-
The football under McCarthy
There's no doubt that City's results improved significantly in the 22 games after Mick McCarthy took control in January. His impressive record from the first eleven matches he was in charge reads as follows:
Won 7, Drew 4, Lost 0, Scored 23, Conceded 7, Points 25
Things levelled out considerably after that incredible start and the record in McCarthy's last 11 games was as follows:
Won 3, Drew 5, Lost 3, Scored 13, Conceded 14, Points 14
But what about the football itself? Was it more entertaining and better to watch under McCarthy than it had been under Harris, as some contributors have suggested? Was the style pretty much the same? Or was the football even more basic? Obviously, the answers to those questions are entirely subjective, but personally I don't believe the style of City's play became any more attractive under McCarthy. If anything, I thought it became even more attritional than it was under Harris.
Of course, Big Mick was only working with the hand he'd been dealt. Next season will be the real test as regards how his team plays. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a look at the stats from the match reports on the BBC football site from 2020/21 and see if they provide any clues about what we can expect in 2021/22 from Mick McCarthy's Cardiff City.
In the first 24 Championship games while Neil Harris was manager, City averaged a shade under 48% possession. The side averaged 11.7 shots per game, of which an average of 4 were on target.
In the 22 Championship games overseen by Mick McCarthy, City averaged a fraction over 41% possession. The team averaged 11.3 shots per game, of which an average of 4.5 were on target.
In 24 games under Harris, City's possession stats were 50% or higher on 13 occasions. In McCarthy's 22 games, the figure was just 5.
Under Harris, City's possession stats were 35% or less on 3 occasions in 24 games. Under McCarthy, that figure was 8 in 22 games.
So, City tended to have significantly more of the ball under Harris than they did under McCarthy and the tallies for both shots at goal and shots on target were broadly similar. The team converted marginally more chances under McCarthy (an average of 1.6 goals per game compared to 1.2 goals per game under Harris), but the biggest difference was in the defensive figures - an average of 1.5 goals conceded per game under Harris, but just 0.9 goals per game conceded under McCarthy.
These stats can be interpreted in a number of ways, but my view (based not only on the stats but what I've witnessed while watching the team on TV this season) is this: I don't think the football became any better to watch after Harris was sacked and on occasions it was a good deal worse. However, as a rule, the side was much better organised under McCarthy and the defending was consistently better.
Transfer windows are always interesting to a degree, but this year's will be even more so as Big Mick shuffles his pack. I like McCarthy as an individual and I'm hopeful he'll bring in a few players who will make his team better to watch, but based on the evidence so far, those hopes aren't particularly high.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
There's no doubt that City's results improved significantly in the 22 games after Mick McCarthy took control in January. His impressive record from the first eleven matches he was in charge reads as follows:
Won 7, Drew 4, Lost 0, Scored 23, Conceded 7, Points 25
Things levelled out considerably after that incredible start and the record in McCarthy's last 11 games was as follows:
Won 3, Drew 5, Lost 3, Scored 13, Conceded 14, Points 14
But what about the football itself? Was it more entertaining and better to watch under McCarthy than it had been under Harris, as some contributors have suggested? Was the style pretty much the same? Or was the football even more basic? Obviously, the answers to those questions are entirely subjective, but personally I don't believe the style of City's play became any more attractive under McCarthy. If anything, I thought it became even more attritional than it was under Harris.
Of course, Big Mick was only working with the hand he'd been dealt. Next season will be the real test as regards how his team plays. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a look at the stats from the match reports on the BBC football site from 2020/21 and see if they provide any clues about what we can expect in 2021/22 from Mick McCarthy's Cardiff City.
In the first 24 Championship games while Neil Harris was manager, City averaged a shade under 48% possession. The side averaged 11.7 shots per game, of which an average of 4 were on target.
In the 22 Championship games overseen by Mick McCarthy, City averaged a fraction over 41% possession. The team averaged 11.3 shots per game, of which an average of 4.5 were on target.
In 24 games under Harris, City's possession stats were 50% or higher on 13 occasions. In McCarthy's 22 games, the figure was just 5.
Under Harris, City's possession stats were 35% or less on 3 occasions in 24 games. Under McCarthy, that figure was 8 in 22 games.
So, City tended to have significantly more of the ball under Harris than they did under McCarthy and the tallies for both shots at goal and shots on target were broadly similar. The team converted marginally more chances under McCarthy (an average of 1.6 goals per game compared to 1.2 goals per game under Harris), but the biggest difference was in the defensive figures - an average of 1.5 goals conceded per game under Harris, but just 0.9 goals per game conceded under McCarthy.
