| Tactically clueless 21:20 - Apr 7 with 12001 views | mylot50years |
IH has a problem no big target man to hit up front, so plan B put a kid who has played a couple of games up front on his own to solve the issue complete madness, it's ok though IH says he made a mistake so we just move on, seemingly with no thought of the damage these type of unexplainable decisions he dreams up can have on our upcoming youngsters. Just another example of the damage this self-righteous idiot will do to QPR if left in charge any longer than May. |  | | |  |
| Tactically clueless on 21:36 - Apr 7 with 7060 views | eghamranger |
I agree..... let’s gets Mick McCarthy or Alan Pardew in 🙄 |  | | |
| Tactically clueless on 21:40 - Apr 7 with 7031 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
mylot
Put yourself up for manager, I'm sure you would do better. |  |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 22:24 - Apr 7 with 6862 views | Myke |
It's a fair point though. On the occasions when Holloway has played Washington up front on his own, I have criticised him for not using a more experienced striker to lead the line. So to expect Eze to do it was ridiculous. Without a doubt Sylla should have led the line for at least 60/70 minsr and see how we are doing at that point, Sadly, Holloway has once more exposed his tactical ineptness, which is the single biggest issue I have with the man. He sometimes shows flashes of tactical awareness (Reading and Sheffield United at home this season and Reading away last year) but far too often he gets it wrong or doesn't react to a problem as it unfolds on the pitch. He needs to demonstrate in the last few games that he has enough nous about him to deal with averse situations but I'm not convinced he has. | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 22:30 - Apr 7 with 6832 views | 2Thomas2Bowles |
Sylla has not played in a couple of months and looked unfit for the under 23's
About as useless as CW when he has played. | |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 23:03 - Apr 7 with 6715 views | Myke |
| Tactically clueless on 22:30 - Apr 7 by 2Thomas2Bowles |
Sylla has not played in a couple of months and looked unfit for the under 23's
About as useless as CW when he has played. |
The first part of your statement may be accurate but the second most certainly isn't. Sylla has led the line very effectively when asked to. He has more mobility and hold up ability than Smith. As for describing Washington as 'useless' this is both statistically inaccurate and entirely lacking the kind of tolerance and kindness that only yesterday Clive suggested we could all do with implementing in our lives al little more in the context of mirroring Ray Wilkins attitude to life. 'Kindness is not a weakness' How quickly we forget | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 23:23 - Apr 7 with 6661 views | T_Block |
No Holloway is not tactically clueless.After winning a few games they couldn't keep up the consistency.They were tired ,and apart from Luonogo did not play as well as the last few weeks.
But if you do not support Holloway the first chance you get out come the whiners.....
Football knowledge is very low in England.The evidence for this is clear in the number of english managers and coaches at the highest levels.It is also evident most of the time in the uninformed criticism decent players and managers get on fan message boards like this. | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 00:21 - Apr 8 with 6508 views | TacticalR |
So was Holloway a footballing genius on Monday when we put four past Norwich? |  |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 00:29 - Apr 8 with 6494 views | VancouverHoop |
It seemed an odd decision but, initially, a forgiveable one in a game where nothing much was at stake. However it was clear after about twenty minutes it wasn't working and Hull were beginning to turn the match in their favour. If the first sub had been made then, there might have a chance for us to do something. The trouble is few managers ever do that – it's not just Holloway – they never sub before half-time except for an injury. Which is what happened, but by then we were two goals down. I've heard explanations as to why this is the case but none of them are convincing. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Tactically clueless on 00:40 - Apr 8 with 6470 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Vancouver, I think your post is fair.
I didn't think it was odd and no-one else on here said it was but perhaps we should have questioned it a small bit more. Me and you had a nice chat about it on the Fred, you wanted Sylla on, I didn't as I'm not convinced by him. Then another poster mentioned Sylla's fitness and lack of even reserve games being an issue. All that being told, I still thought you were right that we needed a traditional No. 9 as Eze (understandably) didn't have the experience to pull off the withdrawn striker role bar a few promising flashes.
Holloway, while pointing out that Sylla wasn't fully fit, has since said that he wished he'd started Sylla nonetheless.
This doesn't make him tactically cluless as the OP suggests. Faced with imperfect options, he picked one of them. I'm not convinced that the other one would have been much better, but it probably had a slightly better chance of success alright.
Either way, Vancouver, at least our chat today was interesting to me as it made me think and it was civil. I enjoyed it.
Edit - by the way, Vancouver is some amazing city! [Post edited 8 Apr 2018 0:41]
|  |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 00:58 - Apr 8 with 6419 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Not fair on those paying good money to travel, but if anyone thinks the remaining fixtures are going to be anything other than experimentation and youth blooding, then I've got news for you.
