Rafa is over cautious

[ElRobbie]

I don't think Rafa is over cautious I just think he is a little niaive at times and thinks too much along the lines of picking a team that should be good enough to win the game, rather than just picking the best team possible.

Whatever anyone says to start a game with Torres, Babel and Keane on the bench is niaive in my opinion when it was an opportunity for us to put more points between us and either Man U or Chelsea, it turned out to be Chelsea.

Dirk Kuyt struggles as a lone striker as he lacks any dynamics to unlock defences.

I was personally baffled at his selection at if he wants to rest players then he should of started at least with Torres, maybe got a goal, got the game won, then take them off, its too hard to make an impact coming in for say half an hour because Stoke already had time to settle by then.

Its just the wrong way to approach a game when you want to win the title. We could have had the league sewn up by now.

Lets just hope that we are strong in the second half of the season because of these decisions and Torres/Babel/Keane will be fairly fresh and make a big impact.

[dww]

Dww, what you say about Rafas' view of Keane makes sense in some ways- his flexibility, having disappointed Rafa somehow, but we cannot afford to spend £20m on a utility striker & it's not really a choice of Kuyt or Keane- there's room for both on the field, especially if Kuyt is a RW.

Sometimes, I think Rafa is a bit too techinical & fixated on what particular formation suits. I expect he thinks Keane doesnt hold up the ball enough to play up top for 4-5-1, whereas Kuyt is a little better at that & is more prone to be where the other palyers expect him to be, so the system hangs better. I'd counter that by saying that we'd have been better served playing or better players from the start. You dont need 451 against Stoke FFS.

However, even if you agree that we should have started 451, it was painfully obvious after 45 mins that that system wasnt working & the most obvious change (a patently unfit Torres aside, was the introduction of Keane).

I's also argue that Keane isnt going to learn to play with the others/adapt his game if he gets no game time. He was starting to find some form before he was dropped at Newcastle/Stoke. Preston wasnt great, but Rafa has shown with plenty of others that 1 poor game doesnt merit being dropped for in his eyes.

I think it was more or less a straight choice against Stoke actually. Benayoun had (unexpectedly to me) been excellent in our previous few games and is one of the players with the necessary guile to break down a tight side like Stoke (without a real presence in the middle I think Kuyt would have been a slight waste on the wing). The fact Benni had a poor game doesn't mean he wasn't the right option.

I feel (and have stated many times) that a flexible 4-2-3-1 type system is IMO more attacking than a 4-4-2. The problem for me was that our CMs sat too deep, our defense failed to push forward and no one was passing the ball well. I don't see those problems being solved by bringing on another forward. If Keane was a targetman it would have made sense as an alternative method to make the team play higher up the pitch but he isn't (this being part of my argument for the signing of Heskey) so I'm not sure that it was the obvious or best solution to bring him on.

I think Rafa's training methods concentrate on in game situations (obviously this is second hand information but from multiple sources) so he probably has a good idea of how Keane is progressing in concert with others from that.

Personally I think that in analogy to United and the performances of Rooney and Tevez in the first half of last season Keane has done well enough (also comparable to this season but I pick last as United won the league and coincidentally I believe they had the same number of points as us this season after 20 games). I think you can argue either way as to whether a utility striker was what we needed actually. I do however think that it has been a slight problem in the absence of Torres that we haven't had a specialist to play up top, however we have obviously performed pretty well as a team so I'll reserve judgment until the end of the season I think.

[Roboklopp]

I think it was more or less a straight choice against Stoke actually. Benayoun had (unexpectedly to me) been excellent in our previous few games and is one of the players with the necessary guile to break down a tight side like Stoke (without a real presence in the middle I think Kuyt would have been a slight waste on the wing). The fact Benni had a poor game doesn't mean he wasn't the right option.

I feel (and have stated many times) that a flexible 4-2-3-1 type system is IMO more attacking than a 4-4-2. The problem for me was that our CMs sat too deep, our defense failed to push forward and no one was passing the ball well. I don't see those problems being solved by bringing on another forward. If Keane was a targetman it would have made sense as an alternative method to make the team play higher up the pitch but he isn't (this being part of my argument for the signing of Heskey) so I'm not sure that it was the obvious or best solution to bring him on.

I think Rafa's training methods concentrate on in game situations (obviously this is second hand information but from multiple sources) so he probably has a good idea of how Keane is progressing in concert with others from that.

