| There's no shape. Nothing 17:12 - Jan 31 with 4859 views | bosh67 |
Watched today on a stream. An internet stream, not an actual stream.
We lost the game because we didn't turn up until the 40th minute, by which time we should have been 5 or 6 down. No width, no plan, no shape, no ability to hold a ball, no ability to pass a ball, no ability to get the ball to Charlie. Terrible errors costing us. Unlike Henry but Vargas has now given the ball away with disastrous results 3 times. Still not being played in any position where he can be effective and losing confidence.
Second half they really could and should have got something out of the game but again zero service to Charlie. He must be wondering why he's bothering. Ferr had a better game and worked hard but had very little options wide to pick out. We didn't take advantage of the wind second half. Bobby missed a golden chance on 90 minutes to equalise and yet again half hearted tracking back and defending led to yet another injury time goal against.
If you are against a weakened defence in the 2nd half go at them. There was still no shape, no movement, no width and why have we got Zarate if we aren't giving him any game time.
We so desperately need a change of management. It's actually painful to watch how clueless the game plan is. Obviously that is not going to happen and the good ship Harry is fast sinking and so is the player's confidence out there.
A new club record. We have never lost 11 away games in a row. Well, we have now. I don't think whatever happens in the end of this window is going to change anything. The troops look beaten and that, I'm afraid is down to the manager and coaching. I fear only a change would keep us up but that's not happening so we are moving towards the miracle stage.
Still, it was only a bonus game. Sadly for whoever plays us. |  |
| |  |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:13 - Jan 31 with 3730 views | kropotkin41 |
I'll think I'll watch the next game on an actual stream............. it'll be more enjoyable. |  |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:34 - Jan 31 with 3606 views | OutintheOrne |
Spot on Bosh.
Once again an embarrassing performance devoid of any positives. It's getting even harder to watch even a stream these days let alone travel halfway across the country to watch these inept performances.
The real disappointment is that, fundamentally, we have a decent enough squad to be a fair few points better off than we are.
Shocking. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:42 - Jan 31 with 3571 views | DesertBoot |
That's the main issue for me. Are we that bad or would another manager improve us dramatically. We'll never know. |  |
| Wish I could be like David Watts |
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:53 - Jan 31 with 3519 views | SpiritofGregory |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:42 - Jan 31 by DesertBoot |
That's the main issue for me. Are we that bad or would another manager improve us dramatically. We'll never know. |
We have heard rumours that Harry doesn't even take training. That would explain why the players still aren't fit and don't play as a team. Every player should know their job and stick to it. We are constantly getting outdone by teams who just play simple football.
Our players in desperation, try overhead kicks and shoot from ridiculous angles. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:04 - Jan 31 with 3489 views | rsonist |
The squad is imbalanced, but so are many others. I have no doubt whatsoever that the current management isn't getting anything near what's basically capable out of what we have. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:09 - Jan 31 with 3466 views | Loft1979 |
Thanks. The line up was depressing let alone trying to watch that. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:14 - Jan 31 with 3431 views | Discodroids |
ZAMORA Is an absolute abomination. the cnt cant even do the one thing he was any good at in his fkn life anymore
head the ball.
is this what we get after £40 million and over 2 years in charge!!.
Ruldolph harold should be up for trial at Nuremburg doing the spandau ballet.
were a fukin film script that would have been turned down for mike basset as being too far fetched., [Post edited 31 Jan 2015 18:17]
|  |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:23 - Jan 31 with 3399 views | actonman |
Sad when you know the outcome prior to the game, see the team sheet and confirm your thoughts.
Couldn't put myself through that sh!te again even on a stream, reminds me of the old joke ...
If qpr where playing in my front garden ..... I'd pull the FCKING curtains !! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:28 - Jan 31 with 3378 views | bosh67 |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:14 - Jan 31 by Discodroids |
ZAMORA Is an absolute abomination. the cnt cant even do the one thing he was any good at in his fkn life anymore
head the ball.
is this what we get after £40 million and over 2 years in charge!!.
Ruldolph harold should be up for trial at Nuremburg doing the spandau ballet.
were a fukin film script that would have been turned down for mike basset as being too far fetched., [Post edited 31 Jan 2015 18:17]
|
Difficult to blame Bobby too much. It was a glorious chance but as you say, £40m spent and one striker in at £4m and that was Charlie. Great buy but that was it.
During Harry's reign one striker bought.
Sandro - £10m - guy sadly can't stand up long enough to receive the Matthew Rose lifetime achievement award. Don't say we weren't warned.
Mutch - £6m - injured then unfit, then played out of position, then sold.
Cauker - £8m - played, dropped, on the bench.
Fer - £7.5m - better game today but totally inconsistent.
Zarate in on loan and plays 15 minutes so far?
