Sunday 2nd September - Cardiff 2-3 Arsenal

[Bluewolf]

2 hours ago, Asura said:

Cardiff played well and did enough to snatch a point from Arsenal, bad luck for them that they couldnt finish some good chances. Almost like a repeat of Chelsea vs Arsenal, except,  with Arsenal being the benefactor this weekend.

Loving the new signings Torreira and Guedsacngesaosaoi

Is that Welsh or something mate??? 

[carefreeluke]

2 hours ago, SirBalon said:

I know mate.  Depending on a club's resources and various other factors, each respective team has its priorities.

Far and away from starting a serious debate on the finer aspects of what I personally feel teams should do to advance and not be eternally stuck in a mundane survival mode, what I was saying is that I understand and respect that some smaller sides (most) setup not to lose against the bigger boys...  But that doesn't make me give an analysis of "weren't they unlucky!" When they set out to defend and hold out for a lucky draw.  The truth is the truth and I've never understood the "unlucky not to get a result" comment as in truth it should be "they were lucky to survive so long in that game".

I view this the same. I don't think the mentality of some of the smaller clubs helps them. Whilst the managers of this damage limitation approach would argue they adopt these plans as they feel it's the best way to get the three points (I think all managers are setting up to win the game despite the nature of their approach) and in most cases there's a lot more to it than just putting men behind the ball, I personally however don't think it's the best way to do things. Bournemouth are a very interesting example of this. Last weekend they played with a very low block, very organised, with the intent of frustrating us and I'd turn to my brother every 5 minutes and say this is impossible to break down. Their chances came really from our defensive mistakes which would have been part of Eddie Howe's plan no doubt but they defended deep, in a similar way to what Newcastle did but with a little bit more attacking intent, perhaps helped by confidence as well as Bournemouth have started the season relatively well. Only to concede two in the last 20 minutes. The last two previous seasons in the Premier League they came to Stamford Bridge and they adopted a different approach and mentality and I was very impressed with them, they were more on the front foot and looked to take the game to us. They beat us last season (yes they were facing a very different Chelsea team at a good time) and the season before they lost 3-0 but I remember them having some very good chances and they only conceded 1 more than what they did last weekend.

The ironic thing and what I don't like about these men behind the ball approaches (for a lack of a better name) is that more often and not these teams end up conceding anyway but more notably the goals they concede are stupid goals, like from a set piece or poor defensive mistake. They spend the whole game defending these well, only to be outdone by them through one lapse of concentration. Yes, there's a big difference in quality and resources between the teams at the top and bottom but there's a lot of money in the Premier League as well (depending on the club of course). Some of the top teams in Spain for example have less resources than some of the teams at the bottom in England. These approaches happen at the top of the table of the table though as well, with my club being more than guilty which is even worse. Conte's approach away against Man City last season is almost unforgivable in my eyes.

Overall I just feel mentality is a big thing in football and you get what you set up for. I'm not saying you can't win football matches by defending deep and putting men behind the ball and football is not as black and white as attacking and defending but I do believe what is intertwined with everything is mentality. I've seen Chelsea twice now go away to Huddersfield and score 6 goals over those two games and in both games Huddersfield barely crossed the halfway line, I'm not a manager but no matter the context that can't be right.

[SirBalon]

13 minutes ago, carefreeluke said:

I view this the same. I don't think the mentality of some of the smaller clubs helps them. Whilst the managers of this damage limitation approach would argue they adopt these plans as they feel it's the best way to get the three points (I think all managers are setting up to win the game despite the nature of their approach) and in most cases there's a lot more to it than just putting men behind the ball, I personally however don't think it's the best way to do things. Bournemouth are a very interesting example of this. Last weekend they played with a very low block, very organised, with the intent of frustrating us and I'd turn to my brother every 5 minutes and say this is impossible to break down. Their chances came really from our defensive mistakes which would have been part of Eddie Howe's plan no doubt but they defended deep, in a similar way to what Newcastle did but with a little bit more attacking intent, perhaps helped by confidence as well as Bournemouth have started the season relatively well. Only to concede two in the last 20 minutes. The last two previous seasons in the Premier League they came to Stamford Bridge and they adopted a different approach and mentality and I was very impressed with them, they were more on the front foot and looked to take the game to us. They beat us last season (yes they were facing a very different Chelsea team at a good time) and the season before they lost 3-0 but I remember them having some very good chances and they only conceded 1 more than what they did last weekend.

