RODGERS OUT. END OF

467 posts
User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 17:42

brendywendy while that may be easily be true, it could just as easily be that every time he tries something different, the outcome is the same, due to the team not really being better than bottom of the table fodder, at best.
like i said, you wouldnt know.


One of his mistakes is making changes so frequently, and such extensive changes.

The problem is he keeps forcing big changes on himself by making such awful team selections. We need another big turn around in selection for Monday, because his choices for Tuesday were so unbelievably shit.

He needs to pick a team that actually has some flexibility and chance of performing and then stick with it no matter what for a minimum of three games.

User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12060
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by brendywendy » 23 Oct 2009 17:48

the game where he kept the same team was one of our worst performances


and what shit decisions did he make?- pretty much agreed with alot on here with his selections/changes due to injury etc in that game
the players just fell apart due to a goal straight after a sending off, which shattered their ghey confidence

User avatar
Royal Lady
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 13760
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 10:17
Location: Don't mess with "my sort". Cheers then.

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Royal Lady » 23 Oct 2009 17:50

brendywendy while that may be easily be true, it could just as easily be that every time he tries something different, the outcome is the same, due to the team not really being better than bottom of the table fodder, at best.
like i said, you wouldnt know.


Perhaps he could learn to buy more suitable players then! :wink:

User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12060
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by brendywendy » 23 Oct 2009 17:55

who, with three million, would you have bought?

and would they have been able to turn this round?

and can you prove it?


:wink:

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 17:59

brendywendy the game where he kept the same team was one of our worst performances


and what shit decisions did he make?- pretty much agreed with alot on here with his selections/changes due to injury etc in that game
the players just fell apart due to a goal straight after a sending off, which shattered their ghey confidence


Two defensive central midfielders, one who can't pass, one in need of a mobility aid who can't last a game. A left footed midfielder at right back. A fat useless striker. Two wingers who can't be relied upon.

That's just in the one game.

Just because the same line up twice in a row didn't work once, doesn't mean he shouldn't give it one more go, or try the system again with a slightly different line up.


User avatar
brendywendy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 12060
Joined: 04 Aug 2006 15:29
Location: coming straight outa crowthorne

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by brendywendy » 23 Oct 2009 18:05

Ian Royal
brendywendy the game where he kept the same team was one of our worst performances


and what shit decisions did he make?- pretty much agreed with alot on here with his selections/changes due to injury etc in that game
the players just fell apart due to a goal straight after a sending off, which shattered their ghey confidence


Two defensive central midfielders, one who can't pass, one in need of a mobility aid who can't last a game. A left footed midfielder at right back. A fat useless striker. Two wingers who can't be relied upon.

That's just in the one game.

Just because the same line up twice in a row didn't work once, doesn't mean he shouldn't give it one more go, or try the system again with a slightly different line up.


2 defensive midfielders - weve been shipping goals and not got a point in ages, he was going for the draw, fair enough
other options at right back being?.......the other midfielder who needs a mobility aid and cant last a game, or some kid who played there once in a friendly
2 wingers who can be relied upon please?
swap the fat useless striker for a big useless striker though, fair enough

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 18:08

You don't draw or win games by not not having the ball. Cisse and Gunnarsson were always going to be pulled to pieces by a confident QPR side.

Neither of our strikers were really capable of winning and holding the ball.

We had no chance with that starting 11, dropping Karacan was a sackable offence in itself.

handbags_harris
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3793
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 12:57

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by handbags_harris » 23 Oct 2009 18:24

brendywendy
Ian Royal
brendywendy the game where he kept the same team was one of our worst performances


and what shit decisions did he make?- pretty much agreed with alot on here with his selections/changes due to injury etc in that game
the players just fell apart due to a goal straight after a sending off, which shattered their ghey confidence


Two defensive central midfielders, one who can't pass, one in need of a mobility aid who can't last a game. A left footed midfielder at right back. A fat useless striker. Two wingers who can't be relied upon.

That's just in the one game.

Just because the same line up twice in a row didn't work once, doesn't mean he shouldn't give it one more go, or try the system again with a slightly different line up.


