benitez messed up today

[floyd the barber]

he makes mistakes, it happens...

 

torres and gerrard were not fit, with masch not fit to start...

 

so shouldnt we have gone with the regular formation and just drop players in?? at least it would have kept the foundations?? instead we went to 3 at the back with a wingback system, considering rafa himself said he didnt have much time to coach as players were away.....why go with that crazy formation?!??!?

 

it would have been quite easy to put a real striker up top...ie n`gog or voro (not great options but at least they should know their job) with benyoun behind.....kuyt right, reira left (was he injured???)

 

instead our whole shape changed and we looked a complete mess, yes far too many average players out there, but still...add that to a formation we havent played this season and we got what we deserved

 

Awful performance...

Edited October 18, 2009 by Lets get Masched

[Nebraska Red]

hard to disagree with this.

 

I have to admit I was surprised at the line up, especially throwing Spearing in alongside Lucas.

 

On FSC they thought Carra was going to play in front of a back 4.

 

shoddy show from the whole mob today, except for Reina.

[John am Rhein]

I certainly think 3 at the back's a mistake, in just about any circumstances

[Damian_de]

Poor performance for sure, but I would imagine we practice 3 at the back in training quite a bit, so unlikely to have been out of the players' experience.

[David Hodgson]

he makes mistakes, it happens...

 

torres and gerrard were not fit, with masch not fit to start...

 

so shouldnt we have gone with the regular formation and just drop players in?? at least it would have kept the foundations?? instead we went to 3 at the back with a wingback system, considering rafa himself said he didnt have much time to coach as players were away.....why go with that crazy formation?!??!?

 

it would have been quite easy to put a real striker up top...ie n`gog or voro (not great options but at least they should know their job) with benyoun behind.....kuyt right, reira left (was he injured???)

 

instead our whole shape changed and we looked a complete mess, yes far too many average players out there, but still...add that to a formation we havent played this season and we got what we deserved

 

Awful performance...

 

I disagree. 3 at the back has worked before. It's how it was applied today that was the problem. Where were the instances where the 3rd defender Agger was breaking forward ? It happened once, I think.

 

Not playing Babel on the right beggared belief. Has Rafa not learnt this one ? Played left, he almost never has an opportunity to use his main asset, his pace. It's madness to play him there. His renaissance has come when he's been played on the right. On the left, at Spurs and against Sunderland, he hasn't figured. Without Torres, and with Kuyt up front, we needed pace from somewhere to counter attack with, so what do we do ? We put our speed merchant in a position where he had to cut inside into a thicket of defenders every time he got the ball.

 

Also, one has to ask, if Mascherano was fit enough to give a good 25 minutes, and wasn't injured, why was he not given the nod over Lucas/Spearing initially ? Or, at the very least, introduced at half time. It's not like the lucas/Spearing partnership was going to take a firmer grip of the midfield after half time.

 

Overall, I don't have a problem with the starting line up, but not happy with the way the team was set out, it's application, lack of confidence and general fitness levels. There was mitiigation in the form of 'international week', but that can't absolve Rafa and the team from a really poor day at the office.

[Rory Fitzgerald]

Well, just having a look at the pro's to the formation yesterday.

 

1. We have been shoddy defensively away from home recently and now we have Agger back. Play 3 at the back.

 

2. We can speculate on the condition of Mascher and Lucas and then you throw in Spearing for energy knowing that the trade off is an unknown factor and how he will fit in. This further supports 3 at the back.

 

3. With 2 of our best talents out and Johnson playing really well as an attacking force, playing 3 takes some of the defensive duties off him - let him take some of the slack that results from losing Torres and Gerrard.

 

4. Aurelio is someone that is a good footballer, allowing him further forward would help the midfielders with his ball retention.

 

5. Kuyt upfront is decent in the air and with Johnson and Aurelio playing further forward, could get on the end of their crosses.

 

6. Benayoun is given a role more central and Babel can feed off balls if Babel is putting the shift in.

 

Thats the theory of the 3-5-2, 3-4-3 as I could see it.

 

However, the players played like strangers, no coherency between them. I suspect that we could have played a more normal formation and still have struggled.

 

End result could have been a defeat no matter which way the formation was cut

[David Hodgson]

Well, just having a look at the pro's to the formation yesterday.

