Sam IS A Tactical Genius

[Parky]

agree with the previous posts about not providing an attacking threat. tho it's not just about setting up a midfield that will dominate possession and dictate the tempo of the game. it's ok to keep the ball, play safe passes and slow down the pace of the game on occasion, but not all the time and not from minute zero against the likes of reading. people have said that the ball didn't stick when we got it up front but it's not just about that either. the call is more for having the attacking players/creativity/pace/width to keep the opposition on their feet, pushing them back, making them second-guess their own play, worry about their positioning, making them play the safe passes and the percentages game. if they are more worried about us then they're not going to be able to have to confidence and freedom to work fluent attacking moves. but in a few away games this season it's been us playing this football and not the opposition. in fact Sam seems intent on MAKING us play this football, which i find strange, it simply invites pressure.

 

by providing an attacking threat of our own we're not only more likely to score goals but there's also a good chance we'll concede less, dominate the territorial battle and pin the opposition back around their box. this is what we did when we had the likes of robert and bellamy playing for us, taking the pressure off crap defenders like O'brien, bramble, dabizas and so on, which minimised the chances of those players being targeted for mistakes by other teams, while also giving poor to average full-backs likes Hughes and Bernard the chance to play some good football going forwards. none of those players have gone on to do anything noteworthy elsewhere.

 

we also had players in that side like shearer, speed and solano who could not only attack well but kept possession brilliantly and knew how to play it safe from time to time, meaning we could adapt to different styles. There is a school of thought that says Allardyce only favours this kind of player, who are essential to a team, but they need risk-takers alongside them like Dyer Bellamy and Robert for a good balance. Robert used to lose the ball a ridiculous amount of times (which is perhaps why the less intelligent hated him) but that is cos he was trying something different. Allardyce is perhaps too risk-averse to go out and buy players like these, or someone like Martins or N'Zogbia who seem to be in and out of the side. I remember from his Bolton days that he would keep tabs on every pass or shot a player made, and if they wasted possession by taking a chance a player would be criticised. Kevin Nolan scored a cracking long range shot one match and in the after-game interview said "the gaffer will shout at me for hitting it from distance, cos he hates it". such an attitude will inhibit a players attacking instincts and the ironic consequence is that the opposition will be freer to attack and dominate the game, not having to worry about we get up to.

 

What are the reasons iyo SA isn't aware of/gives credence to this stuff? Seems very set in his ways.

[madras]

agree with the previous posts about not providing an attacking threat. tho it's not just about setting up a midfield that will dominate possession and dictate the tempo of the game. it's ok to keep the ball, play safe passes and slow down the pace of the game on occasion, but not all the time and not from minute zero against the likes of reading. people have said that the ball didn't stick when we got it up front but it's not just about that either. the call is more for having the attacking players/creativity/pace/width to keep the opposition on their feet, pushing them back, making them second-guess their own play, worry about their positioning, making them play the safe passes and the percentages game. if they are more worried about us then they're not going to be able to have to confidence and freedom to work fluent attacking moves. but in a few away games this season it's been us playing this football and not the opposition. in fact Sam seems intent on MAKING us play this football, which i find strange, it simply invites pressure.

 

by providing an attacking threat of our own we're not only more likely to score goals but there's also a good chance we'll concede less, dominate the territorial battle and pin the opposition back around their box. this is what we did when we had the likes of robert and bellamy playing for us, taking the pressure off crap defenders like O'brien, bramble, dabizas and so on, which minimised the chances of those players being targeted for mistakes by other teams, while also giving poor to average full-backs likes Hughes and Bernard the chance to play some good football going forwards. none of those players have gone on to do anything noteworthy elsewhere.

 

we also had players in that side like shearer, speed and solano who could not only attack well but kept possession brilliantly and knew how to play it safe from time to time, meaning we could adapt to different styles. There is a school of thought that says Allardyce only favours this kind of player, who are essential to a team, but they need risk-takers alongside them like Dyer Bellamy and Robert for a good balance. Robert used to lose the ball a ridiculous amount of times (which is perhaps why the less intelligent hated him) but that is cos he was trying something different. Allardyce is perhaps too risk-averse to go out and buy players like these, or someone like Martins or N'Zogbia who seem to be in and out of the side. I remember from his Bolton days that he would keep tabs on every pass or shot a player made, and if they wasted possession by taking a chance a player would be criticised. Kevin Nolan scored a cracking long range shot one match and in the after-game interview said "the gaffer will shout at me for hitting it from distance, cos he hates it". such an attitude will inhibit a players attacking instincts and the ironic consequence is that the opposition will be freer to attack and dominate the game, not having to worry about we get up to.

