Voice_of_Reason
Well-Known Member
What have teams like Burton, Bradford, Barnsley, Walsall and Gillingham got that we haven't? Team Spirit? Happy dressing room? Better players? They all must have something we haven't.
What have teams like Burton, Bradford, Barnsley, Walsall and Gillingham got that we haven't? Team Spirit? Happy dressing room? Better players? They all must have something we haven't.
Claudio Ranieri has picked the same team for the past five league matches and has made only 21 changes in 25 games, the fewest in the Premier League.
Continuity in the case of:
Burton: Admittedly, they changed manager (not by their choice) but brought in somebody in Clough who had put the foundations in place some time ago
Bradford: Parkinson has been in charge since 2011, we've had 4 managers in that period
The others; I don't believe anybody has used anywhere the number of players we have since we were in League 1, wholesale change every season + numerous loans.
Is the whole players not being together for years the new excuse? Strange though, didn't seem to have much of an impact on us winning a lot of games at the start of the season.
Instability is always capable of delivering short term successes. If you want long term success however that requires stability
I'd probably say variety, Murphy and Armstrong are one trick ponies really
I'd probably say variety, Murphy and Armstrong are one trick ponies really
So does that mean it hit that short term limit and the players suddenly started being awful?
I can understand for a business over long term as in years it would help.
I don't think it will make things change within a matter of weeks.
I can understand if a manager throws a squad together and they need time to click and work together. That goes against the way it has worked for us.
What have teams like Burton, Bradford, Barnsley, Walsall and Gillingham got that we haven't? Team Spirit? Happy dressing room? Better players? They all must have something we haven't.
I know what you're saying Nick but at the end of the day the team was bulked up with new players for this season (no stability) and once we lost a few players through injuries and a loan call back the relacements that came in as part of that incosistancy couldn't help the team sustain the early pace because of the lack of stability.
If we had a stable squad of players that meant we had players who have trained for a good while together, have a better understanding of the style of football we want to play, how they individually understand what they have to do and what their team mates can do when you get a RJ go sick or a RK go home you should have players already in the mould of what you're trying to achieve to step in and keep some consistancy.
How many different players have played for us this season? How does that compare to the likes of Walsall, Burton etc mentioned in the OP.
So maybe it is our style of play then? As when the players had just got together we got results?
As they have learnt it we have got worse.
It could also explain why players who seem to come in do well and then drop off.
Our style of play now is nothing like at the start of the season. It's changed and that again is a good definition of instability. We could probably debate the why's and when's of why it's changed for days but for me personally it all points back to the instability in the squad.
Our formation has never changed. We've always had one upfront, always had several players fighting for the number 10 spot, never deployed real wingers until Jones, always made wide players cut inside, always made defenders distribute from goal keeps.
We haven't changed formation at all.
Also we've had 8 players appear in over 85% of games this season. That's pretty stable to me.
Our style of play now is nothing like at the start of the season. It's changed and that again is a good definition of instability. We could probably debate the why's and when's of why it's changed for days but for me personally it all points back to the instability in the squad.
Probably why I said style and not formation.
No our style hasn't either. We are still trying to do exactly the same as we were. Nothing has changed it's totally rigid.
One striker trying to move into channels, wide players moving inside, a goalkeeper distributing the ball to defenders to try and link the midfield.
So what has changed in your view?
Are you surprised so many as 8 have pretty much played all season? How's that unstable?
Our style has gone from a committed, attacking style to a paniced, defensive style since just before Xmas in my opinion with the obvious exception of Crewe away and Bury at home. If nothing had changed and we were totally rigid as you suggest surely we would be top of the league?
I am.No our style hasn't either. We are still trying to do exactly the same as we were. Nothing has changed it's totally rigid.
One striker trying to move into channels, wide players moving inside, a goalkeeper distributing the ball to defenders to try and link the midfield.
So what has changed in your view?
Are you surprised so many as 8 have pretty much played all season? How's that unstable?
Kind of agree but not sure on the word,maybe cautious.Our style has gone from a committed, attacking style to a paniced, defensive style since just before Xmas in my opinion with the obvious exception of Crewe away and Bury at home. If nothing had changed and we were totally rigid as you suggest surely we would be top of the league?
I may be wrong, but I would argue that they perhaps haven't had to bring in loads of new players throughout the season, due to injuries? Whereas we have IMOIs the whole players not being together for years the new excuse? Strange though, didn't seem to have much of an impact on us winning a lot of games at the start of the season.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?