Thorn v Shaw - A comparison (9 Viewers)

[PVA]

First of all, let me just say this is neither a Pro-Thorn or Anti-Shaw thread, it is neither. I just think people need to calm down a little on Shaw. He hasn't pulled up any trees, or completely changed the way we play (you wouldn't expect him to in such a short space of time) but I have seen Shaw getting praise for doing some of the same things that Thorn did.

Same formation - the diamond has attracted a hell of a lot of criticism over recent weeks. Didn't see any mention of it last night.

Same lineup - pretty much the same lineup as Thorns previous game, apart from a reshuffle in defence.

Similar tactics - didn't see much different in our approach play really, still looked a little suspect at the back.


Now, I'm not saying that we would have won that game anyway with Thorn in charge. And I'm not saying that Shaw changed absolutely nothing.

All I'm saying is, lets just keep our feet on the ground here. Remember Thorn's games as caretaker manager at the backend of the season a couple of years ago. People were labelling him the messiah and everyone was saying his football was the best they have seen in years.

PUSB.

 

---

[Nick]

The formation looked a bit different to me. Baker had much more of a free role and Kilbane / Barton seemed to be a lot wider after 10 or so minutes.

We sat further up the pitch and didn't sit back when we were winning.

Also, the substitutions made a lot more sense and well timed.

I agree we shouldn't rush in to hire Shaw after 1 game like we did last season.

 

[ccfcway]

well, i can say two things for certain

1) i dont think i have ever seen a ccfc team run ariound chasing lost causes like they did last night
2) we have a decent squad, (minus a winger or two)

Im niot getting acrried away with Shaw, however you often hear "they should be giving 100% as a minmum". Well they were last night, so thats a start !

Thorn would have sat back at 2-1, we went for it.

 

[Nick]

A few times Elliott, Cody and Baker were chasing players back to near enough our box if they lost the ball.

They looked really fired up and wanted to win and there was an urgency. Against Bury we looked lethargic.

 

[stupot07]

You have to forgive some of the defensive frailties, which is to be expected when you make 3 changes to the back four. (willis and Edje in, Brown switch to CB)

 

[PVA]

Certainly in the first half at least v Bury, the players definitely close down and chase down defenders. That's exactly how we scored the first goal. I remember Baker and Elliott chasing the ball all the way back to the keeper as well.

For me that's just another example of people praising Shaw for things that happened under AT as well...

 

[sky blue john]

It shouldn't matter who the manager is !!
The players need to take a good look at themselves if they can play like that last night and not turn up in previous games !!
They are mugging off the fans !!!

 

[CovLis86]

Argh... Was waiting for someone to say about subs...
First sub was forced because of injury, and the next one was in 80th minute and 90th minute, much later than thorn did!

I am all up for people's opinions on where people are lacking, but to be hypocritical and say it's fine for someone else really bugs me.

 

[Sky Blues]

Playing devil's advocate for a second, ponder this: Cov gave up a 2-1 lead yesterday to draw 2-2 in 90 minutes. We won 3-2 in 120 minutes. Would a Thorn side have won any of the last three draws if the games had been played over 120 minutes, not 90 minutes?



(ps. My answer would be "probably not" because of his seeming reluctance to freshen things up).

 

[craigSKYBLUE]

CWR said we played more 4-1-3-2 instead of 4-1-2-1-2..

 

[ccfcway]

Certainly in the first half at least v Bury, the players definitely close down and chase down defenders. That's exactly how we scored the first goal. I remember Baker and Elliott chasing the ball all the way back to the keeper as well.

For me that's just another example of people praising Shaw for things that happened under AT as well...

45 mins !

The game lasts for 90 mins..

