Sleeping Dave

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Sleeping Dave

  1. I did not intend to make it out that they were your issues. I understand others had complained. As for the second part, not looking to argue, simply to understand. You have explained why so thank you for that.
  2. ^ Well didn't chara say 'top clubs'?
  3. Not to re-open whatever issue you found with the topic before, but why have you deleted posts that had no personal insults or aggressiveness in them? Because they were about Jose and Eva/Jon? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand. Thanks.
  4. Quite. Let me try to explain our style, not by popular vote or some agenda-driven drivel. Rather from actually studying our games and the stats those games produce. When we play opponents that are close to our own standard, the overriding style is; 1. We defend very deep 2. We have low possession – even lower/low territorial play 3. We rarely have many players that touch the ball in the opponents half when we score, and rarely are there many players involved in the actual goal scoring move 4. We score mainly from quick transitions or set-pieces In most of these games, looking at the stats we always look like the away side in terms of possession and how we use that possession. Noteworthy examples of what I’m talking about? Man U at home, Liverpool away and at home, Tottenham home and away, City away and Arsenal home and away, Southampton away, West Ham away. The style is less pronounced against Liverpool at home and Arsenal away since those games were before the formation switch. In those games we actually had slightly more possession than the opponent but lower territorial play – I.e. below 50%. But since I’m talking about how we currently play, those games aren’t really supposed to be used as examples of how we play now due to the difference in tactics although the other points remains true. When we play opponents who are clearly below us in terms of general quality, the overriding style is; 1. We defend deep 2. High possession – low territorial play or a mismatch between high possession and territorial play 3. We rarely have many players that touch the ball in the opponents half when we score, and rarely are there many players involved in the actual goal scoring move 4. We score mainly from quick transitions or set-pieces The possession increase is more to do with us being so much better than the opponent is, and we can’t wait for them to open themselves up while attacking us. So we have lots of ‘useless’ possession to lure them out of their shell. Useless in the sense of how some would like us to believe we play. I do not think it is useless possession just to be clear on that point. Great examples of this? Everton at home 5-0, Swansea at home 3-1, Leicester at home 3-0, Leicester away 0-3, Burnley away 1-1, Swansea at home 3-1, Stoke away 2-1 Then there is a few exceptions to the above, namely when we play teams when our quality is just too high and we have high possession and high territorial play. What’s noteworthy here is that we seem to struggle to score - Boro away 0-1, WBA at home 1-0, Sunderland away 0-1, Hull at home 2-0, Then there are some outliers; Bournemouth at home 3-0 we had 44% possession but 52% territorial play. Palace away 0-1 46% possession but 51% territorial play – I.e. low possession games but where we had more play on their half. This is not a common outcome for us although the territorial advantage is very small. Looking at the above, and trying to match it with what José said. I can’t see how he was wrong. He is right on the money with his assessment. We play defensively and try not to open up. We focus mainly on quick transitions to score with a low number of players involved with few touches on the opponents half. Even when we are much better than the opponent and we have the lion share of the ball we still have low territorial play or a massive mismatch between a very high possession number and the territorial play. This indicates we use a lot of ‘useless’ possession to lure them out to hit them on the break once space opens up. The stat certainly back up with how I see us to play (before I even looked at the stats themselves). Then there are games when we are simply not able to utilize this game plan because the teams we face are so much worse. So we have high possession and high territorial play. What happens then? We seem to struggle to score goals. So to return to how this discussion started, how is José wrong? He isn’t. He is spot on with what he said. What has happened here is that people take it personally. It’s just an observation and a correct one at that.
  5. I would recommend you to look at 442's app and go over the four goals again. At this stage, it seems you are struggling with what a quick transition is. Because of that, it's rather pointless to keep this up. As for the rest of my post (which is describing the game over 90 mins) you predictably didn't manage to address. I wonder why?
  6. I have gone to great lengths explaining how and what we do with such possession in the back three. So thank you for re-iterating my actual point Pete. whether you want to call our style defensive counter-attacking or smart positional play with quick transitions is really just semantics. One term is mainly used in a negative way (on these boards at least) whereas the other is used to praise a managers tactical acumen. At the end of the day, for a team like us they are the same thing.
