Page 1 of 1
ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:46 pm
by ClaretTony
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 pm
by evensteadiereddie
I agree with the thread title, a win would not have flattered us. I've just got back, the M6 not too bad today thank God, and wondered how much negativity there might be on the board tonight but surely nobody can argue wedidn't deserve more.
However, and it''s a big however, that's five points lost from winning positions in two games which, clearly, isn't sustainable. We played well today but can't see a game out. Because we haven't any options to help us add to our lead - or at least to cause the team we're beating any more problems, we find ourselves under pressure and inevitably cave in. The new lad and any others might help solve this.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 7:58 pm
by elwaclaret
Pretty spot on I think by both managers. Leeds are a bloody good team this term. Bamford looks a different player and Leeds have more than a whiff of the Burnley about their approach to games but with a more guns-ho out look.
He could not claim an off day for Leeds and in fairness he didn’t. That we wrestled the bear into submission by grinding hard work makes it all the more disappointing that we showed our lack of confidence by giving up the initiative after the goal.
A strange one where it feels like a defeat even though it wasn’t, and we’ve just watched a top half performance against a top half team… with addition(s) imminent.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 8:44 pm
by Woodleyclaret
We switched off for the last 10 mins and gifted the equaliser
Much better overall but we still need our cm enforcer although Josh played well today.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:10 pm
by CrosspoolClarets
Agree with Dyche on this. Leeds seem to really struggle against us, both to create and defensively, but so far have had a lot of luck (today Bamford heads onto his own post and then gets a deflection right onto his toe to equalise, last year at Elland Rd we were robbed, and at the Turf we did well but then BPF started throwing them in).
We deserved to edge the game today, due to the 2nd half performance. It was indeed a tad harsh what happened.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:06 pm
by Roger1960
As per Brighton , as soon as they kicked off after our goal we pulled back 10-20 yards. Before that they were pinned back into 1 3rd of the pitch. Straight after we gave them half the pitch to set up each attack. Their equaliser was more a question of when not if. If we had kept in their faces after the goal they would have struggled to get a goal.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:19 pm
by warksclaret
evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 pm
I agree with the thread title, a win would not have flattered us. I've just got back, the M6 not too bad today thank God, and wondered how much negativity there might be on the board tonight but surely nobody can argue wedidn't deserve more.
However, and it''s a big however, that's five points lost from winning positions in two games which, clearly, isn't sustainable. We played well today but can't see a game out. Because we haven't any options to help us add to our lead - or at least to cause the team we're beating any more problems, we find ourselves under pressure and inevitably cave in. The new lad and any others might help solve this.
I remember SD saying in the past that "we had found a way to win", sometimes it might be ugly. We need to rediscover the ability to score when we have less than 30% possession, then defend robustly. I think the back four defended pretty well today, but we are getting exposed in midfield when teams counter attack. Our corners were good today, but we never troubled them from free kicks. We used to have a routine where Ben Mee would lie deep for our free kicks and head it across for someone to get the second ball, however we seemed disorganised today, and rarely threatened with these
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:19 pm
by elwaclaret
Roger1960 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:06 pm
As per Brighton , as soon as they kicked off after our goal we pulled back 10-20 yards. Before that they were pinned back into 1 3rd of the pitch. Straight after we gave them half the pitch to set up each attack. Their equaliser was more a question of when not if. If we had kept in their faces after the goal they would have struggled to get a goal.
Due to a lack of confidence, we’d have won had we beaten Brighton and got our run ended. Just need a little more belief.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:27 pm
by jojomk1
elwaclaret wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:19 pm
Due to a lack of confidence, we’d have won had we beaten Brighton and got our run ended. Just need a little more belief.
And that belief would come from the attitude of the manager
Yet again, poor substitutions cost us the game
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:31 pm
by ksrclaret
It is certainly very worrying to see us giving up leads at home in consecutive games this season.