2 defensive midfielders - weve been shipping goals and not got a point in ages, he was going for the draw, fair enough
other options at right back being?.......the other midfielder who needs a mobility aid and cant last a game, or some kid who played there once in a friendly
2 wingers who can be relied upon please?
swap the fat useless striker for a big useless striker though, fair enough


Two defensive midfielders - a mainstay of our previous manager's 4-4-2 formation, during which one season we scored 99 goals and, regardless of what people say, was also very solid against comparable opposition.
Other options at right back - the player he's been playing right back in the reserves maybe? Oh, he's shipped him out on loan to Wycombe.

User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11160
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by winchester_royal » 23 Oct 2009 18:25

Ian Royal You don't draw or win games by not not having the ball. Cisse and Gunnarsson were always going to be pulled to pieces by a confident QPR side.

Neither of our strikers were really capable of winning and holding the ball.

We had no chance with that starting 11, dropping Karacan was a sackable offence in itself.

Karacan needed a rest, and TBH for a game against a free scoring home side Rodgers got his selection (IMO) absolutely right. Absorb the pressure with a back 6, then try and counter with a front 4 who on their day could do damage. We need to accept the fact that we can no longer go to games like QPR away and expect to get anything from it. Sorry lads.


handbags_harris
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3793
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 12:57

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by handbags_harris » 23 Oct 2009 18:31

winchester_royal
Ian Royal You don't draw or win games by not not having the ball. Cisse and Gunnarsson were always going to be pulled to pieces by a confident QPR side.

Neither of our strikers were really capable of winning and holding the ball.

We had no chance with that starting 11, dropping Karacan was a sackable offence in itself.

Karacan needed a rest, and TBH for a game against a free scoring home side Rodgers got his selection (IMO) absolutely right. Absorb the pressure with a back 6, then try and counter with a front 4 who on their day could do damage. We need to accept the fact that we can no longer go to games like QPR away and expect to get anything from it. Sorry lads.


Well he clearly didn't get his selection right as the 4-1 scoreline suggests. And to suggest Karacan needed a rest in October? Give me a break (scuse the pun 8) )!! Our experienced players had no answer to QPR's enthusiasm and confidence, and our defence/midfield was just being asked to be walked through, as they did on numerous occasions. In the 3rd minute I specifically remember berating O'Dea from the upper tier because he just let Routledge make a run inside him and receive the cut back. Bryn's pace is sadly lacking, and he just can't be expected to cope in a 4-4-2, and Cisse's heading, passing, tackling, pace, and positional sense (five fundamental aspects of the game) are also sadly lacking. A midfield pairing of Karacan and Davies would have been youthful, but better IMO. I'd have rather lost 4-1 with those in the side than two players who are so obviously not up to the job.

User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11160
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by winchester_royal » 23 Oct 2009 18:33

I think I'm right in saying we more than matched QPR up until the sending off and goal......

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 18:51

winchester_royal I think I'm right in saying we more than matched QPR up until the sending off and goal......


I think you're talking out your arse to be honest. We were always second best in that game.

handbags_harris
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3793
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 12:57

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by handbags_harris » 23 Oct 2009 18:58

Ian Royal
winchester_royal I think I'm right in saying we more than matched QPR up until the sending off and goal......


I think you're talking out your arse to be honest. We were always second best in that game.


^^^ This.

QPR were better than us when it was 11v11, 10v11, and 10v10. It was a matter of time when they scored against us when it was 0-0. Fed had already been forced into action two or three times. They were more mobile than us, they were quicker than us, they were technically better than us, their set-up was better than us, they were just better than us.

And anyway, what crumb of comfort are you taking from your statement w_r? :roll:


User avatar
Super Kevin Bremner!
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 798
Joined: 10 Jul 2004 18:07
Location: Just oxf*rd OFF!

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Super Kevin Bremner! » 23 Oct 2009 18:58

Ian Royal
winchester_royal I think I'm right in saying we more than matched QPR up until the sending off and goal......


I think you're talking out your arse to be honest. We were always second best in that game.


Not at all true Ian.

How do you legislate by the way for a 25 yard screamer from a free kick?

Perhaps Rodgers should have coached the giving away of free-kicks out of the team by now?

User avatar
winchester_royal
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 11160
Joined: 28 Aug 2007 21:32
Location: How many Spaniards does it take to change a bulb? Just Juan.

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by winchester_royal » 23 Oct 2009 19:00

handbags_harris
Ian Royal
winchester_royal I think I'm right in saying we more than matched QPR up until the sending off and goal......


I think you're talking out your arse to be honest. We were always second best in that game.


^^^ This.

