Blake - Talking Sense

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I'm sure you would say that Fulham play a much better style of football than us Eric.

Yet for all this and their spending £100 million on players to suit this style they finished below us.

Playing the passing game doesn't work either by your criteria!

No, Fulham played a woeful style of football and were a far cry from the team they were in the Championship a season before.

Statistically our defence woefully underperformed from the season before. Much of the reason for that was that we couldn't keep possession and we defended for longer periods than any other team.

Yet some are arguing we should keep perservering with Warnock's long ball and little possession game long after he's gone.

[Lawnmower]

Do you think that whacking the ball up to nobody is a good tactic? You must've witnessed the countless occasions when we put needless pressure upon ourselves because our midfield didn't have any options so were forced to lump the ball back to the opposition and allow them to come straight back at us. Some of the things Warnock implements is plainly wrong, if it wasn't then we'd witness loads of other teams following suit by giving the ball back to the opposition at the earliest opportunity because there must be something to it. I don't believe he's adapted his tactics to suit the players limitations, rather his own. In fairness, he has been very successful in the championship but isn't able to make that tell in the Premier league, it doesn't take a genius to work out why.

Do you not think we overachieved last season?

Which other teams should we have finished in front of with the squad we have got ?

[Elwood Blues]

To be honest, I was struggling to work out what game Fulham were trying to play for much of the season (I did manage to figure out it involved defending like a League One side mind), but if you go by the criteria you are using, there were seventeen teams who played more of a passing game than us above us, so, surely, that is compelling evidence that we need to change?

No I would 't say that one seasons results are a compelling reason to change.

Not that I am saying that we shouldn't aim to change in due course but other clubs have gone up and stayed up with similar styles to us.

The lack of a decent striker and the frailty of our defence were major factors in our demise. Even a passing game may not have saved us.

[Lawnmower]

No I would 't say that one seasons results are a compelling reason to change.

Not that I am saying that we shouldn't aim to change in due course but other clubs have gone up and stayed up with similar styles to us.

The lack of a decent striker and the frailty of our defence were major factors in our demise. Even a passing game may not have saved us.

It would have made us worse.

Nothing wrong with wanting to keep the ball more, but surely what’s more important is creating chances and defending properly.

Seems to be an obsession these days in possession football when many over achieving sides play more direct pace and power based football.

Only team to break the big club monopoly recently did that in Leicester. And we beat clubs with huge resources to go up in a similar way. Burnley qualifies for Europe on the back of it.

I think that giving Warnock another year and using that time to plan for the future is exactly the right, most sensible way forward.

2 really good midfielders to play alongside Ralls and the 4 forwards who started at Man U with Hoillet and Patterson to do their bit and Bacuna as back up and I think we will have an exciting line up. Particularly if we can add a really good striker.

Maybe those 2 midfielders will also help us keep the ball- but in a positive way as well.

[Elwood Blues]

It would have made us worse.

Nothing wrong with wanting to keep the ball more, but surely what’s more important is creating chances and defending properly.

Seems to be an obsession these days in possession football when many over achieving sides play more direct pace and power based football.

Only team to break the big club monopoly recently did that in Leicester. And we beat clubs with huge resources to go up in a similar way. Burnley qualifies for Europe on the back of it.

I think that giving Warnock another year and using that time to plan for the future is exactly the right, most sensible way forward.

2 really good midfielders to play alongside Ralls and the 4 forwards who started at Man U with Hoillet and Patterson to do their bit and Bacuna as back up and I think we will have an exciting line up. Particularly if we can add a really good striker.

Maybe those 2 midfielders will also help us keep the ball- but in a positive way as well.

Agree with this but I think we need two decent strikers.

Another right back and a centre back and I think we should be ok.

[NYCBlue]

So exactly the same except faster, more organized and more skill. Including Mahrez, Kante and Vardy.

[Lawnmower]

A decade in the second tier? When was that?

Back to back promotions in 1990 and 1991, then 5th in the second tier (Division 2 it was called) in 1992. Relegated next season.

Why not check facts before spouting off, your examples of Wimbledon, Watford and Cambridge as sustainable is

1) Irrelevant, you are talking a generation ago. It would be as stupid as clubs playing 3-2-5 formations in 1988.
2) Laughable because each of those clubs failed and/or changed style very quickly. Wimbledon played some decent football in the early PL years.

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. 😂
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. ��
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

So we have proven that we didn't have enough quality to stay up.

I don't know if you read a piece I wrote about scoring and conceding after promotion to the Premier League. It showed that we didn't necessarily have a lack of goals this season but we conceded far too many given our miserly defence last season. Much of the reason for us conceding so many goals was the amount of possession we allowed our opposition to have. We didn't have defenders and forwards of the quality that Burnley had. Etheridge saved more shots bar one keeper.

