Don't die wondering

[GreenThing]

UTL, you’re getting cause mixed up with correlation.

Just because something happened after something else, doesn’t mean the first event caused it. Just that they both happened.

If we’d conceded that late goal with (an injured?) Fox still on the pitch, we’d have been seeing the same posts bemoaning the lack of a defensive sub to shut up shop.

I would obviously have liked us to keep attacking and score a third, but that’s not what happens most of the time and even the most positive managers make defensive subs to close out a game.

Why do we sit so deep, giving our opponents so much time and space which allows them to build attack after attack?

It is so obvious that we are trying to hang on that it just encourages the opposition to pile forwards because we do not carry any meaningful goal threat ourselves.

Maybe because we’re better at defending en-masse in the box than we are dealing with the inevitable balls over the top into the space left if we pushed up. It didn’t work yesterday but hindsight is the most accurate of sciences.

 

[up the line]

UTL, you’re getting cause mixed up with correlation.

Just because something happened after something else, doesn’t mean the first event caused it. Just that they both happened.

If we’d conceded that late goal with (an injured?) Fox still on the pitch, we’d have been seeing the same posts bemoaning the lack of a defensive sub to shut up shop.

I would obviously have liked us to keep attacking and score a third, but that’s not what happens most of the time and even the most positive managers make defensive subs to close out a game.

If we had hung on for the win, the substitution and tactics would not have been criticised but unfortunately, that was not the case.

The Fox injury forced Adams hand and he had to make the substitution.

The problem for many of us is the negative mindset of the Manager. When you put an inexperienced central defender on in that situation his instinct is to drop off rather than press forward and close people down.

What happened yesterday was not a one-off, we have had 4 years of hanging on to 1-goal leads with everybody back in and around our box, aimlessly kicking the ball upfield to nobody only for it to come straight back. It’s like watching a defence versus attack training session.

As such, the likelihood of conceding increases significantly. If the game is being played almost exclusively in one half, the chances are that you will concede.

Why do we sit so deep, giving our opponents so much time and space which allows them to build attack after attack?

It is so obvious that we are trying to hang on that it just encourages the opposition to pile forwards because we do not carry any meaningful goal threat ourselves.

We have changed the playing personnel over the last 4 years of Adams but we have not changed the essentially negative mindset and that is down to the Manager.

Thank you Demport Dave for restorating my faith that some people registered to this board are able to see that the negative mindset of the manager looses us points and doesn't just think late goals like that are 'just something that happens'. I mean they do, but to not see (or refuse to see) that adopting a position of defending the 18 yard line en masse against a team who had barely mustered a chance in the match, was likely to encourage them to lob it into that box and lead to chances - it's just total fingers-in-ears 'nah nah nah' stuff from people who would never ever consider the possibility that anything Lord V Neck did had had a negative impact on the result.
If he removed the goalkeeper from the line up you'd get people saying 'just because he played without a goalkeeper that's not necessarily the reason the opposition scored 10'

 

[rsp4]

UTL, you’re getting cause mixed up with correlation.

Just because something happened after something else, doesn’t mean the first event caused it. Just that they both happened.

If we’d conceded that late goal with (an injured?) Fox still on the pitch, we’d have been seeing the same posts bemoaning the lack of a defensive sub to shut up shop.

I would obviously have liked us to keep attacking and score a third, but that’s not what happens most of the time and even the most positive managers make defensive subs to close out a game.

If we had hung on for the win, the substitution and tactics would not have been criticised but unfortunately, that was not the case.

The Fox injury forced Adams hand and he had to make the substitution.

The problem for many of us is the negative mindset of the Manager. When you put an inexperienced central defender on in that situation his instinct is to drop off rather than press forward and close people down.

What happened yesterday was not a one-off, we have had 4 years of hanging on to 1-goal leads with everybody back in and around our box, aimlessly kicking the ball upfield to nobody only for it to come straight back. It’s like watching a defence versus attack training session.

As such, the likelihood of conceding increases significantly. If the game is being played almost exclusively in one half, the chances are that you will concede.