The ironic thing and what I don't like about these men behind the ball approaches (for a lack of a better name) is that more often and not these teams end up conceding anyway but more notably the goals they concede are stupid goals, like from a set piece or poor defensive mistake. They spend the whole game defending these well, only to be outdone by them through one lapse of concentration. Yes, there's a big difference in quality and resources between the teams at the top and bottom but there's a lot of money in the Premier League as well (depending on the club of course). Some of the top teams in Spain for example have less resources than some of the teams at the bottom in England. These approaches happen at the top of the table of the table though as well, with my club being more than guilty which is even worse. Conte's approach away against Man City last season is almost unforgivable in my eyes.

Overall I just feel mentality is a big thing in football and you get what you set up for. I'm not saying you can't win football matches by defending deep and putting men behind the ball and football is not as black and white as attacking and defending but I do believe what is intertwined with everything is mentality. I've seen Chelsea twice now go away to Huddersfield and score 6 goals over those two games and in both games Huddersfield barely crossed the halfway line, I'm not a manager but no matter the context that can't be right.

Very good post!

My issue is the same as in one of your points. More times than not (the large majority) smaller sides will end up losing anyway which makes it futile in my opinion.

But I’ve also added the extra point of the fact that many of these sides have players on loan from bigger clubs and for me those young players don’t get to enhance their abilities in high end competition and just stagnate. I appreciate that the club’s priorities aren’t to nurture other clubs’ young players but answer the question as to why they want those talented players in the first place?

Even in the case of some of these teams actually purchasing decent technical players while not playing a type of game that enhances the possibilities that these players can offer as a winning formula. 

[Burning Gold]

I'm going to struggle to take anyone seriously if they're going to use the fact that bad teams often lose to good teams as evidence that a defensive approach is wrong. As if they'd be more likely to get a result by going toe-to-toe with a much better and more expensive squad than their own?

It's interesting @carefreeluke should mention Bournemouth in this context. Everton were criticised last season for their negative approach to the derby at Anfield, but they got a point out of us. A week or so later, Bournemouth tried to beat us at our own game and we wiped the floor with them.

I think we'd all like more teams to play more attacking football, but you're kidding yourselves if you really think the low block isn't some teams' best chance of getting anything against certain other teams. It shouldn't be incumbent on those teams to play a more expansive game, it's on the authorities to reduce or eliminate the incentive.

[carefreeluke]

51 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

I'm going to struggle to take anyone seriously if they're going to use the fact that bad teams often lose to good teams as evidence that a defensive approach is wrong. As if they'd be more likely to get a result by going toe-to-toe with a much better and more expensive squad than their own?

It's interesting @carefreeluke should mention Bournemouth in this context. Everton were criticised last season for their negative approach to the derby at Anfield, but they got a point out of us. A week or so later, Bournemouth tried to beat us at our own game and we wiped the floor with them.

I think we'd all like more teams to play more attacking football, but you're kidding yourselves if you really think the low block isn't some teams' best chance of getting anything against certain other teams. It shouldn't be incumbent on those teams to play a more expansive game, it's on the authorities to reduce or eliminate the incentive.

The going 'toe to toe' argument is often used as a counter argument and it's where people often adopt the black and white perspective, either you attack or defend, people start talking in extremes. I'm not talking about going to toe to toe with superior teams, nor did I say a low block doesn't work. My point is more about showing at least some ambition and desire to win the game. Fundamentally for me though, it's more about the mentality in which these teams conduct their work. It's not just teams that find themselves down the bottom of the table either as top teams can be more than guilty of it as well. 

[SirBalon]

2 hours ago, Burning Gold said:

I'm going to struggle to take anyone seriously if they're going to use the fact that bad teams often lose to good teams as evidence that a defensive approach is wrong. As if they'd be more likely to get a result by going toe-to-toe with a much better and more expensive squad than their own?

It's interesting @carefreeluke should mention Bournemouth in this context. Everton were criticised last season for their negative approach to the derby at Anfield, but they got a point out of us. A week or so later, Bournemouth tried to beat us at our own game and we wiped the floor with them.

I think we'd all like more teams to play more attacking football, but you're kidding yourselves if you really think the low block isn't some teams' best chance of getting anything against certain other teams. It shouldn't be incumbent on those teams to play a more expansive game, it's on the authorities to reduce or eliminate the incentive.

I’m at least not talking about going “toe-to-toe” whatever that means, and it’s not a swipe but the typical defense shield used to pardon not having ambition.

If people think you can’t have an attacking mentality and also be solid defensively, then it’s not the football tactics we should be questioning, but the level of coaching.

We all know what parking the bus means and even though it’s seriously becoming a term that’s overused, we know there are those that implement these ideals in a totally uniform state which is crap for everyone from the footballers to the spectators.

Obviously worse still is when it’s used by a coach that works in an environment with competitive resources and finances.