Rafa Discussion Thread

[Sarb]

the fact that we actually had shots on target good enough for you el jef?

[Scratch]

the fact that we actually had shots on target good enough for you el jef?

Not really...Villa played a game designed to stifle the opposition...at their own ground...they never went for the win. United didnt' try and stifle us, they gave us space, we had vociferous crowd backing, the players used this to spur them on...hence more shots.

[El Jefecito]

the fact that we actually had shots on target good enough for you el jef?

You are just a WUM with such a limited capability that you go on ignore.

Bye bye.

[Sarb]

Not really...Villa played a game designed to stifle the opposition...at their own ground...they never went for the win. United didnt' try and stifle us, they gave us space, we had vociferous crowd backing, the players used this to spur them on...hence more shots.

A lot of teams will play like that against us. Better find a suitable formation and tactics to overcome that

[Sarb]

El Jef, are you putting him on ignore because you can't respond to the fact that 0 shots on target against Villa and some on target yesterday shows a more attacking formation and you don't know what to say?

Bit of a poor response by you there I think. It's a shame as of late you have been coming across as quite an expert in Rafa's tactical decisions.

[rage]

You are just a WUM with such a limited capability that you go on ignore.

Bye bye.

**** you asked a question i gave you a very reasonable reply and you throw your toys out the pram. suit yourself.

for everyone else who can see what i post if going from a game where we have no shots on target to one where we have at least 10 is not a sign of us playing more offensive football then i don't know what is.

[El Jefecito]

How do you mean I failed to do?

I told you why the tactics were different and why we were more attacking. A better balanced team with players in right positions. Meant momentum wasn't lost in attack and we did a lot better on the flanks especially the left.

Seriously El Jef, I don't know why you think I failed to address your question because I did.

You're telling me the differences in the midfield personnel in both games made no difference whatsoever? We went for it yesterday, we were happy for a draw against Villa. Keane was playing on the left against Villa with Lucas, Mascher and Xabi through the middle.

Yesterday we played a 4-4-2 with strikers tracking back, a proper left winger. I'm sorry but the midfield against Villa was one to stop us conceding, not one to help us score

All I was saying that the instructions to the team were not different. You are trying to make this a Villa vs. Manure thing, but I think what you have posted indicates that Rafa always sets us up as defensive.

My take is we played a different formation against Villa based on how best to use the players we had available, it didn't work, but that does not mean we set out to be defensive. Some point to the subs as being evidence of this, I've posted elsewhere that this is more likely due to superficial thinking on the part of those who deem to pass judegement.

I asked you, directly, how we had setup yesterday any differently than we have done for the last couple of years and when you cut through the chaff the answer was that we had Riera on the left.

Hardly a compelling case for saying that Rafa had all of a sudden found the light and changed his tactical approach. Your post did not convince me. I put the improved performance down to a better balanced team, as did you, based on the options available.

You want to say that Rafa did a 180 yesterday and made us play attacking football, I say we've always tried to play that way, and yesterday we were better at it. For many reasons that most "superficial" fans don't appreciate.

That's all.

[El Jefecito]

El Jef, are you putting him on ignore because you can't respond to the fact that 0 shots on target against Villa and some on target yesterday shows a more attacking formation and you don't know what to say?

Bit of a poor response by you there I think. It's a shame as of late you have been coming across as quite an expert in Rafa's tactical decisions.

No mate, I'm putting him on ignore because if I try to "Debate" he resorts to BS. If I say to you ABC you come back to me with stuff that I have to think about. With him, it's just small time. If I was as bad as you made out, you would be on ignore. And you are not, nor is Rashid. Do I get credit for that?

[El Jefecito]

El Jef, are you putting him on ignore because you can't respond to the fact that 0 shots on target against Villa and some on target yesterday shows a more attacking formation and you don't know what to say?

Bit of a poor response by you there I think. It's a shame as of late you have been coming across as quite an expert in Rafa's tactical decisions.

BTW To address the substance of your point re: how we played against Villa. I spoke to this elsewhere. It was a one-off, we tried a new formation. We decided that our best chance of winning was to play 433 and flank Xabi with two players who could control the game and free up Xabi to be the free-man so that he could play make / be the focal point. Well, alas, Xabi did not live up to it and in the 2nd half Villa sussed us and were all over Xabi to the point where we had to switch to 4231.

Yes, it didn't work, yes, in retrospect we shouldn't have bet the game on Xabi, but hey live and learn. But recognise, this was a one off and to try and make out that we play like this all the time is just plain BS and disingenuous.

[rage]

now that i'm n ignore by el jef can i call him a cunt? if it helps i'll put a after it.

i really don't see how my response to a question tonto asked me was in anyway the actions of a wum or a bull****ter. no loss as far as i'm concerned one less RCDNW merchant to deal with. **** its not even a RCDNW argument, i bet even rafa would be happy to say that we played more offensively against utd than we did at villa.

[Rigadon]

Just goes to prove how much more difficult it is to win the league these days. The top teams are just that much better than they were back in the day.

Does that mean we had it easier ‘back in the day’?

What's that supposed to mean? If you got something to say, say it.

You’re implying that it was easier (for Liverpool) to win the league ‘back in the day’ but harder (for Utd and Chelsea) to win it nowadays.

[El Jefecito]

You’re implying that it was easier (for Liverpool) to win the league ‘back in the day’ but harder (for Utd and Chelsea) to win it nowadays.

Have you looked at the points spread, before you deemed to ridicule others?

[lfc1394]

You’re implying that it was easier (for Liverpool) to win the league ‘back in the day’ but harder (for Utd and Chelsea) to win it nowadays.

That would be correct. In fact forget back in the day, go back 10years, 5 years, the league has become much more difficult to win. .

[El Jefecito]

That would be correct. In fact forget back in the day, go back 10years, 5 years, the league has become much more difficult to win. .

Ignore him mate, they are so many variables that he couldn't even begin to understand. Like, back in the day, we were the ONLY team that broke the transfer record.

Duh!

[wiw]

I've only read the first 4 pages but all I can say is, THANK **** all of this has been put into one easily ignorable thread