 

What are the reasons iyo SA isn't aware of/gives credence to this stuff? Seems very set in his ways.

don't know about him being set in his ways,he has ditched his 4-3-3 for the time being and he didn't start off at bolton with it,he has in the past adapted.....bloody well hope he adapts before a week on saturday!

[TRon]

I said it in the other thread but it's worth repeating: what is the tactical justification for playing a guy like Emre wide left? he hasn't got the pace or running to do well in that role, in fact he's designed NOT to play wide.

 

I really would love to be able to wrap my head around Allardyce's thinking there as before this I've always considered him to be tactically switched on. But why you need elaborate tactics to beat a bunch of no hope try-hards like Reading is beyond me in any case as with the quality of players we have available we could probably run rings round them with a reserve side given the licence to do so.

 

 

[Guest Sniffer]

Surely the point is that we didn't try to beat Reading. We went out with the intention of settling for a draw against a team that was leaking goals. Tactics...what tactics?

[Guest Reading Fan]

Sam, tactical genius?  yeah right!

[Kev]

Sam, tactical genius?  yeah right!

 

we may have lost and played crap but...reading are shite and only have shorey or murty

[Mick]

 

we may have lost and played crap but...reading are s**** and only have shorey or murty

 

We're in no position to take the piss.

[Guest Reading Fan]

Sam, tactical genius?  yeah right!

 

we may have lost and played crap but...reading are s**** and only have shorey or murty

 

We're s**** by Newcastles high standards but right now we are a good team by Reading standards.

 

I suppose we measure ourselves against our historical rivals like Swindon, Oxford and teams like Bristol City, Millwall, Bournemouth. So right now we are good. We're above all those teams.

 

We're not on the same planet as you Geordie boys!

[Guest Sniffer]

Although they weren't that much better, at least Reading tried to play football and kept it on the deck occasionally.

 

Do you think Fat Sam actually tells his players...including Given.....to hoist as many high balls as possible to Martins and Owen? Is this his team talk?

 

Because I can't think of any other reason that we'd flog a tactic that clearlly doesn't work.

[Guest Reading Fan]

I think Sam will get it right for you in the end though.

 

I just think he needs to realise that he is now managing a proper big club. This is not Bolton anymore. You can't go into matches with the top players that Newcastle have and not play to their strengths.

[johnnypd]

What are the reasons iyo SA isn't aware of/gives credence to this stuff? Seems very set in his ways.

 

different set of priorities. he sees the problem at newcastle as one of defensive frailty as well as fans who are impatient and don't appreciate solid football. it's a bit disappointing because these are stereotypical and superficial problems, the kind of thing the lazy media come up with, and not in-depth analyses of our problems that comes from familiarity with and examination of our play. How many times has sam spoke to the media with the attitude that he is educating fans, rather than simply informing them and letting them make their own minds up. he's indoctrinating us to his philosophy of football. when he has publicly laid into Taylor and Martins, he's not done it to improve their football, he's done it to make it more palatable to fans when he leaves them out/sells them in the future.

 

i'd imagine for sam that getting us playing solid, defensive, disciplined, safe football, where everyone knows their job and position, where all defensive situations are drilled so repetitively that it becomes second nature, is the highest priority this season. he's been reinforcing that message again and again and again, even if it is at the cost of the attacking side of the game, or even if it costs us points away from home. he'll be thinking if we pack the midfield with players who can win the ball, play it narrow and congest the park to limit the opposition's passing, we'll have a better chance of blocking off the other side and then our talented individuals can do something on their own. whereas if we play with two wingers and an attacking central midfielder as most fans want, we only have one defensive midfielder who will get over-ran. if that happens then - shock horror - we're relying on outscoring the opposition, something he desperately wants to get away from even though it is the bedrock of winning football games.

 

he'll be thinking that we have enough individual talent so that the attacking side of the game takes care of itself, where we can create and nick goals out of individual brilliance rather than getting us playing expansive attacking football as a team and having to work on overall fluidity in training. i'd imagine that most of training consists of defensive regimes, whereas attacking movements are limited to specifically tailored strategies - like enrique hitting it long for martins, or playing corners to the near post vs spurs - rather than us playing 5-a-sides to work on our one-touch play or awareness in the final third a la arsenal.

 

and besides, our attack can be dismantled because it can easily be rebuilt at a later stage on top of new defensive foundations that always take time to lay down. and lets face it Sam doesn't really fancy any of our attacking players (other than those he has signed) and would more than likely love to replace them all with his type of player and to play 4-3-3/4-5-1. i might be wrong but i don't recall him coming out and criticising our general attacking play this season, even though it's been poor at times, whereas after every single match he hits home the defensive message, even if we've defended well but failed to keep a clean sheet.