Bobby 34 and has never had the hip op done. He's simply the only other option because Harry says Zarate isn't fit. So why did we get him in? | |
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:34 - Jan 31 with 3338 views | mendipexile |
Clueless. Being saying this to my lads for months.
From the start it's been a joke. Buy and sell players to play one formation then abandon it almost immediately.
That leaves you with a poorly balanced squad to play 442 so (decent?) players get played out of position.
Couple that with what appears to be zero in the way of tactics or style of play then you have the circus which is QPR most weeks.
I can't see how we will stay up with this shower but I hope we do because I fear to think what will happen with FFP/fines if we go down. | | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:47 - Jan 31 with 3309 views | Discodroids |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:28 - Jan 31 by bosh67 |
Difficult to blame Bobby too much. It was a glorious chance but as you say, £40m spent and one striker in at £4m and that was Charlie. Great buy but that was it.
During Harry's reign one striker bought.
Sandro - £10m - guy sadly can't stand up long enough to receive the Matthew Rose lifetime achievement award. Don't say we weren't warned.
Mutch - £6m - injured then unfit, then played out of position, then sold.
Cauker - £8m - played, dropped, on the bench.
Fer - £7.5m - better game today but totally inconsistent.
Zarate in on loan and plays 15 minutes so far?
Bobby 34 and has never had the hip op done. He's simply the only other option because Harry says Zarate isn't fit. So why did we get him in? |
its a disgrace and embarresment that we are using him imo, bosh.
he recd the ball through on goal in the second half in line with their left back and just turned back round to our goal like isambard kingdom brunels leviathen ship.
shot his bolt. [Post edited 31 Jan 2015 18:47]
| |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 20:16 - Jan 31 with 3158 views | bosh67 |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:47 - Jan 31 by Discodroids |
its a disgrace and embarresment that we are using him imo, bosh.
he recd the ball through on goal in the second half in line with their left back and just turned back round to our goal like isambard kingdom brunels leviathen ship.
shot his bolt. [Post edited 31 Jan 2015 18:47]
|
But Disco, in all fairness to the guy, he's our only other possible ariel threat. And apparently outré only other striker.
I am not sure he will be playing beyond this season. Having put off a hip op for two years he has put his body on the line for the rewards he gets but also because he wants to play for us. That shouldn't be ignored. He's put off the op to keep playing. Probably not a great idea.
At 34 the guy is putting himself at serious risk I reckon. I wouldn't be surprised if as a result he's one of these guys who can barely walk when he gets to about 50. He may well have shot his bolt, as it were, especially at this level, but its difficult to be too harsh on a veteran player who is at least up for trying and putting his body at serious risk in the process.
It is a disgrace that we are having to use him, certainly as much as we have. Remember Harry said if he stayed this season it would be as an impact player in the last 20 minutes. He's gone way over and above that so far this one for us at a higher level.
The embarrassment is to let players like Hitchcock go. We have to change regime and stick the kids in at the deep end. They do it across Europe, they even do it here, but we don't. | |
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 11:42 - Feb 1 with 3046 views | toreqpr |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 18:34 - Jan 31 by mendipexile |
Clueless. Being saying this to my lads for months.
From the start it's been a joke. Buy and sell players to play one formation then abandon it almost immediately.
That leaves you with a poorly balanced squad to play 442 so (decent?) players get played out of position.
Couple that with what appears to be zero in the way of tactics or style of play then you have the circus which is QPR most weeks.
I can't see how we will stay up with this shower but I hope we do because I fear to think what will happen with FFP/fines if we go down. |
Totally agree.Unfortunatly it seems we have to stick with Harry for the rest of the season.His style is way past its sell by date,as we all know,When the pat on the back "manmanaging style doesent work anymore there is not much left in the locker.Everything cant be solved with the arrival of a new player as Northern long has pointed out.So what do we do?First of all most want to get rid of Harry.But few comes up with any answer exept for names.It looks like the club is moving towards Tim Sherwood with the appointment of Les and Ramsey in mind.Will this be enough for our club?I dont know,I need more to know more about TS,He has limited experience,does his coaching revolve around one specific system?Is he able to build the foundations so we can have a working defenceial unit?Can he make the players understand how to move to create space and chanches and not just stand there waiting for the ball.If a player like Hoillet started running then he could take on players more easy and creating space for his teammates.This would generate space and movement and more options for passes to be played on the second or third movement.This is something which takes a hell of time to imprint on the training field. Is our next manager capeable to get this in place?Harry for sure is not! Les and his team probably have identified players for the next season either for the top tier or the one below.I`m a norwegian R not able to attend too many matches.Norwegian football is by no way super but there are some points I like to identify.Our national team was quite ok in the early 90s.My local team Rosenborg did well in CL in the late 90s.Both teams thrived on organisation,Norway defensivly Rosenborg offensivly.Managers who have succseeded in Norway often has had their education from university as teachers.I think this has made them better in communicaton with players.Made it easier to sell the package how we want to play.Those who have tried to work in England has not tasted succsess.But at Wolves I think the owners hit the panic button too early.My final point is that a manager must be able to communicate the way we are going to play We must also be able to identify players who could perform inside our system.Not has been on big last payday deals.Dear Tony our owner I like u but there are some issues,You tried to buy West Ham.You publicly came out a hammer fan.Then u cast your eyes on us So far u and your allies have thrown away the bet part of £200m.You wouldent have eared the amount of dosh u have beeing stupid or shortsigtheed.There is surly something lurking behind.How many millions will Old Oak Common make for u and yours.And what will happen if this doesnt materialise.Will u stick by us or do a Caterham runner?PS watch Celtic and norwegian manager Ronny Deila.They getting things together after a slow start.If he was working in England he would have been sacked by now.Who do I want as manager?Anyone of those at Middlesboro Bounemouth Brentford or most of all Torsten Liberknect coch of Eintracht Braunschweig.Have a nice Sunday! |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 12:11 - Feb 1 with 3005 views | Discodroids |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 20:16 - Jan 31 by bosh67 |
But Disco, in all fairness to the guy, he's our only other possible ariel threat. And apparently outré only other striker.
