[Archived] Sam Allardyce

[S15]

I despair

[Steve Moss]

I despair, . . .

Don't feel bad, Abbey. Go have a Guiness or three (or other drink of your choice) and you'll feel much better.

[deryck guyler's spoon]

Don't feel bad, Abbey. Go have a Guiness or three (or other drink of your choice) and you'll feel much better.

Judging by his post I reckon he's already been on the turps.

[ABBEY]

Don't feel bad, Abbey. Go have a Guiness or three (or other drink of your choice) and you'll feel much better.

there ya go again trying to tempt an alcoholic back to beer

Judging by his post I reckon he's already been on the turps.

did we lose ? yes are we in trouble ? yes

[joey_big_nose]

I think it is a bit short sighted to say that we didn't change style of play against CHelsea. The key thing was we were keeping the ball on the floor. The main culprits in the past have been the defenders launching it. For some reason we didn't do that so much.

You can say that maybe that was the defenders collective decision or a result of them having a goof game. Personally I think Sam's instructions would have been key, as well as a lack of pressure from the Chelsea forwards when we had the ball. Nonetheless there is no way to be sure. What was particularly surprising about it is we were playing Jones and Emerton in the centre - neither of who are particularly famous for their passing ability.

All I want to see is that this approach continues against Wigan, ideally without Pedersen on the pitch as he has been terrible recently.

[den]

I think it is a bit short sighted to say that we didn't change style of play against CHelsea. The key thing was we were keeping the ball on the floor. The main culprits in the past have been the defenders launching it. For some reason we didn't do that so much.

Hmmm, on the other hand, the formation/tactics were the same. As for us keeping the ball down - yes we did, but are we naieve enough to think that some weeks Sam asks the players to launch it and some weeks he asks the players to pass it? Or is the truth that it comes down to the players themselves?

[MarkBRFC71]

If you think that Allardyce has changed his thoughts on football you are just daft.

btw non of the happy clappy born agains has commented on the amount of space our formation on Sat afforded the opposing full backs. They had the freedom of the park culminating in Ibramovich scoring the winner from close in.

How do we stop other teams exploiting our flanks guys?

+1.

Apart from the first half against Arsenal, and the Chelsea game, the players (usually the back 4) were hitting it long from the back, to try to to get it forward as quickly as possible. Niko was isolated, usually battling 4 players on his own and most of the time lost possession, so putting us under pressure. The midfield dropped back straight away when the opposition had the ball, so their defence were allowed possession with little pressure.

On Saturday, the ball was being passed out rather than hit forward early, and play built up gradually through midfield, so compensating for our lack of pace and mobility, and allowing the midfield to get forward and support Benjani more effectively. The team played 10 yards further up the pitch (at least until Chelsea scored) and defended from the front, not allowing Chelsea's defence time on the ball.

Now this was a fairly obvious and noticeable change in styles (even though the formation remained 4-5-1/4-3-3) to those who know about football (a group you two seem to be determined to exclude yourselves from judging by your recent posts).

So, either the manager directed the team to play differently, or as Den seems to be suggesting this is the way Sam has wanted them to play all along and finally the players complied. The former sounds plausible to me, but the latter? So all this time the players have been happily ignoring the manager's instructions and hoofing it? Ahhh, I get it now.

[beerwins]

Hmmm, on the other hand, the formation/tactics were the same. As for us keeping the ball down - yes we did, but are we naieve enough to think that some weeks Sam asks the players to launch it and some weeks he asks the players to pass it? Or is the truth that it comes down to the players themselves?

Our usual main hoofer is Robbo and Robbo's distribution on Sat was rolled out to defenders, when Robbo launches the ball our defenders are well advanced, on Sat they were'nt, they were near Robbo waiting to take a short pass, if they were'nt told to do that how on earth did they know Robbo wasnt going to punt it?

My take on the game was that if you play a longball game you let the oposing team control possesion and attack in numbers if we had done this we would have never seen the ball till we were picking it out of the net, you cant let Chelsea have too much of the ball because they have too much talent to just waste it.

The fact that we kept the ball better gave our wide men enough time to get forward and support the attacker, it seemed we attacked more because we played more patient and built our attacks at a slower pace rather than just one long ball to a lone striker with midfieders nowhere near him.