Why do we sit so deep, giving our opponents so much time and space which allows them to build attack after attack?

It is so obvious that we are trying to hang on that it just encourages the opposition to pile forwards because we do not carry any meaningful goal threat ourselves.

We have changed the playing personnel over the last 4 years of Adams but we have not changed the essentially negative mindset and that is down to the Manager.

Careful Dave DA fans will be having a go. We have seen this mentality under DA ever since the Anfield game but some refuse to believe it.

Davie Nine I am still Tolerating. JUST!!!!!!!!

 

[oldage]

Voice of reason,how is Biggs spot on?. Adams put on an extra defender because he has a siege mentality.If you keep inviting pressure something will go wrong.Surely the best way is to keep the ball in the opponents half out of harms way.

 

[Voice of Reason]

So if we conceded with an injured David Fox on the field - can you not acknowledge that the consistent bashers of DA would have had a go at him for not changing.
Every week teams with 1 goal leads do something defensive. I've seen Salah replaced by Milner. Lacazette replaced by Monreal. Lukaku replaced by Phil Jones. All require a formation change. All are defensive moves and all scream we are happy to hold on. Even the BEST managers do it if they feel is right. Sadly it didn't work. Only a fortnight ago we scored a last minute winner.
That's what happens in football. DA is human and makes mistakes. Although I wouldn't agree this was. He makes them like we all do - but the incessant nit picking by the same few people is so tedious. I'm not sure if it's too many computer games or unrealistic expectations but it's boring. Personally I don't like Canavan as a player. Just don't think he is up to this standard. But I would find it wrong to point the finger at him every time we concede or lose a game.

 

[davie nine]

Maybe, he should have moved Songo’o forward when he brought Jones on but he didn’t.
The fact that we conceded a late goal just enabled Up The Line to continue to fuel the flames in his vicious campaign against Derek Adams.
It would be interesting to see how often he posted if DA got us into The Championship.

 

[demportdave]

UTL, you’re getting cause mixed up with correlation.

Just because something happened after something else, doesn’t mean the first event caused it. Just that they both happened.

If we’d conceded that late goal with (an injured?) Fox still on the pitch, we’d have been seeing the same posts bemoaning the lack of a defensive sub to shut up shop.

I would obviously have liked us to keep attacking and score a third, but that’s not what happens most of the time and even the most positive managers make defensive subs to close out a game.

Why do we sit so deep, giving our opponents so much time and space which allows them to build attack after attack?

It is so obvious that we are trying to hang on that it just encourages the opposition to pile forwards because we do not carry any meaningful goal threat ourselves.

Maybe because we’re better at defending en-masse in the box than we are dealing with the inevitable balls over the top into the space left if we pushed up. It didn’t work yesterday but hindsight is the most accurate of sciences.

I’m not advocating pushing the back line up to the halfway line, just out to the 18-yard line with the midfielders 5-10 yards in front again to make us harder to break down and to stop so many balls from being played in to our box. We often end up with 7 or 8 players in a line between the 6-yard line and the penalty spot and our opponents have all the time and space they need to deliver the ball.

For the record, it’s not hindsight. Some of us have been complaining about Adams preferred tactics of sitting back and hanging on for much of the last 4 seasons.

 

[davie nine]

From my recollection of Paul Sturrock’s successful period, his end of game tactics were very similar.
He ALWAYS had 11 players back for corners and free kicks and there was criticism but the tactic normally worked.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

Watching Wales this afternoon and they took off Dan James in favour of defender Ashley Williams to protect their lead and see out the game. For Giggs it came off, for Adams it didn't. That's football.

 

[Metal Green Mickey]

From my recollection of Paul Sturrock’s successful period, his end of game tactics were very similar.
He ALWAYS had 11 players back for corners and free kicks and there was criticism but the tactic normally worked.

Maybe my memory isn’t serving me well but l kind of disagree.

From what l remember we got hold of the ball, usually Evans, and tried to play it in the opposition’s corner. So we had the ball and in their half. That’s how we ran down the clock. They couldn’t score because they didn’t have the ball.

