Luke Williams ahead of West Brom | Press Conference

[Smurph]

That's fair enough, many people don't see possession as evidence of "control", they would classify shots on goal/attacking threat as such. I'm more of the school of thought that if you don't let the other team have the ball for most of the game, you're the ones in "control". It depends how you look at it I suppose.

(I will happily concede that our particular problem is that we don't translate good ball retention into something that hurts teams often enough).

Pointless having the ball if you're going to do feck all with it.

 

[Smurph]

Looked like a broken man on that clip...interesting to know who he was talking about ref lack of effort and attitude

At this moment in time he has only himself to blame.

I like the guy, want him to do well, something has to change.

 

[T8AD365]

Pointless having the ball if you're going to do feck all with it.

How many games have we lost over the last few years, despite ending up with 70% possession and still having fewer shots than the opposition? It's definitely well into double figures

 

[Smurph]

How many games have we lost over the last few years, despite ending up with 70% possession and still having fewer shots than the opposition? It's definitely well into double figures

It's like we've forgotten what the most important stat is.

The players aren't capable of playing this style. I have no idea why we persevere with it.

We finally have pace out wide, bang the ball over the top and let's attack the fullbacks rather than play walking football.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Pointless having the ball if you're going to do feck all with it.

Depends, doesn't it.

If you're at home against a side like Wycombe, absolutely.

If you're away to a top side who could hurt you badly if you keep giving them the ball back, then it really isn't a bad idea to keep hold of it as long as you can. Even if you're not looking particularly dangerous.

Horses for courses.

 

[Smurph]

Depends, doesn't it.

If you're at home against a side like Wycombe, absolutely.

If you're away to a top side who could hurt you badly if you keep giving them the ball back, then it really isn't a bad idea to keep hold of it as long as you can. Even if you're not looking particularly dangerous.

Horses for courses.

The aim of the game is to score more than the opposition not see who can keep the ball the longest.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

The aim of the game is to score more than the opposition not see who can keep the ball the longest.

I know, but what I'm saying is, it's not as simple as that.

If we're playing Man City tomorrow and we decide we're going for it, we'll have Tymon overlapping Ronald at every opportunity and we'll have all our midfielders getting in the box looking to get on the end of crosses, sure, we might have some fun for the first 10 mins, but the reality is we are going to get twatted 10-0.

Brendan's Swansea used possession in the first PL season largely as a defensive tactic, especially against the top teams. His reasoning was you starve the other team of the ball, they can't hurt you. There is a logic to it. The difference with his side is he had better players at his disposal so we were able to hurt the opposition as well (Dyer, Sinclair, Dobbie, Borini, Routledge, etc). The current side doesn't have that sort of talent. It's a very, very inferior version.

 

[Smurph]

I know, but what I'm saying is, it's not as simple as that.

If we're playing Man City tomorrow and we decide we're going for it, we'll have Tymon overlapping Ronald at every opportunity and we'll have all our midfielders getting in the box looking to get on the end of crosses, sure, we might have some fun for the first 10 mins, but the reality is we are going to get twatted 10-0.

Brendan's Swansea used possession in the first PL season largely as a defensive tactic, especially against the top teams. His reasoning was you starve the other team of the ball, they can't hurt you. There is a logic to it. The difference with his side is he had better players at his disposal so we were able to hurt the opposition as well (Dyer, Sinclair, Dobbie, Borini, Routledge, etc). The current side doesn't have that sort of talent. It's a very, very inferior version.

We're not going to beat Man City by keeping the ball longer than them.

It is as simple as scoring more than the opposition. The problem with modern day managers is they want to re invent what is a very simple game.

 

[monmouth]

I know, but what I'm saying is, it's not as simple as that.

If we're playing Man City tomorrow and we decide we're going for it, we'll have Tymon overlapping Ronald at every opportunity and we'll have all our midfielders getting in the box looking to get on the end of crosses, sure, we might have some fun for the first 10 mins, but the reality is we are going to get twatted 10-0.

Brendan's Swansea used possession in the first PL season largely as a defensive tactic, especially against the top teams. His reasoning was you starve the other team of the ball, they can't hurt you. There is a logic to it. The difference with his side is he had better players at his disposal so we were able to hurt the opposition as well (Dyer, Sinclair, Dobbie, Borini, Routledge, etc). The current side doesn't have that sort of talent. It's a very, very inferior version.

And then only got twatted 4-0 . Joking, you are right of course with horses for courses, but Brendan’s possession had intent, but was still too negative (Laudrup sorted it out). The current version, pursued religiously in all circumstances, for its own sake, with no intent, is just awful.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

We're not going to beat Man City by keeping the ball longer than them.

No, but you will probably stay in the game much longer and give yourself a better chance of doing so than if you just put 10 men behind the ball and kick it back to them every time you get it.

 

[monmouth]

No, but you will probably stay in the game much longer and give yourself a better chance of doing so than if you just put 10 men behind the ball and kick it back to them every time you get it.

Ah, the Cooper gambit.

 

[Smurph]

No, but you will probably stay in the game much longer and give yourself a better chance of doing so than if you just put 10 men behind the ball and kick it back to them every time you get it.

Defend for your lives and hit them on the counter attack, that's how you beat teams better than you.

We couldn't Wycombe playing possession football. The thought of trying that against a team like Man City is beyond reason.

 

[bytholwyn]

Defend for your lives and hit them on the counter attack, that's how you beat teams better than you.

We couldn't Wycombe playing possession football. The thought of trying that against a team like Man City is beyond reason.

That's exactly what we did against Man City in the FA Cup quarter final, where only the absence of VAR denied us an historic victory. The Celina goal started with Nordfeldt.

 

[Smurph]

That's exactly what we did against Man City in the FA Cup quarter final, where only the absence of VAR denied us an historic victory. The Celina goal started with Nordfeldt.

If we played any other way the game would have been over after 20 minutes.

We don't currently adapt our style of play depending on the opposition.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Defend for your lives and hit them on the counter attack, that's how you beat teams better than you

That can work, but it's not the only way.

In the last 10 years the team that's caused City the most trouble is Liverpool. They certainly didn't defend for their lives and hope for the best. They tried to get on the ball as much as they could and keep it away from them, then set about getting at them.

More than one way to skin a cat.