Whoever decided to play that way Sam or the players I dont care but I would like to see more please.

[MarkBRFC71]

Hmmm, on the other hand, the formation/tactics were the same. As for us keeping the ball down - yes we did, but are we naieve enough to think that some weeks Sam asks the players to launch it and some weeks he asks the players to pass it?

The formation was the same, the way the players were told to play within it was different. It's not naivety, that's called tactics Den. Which part of this are you failing to understand?!?

[broadsword]

Den, I'm not trying to wind you up, just trying to get a reasonable understanding of your viewpoint ...

Have I got it right:

- We've not always played "hoofball", and when we have it's because the players aren't good enough to play with composure and skill

- Playing Kalinic up front makes things look worse than they are because he can't control balls that come at him at speed and varying heights

- allardyce would rather his teams play attractive football when possible and sets his teams up to do so

is this a fair summary of how you feel?

I think discussion of Allardyce has degenerated lately and it's turned into a slanging match. I'm just trying to see past the friction and try to understand what's motivatring your remarks. You might've already explained it in detail but it's been lost underneath an avalanche of comments!

[JMillZz]

I think Sam knew hoofing it to Chelsea's strong defenders would only result in them continuously bombarding us as we'd never keep it in their half due to their quality and strong aerial ability.

This leads me to believe he made this decision based upon Chelsea's quality. (whether or not there were other influences such as John Williams/fan noises/players etc)

My worry is that against a lower quality opposition such as Wigan, Sam will think we will win the aerial battle and he will think that this hoofing type of pressure will work without them posing much of a threat. This would consequently lead us to playing poor football and all will be back to Big Sam normal.

This is just a hunch of course. A worry.

Another comment on the game: In regards to our passing/supportive play, it was unfortunate for Kalinic as it makes him look worse as when he played in previous games he was a lot more isolated than Diouf and Benjani were against Chelsea. He takes a lot of the blame when really the change in play is the reason, I think supporting Kalinic would be a lot more effective. I still feel Benjani didn't do too much bar score an easy chance other than scuff a shot and prove he literally can not run. He just totters around. I also felt Roberts did nothing except run around and miss a great chance. He was a slight victim of a lack of support though. However I don't understand how people seem to have forgotten he isn't a good footballer. Last season, anyone? And before?

I think Sam knew hoofing it to Chelsea's strong defenders would only result in them continuously bombarding us as we'd never keep it in their half due to their quality and strong aerial ability.

This leads me to believe he made this decision based upon Chelsea's quality. (whether or not there were other influences such as John Williams/fan noises/players etc)

My worry is that against a lower quality opposition such as Wigan, Sam will think we will win the aerial battle and he will think that this hoofing type of pressure will work without them posing much of a threat. This would consequently lead us to playing poor football and all will be back to Big Sam normal.

This is just a hunch of course. A worry.

Another comment on the game: In regards to our passing/supportive play, it was unfortunate for Kalinic as it makes him look worse as when he played in previous games he was a lot more isolated than Diouf and Benjani were against Chelsea. He takes a lot of the blame when really the change in play is the reason, I think supporting Kalinic would be a lot more effective. I still feel Benjani didn't do too much bar score an easy chance other than scuff a shot and prove he literally can not run. He just totters around. I also felt Roberts did nothing except run around and miss a great chance. He was a slight victim of a lack of support though. However I don't understand how people seem to have forgotten he isn't a good footballer. Last season, anyone? And before?

[den]

.

[Majiball]

Go on den, you know you want to.

[den]

OK Maj, just for you, but it's the last time, I've had enough for one season

Bryan. No, we haven't always played "hoofball". I can think of numerous games where we played good, posession football, but not for the full 90 mins. So the starting points of these opposing views are different. If you can accept that we have played good football in parts, it's really not too difficult to think that's what the manager wants, or is trying to achieve. If you haven't seen any good football at all over the previous 9 games, then we are miles apart.