I am not sure he will be playing beyond this season. Having put off a hip op for two years he has put his body on the line for the rewards he gets but also because he wants to play for us. That shouldn't be ignored. He's put off the op to keep playing. Probably not a great idea.
At 34 the guy is putting himself at serious risk I reckon. I wouldn't be surprised if as a result he's one of these guys who can barely walk when he gets to about 50. He may well have shot his bolt, as it were, especially at this level, but its difficult to be too harsh on a veteran player who is at least up for trying and putting his body at serious risk in the process.
It is a disgrace that we are having to use him, certainly as much as we have. Remember Harry said if he stayed this season it would be as an impact player in the last 20 minutes. He's gone way over and above that so far this one for us at a higher level.
The embarrassment is to let players like Hitchcock go. We have to change regime and stick the kids in at the deep end. They do it across Europe, they even do it here, but we don't. |
I hear what your saying bosh, but we must be pretty unique in the history of the premier league to include a player in our squa/.team who can only complete 30/45 mins of a game once a week. its not as if we didnt know this at the start of the season.
real sunday league stuff.
we used to include a ex pro with fkd knees in our lloyds team back in the nineties who for 45 mins , would be worth it .
this is the lloyds of london brokers cup im on about here , . not the premier league.
in any case greyfriars couldnt hit mica paris's ample arse with roscoe tanners tennis racket.
the fella cant even jump anymore.hed be better off in a cocoon by a swiming pool
imo its cruel to include him , for himself and the paying public its a spectacle unworthy of professional sport.
were being taken for mugs.end of..
for a professional player who can't run, can't head the ball, cant turn,cant score,cant jump..... he's a top, top player.
.
as for clint hill he deserves so much better than being put out to be shown up because of cradlecaps piss poor management.
anyway fk all that bosh youve been in a diferent league than the rest of us mortals with your posts.
magic mate. [Post edited 1 Feb 2015 12:22]
| |
| The Duke Of New York. A-Number One.
|
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 with 2888 views | Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:01 - Feb 1 with 2863 views | stuabd |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
You're back. Mr tactics! Can we have a bit more detail next time. You're slackng. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:12 - Feb 1 with 2838 views | stuabd |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
So you think there was a shape and a plan? Seems plausible based on your analysis, but you seem to be including quite a few players in the 'not doing his job' bracket. Isn't it also possible that these players are breaking early because there are no clear guidelines as to what they should be doing? If it was one or two players, you may be right. However, when you're naming 4-5 players it seems just as likely that instructions are either not communicated properly or are not being given.
Surely a manager like Mourinho would not tolerate this kind of tactical error from a group of players. Apparently his players have very clearly defined roles.
My layman's observation would be that we have 10 outfield players who play like individuals. We seem to rely on a bit of individual brilliance (not much of that) to win games. I think other teams have more of a plan and that is communicated to the players and drilled on the training ground. [Post edited 1 Feb 2015 17:13]
| | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 17:51 - Feb 1 with 2787 views | oldmeadoniansR |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
Wow! Any chance you could pop down to Chiswick and advise my Vets team. We haven't won a game all season and could do with some tactics. Or simply a tactic. Are you a coach Neil? | | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 20:21 - Feb 1 with 2726 views | derbyhoop |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
I'd picked up the bit about not working hard enough as I was watching. The positioning of the Stoke players vs the out of position of ours was an insight.