 

just devil's advocate here but i'm suspecting his thoughts are along those lines. in the long-term it may well be the thing we need as a team, though i don't neccessarily agree that the means justify the end in this case, and during the process of making us tough and hard to beat, it is going to be frustrating.

[madras]

 

different set of priorities. he sees the problem at newcastle as one of defensive frailty as well as fans who are impatient and don't appreciate solid football. it's a bit disappointing because these are stereotypical and superficial problems, the kind of thing the lazy media come up with, and not in-depth analyses of our problems that comes from familiarity with and examination of our play. How many times has sam spoke to the media with the attitude that he is educating fans, rather than simply informing them and letting them make their own minds up. he's indoctrinating us to his philosophy of football. when he has publicly laid into Taylor and Martins, he's not done it to improve their football, he's done it to make it more palatable to fans when he leaves them out/sells them in the future. i'd imagine for sam that getting us playing solid, defensive, disciplined, safe football, where everyone knows their job and position, where all defensive situations are drilled so repetitively that it becomes second nature, is the highest priority this season, reinforcing that message again and again and again, even if it is at the cost of the attacking side of the game, or even if it costs us points away from home. he'll be thinking that we have enough individual talent so that the attacking side of the game takes care of itself, where we can create and nick goals out of individual brilliance rather than getting us playing expansive attacking football as a team and having to work on overall fluidity in training. i'd imagine that most of training consists of defensive regimes, whereas attacking movements are limited to specificly tailored strategies, like enrique hitting it long for martins, or playing corners to the near post vs spurs, rather than us playing 5-a-sides to work on our one-touch play or awareness in the final third a la arsenal. and besides, our attack can be dismantled because it can easily be rebuilt at a later stage on top of new defensive foundations that always take time to lay down, and lets face it Sam doesn't fancy any of our attacking players (other than those he has signed) and would more than likely love to replace them all with his type of player and to play 4-3-3/4-5-1. i might be wrong but i don't recall him coming out and criticising our general attacking play this season, even though it's been poor at times, whereas after every single match he hits home the defensive message, even if we've defended well but failed to keep a clean sheet. just devil's advocate here but i'm suspecting his thoughts are along those lines.

 

I'm not trying to be a member of the forum police but that is hard on the eye although it might just be me struggling at this time of day.

he could be right but the enrique ball to martins is a well executed decent tactic provided it isn't overdone so it loses the ability to catch teams off guard. i've been calling for martins to be used in this manner for a while. for example i'd play passes in blind for the first 15mins between full back and centre half to push the defence back and get them turning but martins has to read it and chase.

[johnnypd]

broke it up a bit for you mick, as it was rather blocky.

[Mick]

he could be right but the enrique ball to martins is a well executed decent tactic provided it isn't overdone so it loses the ability to catch teams off guard. i've been calling for martins to be used in this manner for a while. for example i'd play passes in blind for the first 15mins between full back and centre half to push the defence back and get them turning but martins has to read it and chase.

 

I meant the block of text.

[Mick]

broke it up a bit for you mick, as it was rather blocky.

 

Thanks, it's probably my old eyes.

[Toon Amy]

I said it in the other thread but it's worth repeating: what is the tactical justification for playing a guy like Emre wide left? he hasn't got the pace or running to do well in that role, in fact he's designed NOT to play wide.

 

I really would love to be able to wrap my head around Allardyce's thinking there as before this I've always considered him to be tactically switched on. But why you need elaborate tactics to beat a bunch of no hope try-hards like Reading is beyond me in any case as with the quality of players we have available we could probably run rings round them with a reserve side given the licence to do so.

 

 

 

Well, FWIW, I think that Zogs and Milner should have started, but having said that I thought that Emre and Geremi had both played wide at their previous clubs? (I picked that up from what others have said, not really sure how accurate it is)

 

Anyway, if it is true it would explain tactical justification, even if it was the wrong move. If not then obviously it proves nowt. Someone else can look it up and find out!

[madras]

I said it in the other thread but it's worth repeating: what is the tactical justification for playing a guy like Emre wide left? he hasn't got the pace or running to do well in that role, in fact he's designed NOT to play wide.

 

I really would love to be able to wrap my head around Allardyce's thinking there as before this I've always considered him to be tactically switched on. But why you need elaborate tactics to beat a bunch of no hope try-hards like Reading is beyond me in any case as with the quality of players we have available we could probably run rings round them with a reserve side given the licence to do so.