  7. Since there seem to be some who want to use possession stats to prove things, we only had 44% possession against United at home and defended much deeper than what they did throughout the game. Territory numbers? 38% for us, 62% for United. Defensive third passes? 20% of our passes and only 10% of Uniteds passes. Attacking third passes? 22% of our passes and 37% of Uniteds passes. Two of the four goals where all textbook quick transition goals, one corner and then Kant'e dribbling goal which was also involving few Chelsea players touching the ball. Pedros opening goal was started by a series of passes among the back three in our own half, a quick ball out to Alonso who hit it 50 yards over the United back four for Pedro to pounce on. Overwhelming stats in my favour really.
  8. I'll only reply to the quoted bit and otherwise I refer to Droy's reply. I don't have the energy to argue on this point any longer and will simply note (and learn from) that if you have a good vibe from the manager people will go to great lengths and much creativity to make the obvious sound improbable (unless the obvious is also what most would attach with a positive value). If you dislike the former manager, you'll make an attacking way of playing sound defensive and boring. It's really the typical fair weather bs football fans are known for so I'm not sure why I'm surprised. To return to your possession argument. Does anyone seriously believe that a counter-attacking team is a team that camp 8 outfielders just outside the box while having two runners wait for the long-ball? It's a primitive caricature on your behalf, so primitive it almost becomes funny albeit completely irrelevant. I suppose that's why you can state what you do with a straight face. No team plays like that these days. None. Maybe a team does that for a game under special circumstances, but not as their go-to strategy. So well done for taking the "defensive and counter-attacking style" to the most insane extreme to prove, well nothing. If you pride yourself with having such a tactical mastermind and insight to how Conte is playing you sure do seem unable to see the world in different layers, instead trying to define everything from a set of highly improbable extremes for any team. Rather pointless no? Much of the possession you are so proud of (54% for a team of our superiority isn't much btw, but since you are such a guru on football tactics I'm sure you already knew this but pretend otherwise for sake of argument) is had within the back 7 either deep in our half or around the midway circle. We don't probe and probe with attacking slick possession-based passing until the opposition crumbles a la Barca. We virtually never do that. To say we don't play a counter-attacking style is bizarre imp and downright wrong to say it while referring to our possession stat. It should be clear to anyone who watches us with an objective mind what we do with our possession and why we do it. Only a very creative mind, would call that an attacking-based or well-rounded possession approach. For me it is irrelevant if an opposing manager calls our style defensive and counter-attacking because I'm not offended by it. I agree with that assessment and see no shame. For you and others that's not really the case (obviously), hence this discussion. For me it is semantics, for you it clearly isn't. Instead it seems very important to make up a lot of arguments that really doesn't stand much security.
  9. Counter-attack or a low line where you intend to draw the opposition out of their shell to hit them with quick transitions - what's the difference really? It's really just semantics and posturing to try and pretty one in a good light and the other in a bad. The point that started this discussion was that we are an amazingly good defensive team that had a very solid defensive base and focus our attacking okay on quick transitions almost exclusively. Whether you calm that defensive counter-attacking football or smart tactics is really just semantics. I think many are opposing the negative connotation to it and they can't take it. Completely failing to see it for what it really is. Personally I couldn't care less - I love this style of play and I really love Conte. So I don't see the negativity to it at all. We are what we are. It's winning football and we score goals and let few in. I thought that was the point of football?
  10. If you want to support your claim then it's probably a good idea to not pick a game that supports mine? If that makes you feel stupid, well can you blame me?
  11. You mean the goals when we hit them hard with quick transitions? Hardly a point for your case I'd have thought. But whatever, it doesn't seem important to you what examples you bring up even though they'd say the opposite of the point you're trying to make. It's a bit funny to read though.
  12. When the counter isn't an outlet due to how the opposition is set up, what do we usually do? Do we attack in numbers and camp outside their box? Sure, it happens like it happens to every team out there. But it's not the main strategy we use. Mostly we play the ball in the back 3 and two CMs/WBs to try and draw them out of their shell and create space between their lines to quickly transition into. Why do you think we do that and not the Barca approach of passing the opposition into submission? Hint: it's not our tactics.