Under DA mostly everyone is behind the ball. Hoof it clear. Hope Ladapo can win it back against three, maybe four opposition players.

One other vital thing. Sturrocks team didn’t stand off and allow the opposition so much time and space on the ball that DA’s team does in our own half. Yes Sturrock’s team did defend deep many times but l can’t recall the opposition getting so much space in our own half of the pitch.

Argyle defended as a unit under Sturrock. Our current team runs back behind the ball but the organisation isn’t great because if it was we wouldn’t keep conceding such bad goals, home and away. Opposition players wouldn’t just run through us without being tackled. They wouldn’t have so much time to cross or shoot. Someone would get stuck into them.

 

[demportdave]

From my recollection of Paul Sturrock’s successful period, his end of game tactics were very similar.
He ALWAYS had 11 players back for corners and free kicks and there was criticism but the tactic normally worked.

it’s a few years ago now but I seem to remember Sturrock favoured knocking the ball down the channels in behind their back line and taking it into the corners to run the clock down. He would often bring his son on at the end of games just to do that. I don’t recall him keeping everyone back deep and giving the ball away to allow them to attack us time and again as Adams’s teams do.

Neither do I recall ever thinking it’s only a matter of time before we concede as I do under Adams.

For the record, I don’t have a problem with all 11 back for late corners, it’s the inability to get forwards when we clear the ball up field again.

 

[Bristol Rich]

Maybe, he should have moved Songo’o forward when he brought Jones on but he didn’t.
The fact that we conceded a late goal just enabled Up The Line to continue to fuel the flames in his vicious campaign against Derek Adams.
It would be interesting to see how often he posted if DA got us into The Championship.

If DA got Argyle into the Championship then DA would rightly feel his tactics had been vindicated.

However that's purely hypothetical isn't it? If DA gets Argyle relegated then his critics night feel they have a point. However both these scenarios are hypothetical for now.

 

[davie nine]

Maybe, he should have moved Songo’o forward when he brought Jones on but he didn’t.
The fact that we conceded a late goal just enabled Up The Line to continue to fuel the flames in his vicious campaign against Derek Adams.
It would be interesting to see how often he posted if DA got us into The Championship.

If DA got Argyle into the Championship then DA would rightly feel his tactics had been vindicated.

However that's purely hypothetical isn't it? If DA gets Argyle relegated then his critics night feel they have a point. However both these scenarios are hypothetical for now.

You have your negative opinion about DA, so has rsp4, oldage, Metal Green Mickey, demportdave and many others and I respect their views and time alone will tell if they are right. I have a more positive opinion because, although some of his tactics are negative, he still has players, Lameiras and Carey in particular, who are capable of producing exciting football for which DA rarely gets any credit. I also appreciate the fact that when we have peaks and troughs of form, he has NEVER lost the dressing room. I remain hopeful that, in the near future, he will assemble a squad that will perform more consistently from the start of the season through to the finish.

My main grouse is with the vicious, nasty, vindictive and personal attacks on our manager by Up The Line. He very rarely posts when we have a ‘purple patch’ but rushes back when something like yesterday’s late equaliser happens.

 

[jerryatricjanner]

Watching Wales this afternoon and they took off Dan James in favour of defender Ashley Williams to protect their lead and see out the game. For Giggs it came off, for Adams it didn't. That's football.

It is fine lines very often I agree. A couple of minutes on Saturday and we would all be celebrating a welcome win that would have all but guaranteed our safety. In that scenario I guarantee a very happy Pasoti would not have heard a peep from UTL.

 

[demportdave]

There are always fine lines in sport and a lot of 'ifs' and 'buts'.

If we hadn't sat back so deep for so long on Saturday, maybe we would have won; but we didn't and it cost us big time.

In our position, those 2 points could be crucial, we would be looking a lot more comfortable on 48 points.

We now have a run of 4 games from 5 against genuine promotion candidates and 3 other games against fellow strugglers.

The 6 points we need for safety look a long way off.