Sami's tactics

[London Irish]

Unfortunately I can only comment with what I have read as I didn't go.

HOWEVER, I have not read so many positive comments from a defeat before - in fact we've been less positive when we have won.

But isn't that more of a comment just how the loss of big players like Ulloa and Upson has lowered our expectations dramatically? It doesn't mean we are playing any better in these defeats.

But I would hesitate to call Sami's tactics naive, such a change of system will require some time to see if it can work - and within this he has faced a bigger rebuilding job than Oscar faced a year ago.

At the end of the day, an antidote to Oscar's unentertaining style isn't high scoring losses, they will grate a lot before too long. Sami is going to have to do a lot better than that, merely to keep our crowds at the levels of recent seasons.

 

[BensGrandad]

Absolute guarantee that the right back won't get back then.

We looked better with him in the middle. he did at least offer some protection on that side if Calderon went on forwards.

Today both flanks were constantly exposed.

Why play a left or right back at all if you want them to play 95% of the time beyond the midfield. In reality Calderon was playing as a winger with Crofts playing behind him. Tell you what why not play an out and out winger and a right back behind him. Same positions as today but with players better suited to the roles. Random I know but may work.

I do not believe that Crofts offers sufficient defensive cover if either Bruno or Calderon play whereas the cover is there with Calderon at wing back and Bruno instead of Crofts. Perhaps the answer is it will have to be either Crofts or Gardner along with Bruno

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

I do not believe that Crofts offers sufficient defensive cover if either Bruno or Calderon play whereas the cover is there with Calderon at wing back and Bruno instead of Crofts. Perhaps the answer is it will have to be either Crofts or Gardner along with Bruno

In the middle you mean?

 

[BensGrandad]

Yes and to cover across to the right and either Crofts or Gardner next to him to cover Bennett on the left as required leaving Holla as the spare man to cover either and start the attacks.

 

[brightonmark1234]

we have got to give it time and dont judge it yet because we have only played a handful of games and the players have got to get use to the formation sami wants us to play .

 

[DarrenFreemansPerm]

Yes and to cover across to the right and either Crofts or Gardner next to him to cover Bennett on the left as required leaving Holla as the spare man to cover either and start the attacks.

Do you enjoy tedious defensive football?

 

[BensGrandad]

I want results and if that is what it takes I can live with that and accept it.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

I went, and I have no clear understating of today's tactics, they obviously didn't work , or at least the players didn't understand them, and how to put them into effect. Defenders seemed confused a lot of the time, passing seems to have been sacrificed for something, I'm not sure what. Brentford ran us ragged in a lot of positions, they got crosses in, they played balls into attackers feet, and looked pretty comfortable defending against our expensively assembled attacking players. I hope Hyypia has been working on something resembling a plan B for when his plan A goes so hopelessly wrong.

Thank goodness we had the international break eh?

All in IMO, naturally.

Great to see that while most seem positive that games are more interesting this year that there are some moaners. For one thing, when you consider what a lot of forwards cost at this level, to say our attacking players were expensively assembled is a joke.

Added to that, you obviously weren't at the game, as if you were you wouldn't say Brentford were comfortable defending against us. They looked as uncomfortable at the back as we did, hence it was 3-2 and not 3-0. There are issues with the way we're playing and Hyypia finding his feet, as are the players. But to give credit where it's due, we looked dangerous going forward. We scored 2, hit the post, had a shot off the line and had other chances where we should have done better. A draw would have been a fair result as both teams looked good in attack but poor in defence. I'm struggling to think what game you were at when you talk about Brentford's defending.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Agreed, Calde was all over the park today but he hasn't got the legs to play that role although I thought he played well he left acres of space behind him.

Couldn't understand Teixeira being subbed as he was our only truly decent player creating anything. Baldock did nothing and should have been replaced.
Then why bring on Kaz and play him in the middle when we were desperate for some width. I'm sure Sami will get it right but we were very poor today with little to optimistic about

Totally disagree with this. Texeira did little except setup our second goal, although I wouldn't have taken him off personally, while Baldock looked a threat despite getting little service. Taking your comment literally, I'm assuming having a shot blocked on the line by a defender is "nothing". All about opinions I suppose.

