Don't blame Roy!

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

palace99 New Mills 22 Jan 24 11.54am
Originally posted by PatrickA Doucoure is a key loss. It's no coincidence that neither Anderson not Guehi look as assured in his absence playing just in front of them. Doucoure was also the launchpad for playing out from the back playing simple 15-20 yard forward passes to move us up the field. We continually lose possession in his absence and can't build momentum. Roy has tried Richards to play the role, but Richards doesn't have the necessary attributes. Roy doesn't seem to trust Hughes or Lerma to play the Doucoure role (perhaps justifiably). Therefore, my question to Roy would be if nobody can play the Doucoure role in the squad, why not try a different approach? For example, play more directly, try 2 up front, play 442,get players in the box when the opportunity is there, work on set pieces. Don't shoehorn players out of position just so you can adopt the same coaching methods as if Doucoure was available. It's not working. good call. 442 would help Schlupp on the left who looks lost but has played on the left in a 442 for may seasons. The single forward is usually too isolated, especially away from home and EO and Mateta have played together before and looked useful (at times!)
Alert a moderator to this post

palace99

New Mills 22 Jan 24 11.54am

Originally posted by PatrickA

Doucoure is a key loss.
It's no coincidence that neither Anderson not Guehi look as assured in his absence playing just in front of them.
Doucoure was also the launchpad for playing out from the back playing simple 15-20 yard forward passes to move us up the field.
We continually lose possession in his absence and can't build momentum.
Roy has tried Richards to play the role, but Richards doesn't have the necessary attributes.
Roy doesn't seem to trust Hughes or Lerma to play the Doucoure role (perhaps justifiably).
Therefore, my question to Roy would be if nobody can play the Doucoure role in the squad, why not try a different approach?
For example, play more directly, try 2 up front, play 442,get players in the box when the opportunity is there, work on set pieces.
Don't shoehorn players out of position just so you can adopt the same coaching methods as if Doucoure was available.
It's not working.

good call.

442 would help Schlupp on the left who looks lost but has played on the left in a 442 for may seasons.
The single forward is usually too isolated, especially away from home and EO and Mateta have played together before and looked useful (at times!)

Alert a moderator to this post

doombear Too far from Selhurst Park 22 Jan 24 11.58am
Originally posted by PatrickA Doucoure is a key loss. It's no coincidence that neither Anderson not Guehi look as assured in his absence playing just in front of them. Doucoure was also the launchpad for playing out from the back playing simple 15-20 yard forward passes to move us up the field. We continually lose possession in his absence and can't build momentum. Roy has tried Richards to play the role, but Richards doesn't have the necessary attributes. Roy doesn't seem to trust Hughes or Lerma to play the Doucoure role (perhaps justifiably). Therefore, my question to Roy would be if nobody can play the Doucoure role in the squad, why not try a different approach? For example, play more directly, try 2 up front, play 442,get players in the box when the opportunity is there, work on set pieces. Don't shoehorn players out of position just so you can adopt the same coaching methods as if Doucoure was available. It's not working. Good post Patrick. Unfortunately, Hodgson seems (to me at least) somewhat stubborn and proud to change things It seems it's his way or not at all. Edited by doombear (22 Jan 2024 12.23pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

doombear

Too far from Selhurst Park 22 Jan 24 11.58am

Originally posted by PatrickA

Doucoure is a key loss.
It's no coincidence that neither Anderson not Guehi look as assured in his absence playing just in front of them.
Doucoure was also the launchpad for playing out from the back playing simple 15-20 yard forward passes to move us up the field.
We continually lose possession in his absence and can't build momentum.
Roy has tried Richards to play the role, but Richards doesn't have the necessary attributes.
Roy doesn't seem to trust Hughes or Lerma to play the Doucoure role (perhaps justifiably).
Therefore, my question to Roy would be if nobody can play the Doucoure role in the squad, why not try a different approach?
For example, play more directly, try 2 up front, play 442,get players in the box when the opportunity is there, work on set pieces.
Don't shoehorn players out of position just so you can adopt the same coaching methods as if Doucoure was available.
It's not working.

Good post Patrick. Unfortunately, Hodgson seems (to me at least) somewhat stubborn and proud to change things It seems it's his way or not at all.