Short term pain long term gain.
[Post edited 8 Apr 2018 0:59]
|  | | |
| Tactically clueless on 01:33 - Apr 8 with 6366 views | VancouverHoop |
| Tactically clueless on 00:40 - Apr 8 by BrianMcCarthy |
Vancouver, I think your post is fair.
I didn't think it was odd and no-one else on here said it was but perhaps we should have questioned it a small bit more. Me and you had a nice chat about it on the Fred, you wanted Sylla on, I didn't as I'm not convinced by him. Then another poster mentioned Sylla's fitness and lack of even reserve games being an issue. All that being told, I still thought you were right that we needed a traditional No. 9 as Eze (understandably) didn't have the experience to pull off the withdrawn striker role bar a few promising flashes.
Holloway, while pointing out that Sylla wasn't fully fit, has since said that he wished he'd started Sylla nonetheless.
This doesn't make him tactically cluless as the OP suggests. Faced with imperfect options, he picked one of them. I'm not convinced that the other one would have been much better, but it probably had a slightly better chance of success alright.
Either way, Vancouver, at least our chat today was interesting to me as it made me think and it was civil. I enjoyed it.
Edit - by the way, Vancouver is some amazing city! [Post edited 8 Apr 2018 0:41]
|
Back at ya Brian.
The manager's always the easiest guy to dump on, (except for the ref) and sometimes with reason. But it's sometimes easy to forget he knows a lot more about his players than anyone else. For example I was a bit surprised at Holloway digging out Scowen over Ned's card. It would have seriously p.o.'d some players, but we have trust Olly that Scowen isn't one of them, and maybe he'll think twice about repeating what he did. | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 01:35 - Apr 8 with 6360 views | VancouverHoop |
| Tactically clueless on 00:58 - Apr 8 by BazzaInTheLoft |
Not fair on those paying good money to travel, but if anyone thinks the remaining fixtures are going to be anything other than experimentation and youth blooding, then I've got news for you.
Short term pain long term gain.
[Post edited 8 Apr 2018 0:59]
|
Yup. (Maybe that's why they gave away free shirts to the traveling fans?) | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 01:39 - Apr 8 with 6354 views | smegma |
| Tactically clueless on 00:40 - Apr 8 by BrianMcCarthy |
Vancouver, I think your post is fair.
I didn't think it was odd and no-one else on here said it was but perhaps we should have questioned it a small bit more. Me and you had a nice chat about it on the Fred, you wanted Sylla on, I didn't as I'm not convinced by him. Then another poster mentioned Sylla's fitness and lack of even reserve games being an issue. All that being told, I still thought you were right that we needed a traditional No. 9 as Eze (understandably) didn't have the experience to pull off the withdrawn striker role bar a few promising flashes.
Holloway, while pointing out that Sylla wasn't fully fit, has since said that he wished he'd started Sylla nonetheless.
This doesn't make him tactically cluless as the OP suggests. Faced with imperfect options, he picked one of them. I'm not convinced that the other one would have been much better, but it probably had a slightly better chance of success alright.
Either way, Vancouver, at least our chat today was interesting to me as it made me think and it was civil. I enjoyed it.
Edit - by the way, Vancouver is some amazing city! [Post edited 8 Apr 2018 0:41]
|
Sylla wasn't fit ?? What's happened to Oteh ?? You know, the clubs top scorer ..... | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 02:56 - Apr 8 with 6280 views | Hooparoo |
I really do want Olly to get it right but I don’t understand how he gets it so wrong sometimes. It should be obvious that Eze would be wasted as a lone striker so why put him there? What’s even more worrying is that he openly says it was the wrong thing to do and that Sylla should have started. He is naive like a child and seems to say whatever comes into his head without considering the effect.
How does he think this will make Sylla and Eze feel? I love him for the Rs legend that he is but I can’t figure out if he’s mad or stupid sometimes. |  |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 03:47 - Apr 8 with 6246 views | PlanetHonneywood |
Ollie’s biggest weakness is Ollie; it just happens that at times, it’s also his biggest strength!
Much of the criticisms above are valid. The problem is that when he gets it right, then maybe he doesn’t get the praise he deserves. Since his return he’s at times, unnecessary tinkering, has been his undoing. Next season he has got to be more consistency, less complicated and yes, it would be nice to see prompt responses when things are looking a bit iffy.
However, this being said, I’m all for him giving the pups game time when the outcomes are of little or no consequences. Frankly, if he can’t try Eze up front now, then when can he?
Next season could be a brute with a plethora of off-field problems impacting on the park. I’m edgy about how Ollie will react if we fall under the cosh at any stage, and I’m sure as shite concerned about how some of our more wallyesque fans might respond if the going gets tough.