As for Kalanic, yes when the front man struggles so much and is continually outmuscled, it highlights things and understandably generates dissent from the fans, - not to mention how it ruins performances. What Allardyce has been trying to achieve, again in my opinion, is a game plan whereby we get the ball forward quickly, to feet, or at least to a front man who can hold the ball up and follow up with support from two of the midfielders -and that's borne out by the formations he's used all season. Hardly mind boggling stuff because many teams play that game now. However, when the front man can run the channels and can knock the defenders around, there's no problem. I don't remember any rovers fans complaining about "hoofball" when Shearer was up front and we played plenty of it then. So, is the manager to blame if the service from the back four isn't good enough and the front man gets knocked off the ball so easily? No,that's where lack of quality in the squad is shown up. As for Niko bing isolated, well yes he is a lot of the time especially away from home, but is that Sam wanting him isolated, or is the team being pushed back by better opposition? On Saturday, the lads played well and to the game plan. It worked a treat. We had numbers in midfield and we had a front man who could play the role well. What we have been doing in parts of games, we managed to do for most of the game.

Allardyce has done well for us so far, that has to be seen as fact doesn't it? There aren't many managers who would have got that squad into the top ten last season, from a position of near certain relegation. This season has been poor, but as far as I'm concerned, it's as much, if not more down to the squad, rather than the manager.

I've said it before, but if Allardyce had been able to put out the likes of Bellamy, Bentley, Savage, RSC, Warnock etc, etc that Hughes did, we wouldn't be down in the bottom three. Mark Hughes was a long ball manager, but it was the players that Hughes signed that changed our fortunes, not the idea that Hughes changed his style of football. Tactics/game plans take you so far, but a manager lives on the players he puts on the park.

So, bottom line - Peed off by people who simply want to post "Sam hoofs it". That really is about it Bry.

This post has been edited by den: A minute ago

[LDRover]

Hmmm, on the other hand, the formation/tactics were the same. As for us keeping the ball down - yes we did, but are we naieve enough to think that some weeks Sam asks the players to launch it and some weeks he asks the players to pass it? Or is the truth that it comes down to the players themselves?

Den, if it was down to the players and not on the manager's instruction then surely there'd be some kind of change after half time?

[den]

.

Who gave me a +1 for this?

Trying to tell me something?

[Miker]

There was obviously instruction for the team to keep possession more, just like against Liverpool in the second half, there's no denying that. The fact is that the players were actually able to keep possession and were doing it effectively. I'm not against the long ball game, like many on here are, and I think it's been effective against many teams. The problem is that in the last few weeks we were just really poor at it and misplacing all our long passes. What was worse is that in a long ball tactic, you're meant to start playing on the ground and keeping possession once you're camped in the opponent's half, but whenever we were ... We'd still launch it!

The point to make is that to suggest Sam has suddenly changed his football ethos is ludicrous. He has made it clear how he wants the team to play by his public statements and praise for when we have put in a brilliant performance. The fact is that in the previous weeks, the players weren't doing what was expected of them in the employed tactics, so a change was needed.

[MarkBRFC71]

There was obviously instruction for the team to keep possession more, just like against Liverpool in the second half, there's no denying that. The fact is that the players were actually able to keep possession and were doing it effectively. I'm not against the long ball game, like many on here are, and I think it's been effective against many teams. The problem is that in the last few weeks we were just really poor at it and misplacing all our long passes. What was worse is that in a long ball tactic, you're meant to start playing on the ground and keeping possession once you're camped in the opponent's half, but whenever we were ... We'd still launch it!

The point to make is that to suggest Sam has suddenly changed his football ethos is ludicrous. He has made it clear how he wants the team to play by his public statements and praise for when we have put in a brilliant performance. The fact is that in the previous weeks, the players weren't doing what was expected of them in the employed tactics, so a change was needed.

The simple fact is though Miker, the defenders were passing it out on Saturday when 9 times out of 10 in previous games they would just have launched it upfield vaguely in Niko's direction. I'm certain that Sam had in previous games told them to hit the front man as early as possible, and that he changed this tactic against Chelsea and told them to pass it short as much as possible and not hoof it. It was obvious to see - as you alluded to. This simple change by Sam (instructing the team to pass rather than hoof) meant that we could build play slowly, keep the ball more, and better support the frontman. They looked far more accomplished, and it suited the players we've got far more than the reliance on th long-ball.

