Kaizero Posted Saturday at 21:06 Share Posted Saturday at 21:06 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Holloway said: nah it was trying to deride a poster by siding with someone else, and sounding like licking his arse. Not my style at all but you crack on fella Welcome to an Internet forum, mate. I think you'll find that people agree with other people over a variety of topics as well as disagree with others Fully stand behind deriding your post, however. That was some insane shit. No need to lick Ron's arse though. I post insane shit multiple times a day though, so no need to feel hard done by either Edited Saturday at 21:07 by Kaizero Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted Saturday at 21:12 Share Posted Saturday at 21:12 well you see I think there's a way to agree with someone without sounding like a bit of a creep. Yeah, really insane suggesting Osula gets a run out over Willock, that could have ended in disaster. I'll leave it there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted Saturday at 21:28 Share Posted Saturday at 21:28 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Holloway said: well you see I think there's a way to agree with someone without sounding like a bit of a creep. Yeah, really insane suggesting Osula gets a run out over Willock, that could have ended in disaster. I'll leave it there. When you're shoring up a win away from home, it's not very common tactically to put on a striker. I think the reasoning for that is the fact that it'd increase the probability of you conceding instead of seeing out the match to secure three points from a winning position. So, you have the following two scenarios: 1: Sub on a striker and increase the likelihood of conceding a goal in the final minutes of a match you are winning. 2: Sub on a midfielder to tighten things up defensively, whilst still being a player that can be very useful in the event of a breakaway opportunity for the team to score a third goal. One of the scenarios is way more likely than the other to end in disaster. I'll leave it there. Edited Saturday at 21:31 by Kaizero Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted Saturday at 21:31 Share Posted Saturday at 21:31 Is it tactically common to play with none up front? I don’t know the stats on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted Saturday at 21:33 Share Posted Saturday at 21:33 Just now, Shearergol said: Is it tactically common to play with none up front? I don’t know the stats on it. It's not "none up front", man Howe wanted to shore down things defensively and not let Spurs back in the game, Willock provides counter-attacking abilities whilst at the same time being used to battling in midfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted Saturday at 21:37 Share Posted Saturday at 21:37 1 minute ago, Kaizero said: It's not "none up front", man Howe wanted to shore down things defensively and not let Spurs back in the game, Willock provides counter-attacking abilities whilst at the same time being used to battling in midfield. You know what I meant. There must be loads of examples where a manager took the only striker off and put a midfielder up top, I guess? Because I have loads of examples where managers swapped a striker for another striker, but you said it’s not tactically common. I even think he got the subs right, I’m just wondering where your assertion on this is from. Any other teams today do it? I haven’t checked. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrone Posted Saturday at 21:39 Share Posted Saturday at 21:39 Howe has slowly introduced every new signing, even Bruno, and look how it's worked out so far 🤣 🤷 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted Saturday at 21:44 Share Posted Saturday at 21:44 the subs were 86 minutes, backs to the fucking wall, but don't let some nerdy tactical patter get in the way Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1tche Posted Saturday at 23:33 Share Posted Saturday at 23:33 What a weird disagreement. When I saw Isak coming off and it was Osula coming on it annoyed me, but after a couple mins seeing that Willock was tasked with tracking Bissouma and then breaking when we get the ball, it made perfect sense. Willock was better suited to that role then Oshla was, if we were planning to pump it long and try to scrap for the ball, then Osula would have been the better option. Willock basically played 10 off the ball, then transitioned to a 9 when we got it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted Saturday at 23:35 Share Posted Saturday at 23:35 1 hour ago, patrone said: Howe has slowly introduced every new signing, even Bruno, and look how it's worked out so far 🤣 🤷 It's this simple for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted yesterday at 00:19 Share Posted yesterday at 00:19 In the past the striker tends to play with their instincts and hence they usually make their names relatively early in the their career, see Fowler and Owen. Nowadays that’s probably the opposite. Strikers need to play with fully trained tactical knowledge and awareness, which makes them become “late-boomers”. Wood is an easy example. Osula probably needs 2-3 years time to become a EPL starting level player. We can only give time and patience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero Posted yesterday at 00:23 Share Posted yesterday at 00:23 We all know Isak is technically gifted but his tactical awareness is also outrageously good considering his age. Interestingly this is not something rated by the Real Soceidad fans back in those days. Isak probably excelled in this aspects after making the move to here, which is around 22. In the past probably he would be starting for any team at 18 already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huss9 Posted yesterday at 00:25 Share Posted yesterday at 00:25 think Osula has shown enough in flashes during his cameos to suggest there's a player in there to be found and developed. got decent power and pace. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted yesterday at 00:35 Share Posted yesterday at 00:35 I don't think the starvation of minutes is comparable to Hall, having a striker stretching his legs isn't the same as a defensive unit under the cosh. Just give him some minutes to accustom to our attack rhythms man Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted yesterday at 00:56 Share Posted yesterday at 00:56 19 minutes ago, Holloway said: I don't think the starvation of minutes is comparable to Hall, having a striker stretching his legs isn't the same as a defensive unit under the cosh. Just give him some minutes to accustom to our attack rhythms man If the manager doesn’t think he’s ready, then he isn’t ready tbf. It looked like an odd purchase at the time, given his awful stats playing for Sheff Utd, but the lad definitely needs time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted yesterday at 01:01 Share Posted yesterday at 01:01 5 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: If the manager doesn’t think he’s ready, then he isn’t ready tbf. It looked like an odd purchase at the time, given his awful stats playing for Sheff Utd, but the lad definitely needs time. Ok Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted yesterday at 01:09 Share Posted yesterday at 01:09 But you're a pragmatist and something of a harbinger of doom, I'm a dreamer 😉 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted yesterday at 01:13 Share Posted yesterday at 01:13 Just now, Holloway said: But you're a pragmatist and something of a harbinger of doom, I'm a dreamer 😉 Haha yep. Though I would say I’m a miserablist when it comes to football finances - I try to take a positive view on players and performances. Signing Osula was a head-scratcher to me - but how many bad signings have we made so far under Howe? For me, only Targett (the permanent move; his loan was a success) has been a bad signing so far. Osula is young and the club clearly see something in him. For me, two goals in fifty appearances (many as sub tbf) isn’t a great record for a striker at any age. But I’m an internet gobshite, not a football scout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holloway Posted yesterday at 01:20 Share Posted yesterday at 01:20 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: Haha yep. Though I would say I’m a miserablist when it comes to football finances - I try to take a positive view on players and performances. Signing Osula was a head-scratcher to me - but how many bad signings have we made so far under Howe? For me, only Targett (the permanent move; his loan was a success) has been a bad signing so far. Osula is young and the club clearly see something in him. For me, two goals in fifty appearances (many as sub tbf) isn’t a great record for a striker at any age. But I’m an internet gobshite, not a football scout Haha nee bother we're all gobshites ☺️ I knew nothing about Willy when we signed him, a youtube scouting mission doesn't exactly get you fizzing. I just think there was little windows to introduce him, today being one when Isak was rightly pulled. But I'm with you on Eddie, he sees him every day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoSelecta Posted yesterday at 08:31 Share Posted yesterday at 08:31 Not really a nuanced one this. He gave the ball away and cost us a goal the last time he was on the pitch; that’ll be why Howe didn’t bring him on with 1 goal in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menace Posted yesterday at 08:41 Share Posted yesterday at 08:41 I'm not arsed about him getting game time, I bet he will look tidy in 12 months of coaching under Howe and co. Time and time again, Howe proves he gets it right with bringing players through and taking their time with them so why even question it anymore Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRon Posted yesterday at 13:35 Share Posted yesterday at 13:35 4 hours ago, BoSelecta said: Not really a nuanced one this. He gave the ball away and cost us a goal the last time he was on the pitch; that’ll be why Howe didn’t bring him on with 1 goal in it. I mean just about all of our players including Isak have been guilty of this at some point. The way we play trying to keep possession will mean we lose the ball a few times. I think Osula has a good half a season of working with our coaching team now, you would like to think he should be ready to pitch in a bit more now for the res of this one. The only thing which I'm not sure about so far is his goals instinct, but I assume we must have scouted him pretty thoroughly before spending potentially £15m on him. If he's not a finisher we shouldn't have bought him in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conjo Posted yesterday at 13:41 Share Posted yesterday at 13:41 10 minutes here and there to huff and puff up top alone without getting the ball, without the team trying to do anything but defend with a low block isn't going to aid his progression, so I didn't really mind Willock coming on yesterday. He needs to start against Bromley though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now