Edited by doombear (22 Jan 2024 12.23pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Jacey 22 Jan 24 12.01pm
Originally posted by doombear The OP has entitled the thread "Don't Blame Roy!). Well I do blame him for what is in his area of control, namely, how he coaches the squad and how he sets us up to play. He wonders how we always seem to start slowly (and concede the first goal - as I've said elsewhere, something we did more than any other PL team in 2023). Well if your first aim is always to try and stop the other team from scoring instead of trying to score the first goal yourself, what do you expect will happen? As has been said by many, we are useless in both penalty areas when there are corners. Setting up defensively will (and usually does) result in conceding more corners than under a more progressive system. The game against Arsenal encapsulated this perfectly. Our full backs seem to have little idea what to do with throw-ins other than (usually) give the ball to the opposition. Rarely do we see quick throw-ins from our players or players moving quickly to find space to receive the ball. We have one of the worst shot-to-goal conversion rates in the PL. And what is Hodgson's answer? "Keep working on what we do in practice lads". Sorry, his methods are well past their sell-by date IMHO. Football has moved on and it's time he did - into retirement. Finally, YES, the board has much to answer for but that doesn't let Hodgson off the hook. Agree. Without change and some key signings before window closes next week,feel we will struggle to stay in this League. Time to wake up,Steve and the warring factions at Boardroom level.
Alert a moderator to this post

Jacey

22 Jan 24 12.01pm

Originally posted by doombear

The OP has entitled the thread "Don't Blame Roy!). Well I do blame him for what is in his area of control, namely, how he coaches the squad and how he sets us up to play.

He wonders how we always seem to start slowly (and concede the first goal - as I've said elsewhere, something we did more than any other PL team in 2023). Well if your first aim is always to try and stop the other team from scoring instead of trying to score the first goal yourself, what do you expect will happen?

As has been said by many, we are useless in both penalty areas when there are corners. Setting up defensively will (and usually does) result in conceding more corners than under a more progressive system. The game against Arsenal encapsulated this perfectly.

Our full backs seem to have little idea what to do with throw-ins other than (usually) give the ball to the opposition. Rarely do we see quick throw-ins from our players or players moving quickly to find space to receive the ball.

We have one of the worst shot-to-goal conversion rates in the PL.

And what is Hodgson's answer?

"Keep working on what we do in practice lads".

Sorry, his methods are well past their sell-by date IMHO. Football has moved on and it's time he did - into retirement.

Finally, YES, the board has much to answer for but that doesn't let Hodgson off the hook.

Agree.
Without change and some key signings before window closes next week,feel we will struggle to stay in this League.
Time to wake up,Steve and the warring factions at Boardroom level.

Alert a moderator to this post

Lanzo-Ad Lanzarote 22 Jan 24 12.02pm
Originally posted by palace99 good call. 442 would help Schlupp on the left who looks lost but has played on the left in a 442 for may seasons. The single forward is usually too isolated, especially away from home and EO and Mateta have played together before and looked useful (at times!) Yes. or 4-3-1-2, 4-4-2, 4-4-1.1 none of these formations have been tried, Andersen playing long diagonal passes up to Mateta, with Edouard and Eze supporting, Ala Wimbledon, a lot more could have been tried, fit the team for the players, not vice versa “That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn
Alert a moderator to this post

Lanzo-Ad

Lanzarote 22 Jan 24 12.02pm

Originally posted by palace99

good call.

Yes. or 4-3-1-2, 4-4-2, 4-4-1.1 none of these formations have been tried, Andersen playing long diagonal passes up to Mateta, with Edouard and Eze supporting, Ala Wimbledon, a lot more could have been tried, fit the team for the players, not vice versa

“That’s a joke son, I say, that’s a joke.” “Nice boy, but he’s sharp as a throw pillow.” “He’s so dumb he thinks a Mexican border pays rent” “ “Son… I say, son, some people are so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes.”__ Forhorn Leghorn

Alert a moderator to this post

mtp1958 Grays 22 Jan 24 12.03pm
said previous game matty needs support he has no outlet , he cant work any harder as he is always alone , 442 works for me but with olise outwide and ayew back leaves Eze and lerma in midfield , so cant play wing backs leaves only 2 at the back , so its a hard formation for us to play
Alert a moderator to this post

mtp1958

Grays 22 Jan 24 12.03pm

said previous game matty needs support he has no outlet , he cant work any harder as he is always alone ,