So, try things now Ollie but come August: just keep it consistently simple. |  |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 04:47 - Apr 8 with 6205 views | timcocking |
A very poor decision.
But hardly the end of the world. Ollie has seen Eze loads more than we have. If he thought he could play striker, oh well, he's learned he can't. Not yet anyway. We've been doing well recently, so let's see how things pan out. We might be good again next week. |  | | |
| Tactically clueless on 04:50 - Apr 8 with 6204 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Tactically clueless on 04:47 - Apr 8 by timcocking |
A very poor decision.
But hardly the end of the world. Ollie has seen Eze loads more than we have. If he thought he could play striker, oh well, he's learned he can't. Not yet anyway. We've been doing well recently, so let's see how things pan out. We might be good again next week. |
I don't think it's poor decision.
We now know Eze can't play on his own. One less game we need to spend finding that out.
No good for those who went to Hull, but it's something learned. | | | |
| Tactically clueless on 05:18 - Apr 8 with 6179 views | isawqpratwcity |
Never mind the loss, we can bear that: the OP's point is that sticking a youngster like Eze up there like a shag on a rock is potentially disastrous to his confidence. |  |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 22:04 - Apr 8 with 5594 views | lave16 |
| Tactically clueless on 05:18 - Apr 8 by isawqpratwcity |
Never mind the loss, we can bear that: the OP's point is that sticking a youngster like Eze up there like a shag on a rock is potentially disastrous to his confidence. |
read the title quickly and thought it read testiclly clueless | |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 22:25 - Apr 8 with 5536 views | daveB |
| Tactically clueless on 05:18 - Apr 8 by isawqpratwcity |
Never mind the loss, we can bear that: the OP's point is that sticking a youngster like Eze up there like a shag on a rock is potentially disastrous to his confidence. |
not sure it will destroy him, he cant be that fragile that 45 minutes out of position will hurt him that much |  | | |
| Tactically clueless on 22:32 - Apr 8 with 5519 views | ridethewave |
| Tactically clueless on 04:50 - Apr 8 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I don't think it's poor decision.
We now know Eze can't play on his own. One less game we need to spend finding that out.
No good for those who went to Hull, but it's something learned. |
"We now know Eze can't play on his own."
Well we don't even know that do we. You can't write the kid off in that position at 19 years old after only one bad game.
I thought it was a strange team selection but glad we're safe. |  | | |
| Tactically clueless on 22:54 - Apr 8 with 5482 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Tactically clueless on 22:32 - Apr 8 by ridethewave |
"We now know Eze can't play on his own."
Well we don't even know that do we. You can't write the kid off in that position at 19 years old after only one bad game.
I thought it was a strange team selection but glad we're safe. |
Ok fair point. Give a lad a chance in the lone striker position. I’m up for that.
Bear in mind though that you have been pretty critical of Holloway recently, are you going to give him a bit of a break while he finds out more about what this side can do? I think we can all play our part here.
Even if you don’t like him, which is your right, games like these can also help whoever your preferred alternative is one day. [Post edited 8 Apr 2018 23:53]
| | | |
| Tactically clueless on 23:16 - Apr 8 with 5445 views | CroydonCaptJack |
| Tactically clueless on 22:25 - Apr 8 by daveB |
not sure it will destroy him, he cant be that fragile that 45 minutes out of position will hurt him that much |
Totally agree. Why do we think it will destroy his confidence. One game FFS! |  | | |
| Tactically clueless on 01:36 - Apr 9 with 5365 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Tactically clueless on 23:16 - Apr 8 by CroydonCaptJack |
Totally agree. Why do we think it will destroy his confidence. One game FFS! |
Fair enough. He can sit there stewing on it while waiting for his next game. | |
| |
| Tactically clueless on 05:08 - Apr 9 with 5310 views | timcocking |
| Tactically clueless on 04:50 - Apr 8 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I don't think it's poor decision.
We now know Eze can't play on his own. One less game we need to spend finding that out.
No good for those who went to Hull, but it's something learned. |
I take your point. Do need to try new things sometimes.
But shouldn't Ollie have a fair idea beforehand? Isn't it his job to know that? He's had the guy for over a year. It's certainly going to have an absolutely drastic affect on the shape and balance of the team which had been going so well. Ok, don't know for a fact beforehand it'll be a disaster, but it didn't half look likely. And i'm not sure you can write him off as a striker after one game anyway. If that second goal hadn't bounced back in, we might have won. And it's just...Eze has played, what, six games or so, how many positions has he played so far? About eight? That can't be the best way to bring in new players. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