I genuinely think we'd have had 6 points on the board a couple of seasons ago when seeing out for those wins was second nature to us. I posted on the ratings thread that for a team that cannot for the life in us come from behind in games, losing from winning positions is a habit we need to shake and fast.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:32 pm
by Targetman
jojomk1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:27 pm
And that belief would come from the attitude of the manager
Yet again, poor substitutions cost us the game
I agree mate, don't know how we've managed to survive with him for so long.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:36 pm
by jojomk1
It was certainly good in the early days
But now has gone stale
Plan A has long since past in the evolution of the Prem League
Dyche remains in those past days
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:42 pm
by elwaclaret
jojomk1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:27 pm
And that belief would come from the attitude of the manager
Yet again, poor substitutions cost us the game
In hindsight, Vydra never got involved to any meaningful degree, but I thought Lennon certainly made sense; but I could see the logic of Vydra having a chance of running tired legs.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:42 pm
by Spijed
jojomk1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:36 pm
It was certainly good in the early days
But now has gone stale
Plan A has long since past in the evolution of the Prem League
Dyche remains in those past days
So what do you suggest?
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:48 pm
by jojomk1
A more pragmatic approach from the manager might help
In short - a Plan B
When you are being overrun in midfield maybe some help in that area might help
Bielsa recognised the need to change his system to try and effect the game, hence going from back three with wing backs to back four
Dyche did not react to that change
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:00 pm
by Stayingup
jojomk1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:48 pm
A more pragmatic approach from the manager might help
In short - a Plan B
When you are being overrun in midfield maybe some help in that area might help
Bielsa recognised the need to change his system to try and effect the game, hence going from back three with wing backs to back four
Dyche did not react to that change
SD didn't react to.the changes Potter made in the Brighton game and that could have been what cost us.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:05 pm
by Silkyskills1
jojomk1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:48 pm
A more pragmatic approach from the manager might help
In short - a Plan B
Bielsa recognised the need to change his system to try and effect the game, hence going from back three with wing backs to back four
Dyche did not react to that change
Are you suggesting that Bielsa's ability to affect the game resulted in their equaliser? Pope didn't have an attempt to save in the whole match. The equaliser was a fluke that went the way of the Yorkshire club. Can't do much about that. Our tactics affected the latter part of the game but that's because our bench contains no one with the ability to change a game. Their bench does but it didn't today and the equaliser was a piece of fortune that hopefully 'evens itself out' over the season.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:13 pm
by thelaughingclaret
We got away for a few years with sitting on one goal leads but time has caught up with us and teams have sussed us out. Dyche needs to change his tactics when we are leading and he needs to do so soon. The issue is if there is one thing Dyche never changes is his tactics. It is his biggest flaw, it is the reason he is still managing us and not anyone bigger. He doesn’t do change, but he is going to have to do.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:16 pm
by Silkyskills1
Agree but there was no so-called masterplan from Bielsa today. He got lucky.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:18 pm
by Rileybobs
thelaughingclaret wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:13 pm
We got away for a few years with sitting on one goal leads but time has caught up with us and teams have sussed us out. Dyche needs to change his tactics when we are leading and he needs to do so soon. The issue is if there is one thing Dyche never changes is his tactics. It is his biggest flaw, it is the reason he is still managing us and not anyone bigger. He doesn’t do change, but he is going to have to do.
If Dyche never changes his tactics then how do you explain us drawing a fixture that we lost 4-0 just a few months ago?
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:21 pm
by Jakubclaret
Silkyskills1 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:16 pm
Agree but there was no so-called masterplan from Bielsa today. He got lucky.
Agree, seems to be hindsight straw clutching going on, some people saying the midfield was overrun but with only 1 recognised midfielder in cork on the bench, the facts are everything was pretty much hunky dory until a fortuitous 86th min goal that nobody really saw coming, Leeds kept chugging away & whilst that happens you can always get something to go your way & that’s what happened.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:27 pm
by Vegas Claret
A draw was fair today
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:18 am
by KateR
I thought we were marginally the better team today and the more likely to win, to many people believe the possession stat means they dominated the game, it doesn't. I was worried in the latter stages because of Brighton, which I was hoping was a one off but I think their goal had a large element of luck but you create luck sometimes and he took it. However, I would have been happy with a draw before kickoff, now I'm slightly disappointed regarding not taking the 3 points, yet we played well, we signed a player and today was a good Sunday.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:00 am
by BabylonClaret
Agreed Kate. I think we were unlucky in both games really. People are saying that "their goal was coming" - for both games. Maybe they should try telling that to both sets of fans who were quiet as mice until they scored. That to me suggests neither Leeds nor Brighton fans thought they looked like scoring (because they really didnt)
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:11 am
by superdimitri
Goals win games and we need to start scoring more of them. We can no longer scrape out 1 goal leads
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:08 am
by Jimmymaccer
And presumably the signing of Cornet will help………..a bit more pace, finisher who will make other teams think before they push up ……
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:29 am
by Claret_tinted
Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:18 pm
If Dyche never changes his tactics then how do you explain us drawing a fixture that we lost 4-0 just a few months ago?