 

[craigSKYBLUE]

Last night we played well for 2 halves.something we didn't do under thorn

 

[Bertola]

CWR was wrong. It was definately the diamond

 

[Diehard Si]

Playing devil's advocate for a second, ponder this: Cov gave up a 2-1 lead yesterday to draw 2-2 in 90 minutes. We won 3-2 in 120 minutes. Would a Thorn side have won any of the last three draws if the games had been played over 120 minutes, not 90 minutes?



(ps. My answer would be "probably not" because of his seeming reluctance to freshen things up).

We would have beaten Yeovil probably.

 

[Nick]

CWR was wrong. It was definately the diamond

It was adapted though

 

[craigSKYBLUE]

CWR was wrong. It was definately the diamond

Seemed to have a lot more width though didn't we

 

[TommyZoom]

We only won the game cause the players are now 'gelled'....

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Seemed to have a lot more width though didn't we

We didn't really have more width, just Barton and Kilbane covered their full back, something we were doing under AT.

Whoever went to the game and looked at the shape would've seen we were playing the diamond, until McShef came on where we we a little higher, but we still kept the diamond shape.

 

[Bertola]

The first goal came from Kilbane, playing narrow, slotting the ball through to Cody.

the Second, came from Kilbane, faily central, on the edge of the box.

Granted the third came from out wide, but did we really have that much more width? Or are people just happy that we won

 

[Otis]

Err, are we seriously comparing after one single game?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It shouldn't matter who the manager is !!
The players need to take a good look at themselves if they can play like that last night and not turn up in previous games !!
They are mugging off the fans !!!

Glad someone else mentioned this.

The reality is that in last night's performance, there were many traits evident for which Thorn was lambasted. It was a midfield diamond, although it perhaps looked a bit different as certain players such as Baker introduced much more movement to their game (I'll come onto this one in a second). The substitutions were firstly, reactive to injury and secondly late. We conceded again from a set piece position. We still - infuriatingly - pulled all players back for corners.

The difference, for me, was the aptitude of the players, best evidenced by Baker's performance.

Now, it may be the case that Shaw motivated the team better than Thorn was able. I hope so, and hope this can continue. Equally, I think I equally saw the same thing when Thorn took over from Bothroyd.

I do think that if the effort that was put into yesterday evening's performance was shown against Yeovil, Shefield United and Bury, the this would have been he difference that would have turned at least two of these performances into victories.

To that end, as well as offering plaudits to Shaw, I hope some players are looking at what they gave us - the fans - for the previous three league games

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

It was adapted though

Yes. It's now a flexible rhombus when we're winning; and only a diamond if we lose....

 

[Ashdown]

Exactly Otis.............I for one am not going to start the knife wielding rubbish against Thorn. He couldn't keep the players motivated for full matches its true but this was a derby against a heavily supported Blues team and you know come next May people might actually consider that Andy Thorn had put together a tidy outfit with no money to spend. Lets be honest who had really heard of Jennings, Barton, Elliot and the French lads etc etc???

 

[Ashdown]

Stop talking sense MMM FFS !!

 

[covcity4life]

lol ova you're struggling here

thorn may have laid good groundwork but he wasnt up to the managers job

 

[Nick]

Glad someone else mentioned this.

The reality is that in last night's performance, there were many traits evident for which Thorn was lambasted. It was a midfield diamond, although it perhaps looked a bit different as certain players such as Baker introduced much more moment to their game (I'll come onto this one in a second). The substitutions were firstly, reactive to injury and secondly late. We conceded again from a set piece position. We still - infuriatingly - pulled all players back for corners.

The difference, for me, was the aptitude of the players, best evidenced by Baker's performance.

Now, it may be the case that Shaw motivated the team better than Thorn was able. I hope so, and hope this can continue. Equally, I think I equally saw the same thing when Thorn took over from Bothroyd.

I do think that if the effort that was put into yesterday evening's performance was shown against Yeovil, Shefield United and Bury, the this would have been he difference that would have turned at least two of these performances into victories.