442 works for me but with olise outwide and ayew back leaves Eze and lerma in midfield , so cant play wing backs leaves only 2 at the back , so its a hard formation for us to play

Alert a moderator to this post

Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 22 Jan 24 12.07pm
Originally posted by PatrickA Doucoure is a key loss. It's no coincidence that neither Anderson not Guehi look as assured in his absence playing just in front of them. Doucoure was also the launchpad for playing out from the back playing simple 15-20 yard forward passes to move us up the field. We continually lose possession in his absence and can't build momentum. Roy has tried Richards to play the role, but Richards doesn't have the necessary attributes. Roy doesn't seem to trust Hughes or Lerma to play the Doucoure role (perhaps justifiably). Therefore, my question to Roy would be if nobody can play the Doucoure role in the squad, why not try a different approach? For example, play more directly, try 2 up front, play 442,get players in the box when the opportunity is there, work on set pieces. Don't shoehorn players out of position just so you can adopt the same coaching methods as if Doucoure was available. It's not working. Managers have of course their preferred way of playing and the 'Shape' of the team but some adopt a more flexible approach than others. Carlos Corberan deploys a number of systems and one is left guessing as to which formation his team will play at the start.He also changes formations during games as did Mark Warburton.
Alert a moderator to this post

Willo

South coast - west of Brighton. 22 Jan 24 12.07pm

Originally posted by PatrickA

Doucoure is a key loss.
It's no coincidence that neither Anderson not Guehi look as assured in his absence playing just in front of them.
Doucoure was also the launchpad for playing out from the back playing simple 15-20 yard forward passes to move us up the field.
We continually lose possession in his absence and can't build momentum.
Roy has tried Richards to play the role, but Richards doesn't have the necessary attributes.
Roy doesn't seem to trust Hughes or Lerma to play the Doucoure role (perhaps justifiably).
Therefore, my question to Roy would be if nobody can play the Doucoure role in the squad, why not try a different approach?
For example, play more directly, try 2 up front, play 442,get players in the box when the opportunity is there, work on set pieces.
Don't shoehorn players out of position just so you can adopt the same coaching methods as if Doucoure was available.
It's not working.

Managers have of course their preferred way of playing and the 'Shape' of the team but some adopt a more flexible approach than others.

Carlos Corberan deploys a number of systems and one is left guessing as to which formation his team will play at the start.He also changes formations during games as did Mark Warburton.

Alert a moderator to this post

FernsideEagle Tunbridge Wells 22 Jan 24 12.33pm
Roy did in fact play a 442 during the 1st season of his first spell, with a midfield of Loftus Cheek, Cabaye, Luka and MacArthur. I think one of the problems with playing a 442 now is that Roy doesn't think Eze is either a box-to-box midfielder or a wide player so it's difficult to know exactly how he would fit in.
Alert a moderator to this post

FernsideEagle

Tunbridge Wells 22 Jan 24 12.33pm

Roy did in fact play a 442 during the 1st season of his first spell, with a midfield of Loftus Cheek, Cabaye, Luka and MacArthur.

I think one of the problems with playing a 442 now is that Roy doesn't think Eze is either a box-to-box midfielder or a wide player so it's difficult to know exactly how he would fit in.

Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglehamster Storrington 22 Jan 24 12.53pm
Originally posted by doombear The OP has entitled the thread "Don't Blame Roy!). Well I do blame him for what is in his area of control, namely, how he coaches the squad and how he sets us up to play. He wonders how we always seem to start slowly (and concede the first goal - as I've said elsewhere, something we did more than any other PL team in 2023). Well if your first aim is always to try and stop the other team from scoring instead of trying to score the first goal yourself, what do you expect will happen? As has been said by many, we are useless in both penalty areas when there are corners. Setting up defensively will (and usually does) result in conceding more corners than under a more progressive system. The game against Arsenal encapsulated this perfectly. Our full backs seem to have little idea what to do with throw-ins other than (usually) give the ball to the opposition. Rarely do we see quick throw-ins from our players or players moving quickly to find space to receive the ball. We have one of the worst shot-to-goal conversion rates in the PL. And what is Hodgson's answer? "Keep working on what we do in practice lads". Sorry, his methods are well past their sell-by date IMHO. Football has moved on and it's time he did - into retirement. Finally, YES, the board has much to answer for but that doesn't let Hodgson off the hook. Can't disagree with any of that Doombear. I have now sufficient funds to last me the rest of my life. Provided I don't buy anything.
Alert a moderator to this post

Eaglehamster

Storrington 22 Jan 24 12.53pm

Originally posted by doombear

The OP has entitled the thread "Don't Blame Roy!). Well I do blame him for what is in his area of control, namely, how he coaches the squad and how he sets us up to play.

We have one of the worst shot-to-goal conversion rates in the PL.

And what is Hodgson's answer?

"Keep working on what we do in practice lads".

Sorry, his methods are well past their sell-by date IMHO. Football has moved on and it's time he did - into retirement.

Finally, YES, the board has much to answer for but that doesn't let Hodgson off the hook.

Can't disagree with any of that Doombear.

I have now sufficient funds to last me the rest of my life. Provided I don't buy anything.

Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow SE19 22 Jan 24 1.47pm
Originally posted by palace99 The Bournemouth comparison is a good one, especially as they play the same formation as us - 4231, and are doing a lot better. When you look at their team there are only a few i would have in front of what we have at Palace - CF, RB and LW spring to mind. And of course we took their player of the year last season. So clearly we have under performed in comparison. In terms of their net spend, this is a little misleading as their 2 big purchases - Adams and Scott were both injured when they signed and haven't had an impact this season. Their success is built on a mobile top 4. Many of their purchases have been in the £10m area, exactly our price range. Kluivert, Semenyo and Tavernier were all in that price range. Aarons is a busy little RB, similar to a younger Clyne. He cost about £7m i think and Sinisterra was bought on loan. Instead we bought an untried teenager from Brazil for an excessive amount and surely even the biggest Roy hater would not say the kid should be starting for us in the Prem. Two absolute no-brainer signings that we should have been all over. Clubs like Bournemouth really do put us to shame at the moment - in terms of recruitment, managers and generally having a plan/identity, they are streets ahead of us. People talking about their 'net spend', but they likely sell Solanke in the next 12 months for something north of £50m. They will not lose money on Scott unless he breaks a leg, and will likely make a big profit there in a few years. Senesi is now an Argentian international and they'll profit on him. Zabarnyi is a big prospect. We should be approaching it the same way - we know we are going to have north of £100m incoming over the next 12 months with likely sales of Olise, Guehi and/or Andersen - spend that money now, and ok our net spend might look bad for 12 months, but at least we're not absolutely crippled every time we lose a player.
Alert a moderator to this post

EverybodyDannsNow

SE19 22 Jan 24 1.47pm

Send a Private Message to EverybodyDannsNow

Originally posted by palace99

The Bournemouth comparison is a good one, especially as they play the same formation as us - 4231, and are doing a lot better.

When you look at their team there are only a few i would have in front of what we have at Palace - CF, RB and LW spring to mind.
And of course we took their player of the year last season.

So clearly we have under performed in comparison.

In terms of their net spend, this is a little misleading as their 2 big purchases - Adams and Scott were both injured when they signed and haven't had an impact this season.

Their success is built on a mobile top 4. Many of their purchases have been in the £10m area, exactly our price range.
Kluivert, Semenyo and Tavernier were all in that price range.

Aarons is a busy little RB, similar to a younger Clyne. He cost about £7m i think and Sinisterra was bought on loan.

Instead we bought an untried teenager from Brazil for an excessive amount and surely even the biggest Roy hater would not say the kid should be starting for us in the Prem.

Two absolute no-brainer signings that we should have been all over.

Clubs like Bournemouth really do put us to shame at the moment - in terms of recruitment, managers and generally having a plan/identity, they are streets ahead of us.

People talking about their 'net spend', but they likely sell Solanke in the next 12 months for something north of £50m.

They will not lose money on Scott unless he breaks a leg, and will likely make a big profit there in a few years.

Senesi is now an Argentian international and they'll profit on him.

Zabarnyi is a big prospect.

We should be approaching it the same way - we know we are going to have north of £100m incoming over the next 12 months with likely sales of Olise, Guehi and/or Andersen - spend that money now, and ok our net spend might look bad for 12 months, but at least we're not absolutely crippled every time we lose a player.

Alert a moderator to this post

Daddyorc Atlantic Highlands, NJ 23 Jan 24 12.29am
I appreciate Roy. But realize his faults. I would say though that this summer window was by far the worst ever, as far as money spent wisely (or unwisely). I'm fine taking a punt (US term) if it doesn't cost much. Jach was a perfect example. Paid 1mm and it didn't work out. We can afford those types of mistakes. High cost errors are fine if you're Chelsea or Man U, still painful, but not disasters. They will miss out on champions league but stay to fight another day. For teams in our place they can cripple you and lead to relegation. I still don't think it'll happen this year though. I like douggie, but he has to get the next windows right or we won't be in the premier league in 2 seasons.
Alert a moderator to this post

Daddyorc

Atlantic Highlands, NJ 23 Jan 24 12.29am

I appreciate Roy. But realize his faults.

I would say though that this summer window was by far the worst ever, as far as money spent wisely (or unwisely).

I'm fine taking a punt (US term) if it doesn't cost much. Jach was a perfect example. Paid 1mm and it didn't work out. We can afford those types of mistakes. High cost errors are fine if you're Chelsea or Man U, still painful, but not disasters. They will miss out on champions league but stay to fight another day. For teams in our place they can cripple you and lead to relegation. I still don't think it'll happen this year though.

I like douggie, but he has to get the next windows right or we won't be in the premier league in 2 seasons.

Alert a moderator to this post

edskan 23 Jan 24 2.30am
Originally posted by doombear The OP has entitled the thread "Don't Blame Roy!). Well I do blame him for what is in his area of control, namely, how he coaches the squad and how he sets us up to play. He wonders how we always seem to start slowly (and concede the first goal - as I've said elsewhere, something we did more than any other PL team in 2023). Well if your first aim is always to try and stop the other team from scoring instead of trying to score the first goal yourself, what do you expect will happen? As has been said by many, we are useless in both penalty areas when there are corners. Setting up defensively will (and usually does) result in conceding more corners than under a more progressive system. The game against Arsenal encapsulated this perfectly. Our full backs seem to have little idea what to do with throw-ins other than (usually) give the ball to the opposition. Rarely do we see quick throw-ins from our players or players moving quickly to find space to receive the ball. We have one of the worst shot-to-goal conversion rates in the PL. And what is Hodgson's answer? "Keep working on what we do in practice lads". Sorry, his methods are well past their sell-by date IMHO. Football has moved on and it's time he did - into retirement. Finally, YES, the board has much to answer for but that doesn't let Hodgson off the hook. Spot on. Best post I've read in a long time.
Alert a moderator to this post

edskan

23 Jan 24 2.30am

Originally posted by doombear

The OP has entitled the thread "Don't Blame Roy!). Well I do blame him for what is in his area of control, namely, how he coaches the squad and how he sets us up to play.

We have one of the worst shot-to-goal conversion rates in the PL.

And what is Hodgson's answer?

"Keep working on what we do in practice lads".

Sorry, his methods are well past their sell-by date IMHO. Football has moved on and it's time he did - into retirement.

Finally, YES, the board has much to answer for but that doesn't let Hodgson off the hook.

Spot on. Best post I've read in a long time.

Alert a moderator to this post

Gary St.Andrews Kenley 23 Jan 24 8.46pm
Originally posted by beak [Link] Bournemouth spent a net £126 million before the start of the season. How on earth can a club the size of Bournemouth with a capacity of 13,000 spend 126million on players, this is ridiculous!
Alert a moderator to this post

Gary St.Andrews

Kenley 23 Jan 24 8.46pm

Send a Private Message to Gary St.Andrews

Originally posted by beak

[Link] Bournemouth spent a net £126 million before the start of the season.

How on earth can a club the size of Bournemouth with a capacity of 13,000 spend 126million on players, this is ridiculous!

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 3 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Don't blame Roy!

Site Map

Sponsors