Surely if we could have kept hold of the ball a little better in midfield, our defence would have been under slightly less pressure each game, opponents would have had less shots on goal and we might have stayed up. If we had better defenders and attackers, maybe the issue wouldn't be highlighted as much, but we didn't. Therefore, basics. If you have the ball, they don't. This isn't suggesting we play like the Jacks did when they went up, but it's about having some control in the middle of the park and relieving pressure on the defence.

[the other bob wilson]

So we have proven that we didn't have enough quality to stay up.

I don't know if you read a piece I wrote about scoring and conceding after promotion to the Premier League. It showed that we didn't necessarily have a lack of goals this season but we conceded far too many given our miserly defence last season. Much of the reason for us conceding so many goals was the amount of possession we allowed our opposition to have. We didn't have defenders and forwards of the quality that Burnley had. Etheridge saved more shots bar one keeper.

Surely if we could have kept hold of the ball a little better in midfield, our defence would have been under slightly less pressure each game, opponents would have had less shots on goal and we might have stayed up. If we had better defenders and attackers, maybe the issue wouldn't be highlighted as much, but we didn't. Therefore, basics. If you have the ball, they don't. This isn't suggesting we play like the Jacks did when they went up, but it's about having some control in the middle of the park and relieving pressure on the defence.

Is Neil Warnock going to look at the stats you mention and be satisfied? Surely not. We get the idea that he doesn't value possession as highly as many other managers, but is he really satisfied when his team pass the ball to a standard that would embarrass a League One side like we did this season on our bad days (e.g. Huddersfield and Everton at home)? I refuse to believe that he is and so I would hope that, even if it still means our possession figures are under 50%, there is an acknowledgement that we need to retain the ball better.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Is Neil Warnock going to look at the stats you mention and be satisfied? Surely not. We get the idea that he doesn't value possession as highly as many other managers, but is he really satisfied when his team pass the ball to a standard that would embarrass a League One side like we did this season on our bad days (e.g. Huddersfield and Everton at home)? I refuse to believe that he is and so I would hope that, even if it still means our possession figures are under 50%, there is an acknowledgement that we need to retain the ball better.

whoscored.com is a great source of info on stuff like this.

In 2017/18, when Burnley finished 7th, they had 45.1% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
In 2015/16, when Leicester won the league, they had 44.7% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
Last season we had 39.1% possession and 63.9% pass accuracy.

There was also a comment on Stoke City's long ball game. Passing stats only go back as far as 2009/10, but Stoke's possession stats ranged between 42-44.5% under Pulis. After he was sacked, Stoke's possession stats went up to 48% and then 50% for 2 seasons. Those 3 seasons were the most successful Stoke had in the Premier League. They dropped to 43.7% for their relegation season.

Another interesting little stat is that over the cours of the 2009/10 season, 8 Premier League teams had less than 70% pass success rate. Since 2013/14, only 3 teams have had a pass success rate of less than 70% - Palace in 2014/15, Burnley in 2016/17 and us this season.

Since possession records began in 2009/10, no side has had as little possession as we had last season. 2 sides have had fractionally worse pass accuracy stats, both in 2009/10, after which passing in the Premier League improved somewhat. In terms of possession and pass accuracy, this season we comfortably were the worst in the Premier League this decade.

[the other bob wilson]

whoscored.com is a great source of info on stuff like this.

In 2017/18, when Burnley finished 7th, they had 45.1% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
In 2015/16, when Leicester won the league, they had 44.7% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
Last season we had 39.1% possession and 63.9% pass accuracy.

There was also a comment on Stoke City's long ball game. Passing stats only go back as far as 2009/10, but Stoke's possession stats ranged between 42-44.5% under Pulis. After he was sacked, Stoke's possession stats went up to 48% and then 50% for 2 seasons. Those 3 seasons were the most successful Stoke had in the Premier League. They dropped to 43.7% for their relegation season.

Another interesting little stat is that over the cours of the 2009/10 season, 8 Premier League teams had less than 70% pass success rate. Since 2013/14, only 3 teams have had a pass success rate of less than 70% - Palace in 2014/15, Burnley in 2016/17 and us this season.

Since possession records began in 2009/10, no side has had as little possession as we had last season. 2 sides have had fractionally worse pass accuracy stats, both in 2009/10, after which passing in the Premier League improved somewhat. In terms of possession and pass accuracy, this season we comfortably were the worst in the Premier League this decade.

See, to me those stats are conclusive (thanks for providing them Eric). I'll be honest, I don't want my side to be another version of the Cambridge and Wimbledon teams mentioned in this thread, but that really isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned. Those figures show that, even by the standards of the sides we are being compared to in this thread, our passing was poor - that last sentence of yours says it all.