These stats can be interpreted in a number of ways, but my view (based not only on the stats but what I've witnessed while watching the team on TV this season) is this: I don't think the football became any better to watch after Harris was sacked and on occasions it was a good deal worse. However, as a rule, the side was much better organised under McCarthy and the defending was consistently better.
Transfer windows are always interesting to a degree, but this year's will be even more so as Big Mick shuffles his pack. I like McCarthy as an individual and I'm hopeful he'll bring in a few players who will make his team better to watch, but based on the evidence so far, those hopes aren't particularly high.
Even putting results aside, anyone who thinks that the football played under McCarthy is actually worse than the complete garbage served up by Harris’ teams must be watching a different sport.
You may not like the football played by McCarthy’s team but at least it doesn’t put you to sleep.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
There's no doubt that City's results improved significantly in the 22 games after Mick McCarthy took control in January. His impressive record from the first eleven matches he was in charge reads as follows:
Won 7, Drew 4, Lost 0, Scored 23, Conceded 7, Points 25
Things levelled out considerably after that incredible start and the record in McCarthy's last 11 games was as follows:
Won 3, Drew 5, Lost 3, Scored 13, Conceded 14, Points 14
But what about the football itself? Was it more entertaining and better to watch under McCarthy than it had been under Harris, as some contributors have suggested? Was the style pretty much the same? Or was the football even more basic? Obviously, the answers to those questions are entirely subjective, but personally I don't believe the style of City's play became any more attractive under McCarthy. If anything, I thought it became even more attritional than it was under Harris.
Of course, Big Mick was only working with the hand he'd been dealt. Next season will be the real test as regards how his team plays. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a look at the stats from the match reports on the BBC football site from 2020/21 and see if they provide any clues about what we can expect in 2021/22 from Mick McCarthy's Cardiff City.
In the first 24 Championship games while Neil Harris was manager, City averaged a shade under 48% possession. The side averaged 11.7 shots per game, of which an average of 4 were on target.
In the 22 Championship games overseen by Mick McCarthy, City averaged a fraction over 41% possession. The team averaged 11.3 shots per game, of which an average of 4.5 were on target.
In 24 games under Harris, City's possession stats were 50% or higher on 13 occasions. In McCarthy's 22 games, the figure was just 5.
Under Harris, City's possession stats were 35% or less on 3 occasions in 24 games. Under McCarthy, that figure was 8 in 22 games.
So, City tended to have significantly more of the ball under Harris than they did under McCarthy and the tallies for both shots at goal and shots on target were broadly similar. The team converted marginally more chances under McCarthy (an average of 1.6 goals per game compared to 1.2 goals per game under Harris), but the biggest difference was in the defensive figures - an average of 1.5 goals conceded per game under Harris, but just 0.9 goals per game conceded under McCarthy.
These stats can be interpreted in a number of ways, but my view (based not only on the stats but what I've witnessed while watching the team on TV this season) is this: I don't think the football became any better to watch after Harris was sacked and on occasions it was a good deal worse. However, as a rule, the side was much better organised under McCarthy and the defending was consistently better.
Transfer windows are always interesting to a degree, but this year's will be even more so as Big Mick shuffles his pack. I like McCarthy as an individual and I'm hopeful he'll bring in a few players who will make his team better to watch, but based on the evidence so far, those hopes aren't particularly high.
McCarthy has the footballing intelligence, knowledge, nous and previous experience to get us out of this division and into the premier league. Under Harris we were only going one way and that was out of this division to league 1 (despite what you say in a previous thread about us picking our form up under him). However, Mick HAS to bring the right players in over the summer, or we'll have another season of repeating what he have just seen. We might, just might, scrape into the play-offs, if we maintain the squad almost as it is, but that's as good as it will be. One thing I don't like about the way we play, is our lack of wingers. Is it me. or do we usually look more threatening when we bring Murphy on? If he isn't going to play Hoilett, then I'd like to see him bring in a couple of wingers as well as a decent midfield general, as well as getting rid of the dead wood player wise at the club
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Since OGS, the style and mindset of managers has been very similar, dour and very unattractive football. It seems that the Club hasn’t had the confidence to change style or type of manager. Do they actually believe that this will bring lasting success?
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bobby Dandruff
Even putting results aside, anyone who thinks that the football played under McCarthy is actually worse than the complete garbage served up by Harris’ teams must be watching a different sport.
So what is it about the football under McCarthy that you believe is better than the football under Harris?
