

I'm not sure about this. I completely understand this argument. And I also understand that the last 30 mins today was a case of two stubborn managers - if Hartlepol had stuck another body up front (and why wouldn't they - they were 3 goals down!) we wouldn't have been able to muck about so much.

However, I do think people might be thinking us, and by extension themselves (for 'understanding' what we're doing), a little too clever. I personally think that insisting upon the attacker literally closing down the goalkeeper every time is particularly unsporting. There's no reason why you can't do this, but I garantee that people would become pissed off if more teams tried to do this all the time. Plus, there's really no reason for it. I don't mind playing it around the back (although when you're three goals up I've never quite understood why we can't just try and score a few more, if we were defending a 1 or 2 goal lead then fine), but I found today's "come and get it" attitude just a little distasteful. Not time wasting, we all understand the rules, just a little unsporting and a little over confident.

The thing is though, other teams can't do it because they haven't worked extremely hard to gain a comfortable 3 goal cushion. If we went to Stoke next week , were losing 3-0 and they were passing it around at the back I wouldn't mind, because they are obviously going to win and want to save energy for the premier league

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I found today's "come and get it" attitude just a little distasteful. Not time wasting, we all understand the rules, just a little unsporting and a little over confident.

It would have been very interesting yesterday if Hartlepool had decided, just the once, not to "come and get it" and left Ankergren standing there like a lemon. The game would have ground to a complete halt. Wonder who's nerve would break first in that situation? Suspect it would be the referee's

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

I'm not sure about this. I completely understand this argument. And I also understand that the last 30 mins today was a case of two stubborn managers - if Hartlepol had stuck another body up front (and why wouldn't they - they were 3 goals down!) we wouldn't have been able to muck about so much.

However, I do think people might be thinking us, and by extension themselves (for 'understanding' what we're doing), a little too clever. I personally think that insisting upon the attacker literally closing down the goalkeeper every time is particularly unsporting. There's no reason why you can't do this, but I garantee that people would become pissed off if more teams tried to do this all the time. Plus, there's really no reason for it. I don't mind playing it around the back (although when you're three goals up I've never quite understood why we can't just try and score a few more, if we were defending a 1 or 2 goal lead then fine), but I found today's "come and get it" attitude just a little distasteful. Not time wasting, we all understand the rules, just a little unsporting and a little over confident.

I may have got this wrong, but I think you have missed the point. By forcing an attacker to comne and get the ball it gives ua a one man advantage in the outfield. It allows a defender to push on and/or a midfielder to push into attack. By pulling an attacker out of poistion we create space. We have done this again and again this season. It is how we score many of our goals. Maybe you understand this, but based on what you just said (especially "never understood why we can't just try and score a few more") I thibnk you have massively missed the point.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

It would have been very interesting yesterday if Hartlepool had decided, just the once, not to "come and get it" and left Ankergren standing there like a lemon. The game would have ground to a complete halt. Wonder who's nerve would break first in that situation? Suspect it would be the referee's

They did do it once yesterday, so in the end Ankergren brought the ball out himself - and therefore gave us the one man advantage this tactic is designed to create. So next time, they came up to try and close him down. It's a very clever way to play football.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

They did do it once yesterday, so in the end Ankergren brought the ball out himself - and therefore gave us the one man advantage this tactic is designed to create. So next time, they came up to try and close him down. It's a very clever way to play football.

Too clever for some it seems.

 

[Icy Gull]

Casper does what Gus tells him, if you don't like it, make a twat of yourself and go tell Gus

 

[BensGrandad]

1 attacker running between the trio of Ankergren, Greer and El Abd doesnt help them at all to be effective they need to close down the 2 outfield players and stop Ankergren pasing to them but this reduces the numbers that can push up on Dicker, Bennet etc and allows them more space.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

Point 1 : Cas follows Gus's instructions - he is told to do this.
Point 2 : Yesterday it allowed attacking players to effectively play a 60 min match, saving energy for next week, maintaining their sharpness until the end of the season and reducing risk of injury.
Point 3 : This tactic drew the hartlepool frontline far too deep into our half allowing us to play balls behind their flat back 4

Gamesmanship/tactics whatever you want to call it - it works !

 

[Billy the Fish]

I may have got this wrong, but I think you have missed the point. By forcing an attacker to comne and get the ball it gives ua a one man advantage in the outfield. It allows a defender to push on and/or a midfielder to push into attack. By pulling an attacker out of poistion we create space. We have done this again and again this season. It is how we score many of our goals. Maybe you understand this, but based on what you just said (especially "never understood why we can't just try and score a few more") I thibnk you have massively missed the point.

1 attacker running between the trio of Ankergren, Greer and El Abd doesnt help them at all to be effective they need to close down the 2 outfield players and stop Ankergren pasing to them but this reduces the numbers that can push up on Dicker, Bennet etc and allows them more space.

I think alot of Albion fans don't understand this. Moving the football is about creating space in other areas. Watch any premier league or champions league game and see how fast they move the ball from one side to the other when they hit a dead end. Sometimes we don't do this fast enough and teams can reset themselves when defending, also the movement off the ball isn't always there when we do it. IMHO Man Utd have always been the best at doing it in this country. I know it means watching the "overpaid primadonnas in the premiershit" but if people get a chance they should watch how quickly Utd move the ball from side to side and how off the ball runs open up space to move other players and the the ball into.

I think what happened yesterday is the midfielders stayed set in their positions and we became narrow rather than creating the outlet for the back 3(2cbs and gk), that's why they had to go backswards and forwards between themselves. It was obviously deliberate, as someone said at the start, champions last the distance and that means not running yourself into the ground when you're 4-0 up

 

[Spider]

I may have got this wrong, but I think you have missed the point. By forcing an attacker to comne and get the ball it gives ua a one man advantage in the outfield. It allows a defender to push on and/or a midfielder to push into attack. By pulling an attacker out of poistion we create space. We have done this again and again this season. It is how we score many of our goals. Maybe you understand this, but based on what you just said (especially "never understood why we can't just try and score a few more") I thibnk you have massively missed the point.

No, no. I do understand it. The "maybe we could just try and score a few more" line was a bit silly I agree. But I'm not really complaining about passing it around the back and drawing out the striker. My main point is that, whether it has a purpose or not, I still think it's a little unsporting making the attacker completely close the goalkeeper down every time. As I said, no reason why we can't do it. However, think about all the games of football you've watched where there seems to be an agreed code of conduct that says, for example, when the goalkeeper is entitled to pick the ball up but has it at his feet, the opposition striker need only make a gesture towards running to close him down and the keeper will pick it up. The game would be a lot more boring if every team did what we were doing yesterday. But just so no one gets confused, I'm not talking about passing it around the back or back to the goalkeeper, I'm talking about the practice of making the attacker close the goalie down completely every time.

 

[WATFORD zero]

But yesterday there were at least a couple of occasions, when the stiker has had to go all the way to Ankergen, only for Ankergen to knock or throw the ball to a defender. The striker has then taken his frustration out by yelling at the midfield to close down Ankergen's options.

Making the striker come all the way to Ankergen is a well thought out plan that at the very least causes the strikers to do unnecessary running and gets them frustrated, and at best encourages midfielders forward leaving gaps for us to take advantage of. I can't understand why anyone would not want us to do this ?

 

[CHAPPERS]

This thread is f***ing ridiculous.

 

[Spider]

But yesterday there were at least a couple of occasions, when the stiker has had to go all the way to Ankergen, only for Ankergen to knock or throw the ball to a defender. The striker has then taken his frustration out by yelling at the midfield to close down Ankergen's options.

Making the striker come all the way to Ankergen is a well thought out plan that at the very least causes the strikers to do unnecessary running and gets them frustrated, and at best encourages midfielders forward leaving gaps for us to take advantage of. I can't understand why anyone would not want us to do this ?

Agreed. I just don't think it's that sporting, whether legal or not. Never mind.

 

[stss30]

This thread is f***ing ridiculous.

Thanks for that eloquent contribution.

 

[Easy 10]

He's bloody right though !

 

[Perkino]

It does annoy me, as he tends to push it too far, and risk a cock up!

He also tends to give possesion away with his inacurate punts up the field afterwards, I'd much rather he passed it to one of our players slightly earlier

 

[The Wizard]

It works, we are winning games and pissing off the opposition. End of discussion surely?

 

[stss30]

He's bloody right though !

I know, I can't believe the amount of people who dislike this tactic, which is a big reason why we are where we are

 

[stss30]

It works, we are winning games and pissing off the opposition. End of discussion surely?

Stop calling me Shirley