I wonder if they try to get forward too early to compensate for the lack of serious pace? |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 20:30 - Feb 1 with 2713 views | baz_qpr |
This comes back to our lack of mobility and fitness. If we can get Sandra fit and playing, we can bench Joey and have a bit more solidity in the middle of the park. We've not played well IMHO since he has been out and Joey back in central midfield |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 21:06 - Feb 1 with 2681 views | Red_Ranger |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
Unfortunately that sounds like Sjoke's game plan and shape, not ours.
Only thing I saw was Fer going more direct and it worked for the goal. | | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 21:22 - Feb 1 with 2666 views | ozranger |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
One of the problems that occurs when you have too many moving forward too early is that there is no support for players when the ball is passed back along the sideline. On a number of occasions we lost the ball under pressure when a player like Isla had the ball but not a single teammate was within 20 yds of him. The same for Vargas. Perhaps it is also a combination of these players going to high and the midfield not drifting across to help, I am unsure. However, it became obvious on a number of occasions and needs to be fixed. |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 22:25 - Feb 1 with 2625 views | johncharles |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
Could you cut out the big words and add plenty of crayon drawings and send it to Harry. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 11:10 - Feb 2 with 2517 views | JAPRANGERS |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 16:49 - Feb 1 by Neil_SI |
There was actually a shape and a plan. We just executed it poorly and when it broke down, we didn't show enough desire or take responsibility to try and recover the situation.
The key problem for us is our inability to deal with turnover of possession, no matter where it happens on the pitch. In this match, we were losing the ball in the first and second phases of play, so around the defensive areas and midfield and that caused us all sorts of problems.
Stoke prepared for us well and were able to pressurise us into mistakes. They picked their defensive positions well in those moments, which gave them the best chance of winning possession, but then turning that possession quickly into dangerous attacks.
They were able to create many one v one, two v two, or two v one scenarios with relative ease in dangerous areas on the pitch. This is partly because a few of our players are leaving their starting positions too early in those transitions, so they become out of position and this directly relates to players like Leroy Fer, Joey Barton, Mauricio Isla and Eduardo Vargas.
They're all moving forwards too early and gambling before the first and second phase are complete or safely successful. Then when we lose the ball, we're suddenly outnumbered and have little protection down the wide areas.
From here, you will always have problems if those players don't decide to chase back or work hard enough. You're left with defensive midfielders like Karl Henry or other central defenders having to try and support those players and often they'll get sucked towards the ball. That always makes the shape and structure implode on itself and that's why we end up looking so ragged.
They played on Barton's indiscipline to hold his position and Isla's tendency to go forward well, in fact they did a number of clever things. Jonathan Walters occupied the two centre backs and Henry by staying in the correct distance of them to apply pressure if need be, Stephen Ireland dropped further back to to the same between all of our midfielders, so was a nuisance and able to win the ball, while at the same time if he got on the ball in there, he had the maximum time to pass.
Moses dropped deeper, but not too deep, to give himself enough time to track Isla if needed or to drive forward and use the space. If Barton was too far forward the diagonal pass into the channel was always on, so he could isolate Isla one v one or draw a centre back out... while on the other side Arnautovic stayed high and wide, further forward than Moses, but in a distance where he could apply pressure to the left midfielder if need be, but at the right distance from Clint Hill. Hill stood off, giving him time and space to either run at him and force the back line deeper, or to entice Hill out and use his pace and skill to try and beat him.
Ireland had the freedom to pass easily and cleanly to either wide man, drive at Henry and take him on or feed Walters.
Our defenders also didn't do a great job of finding the correct depth or angles. They never made the Stoke players work as hard or cover as much distance as possible as we operated in relatively straight lines, whereas one of the centre backs needed to drop deeper to provide better angles and easier methods of clearing the ball if necessary. Stoke's back three did this well, Charlie Austin was rarely able to get near them and they had time and space to pop it around and then often, because Barton strayed so far forward, they themselves could feed in Moses or Ireland with relative ease.
It's pretty basic at the end of the day. Solved by players wanting to work harder, show desire and take some responsibility on the pitch. You can play 4-5-1 all you like and thicken up the midfield, but if the game is going on behind you, you're out of the game and not in play. That happened for the majority of our midfield and more often than not, it was Hill, Dunne, Onuoha and Henry versus Stoke's attack. |
Welcome back Neil! Brilliant post and analysis.
I dont suppose you would consider taking over from you know who?? You would get 3M a year, a nice comfy porta-cabin to sleep in through training?????????? |  | | |
| There's no shape. Nothing on 11:27 - Feb 2 with 2484 views | kropotkin41 |
Great to have some heavyweight tactical understanding on the board. The interesting thing is that we were both lacking and Stoke were well prepared for us. That's Harry's failure AND Hughes' success!! Speaks volumes about QPR and how deep in the mire we actually are.
The only (slim) chance we have of staying up is to find 3 teams in even deeper disarray on and off the pitch. Can't see it myself. | |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