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
The difference under McCarthy was very visible, we removed the slow (sit back ) style players pressed opposition quicker and crisper however there were good positive aspects outside of the tactics players appeared happier and together as a unit ,and the introduction of younger players from U23 was a huge positive for me .
Hopefully I can be there next year in person for each home and I'm very optimistic about next season under Mick , and critically desperately need to get a few footy booze session under the belt .
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.
The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.
Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.
Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grangenders
I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City.....
Perhaps that's just as well.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grangenders
I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.
The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.
Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.
Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.
The problem is that the kind of football we play will always result in limited success.
Low possession football, low passing success rate and even at its best, high intensity pressing... Are not ingredients for long term success. Certainly not sustainable at the highest level.
That's why Warnock has never been a success in the premier League. That's why when we do go on runs the players get knackered due to the intensity needed and we fade away and that's why the quality players will always struggle a bit in our team.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Under Harris we could have lots of the ball and not look remotely like scoring. We regularly started games slowly and often conceded daft early goals. In terms of energy and giving it a go, McCarthy's side has been better to watch. In terms of footballing standard, not that it was particularly high under Harris, you're right it is more attritional. I've been bored rigid watching us at times this season by games involving both managers.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bobby Dandruff
You may not like the football played by McCarthy’s team but at least it doesn’t put you to sleep.
Well, that’s a matter of opinion.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Arguing over which team is more attractive to watch out of Neil Harris and Mick McCarthy is like 2 bald blokes arguing over a comb.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
In terms of footballing standard, not that it was particularly high under Harris, you're right it is more attritional. I've been bored rigid watching us at times this season by games involving both managers.
The worst games I've watched involving City this season were the 0-0 draw at Huddersfield at the 0-0 draw at home to Stoke. They were both utterly dreadful football matches and City's performances in both were absolutely terrible. The football was parks standard at times.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
I think the football is much better, under Harris we just looked totally lost of ideas. The only time we looked even the slightest bit decent under Harris was after the game was lost and we were chasing it. No game plan under Harris which put him just below Slade in terms of quality of football.
That's not to say MM football is good, he's more of a Warnock in terms of he has a game plan that works often enough to stick to or slightly adjust.
Obviously MM is a far superior manager to Harris but that doesn't mean either that he is the one to take us forward.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2b2bdoo
The only time we looked even the slightest bit decent under Harris was after the game was lost and we were chasing it.
Except perhaps the 2-0 victory at Forest, the 3-0 win against Barnsley, the 4-0 victory over Luton and the 3-0 win against Huddersfield?
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
i think a judgment of a manager is employment, MM very rarely out of work, NH still unemplyed as a manager....says it all for me.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lennybluebird
i think a judgment of a manager is employment, MM very rarely out of work, NH still unemplyed as a manager....says it all for me.
Mick was sacked from his last job in Cyprus before his factor 50 had finished drying into the skin.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
I think that it needs to be picked apart a little more. Both Managers have served up some dreadful stuff, that's for sure, but in their own unique way. Harris' style of play was more methodical in approach, MM's style is quicker, more urgent and more physical. What we saw under Harris was players who lacked confidence, belief and they didn't want to take responsibility, certainly towards the end of his stewardship. Mistakes crept in, basic errors and a lack of urgency. In my opinion, City fans as a unit will tolerate work rate over quality and urgency over a more methodical approach, even if it's poor. MM's style is that, which will afford him more time, even if it is dreadful at times and even less concentrated on possession than Harris was.
Look how Slade was ripped, he had hardly any personal backing from the fans, because of the style of play. Again, slow, boring, methodical etc, same with Harris. Yet MM's football is much more agriculture, it just has more urgency, players work harder, same as Warnock to a degree. For that reason, MM will be afforded more time and less criticism, certainly seems the case with our fans.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tuerto
I think that it needs to be picked apart a little more. Both Managers have served up some dreadful stuff, that's for sure, but in their own unique way. Harris' style of play was more methodical in approach, MM's style is quicker, more urgent and more physical. What we saw under Harris was players who lacked confidence, belief and they didn't want to take responsibility, certainly towards the end of his stewardship. Mistakes crept in, basic errors and a lack of urgency. In my opinion, City fans as a unit will tolerate work rate over quality and urgency over a more methodical approach, even if it's poor. MM's style is that, which will afford him more time, even if it is dreadful at times and even less concentrated on possession than Harris was.
