Another post on a WBA forum
I've tried to steer away from here tonight, partly to avoid the inevitable wrist-slashing, partly so I could have a clear look at the goal before commenting on it, and partly because Stoke make you lose your appetite for the game, whether it be thinking about it or debating it.
So, having had a few hours to calm down and have a few glasses of wine, hopefully these are considered views and not knee-jerk reactions. Some of these may have already been debated on here already tonight, apologies if so.
First off, Stoke. They are without doubt the most anti-football side I have ever seen. It's not that they are simply long-ball; they aren't really. What they are, is a niggly, attritional, desperately negative side, whose sole intention it seems, is to disrupt the play of the opposition. Watching them once a season is quite enough for me, but each to their own, I guess, and Potteries-folk are as strange as they come in any case.
My fear when Hodgson came in, was that we'd become too predictable as an attacking force, and lose fluidity and pace in our play - which was our strength under Di Matteo. His strong adherence to 4-4-2, could become a major problem for us. What's galling, is that we played 4-2-3-1 (or 4-4-1-1), very well under Hodgson at the end of last season, yet despite this strong evidence, he has appeared stubbornly resolved to implement 4-4-2 since the start of pre-season. As I've said before, it's a formation which is rarely used these days due to the fact it's very easy to defend against, unless your side possesses players with outstanding ability and movement.
Today, we actually played well for the opening 15/20 minutes, with a couple of excellent runs and crosses by Tchoyi, down either flank. During this period, we did pass the ball well, and the movement of Brunt and Morrison (regularly switching positions) and the strikers was very good. We couldn't keep this up though, and as the game went on, we became increasingly direct, reliant on hitting the balls into the channels for the strikers to chase, rather than concentrating on keeping the ball and moving it around Stoke's pack of centre-halves (the 6ft 4in Huth at right-back). So why did we end up playing to their strengths? Manager's orders or players falling into the trap?
Another worrying aspect of our play, is that against the modern tradition (well, bar Stoke), our full-backs hardly ventured into the Stoke half at all. I understand the benefits of retaining a solid shape when we don't have the ball, but should this totally preclude any overlapping from the full-backs at all? Or is it down to the personnel we're using?
As for the goal, it seems to me that while Foster had his hands on the ball, he didn't have the ball in his hands. The foot was high however, and a free-kick should have been given. The Asst ref had the clearer view of course, and the fault lies with him. It was the type of incident we see several times in each game, with a defender attempting to shepherd the ball back to the keeper (or out of play). Foster clearly came out to claim the ball, so Tamas was correct to do this, but he failed to properly block the run of the attacker in doing so. For his part, Foster should have been braver and more decisive.
So, having had a few hours to calm down and have a few glasses of wine, hopefully these are considered views and not knee-jerk reactions. Some of these may have already been debated on here already tonight, apologies if so.
First off, Stoke. They are without doubt the most anti-football side I have ever seen. It's not that they are simply long-ball; they aren't really. What they are, is a niggly, attritional, desperately negative side, whose sole intention it seems, is to disrupt the play of the opposition. Watching them once a season is quite enough for me, but each to their own, I guess, and Potteries-folk are as strange as they come in any case.
My fear when Hodgson came in, was that we'd become too predictable as an attacking force, and lose fluidity and pace in our play - which was our strength under Di Matteo. His strong adherence to 4-4-2, could become a major problem for us. What's galling, is that we played 4-2-3-1 (or 4-4-1-1), very well under Hodgson at the end of last season, yet despite this strong evidence, he has appeared stubbornly resolved to implement 4-4-2 since the start of pre-season. As I've said before, it's a formation which is rarely used these days due to the fact it's very easy to defend against, unless your side possesses players with outstanding ability and movement.
Today, we actually played well for the opening 15/20 minutes, with a couple of excellent runs and crosses by Tchoyi, down either flank. During this period, we did pass the ball well, and the movement of Brunt and Morrison (regularly switching positions) and the strikers was very good. We couldn't keep this up though, and as the game went on, we became increasingly direct, reliant on hitting the balls into the channels for the strikers to chase, rather than concentrating on keeping the ball and moving it around Stoke's pack of centre-halves (the 6ft 4in Huth at right-back). So why did we end up playing to their strengths? Manager's orders or players falling into the trap?
Another worrying aspect of our play, is that against the modern tradition (well, bar Stoke), our full-backs hardly ventured into the Stoke half at all. I understand the benefits of retaining a solid shape when we don't have the ball, but should this totally preclude any overlapping from the full-backs at all? Or is it down to the personnel we're using?
As for the goal, it seems to me that while Foster had his hands on the ball, he didn't have the ball in his hands. The foot was high however, and a free-kick should have been given. The Asst ref had the clearer view of course, and the fault lies with him. It was the type of incident we see several times in each game, with a defender attempting to shepherd the ball back to the keeper (or out of play). Foster clearly came out to claim the ball, so Tamas was correct to do this, but he failed to properly block the run of the attacker in doing so. For his part, Foster should have been braver and more decisive.
ffs They need to give him more time
post/rant, best ever
) with more forward-thinking nous than that. It's what we were nearly always told at that level - keep your shape, frontmen work the channels, gamble on flick-ons ("GAMBLE!" 
Comment