 

 

 

Well, FWIW, I think that Zogs and Milner should have started, but having said that I thought that Emre and Geremi had both played wide at their previous clubs? (I picked that up from what others have said, not really sure how accurate it is)

playing emre wide (pretty sure he's played there before for us) could have made sense as what is the point of getting wide and slinging in crosses for the like of owen/martins, sure they can get headers but it's not the best plan of attack,so emre could look to drag inside instead and play the defence splitting passes we were all told he's bring with him a couple of years ago....however the teams tactics appeared to be "stop them scoring and hope to nick one", away at the top 4 maybe but not reading/derby. even when we had possession the first priority was "how do we defend this position",tell you what allardyce, if we give them something to worry about they may not attack as much or as freely.

[johnnypd]

I said it in the other thread but it's worth repeating: what is the tactical justification for playing a guy like Emre wide left? he hasn't got the pace or running to do well in that role, in fact he's designed NOT to play wide.

 

I really would love to be able to wrap my head around Allardyce's thinking there as before this I've always considered him to be tactically switched on. But why you need elaborate tactics to beat a bunch of no hope try-hards like Reading is beyond me in any case as with the quality of players we have available we could probably run rings round them with a reserve side given the licence to do so.

 

 

 

Well, FWIW, I think that Zogs and Milner should have started, but having said that I thought that Emre and Geremi had both played wide at their previous clubs? (I picked that up from what others have said, not really sure how accurate it is)

 

Anyway, if it is true it would explain tactical justification, even if it was the wrong move. If not then obviously it proves nowt. Someone else can look it up and find out!

 

Emre is wasted out wide, has he ever played well out there for us? he thrives on interchanging with those directly ahead of him, not running into space, he doesn't have the outright pace for that. geremi played wide right for Boro but that was yonks ago and when he played right-wing against spurs he looked even worse than milner.

[Mick]

 

Well, FWIW, I think that Zogs and Milner should have started, but having said that I thought that Emre and Geremi had both played wide at their previous clubs? (I picked that up from what others have said, not really sure how accurate it is)

 

Anyway, if it is true it would explain tactical justification, even if it was the wrong move. If not then obviously it proves nowt. Someone else can look it up and find out!

 

 

I like the last line, you should have gone into politics.  Obviously if you have then forget this post.

[TRon]

I said it in the other thread but it's worth repeating: what is the tactical justification for playing a guy like Emre wide left? he hasn't got the pace or running to do well in that role, in fact he's designed NOT to play wide.

 

I really would love to be able to wrap my head around Allardyce's thinking there as before this I've always considered him to be tactically switched on. But why you need elaborate tactics to beat a bunch of no hope try-hards like Reading is beyond me in any case as with the quality of players we have available we could probably run rings round them with a reserve side given the licence to do so.

 

 

 

Well, FWIW, I think that Zogs and Milner should have started, but having said that I thought that Emre and Geremi had both played wide at their previous clubs? (I picked that up from what others have said, not really sure how accurate it is)

 

Anyway, if it is true it would explain tactical justification, even if it was the wrong move. If not then obviously it proves nowt. Someone else can look it up and find out!

 

Emre is wasted out wide, has he ever played well out there for us? he thrives on interchanging with those directly ahead of him, not running into space, he doesn't have the outright pace for that. geremi played wide right for Boro but that was yonks ago and when he played right-wing against spurs he looked even worse than milner.

 

Exactly Johnny. Emre just doesn't have the physical attributes to play wide. I don't like seeing Alan Smith out wide but at least he can run up and down the pitch so making him useful in a stopping role.

 

Geremi wide isn't the best, but he's like Smith, able to run the pitch and can put in decent crosses early and in the right areas so that I can understand.

 

 

[merlin]

No-one would give a toss about 'Tactics' IF - IF the team won away from SJP regularly - they don't, so people try to find out why....

We appreciate 3 points - how they come away from SJP matters not a jot, but they are NOT coming...

[Zero]

Am I the only one who think Sam discover something about the team that he is forced to apply such negative tactics during away?

[Guest microbar]

Playing for a point against reading just wont ride well with most newcastle fans,

For f*ck sake sam  get your head around it we dont want negative football.

Oh for the days of keegan again.  >

[Skirge]

One touch football is what we need, its effective and the most attractive style of football, Arsenal are just fantastic to watch play, their movement off the ball is second to non and their speed and vision of pass is superb.

 

Where we dwell on the ball and get caught in possession all the time, lack of movement off the ball from us is very poor, most of our passes are back and square unless its a long ball forward.

Things have to change!!

[Guest Hodgson09]

It was such a boring game to watch and it was another game where we didn't look like scoring. No idea why we didn't start with Zog and milner, with Emre and Barton in the middle.

 

I am sure Sam had thoughts on why it was a good idea, well it wasn't. I hate it when I hear teams play for draws, play to fucking win for fucks sake. If you go looking for a draw 9 times out of 10 you will lose.

 

Hopefully things will change, I am coming home for good in 4 weeks.