Back from the game WBA

[West_Reading]

But it's as simple as that - Kebe is incredibly fast so just give him the ball and let him run with it.

We need to play percentage football. Get him to run direct so many times that one of them comes off, cross so many times that by law of averages one has to be met with a thumping header.

If something works once, keep doing it

This is similar to the football we used to play under Pardew. He used to set targets to the players for how many crosses, shots on goal, corners etc. we should accumulate through the course of a game. I think it will suit someone like Kebe to play like this as he seems to need things simplified for him.

[philM]

moved..

[Jack Celliers]

However, them singing "Go West Bromwich Albion" to the tune of Pet Shop Boys - Go West did make me LOL 10/10 for that one

Isn't that how the chant started? WBA were the first to pick up on it.

It made me laugh too. They seemed to put on especially deep voices to sing it as well - so camp.

[cmonurz]

Rougier or Kebe? Out of interest.

Rougier had a better all-round game for me, and was a decent foil in his brief run up front with Forster. But Kebe shades it as an attacking threat, if only for his pace.

That said, in terms of pure dribbling ability, Rougier was light-years ahead of most of his fellow professionals. When he got it right.

[No Fixed Abode]

Saw the goals on tv this morning. Good goal by Kebe and West Broms 2nd. Lots of empty seats again.....

[Sarah Star]

With Bolton replaying their tie with Spurs, Man City going to Stoke for theirs and Villa doing what West Brom did to us and securing a replay back at their place against Palace, I don't suppose we'll have the chance to see our replay at the Hawthorns on the telly.

[Ian Royal]

With Bolton replaying their tie with Spurs, Man City going to Stoke for theirs and Villa doing what West Brom did to us and securing a replay back at their place against Palace, I don't suppose we'll have the chance to see our replay at the Hawthorns on the telly.

Yeah, that sucks.

Definitely Villa vs Palace IMO. Then to make up for showing a non-Prem team they'll also show Spurs or City, I suspect City.

[andrew1957]

I thought it was a fantastic match and well fought by two good sides yesterday. I really cannot fault any of our players overall - as they all gave 100%.

However, I think many on here under-rate Karacan's importance. He did give the ball away a lot but he is like a terrier. He was everywhere and even when he did give the ball away, he often won it back again. The fact is we consistently have better results when he is playing that when he is not. If he could just gain a little more composure in possession he will go on to be a top PL player in future. We will do well to keep him.

And although I thought Griffin was generally fantastic yesterday there is a case for saying he was at fault for both goals. On both occasions he was sucked out of position into the centre - which is why WBA players were unmarked twice. He needs to cut that out and keep a little wider.

[Ian Royal]

I've made that criticism myself, but in Griff's defence he has to tuck in a lot of the time to come across and rescue the centrebacks (often Ivar getting turned or beaten for pace) from some calamity or other.

Build up to one of the goals (second I think) the whole defensive mix seems to spring from Mills rushing out of his position to make a challenge infront of Ivar that he misses. Big gap behind him, Griffin tucks in, Tabb sees it too and rushes back to fill it, going the wrong side and getting in Griff's way. Simple ball across, Griffin and Tabb stuck in the middle, McAnuff nowhere. Unmarked and a great shot across the goal.

[URZZZZZZZZ]

I thought it was a fantastic match and well fought by two good sides yesterday. I really cannot fault any of our players overall - as they all gave 100%.

However, I think many on here under-rate Karacan's importance. He did give the ball away a lot but he is like a terrier. He was everywhere and even when he did give the ball away, he often won it back again. The fact is we consistently have better results when he is playing that when he is not. If he could just gain a little more composure in possession he will go on to be a top PL player in future. We will do well to keep him.

And although I thought Griffin was generally fantastic yesterday there is a case for saying he was at fault for both goals. On both occasions he was sucked out of position into the centre - which is why WBA players were unmarked twice. He needs to cut that out and keep a little wider.

What he said! ^

[andrew1957]

I've made that criticism myself, but in Griff's defence he has to tuck in a lot of the time to come across and rescue the centrebacks (often Ivar getting turned or beaten for pace) from some calamity or other.

Build up to one of the goals (second I think) the whole defensive mix seems to spring from Mills rushing out of his position to make a challenge infront of Ivar that he misses. Big gap behind him, Griffin tucks in, Tabb sees it too and rushes back to fill it, going the wrong side and getting in Griff's way. Simple ball across, Griffin and Tabb stuck in the middle, McAnuff nowhere. Unmarked and a great shot across the goal.

You may be right. Although generally I thought Mills was very sound but I did think Ingi looked quite suspect at times to me yesterday. He is not the payer of a few seasons ago. It is a problem though as it will be hard for McD to drop both the captain and vice captain and play Khiz and Mills - but sadly that is probably what is needed in the League (bearing in mind Khiz is cup tied).

[handbags_harris]

And although I thought Griffin was generally fantastic yesterday there is a case for saying he was at fault for both goals. On both occasions he was sucked out of position into the centre - which is why WBA players were unmarked twice. He needs to cut that out and keep a little wider.

First goal, fair point, although the central defenders didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in their positioning and subsequent movement once the cross was on it's way. Second goal, that's what happens when you have four attacking players pushed up on your back four, with only three midfielders. Their full-back pushed forward, subsequently outnumbered the defence, Griffin was looking after Koren but out lack of a right midfielder left Mattock free. Not Griffin's fault if you ask me, more the fault of the manager not pushing Church back onto the right hand side to create two banks of four. If he does that, the full back has a tracker and subsequently the pass isn't as simple as it was.