Personally I think that in analogy to United and the performances of Rooney and Tevez in the first half of last season Keane has done well enough (also comparable to this season but I pick last as United won the league and coincidentally I believe they had the same number of points as us this season after 20 games). I think you can argue either way as to whether a utility striker was what we needed actually. I do however think that it has been a slight problem in the absence of Torres that we haven't had a specialist to play up top, however we have obviously performed pretty well as a team so I'll reserve judgment until the end of the season I think.

I dont have a problem with the 4231 as long as the one up top is creating enough space & terror for the defence for the players behind to exploit it. For that you need the 1 to have some of the attributes of pace, power, trickery, movement & finishing ability. Torres has those in abundance, which is why he makes it work. Dogbreath could play a smilar role excellently too & he has all of those qualities.

Kuyt lacks most of them & so does Keane to a lesser extent, so it wont work. You're right tho, Heskey would be a better option as he has pace & a physical presence (the latter of which he should use far more), but we'd still be runnin the risk of a blunt strike force & struggle for a role for Robbie.

[dww]

I dont have a problem with the 4231 as long as the one up top is creating enough space & terror for the defence for the players behind to exploit it. For that you need the 1 to have some of the attributes of pace, power, trickery, movement & finishing ability. Torres has those in abundance, which is why he makes it work. Dogbreath could play a smilar role excellently too & he has all of those qualities.

Kuyt lacks most of them & so does Keane to a lesser extent, so it wont work. You're right tho, Heskey would be a better option as he has pace & a physical presence (the latter of which he should use far more), but we'd still be runnin the risk of a blunt strike force & struggle for a role for Robbie.

I can see that argument and it is certainly true that this is the best way to play the system. However I do really feel that if the three perform Kuyt in the way they have intermittently this season that the formation can and will work well for us.

If I were to criticise the team selection for Stoke it would be the inclusion of Skrtel above Agger. While it did it's job defensively I think it was the one onbiously negative selection and that Agger in there would have helped push the team forward, especially in the absence of Alonso whose leadership and passing I think we really missed.

[Craig_H]

Should he have also come out and explained after the Newcastle game, when he picked basically the same team and we beat them 5-1?

Reggie, do you not think that different opponents have different strengths/weaknesses and therefore might require a different approach and/or personnel/tactics to beat them?

Surely the fact that the same lineup beat Newcastle isnt wholly relevant, when you're playing against a far more defensively organised and solid team.

[el matador]

i dont think keane helps himself by missing some of the easy chances he has missed. He should be on 15 goals by now and some of his misses have been sitters.

I think that rafa is too cautious but he wont compromise his principles for three points because he believes that his way is the best and that it will not be sacrificed under no circumstances.

Some of his decisions are bewildering but we're still top and united have to win their games in hand - id rather be in our position than theirs. Talking like they're already top is one thing but actually going out there and getting the six points is another.

edited: please don't call the manager that, thanks.

[Reece]

Reggie, do you not think that different opponents have different strengths/weaknesses and therefore might require a different approach and/or personnel/tactics to beat them?

Surely the fact that the same lineup beat Newcastle isnt wholly relevant, when you're playing against a far more defensively organised and solid team.

Of course they do. Do you think out of all the managers around Rafa isn't one to assess the opponents strengths and weaknesses when picking his team? So perhaps he got it wrong on this occasion, but my point was to demand the manager then comes out and explains himself is a bit silly.

[BigChief]

There was nothing wrong with trying to pick a team that dismantled Newcastle so easily.

What worries me is that Rafa is unable to see or admit that he needs to change the team/formation a lot quicker than 60 minutes. Sometimes (not all the time) half time substitutions are just the boon you need, and confuses the opposition.

[Craig_H]

Of course they do. Do you think out of all the managers around Rafa isn't one to assess the opponents strengths and weaknesses when picking his team? So perhaps he got it wrong on this occasion, but my point was to demand the manager then comes out and explains himself is a bit silly.

I wouldnt expect him to come out and explain himself, nor should he have to. I was just replying to your point about the same team thrashing Newcastle and pointing out that it's a different kettle of fish when you play against a side who come out and play an open game, compared to a side who have no intention of scoring a goal, like Stoke were.

I think Rafa assesses everything, but i also feel he places too much emphasis on counter-acting the opponent's strengths, when i'd rather we played to our own strengths.

Stoke were never going to pose us a huge threat, especially without Fuller.

They showed no real ambition to attack or win the game, and plenty of people knew that would be the case. So bearing it in mind, i'd like to have seen us go for it more.

In the second half, when we were attacking, i looked into the box and there'd be two players at the very most waiting for a cross. Kuyt and occasionally Benayoun too.