 

1. We have been shoddy defensively away from home recently and now we have Agger back. Play 3 at the back.

 

2. We can speculate on the condition of Mascher and Lucas and then you throw in Spearing for energy knowing that the trade off is an unknown factor and how he will fit in. This further supports 3 at the back.

 

3. With 2 of our best talents out and Johnson playing really well as an attacking force, playing 3 takes some of the defensive duties off him - let him take some of the slack that results from losing Torres and Gerrard.

 

4. Aurelio is someone that is a good footballer, allowing him further forward would help the midfielders with his ball retention.

 

5. Kuyt upfront is decent in the air and with Johnson and Aurelio playing further forward, could get on the end of their crosses.

 

6. Benayoun is given a role more central and Babel can feed off balls if Babel is putting the shift in.

 

Thats the theory of the 3-5-2, 3-4-3 as I could see it.

 

However, the players played like strangers, no coherency between them. I suspect that we could have played a more normal formation and still have struggled.

 

End result could have been a defeat no matter which way the formation was cut

 

Pretty much on the money, although I'd stress the Babel thing as a major mistake.

[Flight]

I suspect one of the reasons we played 3 at the back was to deal with Jones. Carra and Skrtel couldn't handle him at our gaff - he's as strong as Drogba and has started folding nearly as easily. Given our recent defensive form I wasn't confident going into the game.

 

Bottom line, our squad is paper thin and our net spend on players is zero since we bought Mascha. As we know and Statler and Waldorf have yet to learn, you can't stand still in the Prem. You either spend or go backwards.

 

 

Probably being overlooked that our run of form at the end of last season started when just about the whole squad was available.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Flight

[Maldini]

20/20 hindsight

[David Hodgson]

20/20 hindsight

 

What is ?

[Rich Gobey]

What is ?

 

It was always going to be a tough match against Sunderland, no Gerrard, no Torres, Masch and Lucas having spent the best part of two days on aeroplanes and the ongoing defensive problems we seem to be having (which are IMO largely to do with injury anyway.)

 

So anyone coming up with an alternative that would have ensured a better outcome is relying heavily on hindsight and restrospective judgement.

[Maldini]

What is ?

 

The first post, it's easy to say he got it wrong after the fact. He took a bit of a risk, but loads of people on here were saying he should play 3 at the back the other day. In relation to your post, I don't think it makes a difference where Babel plays, he's just s***.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Maldini

[Cam]

We need a Plan B and 3 at the back could be that. But test it when we're 4-0 up in a match not starting it at a high-flying, tough North-Eastern team when we're without our 2 main players & giving a debut to a midget and had 2 days to practice it 'cos of damned internationals.

 

Amateurish mistake. If David Brent was a football manager he'd make arrogant decisions like that.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Cam

[Rory Fitzgerald]

We need a Plan B and 3 at the back could be that. But test it when we're 4-0 up in a match not starting it at a high-flying, tough North-Eastern team when we're without our 2 main players & giving a debut to a midget and had 2 days to practice it 'cos of damned internationals.

 

Amateurish mistake. If David Brent was a football manager he'd make arrogant decisions like that.

 

 

Are you saying that the players would have performed at their natural level if a more familiar system was played ?

 

Is the reason why we couldnt string 3 or 4 passes together because they didnt like the formation ?

 

Because if it is, I wouldnt be buying into that theory too much.

 

However, if it was the case, it doesnt say too much about the playing staff that were put out.

[Rimbeux]

Well, just having a look at the pro's to the formation yesterday.

 

1. We have been shoddy defensively away from home recently and now we have Agger back. Play 3 at the back.

 

2. We can speculate on the condition of Mascher and Lucas and then you throw in Spearing for energy knowing that the trade off is an unknown factor and how he will fit in. This further supports 3 at the back.

 

3. With 2 of our best talents out and Johnson playing really well as an attacking force, playing 3 takes some of the defensive duties off him - let him take some of the slack that results from losing Torres and Gerrard.

 

4. Aurelio is someone that is a good footballer, allowing him further forward would help the midfielders with his ball retention.

 

5. Kuyt upfront is decent in the air and with Johnson and Aurelio playing further forward, could get on the end of their crosses.

 

6. Benayoun is given a role more central and Babel can feed off balls if Babel is putting the shift in.

 

Thats the theory of the 3-5-2, 3-4-3 as I could see it.