To that end, as well as offering plaudits to Shaw, I hope some players are looking at what they gave us - the fans - for the previous three league games

Didn't Shaw make a change as soon as Birmingham did to bring McSheffrey on for Barton to react to their change?

The diamond seemed to be a lot wider sometimes, I agree the players were cutting inside but this could have been down to players work rates too I guess

I agree we came out a bit shaky and it was the players that made the difference when it came to work rate and having the heart to come back from behind to win the game. Under Thorn at 2-1 we would have sat back and invited pressure but with Shaw we were sitting high up the pitch and not trying to settle for 2-1.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Stop talking sense MMM FFS !!

Sorry. I'll compose myself over a bean-to-cup coffee, which should provide sufficient stimulation for me to revet to being a twat again

 

[Nick]

Thinking about it, that could well be the way Thorn intended them to play in his head but why didn't we? What stopped it from happening on the pitch before?

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Didn't Shaw make a change as soon as Birmingham did to bring McSheffrey on for Barton to react to their change?

They bought on Rooney for Lovenkrands, which looked like-for-like, an thereafter the McSheffrey change was made - yeah, I agree. But it was the 80th or 81st minutes; hence me reference to late changes - which was a constant snipe at Thorn.

Not saying it wasn't successful, but commenting that it was late on in the game

 

[Sutty]

Exactly Otis.............I for one am not going to start the knife wielding rubbish against Thorn. He couldn't keep the players motivated for full matches its true but this was a derby against a heavily supported Blues team and you know come next May people might actually consider that Andy Thorn had put together a tidy outfit with no money to spend. Lets be honest who had really heard of Jennings, Barton, Elliot and the French lads etc etc???

To be fair, quite a few people had heard of at least 2 of them.

As for the formation, it was the diamond but became a 4-1-3-2 when defending. That's why Barton and Kilbane were able to more easily cover their full back, they were naturally pushed a little wider by Baker dropping into the middle of them.

A subtle change yes, but an effective one.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Thinking about it, that could well be the way Thorn intended them to play in his head but why didn't we? What stopped it from happening on the pitch before?

The biggest change I could see was motivation of the players. Either for the new manager, or as a mark of respect for the outgoing manager, or as it was a local derby - with highlights shown on the TV

 

[lordsummerisle]

The biggest change I could see was motivation of the players. Either for the new manager, or as a mark of respect for the outgoing manager, or as it was a local derby - with highlights shown on the TV

Did you not feel we moved the ball a lot quicker and purposefully forward than we had been doing?

Mixed up short and long(not hoof) passing a lot more too.

Seemed a lot more pro-active than re-active from what I saw.

 

[Mary_Mungo_Midge]

Did you not feel we moved the ball a lot quicker and purposefully forward than we had been doing?

Mixed up short and long(not hoof) passing a lot more too.

Seemed a lot more pro-active than re-active from what I saw.

Honestly and tangibly - not particularly so. More movement in midfield presented more short out-balls, which meant the game could be mixed up more I guess. I thought Hussey was still profligate with the long ball forward. Given the number of empty seats, I moved three times to get different views of things. Sat in the corner by the JSB element, it gave quite a perspective on his misguided forward ball. That needs to change.

I'm not being jaundiced in my view here - honestly so. I thought many traits that were previously considered deeply flawed still remained. Looking at shots on and off target, we were at 14 and 5 whereas Brum managed 16 and 10. They hit the bar, had a late penalty shout. It could have been very different.

The profile of the diamond did look different, I can see that. The passing mix - as above, looked different. But the main thing - above all? The work-rate and aptitude of the players

 

[We'll_live_and_die]

Thorn - Came in turned around a sinking ship and managed to keep someone else's squad up. Performed well for 8 games

Shaw - Came in and built on someone elses formation and tactics. Conceded the most goals that City have this season.

 

[lordsummerisle]

Shaw - Came in and built on someone elses formation and tactics. Conceded the most goals that City have this season.

Really? Was it 1-1 against Bury then?