I hate to use the mancs as an example, but when they're chasing a winner, they'll often have 5 or 6 bodies in the opposition box.

I dont know why we cant undo the shackles a bit and go for it, especially against a side like Stoke who frankly, wont really hold huge attacking ambitions against us.

I dont expect us to win all the time, that would be ridiculous but i do expect us to be proactively seeking a winning goal. If we pile on the pressure but cant find a finish, fair enough, that can happen at times. It's just when we give opponents an easy ride, that it frustrates me.

Without Alonso's creativity and ability to move the ball quickly, we needed something else to make it hard for Stoke to defend, and i would've looked to replace Alonso's influence, with pace and directness. That would've meant Torres and Babel starting, but neither did. Babel caused them problems when he came on, but there wasnt enough time.

I'd like to see us adopt a philosophy where we go out to win the game and have it killed off by 60-70 mins, rather than one where we go out looking to just stay in the game for 60-70 mins and then try to pinch it with subs in the last 20-30 mins.

[el matador]

There was nothing wrong with trying to pick a team that dismantled Newcastle so easily.

What worries me is that Rafa is unable to see or admit that he needs to change the team/formation a lot quicker than 60 minutes. Sometimes (not all the time) half time substitutions are just the boon you need, and confuses the opposition.

lets face it we could have put any team out against newcastle and still have won at a canter.

by beating newcastle we didnt confirm our title credentials or all of a sudden look like favourites because Newcastle are a club in turmoil both on and off the pitch and hammering them isnt the statement of intent that people make out to be.

Hammering Everton on sunday would be.

[Roboklopp]

I wouldnt expect him to come out and explain himself, nor should he have to. I was just replying to your point about the same team thrashing Newcastle and pointing out that it's a different kettle of fish when you play against a side who come out and play an open game, compared to a side who have no intention of scoring a goal, like Stoke were.

I think Rafa assesses everything, but i also feel he places too much emphasis on counter-acting the opponent's strengths, when i'd rather we played to our own strengths.

Stoke were never going to pose us a huge threat, especially without Fuller.

They showed no real ambition to attack or win the game, and plenty of people knew that would be the case. So bearing it in mind, i'd like to have seen us go for it more.

In the second half, when we were attacking, i looked into the box and there'd be two players at the very most waiting for a cross. Kuyt and occasionally Benayoun too.

I hate to use the mancs as an example, but when they're chasing a winner, they'll often have 5 or 6 bodies in the opposition box.

I dont know why we cant undo the shackles a bit and go for it, especially against a side like Stoke who frankly, wont really hold huge attacking ambitions against us.

I dont expect us to win all the time, that would be ridiculous but i do expect us to be proactively seeking a winning goal. If we pile on the pressure but cant find a finish, fair enough, that can happen at times. It's just when we give opponents an easy ride, that it frustrates me.

Without Alonso's creativity and ability to move the ball quickly, we needed something else to make it hard for Stoke to defend, and i would've looked to replace Alonso's influence, with pace and directness. That would've meant Torres and Babel starting, but neither did. Babel caused them problems when he came on, but there wasnt enough time.

I'd like to see us adopt a philosophy where we go out to win the game and have it killed off by 60-70 mins, rather than one where we go out looking to just stay in the game for 60-70 mins and then try to pinch it with subs in the last 20-30 mins.

aye

[BG1973]

Why not? He's taking a lot of heat at the moment because of his selections. If there's a logical reason why Kuyt started up front on his own, that Torres got a run late and Keane never got a look in then tell us - It may calm a lot of kneejerkers down.

changed it for you.

[BG1973]

Reggie, do you not think that different opponents have different strengths/weaknesses and therefore might require a different approach and/or personnel/tactics to beat them?

Surely the fact that the same lineup beat Newcastle isnt wholly relevant, when you're playing against a far more defensively organised and solid team.

aren't you of the camp advocating worrying about ourselves and not the opposition?

[rudedog]

I think Rafa is cautious but I also feel that he still lacks the personel where he would feel confident going for a more 'gung ho' approach to games. Even with our cautious approach at Stoke, we still looked vulnerable at times.

[dww]

I think Rafa is cautious but I also feel that he still lacks the personel where he would feel confident going for a more 'gung ho' approach to games. Even with our cautious approach at Stoke, we still looked vulnerable at times.

I'm not entirely sure that we were set up to be cautious it's just that it is sort of a default when we play poorly. No one took responsibility for changing our style of play and so when things didn't come off after the first 25 minutes or so we went back into our shell and as we were passing poorly no matter what we changed would have been unlikely to have a huge effect.