Look how Slade was ripped, he had hardly any personal backing from the fans, because of the style of play. Again, slow, boring, methodical etc, same with Harris. Yet MM's football is much more agriculture, it just has more urgency, players work harder, same as Warnock to a degree. For that reason, MM will be afforded more time and less criticism, certainly seems the case with our fans.
I have to add Personality and Character as well. Slade was like an Insurance salesman and Harris seemed like he was auditioning for a part in 'The Office' MM and Warnock are better at ingratiating themselves to football supporters like ours, they both speak our 'Language' Although in the case of Warnock, he's a self serving phoney, MM seems genuine.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
Except perhaps the 2-0 victory at Forest, the 3-0 win against Barnsley, the 4-0 victory over Luton and the 3-0 win against Huddersfield?
I think most people are clever enough to realise there are exceptions to the rule over such a long period. I think we are talking generally.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grangenders
I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.
The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.
Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.
Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.
Fair enough, but the problem is that we always come unstuck when we go up a notch. There has to be some balance. It is possible to get out of the championship by paying direct aggressive tactics, with pace and power in the correct areas, although that's not enough to sustain relative success in my opinion. People use Burnley as an example of what we could be. I'd be over the moon if we were as good as them. The perception is that they're nothing more than Long ball merchants, direct and physical, there's some truth there, but it is controlled and thought out.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
2b2bdoo
I think most people are clever enough to realise there are exceptions to the rule over such a long period. I think we are talking generally.
That's right. I believe that, generally, the football under McCarthy has been as poor as it was under Harris rather than much better. But that's just an opinion.
:thumbup:
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
The football under McCarthy..... hasn't been all that different than that played under his predecessor. McCarthy's reign has almost mirrored Harris' - they both turned around a failing side, and both had a good run that took us to the play-offs (nearly, for MM). Whether or not McCarthy can push on, and achieve more next season, remains to be seen.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
That's right. I believe that, generally, the football under McCarthy has been as poor as it was under Harris rather than much better. But that's just an opinion.
:thumbup:
Very true.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grangenders
I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.
The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.
Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.
Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.
Got it in one
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
The only improvement we've seen under MM is that the players seem to be more interested in playing. The quality of football is practically unchanged. Although we have had moments. But then we looked OK under Harris at times too. All in all, it's more of the same. And right now, I don't expect any improvement next season. We'll see.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
The only break ill give Mick is hes tried to use the wing back system and hes been unfortunate to lose both LWBs.
Yesterday's 1st half display was terrible.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grangenders
I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.
The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.
Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.
Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.
You have one view, mine is completely different. I've grown heartily sick of us playing underdog, cowardly football whereby we let the opposition have the ball and then hope to capitalise on any mistake they make. If that doesn't work, then we fall back on the old faithful of set pieces - even when we win, it's often very dull. If we were a club with the resources of a Wycombe, I could understand why we appear to believe that we can only play the one way, but we've had the finances to have built something more easy on the eye.
If I had to guess, I think it will be more of the same next season, but I live in hope that Mick McCarthy will want his team to offer more than a style of football which the best Championship sides are able to cope with quite easily these days - the selection of Pack at centreback is a hopeful sign.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
MM is a much better manager than Harris but he has always had the reputation as a pragmatist who is more then happy to play a dour brand of football if it is more likely to bring success. Personally I prefer dour winning football than pretty losing football when it comes to Cardiff. Who remembers Kenny Hibbit? I remember when he managed Walsall they always played some great passing football but we usually beat them. Then he came to us and we played some good passing football and usually lost.
MM will have to do well on the transfer market next season as I don't think he will have any money to spend unless Norwich give us £7 million for Will Vaulks and I can't see it happening.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr Soul '68
McCarthy has the footballing intelligence, knowledge, nous and previous experience to get us out of this division and into the premier league. Under Harris we were only going one way and that was out of this division to league 1 (despite what you say in a previous thread about us picking our form up under him). However, Mick HAS to bring the right players in over the summer, or we'll have another season of repeating what he have just seen. We might, just might, scrape into the play-offs, if we maintain the squad almost as it is, but that's as good as it will be. One thing I don't like about the way we play, is our lack of wingers. Is it me. or do we usually look more threatening when we bring Murphy on? If he isn't going to play Hoilett, then I'd like to see him bring in a couple of wingers as well as a decent midfield general, as well as getting rid of the dead wood player wise at the club
I would be interested to see if there are any stats regarding players giving away possession. Murphy seems particularly profligate in that department.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Taunton Blue Genie
I would be interested to see if there are any stats regarding players giving away possession. Murphy seems particularly profligate in that department.