Also, I think there was plenty to be optimistic about, while also a fair amount to be concerned about. There were a lot of people moaning last season about how boring it was with 1-0 and 0-0 scorelines under Oscar, even when we reached the play offs with an injury hit squad. Well, Sami is the antidote to that. We'll score and concede a fair amount this season playing this way. I think calling us very poor is harsh.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Great to see that while most seem positive that games are more interesting this year that there are some moaners. For one thing, when you consider what a lot of forwards cost at this level, to say our attacking players were expensively assembled is a joke.

Added to that, you obviously weren't at the game, as if you were you wouldn't say Brentford were comfortable defending against us. They looked as uncomfortable at the back as we did, hence it was 3-2 and not 3-0. There are issues with the way we're playing and Hyypia finding his feet, as are the players. But to give credit where it's due, we looked dangerous going forward. We scored 2, hit the post, had a shot off the line and had other chances where we should have done better. A draw would have been a fair result as both teams looked good in attack but poor in defence. I'm struggling to think what game you were at when you talk about Brentford's defending.

Indeed could have been a rugby score either way.

Reflecting now though it really is quite quite puzzling exactly the formation with the left/right backs spending most of the time as wingers beyond the wide midfielders. Why not just play with wingers and a formation of 2 4 4 with 2 of the midfield players being your left/right backs, appears a better balance. Today it was arguable we played 2 1 3 2 2 formation

 

[Finchley Seagull]

Indeed could have been a rugby score either way.

Reflecting now though it really is quite quite puzzling exactly the formation with the left/right backs spending most of the time as wingers beyond the wide midfielders. Why not just play with wingers and a formation of 2 4 4 with 2 of the midfield players being your left/right backs, appears a better balance. Today it was arguable we played 2 1 3 2 2 formation

I agree. Formation isn't perfect yet. We've probably gone too far the other way after how defensive we were last year. Whether Sami sorts that out will probably define his time as manager. Hopefully he'll learn to be more practical as there's no way we can go to Watford or Forest and play like that.

 

[Superphil]

Great to see that while most seem positive that games are more interesting this year that there are some moaners. For one thing, when you consider what a lot of forwards cost at this level, to say our attacking players were expensively assembled is a joke.

Added to that, you obviously weren't at the game, as if you were you wouldn't say Brentford were comfortable defending against us. They looked as uncomfortable at the back as we did, hence it was 3-2 and not 3-0. There are issues with the way we're playing and Hyypia finding his feet, as are the players. But to give credit where it's due, we looked dangerous going forward. We scored 2, hit the post, had a shot off the line and had other chances where we should have done better. A draw would have been a fair result as both teams looked good in attack but poor in defence. I'm struggling to think what game you were at when you talk about Brentford's defending.

As I said, all in my opinion, and you've explained yours. I do take your point about their defence, a bit. A draw might have been fair on the day, but I still feel we didn't look the sum of our parts, and we do have an expensively assembled squad, including the forward line, compared to theirs. After a couple of very promising performances recently, with the players gelling quite nicely, it was a shame that, after 2 weeks international break, what we saw today didn't live up to (my) expectations.

And to add, I was there, and was extremely frustrated by the result, it is still acceptable to have the hump isn't it?

 

[Finchley Seagull]

As I said, all in my opinion, and you've explained yours. I do take your point about their defence, a bit. A draw might have been fair on the day, but I still feel we didn't look the sum of our parts, and we do have an expensively assembled squad, including the forward line, compared to theirs. After a couple of very promising performances recently, with the players gelling quite nicely, it was a shame that, after 2 weeks international break, what we saw today didn't live up to (my) expectations.

And to add, I was there, and was extremely frustrated by the result, it is still acceptable to have the hump isn't it?

It is, I really picked up on your comment about their defence as I thought that was odd. As I've said elsewhere there's still work to be done and we need to be tighter at the back as we can't keep needing 2/3 goals to get anything from a game.

It's acceptable to have the hump, I just thought you were harsh on the team. There's been more entertainment in the last few games than at any point last season and we have a new manager and a lot of new players, so it will take time.

Also, you'd be surprised how much Brentford spent this summer. The team they started with may well have cost similar to ours, although CMS coming off the bench will have affected that later.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Added to that, you obviously weren't at the game, as if you were you wouldn't say Brentford were comfortable defending against us. They looked as uncomfortable at the back as we did, hence it was 3-2 and not 3-0. There are issues with the way we're playing and Hyypia finding his feet, as are the players. But to give credit where it's due, we looked dangerous going forward. We scored 2, hit the post, had a shot off the line and had other chances where we should have done better. A draw would have been a fair result as both teams looked good in attack but poor in defence. I'm struggling to think what game you were at when you talk about Brentford's defending.

Super Phil largely echoes my feelings about todays game. You would hope to get something out of a game having two goals scored away from home. It is early days for Sami's tactics and I like the attacking intent but the defensive set up seems naïve. IMO there needs to be more flexibility about when our FBs bomb on. Brentford are known for their direct play looking the exploit the pace of Odubajo, so by playing our Fbs so high up the pitch was gifting Brentford them space and a head start in their counterattacks. This in turn rather predictably exposed our CBs, who we all know are not the quickest around. The knock on from that is poor old Stockdale is getting exposed more often than he should (could apply to whoever you put in goal).

By contrast I thought Brentford's defence coped much better and shut down many of our attacks mainly because they had had a flatter back four with FBs giving closer support to their CBs, but also advancing less often. Their RB in particular seemed to be all over the pitch. It probably helped that our forward line carries little aerial threat or variety and our final ball was less clinical.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Can help Sami here...insist that the goals are put in the top tier,we'd score bucket loads...how many goals have our 'star' strikers got...?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

We had no answer to the ball inside the full-back (even when they were there) and Baldock and Colunga were in their defenders top pocket all afternoon.

 

[Trust in Tony]

I want results and if that is what it takes I can live with that and accept it.

Thank god then that your views don't matter.

 

[trueblue]

Early days. If we set out defensively for away games, there's every chance we'll lose by a goal. Today we went for it... And lost by a goal. On balance, if we're going to lose, I prefer it to be the second way.

 

[Goldstone1976]

Added to that, you obviously weren't at the game, as if you were you wouldn't say Brentford were comfortable defending against us. They looked as uncomfortable at the back as we did, hence it was 3-2 and not 3-0. There are issues with the way we're playing and Hyypia finding his feet, as are the players. But to give credit where it's due, we looked dangerous going forward. We scored 2, hit the post, had a shot off the line and had other chances where we should have done better. A draw would have been a fair result as both teams looked good in attack but poor in defence. I'm struggling to think what game you were at when you talk about Brentford's defending.

Yep, I'd agree with this. We also had a disallowed goal, don't forget. A draw would have been fair enough, I guess.

I'm struggling somewhat with the entertainment vs results argument. Of course I want to watch entertaining football. But I also want promotion (I know that many on here don't). To play attractive, attacking football and get results generally requires world class players, which of course we can't afford. By way of example, I wouldn't say that any of Leicester, Burnley or QPR consistently played attractive attacking football last season.

So - on balance, I'd take 1-0 home results and 0-0 away results for every game this season to amass 92 points, thus securing an auto-spot (almost certainly). Next season, we can play the flair stuff that I'd like to see. Sure, we'd come straight back down, but with ~£120m across the four seasons starting next year. If, however, Sami can somehow play with the current system and record 3-2 wins instead of 3-2 losses, I'll be even happier.

 

[Commander]

Impossible to answer, same as every year at this time in the season. Give him time, judge him at the end of the season.