Also, there was only one long throw by MGP when there were several opportunities to utilise it - again, an obvious tactical change by the manager to stop doing something that's been pretty much totally ineffectual.

To say the manager didn't change his tactics is frankly ludicrous imo.

Anyway, this has been done to death. Credit to Sam for changing it when it was needed because we looked much the better for it. The majority recognise that the tactics changed, and others refuse to see/accept it for some reason. Let's move on, hope we retain the Chelsea tactics against Wigan and can start to climb out of the relegation zone.

[den]

There was obviously instruction for the team to keep possession more, just like against Liverpool in the second half, there's no denying that. The fact is that the players were actually able to keep possession and were doing it effectively. I'm not against the long ball game, like many on here are, and I think it's been effective against many teams. The problem is that in the last few weeks we were just really poor at it and misplacing all our long passes. What was worse is that in a long ball tactic, you're meant to start playing on the ground and keeping possession once you're camped in the opponent's half, but whenever we were ... We'd still launch it!

The point to make is that to suggest Sam has suddenly changed his football ethos is ludicrous. He has made it clear how he wants the team to play by his public statements and praise for when we have put in a brilliant performance. The fact is that in the previous weeks, the players weren't doing what was expected of them in the employed tactics, so a change was needed.

You could have saved me a lot of work there Miker, if You'd have written this earlier.

You've got my feelings in one. A manager can have the team concentrating on keeping posession all week in training and that should show during the next game. It doesn't represent a change in tactics, or a change in the belief of how the game should be played.

[47er]

The important point that shouldn't be lost is that a large number of people who post on here never wanted Allardyce in the first place and said so. They have never changed their minds and never will. So I don't take them seriously.

We have a poorish squad with well-known weaknesses and Allardyce has done his best with NO resources to plug the gaps. The signing of Benjani is a good example. We took a risk with Ince, we should never do that again.

I suspect Sam will see out his contract and move on, that will be a key moment in our history from whichever view you look at it. Gav and Abbey's (and others) memories will be about hoofball but mine will be a miraculous escape from relegation followed by an equally miraculous 10th.

[BuckyRover]

The important point that shouldn't be lost is that a large number of people who post on here never wanted Allardyce in the first place and said so. They have never changed their minds and never will. So I don't take them seriously.

We have a poorish squad with well-known weaknesses and Allardyce has done his best with NO resources to plug the gaps. The signing of Benjani is a good example. We took a risk with Ince, we should never do that again.

I suspect Sam will see out his contract and move on, that will be a key moment in our history from whichever view you look at it. Gav and Abbey's (and others) memories will be about hoofball but mine will be a miraculous escape from relegation followed by an equally miraculous 10th.

Conversely there are those that always wanted Allardyce even prior to Ince being appointed. Therefore the debate isn't as polarised as some people keep trying to make out.

[Andy]

Well said Den.

Sums up my feelings perfectly.

We've played some very, very nice football in games this season, just in patches and not for 90 minutes.

B'ham away, we absolutely mullered them, but Foster was outstanding and we were hit on the counter twice and came away with nothing.

It simply isn't, and never has been, a case of 'Sam Hoofball'.

In my opinion of course.

[MarkBRFC71]

Conversely there are those that always wanted Allardyce even prior to Ince being appointed. Therefore the debate isn't as polarised as some people keep trying to make out.

Exactly Bucky.

And Allardyce's reign is a hell of a lot easier to put up with when you're viewing it from a league table only and not subjected to watching the football - last Saturday aside - every week.

[BuckyRover]

If we play well and win on Saturday I won't be criticising anything.

[Majiball]

OK Maj, just for you, but it's the last time, I've had enough for one season

Bryan. No, we haven't always played "hoofball". I can think of numerous games where we played good, posession football, but not for the full 90 mins. So the starting points of these opposing views are different. If you can accept that we have played good football in parts, it's really not too difficult to think that's what the manager wants, or is trying to achieve. If you haven't seen any good football at all over the previous 9 games, then we are miles apart.

As for Kalanic, yes when the front man struggles so much and is continually outmuscled, it highlights things and understandably generates dissent from the fans, - not to mention how it ruins performances. What Allardyce has been trying to achieve, again in my opinion, is a game plan whereby we get the ball forward quickly, to feet, or at least to a front man who can hold the ball up and follow up with support from two of the midfielders -and that's borne out by the formations he's used all season. Hardly mind boggling stuff because many teams play that game now. However, when the front man can run the channels and can knock the defenders around, there's no problem. I don't remember any rovers fans complaining about "hoofball" when Shearer was up front and we played plenty of it then. So, is the manager to blame if the service from the back four isn't good enough and the front man gets knocked off the ball so easily? No,that's where lack of quality in the squad is shown up. As for Niko bing isolated, well yes he is a lot of the time especially away from home, but is that Sam wanting him isolated, or is the team being pushed back by better opposition? On Saturday, the lads played well and to the game plan. It worked a treat. We had numbers in midfield and we had a front man who could play the role well. What we have been doing in parts of games, we managed to do for most of the game.

Allardyce has done well for us so far, that has to be seen as fact doesn't it? There aren't many managers who would have got that squad into the top ten last season, from a position of near certain relegation. This season has been poor, but as far as I'm concerned, it's as much, if not more down to the squad, rather than the manager.

I've said it before, but if Allardyce had been able to put out the likes of Bellamy, Bentley, Savage, RSC, Warnock etc, etc that Hughes did, we wouldn't be down in the bottom three. Mark Hughes was a long ball manager, but it was the players that Hughes signed that changed our fortunes, not the idea that Hughes changed his style of football. Tactics/game plans take you so far, but a manager lives on the players he puts on the park.

So, bottom line - Peed off by people who simply want to post "Sam hoofs it". That really is about it Bry.

This post has been edited by den: A minute ago

We have played some football in patches you won't get any argument there. I think we have played a few more longer passes than we should have but as opposed to looking at the front man I think we should look nearer the middle. So far in the main we have played Jones, N'zonzi and P, P, Pedersen. Now two of them really are holders, they sit deep and when either of them get possession the other is a sideways pass away. Gamst is the main man forward in the middle and is easily picked up. Now when this happens we have the main just won the ball back so our wingers are still deep and easily picked up by the full backs of the opposition. This means they are not an easy option. So really if I think about perhaps the personel in the middle have played a big role in us playing it back and then looking to hit the front man a lot.

Now on Saturday we had Emerton in there, he's mobile and likes to play further forward than N'zonzi meaning Gamnst wasn't the only option for the forward pass through the middle. This also makes life easier for the front man, with 2 midfielder further forward or looking to get there when we win the ball back, there's one more man for the opposition to mark. Because of this extra option we push there midfield deeper and create a bit more space to play in and some more time. Before With N'zonzi there as well (deep) and only P, P, Pedersen forward of the three I can push my midfield up and take your playing space away.

Another factor that needs to be considered is the introduction of the man who cannot side a ball from 1 yard, Diouf MKII. Now despite his awful finishing at the far post he has a vital attribute, pace. Before when we got the ball to Diouf on the left in the main we couldn't get our right winger up in time to support the front man. His introduction meant that this was possible. One other aspect from his introduction was that he played narrow at time, which he will do as he's a central player. But the bonus this created for us on the right was that when Salgado comes charging up with his girly locks in flow he had a lot more space to play with.

So for me the biggest and best change that occurred was Emerton in the middle he pushed further up the pitch but his mobility made all the difference and gave us more forward options to play in the middle. This meant we didn't have to look to hit the front as often as we have on occasions. Diouf MKII played a big role as well in supporting the front man and giving goldylocks some room to overlap.

Now for me the way to make it work more would be to line-up like this:

Robbo

Salgado Samba Nelsen Givet

Emerton Jones

Diouf MKII Dunn Diouf MKI

Banjoni

Dunn would be the better option coming in from midfield and his passing could really open things up on the flanks. I am very tempted to play Kalinic as I think the changes in the middle may mean we could play the ball to him in a more varied manner. But Banjoni did manage to hit the back end of the donkey and so has earnt his start. Perhaps the most telling decision of our season could be that Sam had finally found what some have thought for a while, Emerton is not a wide man.

But I said that about P, P, Pedersen.