In terms of being dispossessed, unsuccessful touches and inaccurate short passes, Murphy's stats are better than most of our attacking players, in that he loses or gives away the ball less often than most of our attackers.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Xg stats wise I think we've been slightly worse under McCarthy than we were under Harris - but I think that could be down to the fact that we let in sloppy early goals under Harris so often and then had to chase the game - and sides chasing the game often have better stats. We seem to have improved in that area.
I like the switch to 3-4-3 (or variants thereof) More so if we commit to an attacking version of it, playing the ball out from the back and getting the wingbacks into attacking positions.
I like the fact that we are bringing through youth players (in fairness Bagan and Harris were played under the other Harris).
I'm slightly concerned about recruitment - we seemed to be moving towards a good place, buying Ng, Watters and the player from Bournemouth we were linked with under Harris.
Now under McCarthy we've signed Williams (who I don't mind) and linked with a bunch of old warhorses.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I've grown heartily sick of us playing underdog, cowardly football whereby we let the opposition have the ball and then hope to capitalise on any mistake they make.
I thought the McCarthy philosophy was perfectly summed up by the man himself yesterday when he told the press: "We set up to frustrate them."
It's an early-season home game in the Championship, not an FA Cup tie against top-class Premier League opposition, but already McCarthy is setting up his side to frustrate the opposition as opposed to having a go at them. It's not football, it's anti-football. Little old Cardiff hoping to keep big, bad Bournemouth at bay. Ridiculous.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
I thought the McCarthy philosophy was perfectly summed up by the man himself yesterday when he told the press: "We set up to frustrate them."
It's an early-season home game in the Championship, not an FA Cup tie against top-class Premier League opposition, but already McCarthy is setting up his side to frustrate the opposition as opposed to having a go at them. It's not football, it's anti-football. Little old Cardiff hoping to keep big, bad Bournemouth at bay. Ridiculous.
The excuse seems that people say that we haven't got the players who have the ability to play in any other way. Mick is just utilising the tools that he has at his disposal. Like it would be any different if this was a complete McCarthy squad. The point is that the club has decided to go down the route of direct and physical, to play in hope rather than control, to react rather than implement a style that can break sides down with intelligence, Movement, vision and an element of risk taking. Nobody on hear is asking for free flowing football, not even close to that. I think what most fans want is some creativity and intelligence on the ball and off it, or maybe they don't, who knows.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Mick's style of football is a better fit for the position Warnock left us in than what Harris was trying to force through, before then giving up on it when in danger of being sacked very early into last season.
Each of Warnock, Harris and Mick have had spells where balance between physicality and skill has been good but these spells have been brief and much more time spent on head tennis. We're not going to end up being a pretty side but have opportunity (and I think the desire) to flip that ratio.
It is positive that the first CM we've signed since Vaulks and Pack has been heavily involved in a side beating Fulham and Warnock's Boro this past month. CM and CB is really the engine room that dictates style of play and players (both incoming and outgoing) give us clues about where we're going.
Harris was vocal about wanting to win in a better style when he came in and Mick was vocal about still heading in that direction but easing up on how far we'd go in trade off for greater number of Championship wins. Isn't that what we're seeing play out so far?
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Football style wise we have had three managers that have served up some absolute bore fests over the years.
Our last three managers are not too concerned about having the ball more than opposition or playing any entertaining football when we have it.
Our only hope now is that the brains trust at City strike it lucky with their next appointment because they don't seem to put much thought into their managerial appointments.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
I would agree that the style isn't important for most as long as the team's winning, but how much of that we'll do this season I'm not sure.
Teams seem to have worked it out. Stop the crosses coming in (we're not great at crossing anyway) and move the ball quickly and you'll beat us.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Undercoverinwurzelland
Teams seem to have worked it out.
You might be right, but I also think a number of players are out of form at the moment. When that happens, the football goes from mostly dire to utterly abysmal.
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
8th game of the season and we are setting up at home to try and grind out a draw or if lucky score from a set piece!! It was hard enough to watch it in Premier but we are in the Championship now !!
-
Re: The football under McCarthy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Lone Gunman
I thought the McCarthy philosophy was perfectly summed up by the man himself yesterday when he told the press: "We set up to frustrate them."
It's an early-season home game in the Championship, not an FA Cup tie against top-class Premier League opposition, but already McCarthy is setting up his side to frustrate the opposition as opposed to having a go at them. It's not football, it's anti-football. Little old Cardiff hoping to keep big, bad Bournemouth at bay. Ridiculous.
We don’t always see eye to eye, but I believe you have summed things up pretty wel there. :thumbup: