This is becoming so irritatingly polarised. Why can't those who are popping themselves (effectively) in the Blackwell camp, just recognise that the team and tactical selection were awful on Sunday.
We picked the wrong formation (4-5-1) and the wrong personnel, and the right ones played in the wrong place. We didn't lose narrowly - we got battered 3-0 by a team who is no better than us. You can point to "what ifs" ion almost any match. Utterly irrelevant. We got stuffed. None of that is being wise after the event - I was saying before the game it would be stupid to repeat the Preston tactics as it wasn't an away game. I was saying before Gregan and Butler would be a centre back liability - they were. The fact they weren't beaten for pace for runs in on goal doesn't meaner their absence of pace wasn't a liability - it just meant they were exposed in another way - giving masses of territory and possession in a desperate bid to make sure the striker never got goal side. The fact that Bates backs Blackwell doesn't make criticism invalid. Bates may have been in football 40 years, but in the last 10 years he hasn't almost bankrupted Chelsea and stuffed up Wembley, so the first 35 years clearly didn't stop him making clangers of judgment. And for balance... the "anti-Blackwell" camp should acknowledge that whilst the football has been grim during this season, a play-off final appearance was not a bad result, especially in a season where there was a runaway front 2 who we were never likely to catch. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Mark Humphries Sent: 23 May 2006 18:11 To: 'Nick Allen'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [LU] Not Good Enough Exactly as with the semi final second leg. Tactics seemed to be, sit back and defend the expected aerial bombardment, when they run out of steam a bit, or get disillusioned then we can change our formation and push forward. In the meantime we might be able to hit them on the break or score from a set piece. Look, we don't know if playing 4-3-3 would have made a jot of difference - the ball was being lumped forward from all parts of the park.. 4-3-3 would have just meant that it would come from the keeper more often, and also they might get the breaks in midfield and attack us. There is nothing wrong tactically with soaking up early pressure, it worked a treat in the semi final second leg, it worked in the league vs C Palace. I remember all kinds of criticism of the side potentially being done for pace, so sitting back a bit totally nullifies that threat. In hindsight, because we got caught on the corner and were unable to keep possession, it might have been better to go 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 from the start. No guarantee it would have made the result any different. Facts are that we were a gnats nadger from getting a couple of goals. Would that have been despite or because of the tactics? We conceded a goal from a corner, was that despite or because of the tactics? We didn't get a clear penalty, was that despite or because of the tactics? And if you hadn't noticed, we were basically 4-4-2 from the start of the second half. ******* This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to any other person. For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer to any Clifford Chance office. _______________________________________________ the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors. Leedslist mailing list [email protected] http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