[xsnaggle]

whoscored.com is a great source of info on stuff like this.

In 2017/18, when Burnley finished 7th, they had 45.1% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
In 2015/16, when Leicester won the league, they had 44.7% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
Last season we had 39.1% possession and 63.9% pass accuracy.

There was also a comment on Stoke City's long ball game. Passing stats only go back as far as 2009/10, but Stoke's possession stats ranged between 42-44.5% under Pulis. After he was sacked, Stoke's possession stats went up to 48% and then 50% for 2 seasons. Those 3 seasons were the most successful Stoke had in the Premier League. They dropped to 43.7% for their relegation season.

Another interesting little stat is that over the cours of the 2009/10 season, 8 Premier League teams had less than 70% pass success rate. Since 2013/14, only 3 teams have had a pass success rate of less than 70% - Palace in 2014/15, Burnley in 2016/17 and us this season.

Since possession records began in 2009/10, no side has had as little possession as we had last season. 2 sides have had fractionally worse pass accuracy stats, both in 2009/10, after which passing in the Premier League improved somewhat. In terms of possession and pass accuracy, this season we comfortably were the worst in the Premier League this decade.

But still finished higher than 2 teams and but for the chelsea debacle would be still in the Premier league.

[jamieccfc]

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. 😂
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

Are you sure that some of those division 2’s are not actually league 1?

[CCFCC3PO]

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. 😂
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

What years were Cambridge in the second tier then?

6 seasons in 1978-84 but that wasn't as a long ball outfit. John Beck did that and they lasted just 2 years in the division. Why the fuxk are you trying to attribute the first 6 years to a style of play that they didn't adopt until the late 80s?

Wimbledon were not a long ball team when they finished 6th. Long ball compared to Man U? Maybe. But not long ball in the way that they were on the way up.

Also, you are selective.

What about PNE? What about Lincoln? What about Sheff U? What about Bradford? What about Plymouth. What about Swansea? All these teams were direct in the 80s and 90s and achieved sod all.

[CCFCC3PO]

What years were Cambridge in the second tier then?

6 seasons in 1978-84 but that wasn't as a long ball outfit. John Beck did that and they lasted just 2 years in the division. Why the fuxk are you trying to attribute the first 6 years to a style of play that they didn't adopt until the late 80s?

Wimbledon were not a long ball team when they finished 6th. Long ball compared to Man U? Maybe. But not long ball in the way that they were on the way up.

Also, you are selective.

What about PNE? What about Lincoln? What about Sheff U? What about Bradford? What about Plymouth. What about Swansea? All these teams were direct in the 80s and 90s and achieved sod all.

Bump.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Coped is an interesting word. Trying to analyse our defensive performance is a bit like challenging a millipede to an arse kicking competition.

10 clean sheets was a great effort, only 7 clubs in the top flight managed more. That's got to be a huge positive.

69 goals conceded, only 2 clubs in the top flight conceded more. That's definitely not a huge positive, especially given the number of clean sheets. Put into perspective, 69 goals conceded would usually be in the worst 2-3 in a Premier league season; there are seasons where no clubs conceded as many as 69.

One curiosity with this is that there are quite a few occasions where teams keep lots of clean sheets but let in lots of goals. Bournemouth conceded more than us last season yet kept the same number of clean sheets. West Ham and Watford did something similar the season before and I could go on.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Coped is an interesting word. Trying to analyse our defensive performance is a bit like challenging a millipede to an arse kicking competition.

10 clean sheets was a great effort, only 7 clubs in the top flight managed more. That's got to be a huge positive.

69 goals conceded, only 2 clubs in the top flight conceded more. That's definitely not a huge positive, especially given the number of clean sheets. Put into perspective, 69 goals conceded would usually be in the worst 2-3 in a Premier league season; there are seasons where no clubs conceded as many as 69.

One curiosity with this is that there are quite a few occasions where teams keep lots of clean sheets but let in lots of goals. Bournemouth conceded more than us last season yet kept the same number of clean sheets. West Ham and Watford did something similar the season before and I could go on.

Bounced back could have been a better word. Lost 5-1 to Man Utd, kept 2 clean sheets on the bounce. It all started to go wrong at that Watford game, Warnock really dropped a bollock there. We'd won two on the spin and finally looked like we'd found a way to win. Then he completely changed it and we got hit for 5, then lost to Everton and Wolves. Curiously we never really went back to the set up that got us those wins.

[the other bob wilson]

Our defensive record away from home (31 conceded) was better than seven other Premier League clubs, but no one conceded more than our thirty eight at home. Although it never struck me very often that we were really going for it in a home game, I think we were a lot more cautious on our travels - once we got a goal behind at home, we were easy to pick off for opponents with a bit of pace on the counter.