  13. Spot on. We certainly start cautiously for most of the time and focus on quick breaks and opponents mistakes. Then we have periods of the game when we are on the front foot. I feel our strategy is to minimise risks of making mistakes and then try to make the most of the periods when we are on top of the game (which happens to every team and is inevitable). Micro manage the small parts of the game is a huge part of being successful and often something that passes by the general viewer. This is a funny post, if not because you actually seem to agree with me and even use the same terms. Yet somehow we don't focus on defensive stability and quick transitions? Is this yet another 74 mins is more than 1,600 mins type of discussion? I mean, the video you posted at the start of Conte's reign was well argued and described how he plays with us quite accurately I'd say. Yet when others point that out you somehow deny it? Sometimes you are quite hard to grasp. We absolutely haven't seen enough of those performances. You know the ones when we blow the opposition away. In many ways this season is panning out a lot like Jose's first season with us. We started cautiously, found our rhythm and played amazing counter-attack and quick break football only to go into a game management mode second half when we had a big lead. Certainly the right strategy to use at this stage and it's very similar to what Jose also did in 2014/15.
  14. As I said, it's a funny old game!
  15. Compared to what critisism we've had to endure in the past, what we have now is one hell of an easy ride. Maybe that will change at some stage (it often does). But for now the overwhelming majority are quite complimentary of us. You'll always find small snide remarks from some tool on the media. But we've experienced concerted efforts involving PL officials (past and present) as well as senior figures at the FA and UEFA. What we experience now is absolutely easy street. If one find themselves to be rubbed the wrong way now, they really need to start bracing themselves.
  16. We are certainly entering a phase of the season where game management becomes key. 10 points and 4 goals ahead of our only remaining opponent. They will miss Kane for a considerable stretch of the season that's left (I think?). We should be able to manage that distance but football is a funny old game. I won't count my chickens until it's mathematically certain that we've won it! Right now we're on course for a 93.64 point season... Would be amazing f we could beat either of Jose's 91 and 95 point seasons. Would be hilarious if we would have recorded three season that's better pointswise compared to arsenals undefeated season!
  17. What critics would that be? Honestly, I'm very curious to know. Are there anyone who are being critical of us? I must certainly have missed that then. Care to link to a critical story of our way of playing?
  18. That's funny, you can't have read them very carefully in that case. What I have said repeatedly was that I don't think what JM said was incorrect. The reason I did that was because there were a number of sensitive souls who cried a little over those comments and thought Mourinho was badmouthing us in the press. Playing a defensive and counter-attacking style is no problem for me. But let's not try to make out were some sort of Bayern Munich (which one poster tried to claim). We're nothing like them.
  19. Actually no. He's accurately describing how we play. You don't get it. No one is (or should be) surprised. We move on.
  20. I'm missing the point? I think you'll find that you are the one missing the point. Thank you for clarifying what a counter-attack is. Very helpful. Not sure what I'd do without you.
  21. Yes I am. And no, the issue is not with me stating we are predominantly a counter-attacking side. You have people who seriously claim we only use it sparingly. It's our main attacking outlet. Deny that and there really isn't any point for us to discuss this further. Cause we'd be so far from each other that it's pointless and quite frankly, a waste of time.
  22. Is there a PL team with more counter-attacking goals than us? Does it mean we are not a counter-attacking side because we've only scored five (supposedly, whatever definition thy have used). If you fail to see that our attacking play is exclusively built on quick transitions and paced change of directions I'm seriously worrying for you. And again, I don't mind that one bit. It's actually how I prefer us to play. Jose was the master of that first time with us. Unfortunately the second time he was much more possession focused and the general okay was slower compared to the first time around. We are a very good side who have put defensive stability and quick transitions at the very core of how we play. I really don't see that as an offensive accusation or a bad thing. It follows what he did at Juve and Italy to a tee as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree we have had versatile or fluid (flexible?) tactics. We have basically played with the same 12 outfielders all season in very clearly defined roles and a set formation. I'd say it's the very opposite of versatility. Actually I think it does. Being so superior pointswise, if we weren't a predominantly defensive solid and counter-attacking side those stats doesn't add up with where we find ourselves when looking at the table.
  23. Apparently we; 1. Don't play counter-attack 2. Aren't reliant on Hazard You must have missed the company memo as well. It's heavily frowned upon to try and be honest here these days.
  24. You should give up, you just don't get it or what I'm saying at all. I have never claimed we are a counter-attacking side to deride. Are you actually able to read?
  25. Utterly ridiculous faramir. I'm not sure how many times I have to say I'm a Conte fan in order for the slower kids in class to get it. The discussion has become less of what it actually is and more of an imaginary stand-point. If you claim we are what we really are you apparently hate Conte and do everything to protect Jose's legacy. If you do support Conte you seemingly have to hate Jose and critisice everything the press wants you to believe he has said. How predictably boring this is.