 

However, the players played like strangers, no coherency between them. I suspect that we could have played a more normal formation and still have struggled.

 

End result could have been a defeat no matter which way the formation was cut

 

The theory is sound but it relies on how you use the extra man. Playing three at the back puts a maqssive emphasis on the central defenders to use the ball well and set up attacks, this is a given.

 

Essentially attacking in football relies on commiting the opposition defenders and trying to engineer man advantages. If you have a player that can occupy two or more defenders you are onto a winner, otherwise and usually as well, you need to be able to do it with smart formation and movement. With three at the back, you really need the defenders to do the job of the midfield in setting up attacks and committing at least one of the opposition midifeld as well as the forwards.

 

What really struck yesterday was how easily two forwards stopped our three defenders setting up any sort of play, dragging the midfield deep to help out. There was also duplication going on down the flanks, trying to ease the two on one situation Johnson and Aurelio had with taking on a fullback and wide midfield player each. The result was usually one man in the box battling two, three or four Sunderland players with occassional belated support from central midfield on the few occassions we did get Johnson away.

 

Not all of that was unthinkable before, given how poor we are on the ball at centre half and the lack of practice using the system. What we had was a team trying to play 4-2-3-1 with 3 at the back and nobody in the hole. Given that we had our two best attacking players were absent and that we had very little time to prepare for this game, it was a hell of an ask for the players to overcome absences as well as play an unfamilair system that requires very different roles for most on the pitch, which essentially meant playing with one less attacker and one more defender than usual. Interesting for me is that we've never gone three at the back against a top team, even given similar absences and issues.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Rimbeux

[Cam]

Yep.

 

Not much better though, sadly.

 

It's not a case of "not liking" it but to me it makes perfect sense that players are happier & more comfortable with their usual formation.

[David Hodgson]

The first post, it's easy to say he got it wrong after the fact. He took a bit of a risk, but loads of people on here were saying he should play 3 at the back the other day. In relation to your post, I don't think it makes a difference where Babel plays, he's just s***.

 

Except he's not and he's shown his quality this season. Each time whilst playing on the right. Entirely unfair to judge him on yesterday, especially when 8 out of the other 10 on the pitch were very poor.

[MFletcher]

We had limited options available to us. Our squad is, to be blunt, not good enough. Gerrard and Torres are two world class players and we were always going to be f***ed going to a rejuvenated Sunderland without them. Lest we forget they should have beaten United at Old Trafford two weeks.

 

They're a very good side, with a very good manager who knows how to play against us. It was a tough fixture, made much tougher by the absence of our world class front two, and I'm really not remotely surprised we got beat.

 

Quite where this leaves us when I expect us to go to Sunderland and get beat is anybody's guess though.

[Rimbeux]

We had limited options available to us. Our squad is, to be blunt, not good enough. Gerrard and Torres are two world class players and we were always going to be f***ed going to a rejuvenated Sunderland without them. Lest we forget they should have beaten United at Old Trafford two weeks.

 

They're a very good side, with a very good manager who knows how to play against us. It was a tough fixture, made much tougher by the absence of our world class front two, and I'm really not remotely surprised we got beat.

 

Quite where this leaves us when I expect us to go to Sunderland and get beat is anybody's guess though.

 

 

to be honest it looked as though everyone at the sharp end of the club was expecting a beating

[Rich Gobey]

to be honest it looked as though everyone at the sharp end of the club was expecting a beating

 

It felt like that a bit leading up to the game.

[Clay Davis]

Except he's not and he's shown his quality this season. Each time whilst playing on the right. Entirely unfair to judge him on yesterday, especially when 8 out of the other 10 on the pitch were very poor.

He's f***ing garbage and anyone that still thinks he's any good are the people who see people doing boss keepyups and think that they'd be boss in a match too.

 

He's an even thicker Cisse.

[tomasjj]

Benny has been more effective on the left.

Babel has shown improvement when played on the right lately.

 

So why on earth doesn't Rafa go that route?

[Mike]

He's f***ing garbage and anyone that still thinks he's any good are the people who see people doing boss keepyups and think that they'd be boss in a match too.

 

He's an even thicker Cisse.

 

idiot

[Clay Davis]

idiot

You like Babel do you?

[owenthomas]

i thought i'd gone beyond the point of supporting Babel but i have to agree with Dave - he's looked far better when playing on the right lately..

 

tomasjj is asking the right question above..