QPR were better than us when it was 11v11, 10v11, and 10v10. It was a matter of time when they scored against us when it was 0-0. Fed had already been forced into action two or three times. They were more mobile than us, they were quicker than us, they were technically better than us, their set-up was better than us, they were just better than us.

And anyway, what crumb of comfort are you taking from your statement w_r? :roll:


That our original game plan was okay, and probably the best we could manage given the serious lack of quality in the squad.

It was a Coppell-esque 4-4-2, something we all wanted.

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 19:03

Super Kevin Bremner!
Ian Royal
winchester_royal I think I'm right in saying we more than matched QPR up until the sending off and goal......


I think you're talking out your arse to be honest. We were always second best in that game.


Not at all true Ian.

How do you legislate by the way for a 25 yard screamer from a free kick?

Perhaps Rodgers should have coached the giving away of free-kicks out of the team by now?


That's got nothing to do with it, although you could start by telling Ingimarsson to stop lunging at players from the wrong side and giving away stupid freekicks. Not that that was the cause of that particular freekick iirc.

Simpson had the beating of our defenders from the start. Our midfield was never in it and our strikers were in their pocket from the kick off.

I also called them scoring from the freekick. The wall didn't offer enough protection and Federici was to slow to move to try and save.

They then pissed all over us with a man short. We didn't match them in the slightest.

handbags_harris
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3793
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 12:57

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by handbags_harris » 23 Oct 2009 19:04

They were getting in behind us and working Federici consistently as soon as, and after, the 3rd minute.

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 19:05

winchester_royal
handbags_harris
Ian Royal I think you're talking out your arse to be honest. We were always second best in that game.


^^^ This.

QPR were better than us when it was 11v11, 10v11, and 10v10. It was a matter of time when they scored against us when it was 0-0. Fed had already been forced into action two or three times. They were more mobile than us, they were quicker than us, they were technically better than us, their set-up was better than us, they were just better than us.

And anyway, what crumb of comfort are you taking from your statement w_r? :roll:


That our original game plan was okay, and probably the best we could manage given the serious lack of quality in the squad.

It was a Coppell-esque 4-4-2, something we all wanted.


I didn't, I want a balanced 4-4-2. Coppell's 4-4-2 hasn't worked since 2008. Even Coppell knew not to play the likes of Gunnarsson and Cisse together unless he absolutely had to.

Terminal Boardom
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7791
Joined: 15 Aug 2008 19:50
Location: No more egodome until the daft old coot leaves

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Terminal Boardom » 23 Oct 2009 19:12

Ian Royal
brendywendy while that may be easily be true, it could just as easily be that every time he tries something different, the outcome is the same, due to the team not really being better than bottom of the table fodder, at best.
like i said, you wouldnt know.


One of his mistakes is making changes so frequently, and such extensive changes.

The problem is he keeps forcing big changes on himself by making such awful team selections. We need another big turn around in selection for Monday, because his choices for Tuesday were so unbelievably shit.

He needs to pick a team that actually has some flexibility and chance of performing and then stick with it no matter what for a minimum of three games.


But he did that on Tuesday. By selecting 3 centre backs he gave himself the option of going with wing backs if he had ever considered it or tried it in training.

There's another thng. Is he chopping and changing in training all the time? Is this why the players look like little lost boys?

User avatar
Ian Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 35156
Joined: 15 Apr 2004 13:43
Location: Playing spot the pc*nt on HNA?

Re: RODGERS OUT. END OF

by Ian Royal » 23 Oct 2009 20:16

That's not what I meant by flexibility. That team was forced to go long to short strikers or down the wings with unreliable wingers crossing to short strikers.

There was no hope of playing anything through the middle until Sig and Howard came on. Except by that point it was too late anyway. We were 2-0 down and totally outplayed. We've scored one goal following subsitutions by Rodgers this season. And that was in that game. The only reason that happened is because QPR couldn't be arsed for the last 20 minutes.

Maybe, just maybe we could have rescued the game if Ivar hadn't been a total moron, but I very much doubt it.

When I say flexibility I mean a team where different players can burst through and support the attack. Where we can probe through the middle or down the wings. Where we can put the ball into the channels or pass to feet. Where we can cross from deep or the byline, cross low and hard, high and whipped in, floated, cut back or lifted to the far post. Where we can counter quickly or slowly build an attack.

467 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 171 guests

It is currently 10 Nov 2024 03:06