Christ on a bike!
I’ll have my breakfast then come back and answer fodder.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:38 am
by Sheedyclaret
Fair result we hardly worked there goalkeeper
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:12 am
by CaptJohn
Roger1960 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:06 pm
As per Brighton , as soon as they kicked off after our goal we pulled back 10-20 yards. Before that they were pinned back into 1 3rd of the pitch. Straight after we gave them half the pitch to set up each attack. Their equaliser was more a question of when not if. If we had kept in their faces after the goal they would have struggled to get a goal.
Spot on. After our goal we just gave them 3/4 of the pitch and said break us down which they did. It's obviously a tactic from SD so the blame lies squarely with him. Hopefully some of the senior players will have the guts to raise questions in the post match review.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:20 am
by jrgbfc
Rileybobs wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:18 pm
If Dyche never changes his tactics then how do you explain us drawing a fixture that we lost 4-0 just a few months ago?
I think the 4 nil last season can be put down to our habit of getting the deckchairs out once we're mathematically safe.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:46 am
by Rileybobs
jrgbfc wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 8:20 am
I think the 4 nil last season can be put down to our habit of getting the deckchairs out once we're mathematically safe.
Maybe, but we set up with the more tenacious and quicker Brownhill in the middle in place of Cork and went for physicality up top with Barnes in place of Vydra. Both changes gave us more success. We also tightened up our shape when we were without the ball and worked very hard to prevent the counter attack.
We definitely set up differently to the same fixture last season which shows that Dyche does adapt tactically.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:59 am
by alwaysaclaret
evensteadiereddie wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:59 pm
I agree with the thread title, a win would not have flattered us. I've just got back, the M6 not too bad today thank God, and wondered how much negativity there might be on the board tonight but surely nobody can argue wedidn't deserve more.
However, and it''s a big however, that's five points lost from winning positions in two games which, clearly, isn't sustainable. We played well today but can't see a game out. Because we haven't any options to help us add to our lead - or at least to cause the team we're beating any more problems, we find ourselves under pressure and inevitably cave in. The new lad and any others might help solve this.
[/quote
I agree that once we have gone 1 up we just don't have an option to go for the kill, so we end up flogging the players on the pitch and eventually as you say running out of steam, quite a few on here are saying wood needs more help, imo we need a striker better than wood, yes he's capable of giving us 12 to 14 goals a season but then he would need someone from the other 3 to give the same, none of them seem to be able to do that, so my point is we need a quality striker to go in front of him, but then we could all argue we need an attacking midfielder, someone that can run with the ball and cut through the defence. Maybe it's in the thinking to move mcneil more central now we've got cornet, and possibly the thinking behind the lennon signing is to alternate between him and gudmundson to try and protect gudmundson somewhat, but nobody can deny we need at least 1 more in, I just can't work out which would make more sense, an attacking midfielder or a striker, but then they cost money for quality. Just one in the hat, a loan bid for Ross Barkley, thoughts ?
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 12:22 pm
by beddie
Good to see us putting in a proper second half performance for once. First time in ages I’ve enjoyed a home game, some proper tackling and a decent referee that kept the game flowing. As much as we all wanted three points I think it was the right result.
Re: ARTICLE: I think that was a bit harsh on us
Posted: Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:39 pm
by buzzclarets79
Roger1960 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 10:06 pm
As per Brighton , as soon as they kicked off after our goal we pulled back 10-20 yards. Before that they were pinned back into 1 3rd of the pitch. Straight after we gave them half the pitch to set up each attack. Their equaliser was more a question of when not if. If we had kept in their faces after the goal they would have struggled to get a goal.
Said this on another thread. Up to us scoring, we looked comfortable, they’d not had a shot on target, the moment we scored instead of doing what we’d done up to that point we went a good 10/15 yards deeper, and gave them the space to work in.
Once they brought it back to 1-1 was only one team going to win it.
It was to early to just sit back and defend. All we had to do was the same up to us scoring and we’d of won that game.