[bcubed]

And although I thought Griffin was generally fantastic yesterday there is a case for saying he was at fault for both goals. On both occasions he was sucked out of position into the centre - which is why WBA players were unmarked twice. He needs to cut that out and keep a little wider.

First goal, fair point, although the central defenders didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in their positioning and subsequent movement once the cross was on it's way. Second goal, that's what happens when you have four attacking players pushed up on your back four, with only three midfielders. Their full-back pushed forward, subsequently outnumbered the defence, Griffin was looking after Koren but out lack of a right midfielder left Mattock free. Not Griffin's fault if you ask me, more the fault of the manager not pushing Church back onto the right hand side to create two banks of four. If he does that, the full back has a tracker and subsequently the pass isn't as simple as it was.

Agreed, as I said earlier. I don't understand why we didn't revert to 441 after we scored

[andrew1957]

And although I thought Griffin was generally fantastic yesterday there is a case for saying he was at fault for both goals. On both occasions he was sucked out of position into the centre - which is why WBA players were unmarked twice. He needs to cut that out and keep a little wider.

First goal, fair point, although the central defenders didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in their positioning and subsequent movement once the cross was on it's way. Second goal, that's what happens when you have four attacking players pushed up on your back four, with only three midfielders. Their full-back pushed forward, subsequently outnumbered the defence, Griffin was looking after Koren but out lack of a right midfielder left Mattock free. Not Griffin's fault if you ask me, more the fault of the manager not pushing Church back onto the right hand side to create two banks of four. If he does that, the full back has a tracker and subsequently the pass isn't as simple as it was.

Agreed, as a I said earlier. I don't understand why we didn't revert to 441 after we scored

Because we looked more likely to score a third than they did a second. If we had made our formation more defensive, we would have invited them to attack us - I think McD was right to leave it. Attack being the best form of defense - a gamble that did not pay off in the end, but so so nearly did.

[bcubed]

First goal, fair point, although the central defenders didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in their positioning and subsequent movement once the cross was on it's way. Second goal, that's what happens when you have four attacking players pushed up on your back four, with only three midfielders. Their full-back pushed forward, subsequently outnumbered the defence, Griffin was looking after Koren but out lack of a right midfielder left Mattock free. Not Griffin's fault if you ask me, more the fault of the manager not pushing Church back onto the right hand side to create two banks of four. If he does that, the full back has a tracker and subsequently the pass isn't as simple as it was.

Agreed, as a I said earlier. I don't understand why we didn't revert to 441 after we scored

Because we looked more likely to score a third than they did a second. If we had made our formation more defensive, we would have invited them to attack us - I think McD was right to leave it. Attack being the best form of defense - a gamble that did not pay off in the end, but so so nearly did.

As it directly resulted in their equalising goal I fail to see how McD got it right

[andrew1957]

First goal, fair point, although the central defenders didn't exactly cover themselves in glory in their positioning and subsequent movement once the cross was on it's way. Second goal, that's what happens when you have four attacking players pushed up on your back four, with only three midfielders. Their full-back pushed forward, subsequently outnumbered the defence, Griffin was looking after Koren but out lack of a right midfielder left Mattock free. Not Griffin's fault if you ask me, more the fault of the manager not pushing Church back onto the right hand side to create two banks of four. If he does that, the full back has a tracker and subsequently the pass isn't as simple as it was.

Agreed, as a I said earlier. I don't understand why we didn't revert to 441 after we scored

As it directly resulted in their equalising goal I fail to see how McD got it right

If we had surrendered possession and sat back and defended we may not have even drawn the game - we will never know. Managers are paid to take a risk - it did not pay off this time but it was close.

[rabidbee]

I don't see why playing-4-4-1 equals surrendering possession, sitting back and defending. To me, it just means having a little more balance. If Church had been on the right wing, there's no reason why he couldn't have pushed forward to support Rasiak when we went on the attack.

[winchester_royal]

I don't see why playing-4-4-1 equals surrendering possession, sitting back and defending. To me, it just means having a little more balance. If Church had been on the right wing, there's no reason why he couldn't have pushed forward to support Rasiak when we went on the attack.

I imagine the problem would be when we launch it forward to clear our lines, there would be absolutely fck all chance of Rasiak retaining posession on his own.

[rabidbee]

I don't see why playing-4-4-1 equals surrendering possession, sitting back and defending. To me, it just means having a little more balance. If Church had been on the right wing, there's no reason why he couldn't have pushed forward to support Rasiak when we went on the attack.

I imagine the problem would be when we launch it forward to clear our lines, there would be absolutely fck all chance of Rasiak retaining posession on his own.

He either flicks on into the corners for the wingers (or we launch it into the corners for the wingers to cross into Rasiak), or Church comes inside a little to support him.I'm not suggesting we need twenty yards between Rasiak and a line of four midfielders.

[winchester_royal]

I don't see why playing-4-4-1 equals surrendering possession, sitting back and defending. To me, it just means having a little more balance. If Church had been on the right wing, there's no reason why he couldn't have pushed forward to support Rasiak when we went on the attack.

I imagine the problem would be when we launch it forward to clear our lines, there would be absolutely fck all chance of Rasiak retaining posession on his own.

He either flicks on into the corners for the wingers (or we launch it into the corners for the wingers to cross into Rasiak), or Church comes inside a little to support him.I'm not suggesting we need twenty yards between Rasiak and a line of four midfielders.

But that is how it was always gonna be with our backs firmly to the wall. I'm not saying I agree with Brian, but I can certainly see the reasoning behind it.