| The straw that broke the camel's back 10:48 - Oct 31 with 6148 views | HollowayHoop |
I really, really do not want to be writing this. Despite everything (and what some may describe as the mountain of ever growing evidence in front of me) Chris Ramsey had my full support until last night, and more precisely the 73rd minute of last night's game, when at 1 - 0 down to a bang average Brentford side, he used our final permitted substitution of the match to replace a defender with a defender.
At the time I was incandescent with rage. We were being overrun in midfield and had created the grand sum of zero chances in the second half. Why not bring on Faurlin? And why Perch? He has been rubbish since he joined. To add to my list of grievances, when viewed close up Perch genuinely reminds me of that awful 7 days qunt, Craig David. I do not need that in my life right now!
But whatever Chris Ramsey's reasons for the sub were, what concerns me the most is the sheer idiocy of his game management . I appreciate that many will say last night was entirely consistent with his game management since he took over at QPR, but I guess I invested too much into what the club was say about long term aims and him being a grade A coach; our performances at Sunderland and Villa away last season convinced me that he knew what he was doing. Lets not forget how we all congratulated ourselves over Ramsey's game management during the Villa game when he out thought Tactical Tim. Those solitary decent performances did enough to placate me throughout the nightmares of West Ham at home with Karl Henry playing on left wing, and indeed Man City and Leicstaaar away.
Going back to his substitution last night, the only way that I was able to rationalize it was by assuming that Ramsey had been fooled by the fact that Clint Hill was injured, and it just didn't occur to him that he could make a strategic substitution. He must have had some sort of a brain freeze leading him to think that his only option was to replace an injured defender with a fit defender. But that's Fking retarded! Seriously, not even my fiance would have made that sub, and she is capable of doing some really irritating things, I assure you.
So, to bring this rant to a close, I have to blame Ramsey for the inept and toothless manner in which we closed last night's match. Whilst I am extremely and overtly proud to have kept Brentford's lead down to just a single goal (in fairness, Perch did well to stop a late 1 on 1 - and Big Chief was downright useless and 100% guilty of laziness/ball watching for their goal) I am also really, really upset and annoyed. I don't want promotion but that just wasn't good enough. I thoroughly bought into the club's talk of long term plans with only mid-table consolidation on the menu for this season (who actually wants us to be in the Premier League? Was last season fun?). I just can't see what possible progress we can make with an idiot for a manager. And yes I get that there are issues at the club which no manager is going to resolve, hence Hughes and Redknapp also failed, but bringing on Perch for Hill at 1-0 down with 17 minutes left....
Any by the way, I also thought Harry Redknapp was massive twunt so please don't think I am writing this out of racism.
Finally, this is my first post so... I go for any sort of moldy blue cheese - maybe a Gorgonzola. But I'm on a very strict diet and need to lose 1.5 stone in order to fit and not look ridiculous in my groom's suit in 11 months time, so let's please leave the cheese alone for now. |  | | |  |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:03 - Oct 31 with 4377 views | BexleyQPR |
Why bring on Perch? Cos Hill was out injured, Ned moved to centre back and Perch played right back. Thought Perch had a good game while he was on. I think you are another one of those supporters on here who are looking for individual scape goats; Henry, Perch, Toszer, Ramsey etc.
As NorthernR alluded to recently the trouble at Rangers goes far deeper than individual players and manager.Its the set up, the mixed messages to Ramsey from LF and TF, consolidation vs promotion. To criticise Ramsey is easy and cheap. |  |
| |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:12 - Oct 31 with 4321 views | HollowayHoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:03 - Oct 31 by BexleyQPR |
Why bring on Perch? Cos Hill was out injured, Ned moved to centre back and Perch played right back. Thought Perch had a good game while he was on. I think you are another one of those supporters on here who are looking for individual scape goats; Henry, Perch, Toszer, Ramsey etc.
As NorthernR alluded to recently the trouble at Rangers goes far deeper than individual players and manager.Its the set up, the mixed messages to Ramsey from LF and TF, consolidation vs promotion. To criticise Ramsey is easy and cheap. |
I am willing to accept that this might just be a knee jerk reaction mixed with waking up slightly boozed and tomorrow I'll go back to wanting stability and Sir Les knows what he's doing etc etc but something about that substitution last night really, really pi$$ed me off. | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:14 - Oct 31 with 4307 views | daveB |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:12 - Oct 31 by HollowayHoop |
I am willing to accept that this might just be a knee jerk reaction mixed with waking up slightly boozed and tomorrow I'll go back to wanting stability and Sir Les knows what he's doing etc etc but something about that substitution last night really, really pi$$ed me off. |
What sub would you have made when Hill went off injured, it seemed the only option to me unless we switched to 3 at the back |  | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:17 - Oct 31 with 4287 views | HollowayHoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:14 - Oct 31 by daveB |
What sub would you have made when Hill went off injured, it seemed the only option to me unless we switched to 3 at the back |
At the time I was screaming for 3 at the back. We lose 3-0 or maybe get a point (and not lose crucial bragging rights). As I said in the OP, I would have brought on Faurlin.
But maybe I'm wrong. I'm really good at Football Manager though. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:19]
| | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:20 - Oct 31 with 4265 views | daveB |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:17 - Oct 31 by HollowayHoop |
At the time I was screaming for 3 at the back. We lose 3-0 or maybe get a point (and not lose crucial bragging rights). As I said in the OP, I would have brought on Faurlin.
But maybe I'm wrong. I'm really good at Football Manager though. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:19]
|
might have worked but didn't think Perch coming on was that terrible | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:25 - Oct 31 with 4243 views | HollowayHoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:20 - Oct 31 by daveB |
might have worked but didn't think Perch coming on was that terrible |
I must have a strange and very negative reaction to that type of substitution then. The only time I've genuinely come close to booing was Boxing Day 2013 (I think?) when, losing at home to West Brom, Redknapp (it might have been Warnock - my memory is not what I think it may have used to have been) brought on Anton Ferdinand in the 86th minute. I just don't get how tightening up your defence will help in that situation. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:27]
| | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:26 - Oct 31 with 4235 views | Neil_SI |
The way Brentford packed and flooded the midfield area, would have meant someone like Faurlin would have been eaten alive and overrun. This wasn't the match for him, and our midfield struggled to cope with that as it was, although we could have done with Toszer having a better game, because his passing wasn't as good as it could have been.
Henry covered an awful lot of ground in that match from back to front, but nobody will realise that, he worked harder than anybody on the pitch and covered a lot of distance.
But, the way Brentford flooded the midfield, and then had their full-backs overlapping into wide areas, would have left us wide open if we switched to three at the back. That's not something you'd want to do at that stage of the game, when you want to stay in it as long as possible to see if you can create something. Sure, perhaps it's fine to do that in the very last minutes, if you're willing to throw caution to the wind and be happy with losing 2-0 in a bid to try and get the equaliser. But as our performance had disintegrated after the goal, I think doing that would have more likely led to a 2-0 loss (and further groans) than a 1-0 or 1-1.
We conceded a soft goal, and the person who should have done better first was Jay Emmanuel-Thomas. He was too flimsy and casual, and should have done better at contesting the pass played to him. He didn't hold up the ball well enough all night, and Luongo apart, neither did any of our front players. Onouha may have looked lazy to peoples eyes, but it's because in that turnover of possession and scramble to react, we panicked, and he tried to play the player offside and didn't get it right, but the damage had already been done though how cheaply we conceded possession in the first place. That scenario would have been repeated much more easily if we switched to three at the back.
Welcome to the board. :) |  | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:29 - Oct 31 with 4216 views | HollowayHoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:26 - Oct 31 by Neil_SI |
The way Brentford packed and flooded the midfield area, would have meant someone like Faurlin would have been eaten alive and overrun. This wasn't the match for him, and our midfield struggled to cope with that as it was, although we could have done with Toszer having a better game, because his passing wasn't as good as it could have been.
Henry covered an awful lot of ground in that match from back to front, but nobody will realise that, he worked harder than anybody on the pitch and covered a lot of distance.
But, the way Brentford flooded the midfield, and then had their full-backs overlapping into wide areas, would have left us wide open if we switched to three at the back. That's not something you'd want to do at that stage of the game, when you want to stay in it as long as possible to see if you can create something. Sure, perhaps it's fine to do that in the very last minutes, if you're willing to throw caution to the wind and be happy with losing 2-0 in a bid to try and get the equaliser. But as our performance had disintegrated after the goal, I think doing that would have more likely led to a 2-0 loss (and further groans) than a 1-0 or 1-1.
We conceded a soft goal, and the person who should have done better first was Jay Emmanuel-Thomas. He was too flimsy and casual, and should have done better at contesting the pass played to him. He didn't hold up the ball well enough all night, and Luongo apart, neither did any of our front players. Onouha may have looked lazy to peoples eyes, but it's because in that turnover of possession and scramble to react, we panicked, and he tried to play the player offside and didn't get it right, but the damage had already been done though how cheaply we conceded possession in the first place. That scenario would have been repeated much more easily if we switched to three at the back.
Welcome to the board. :) |
Well when you put it like that... | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:31 - Oct 31 with 4199 views | Blue_Castello |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:17 - Oct 31 by HollowayHoop |
At the time I was screaming for 3 at the back. We lose 3-0 or maybe get a point (and not lose crucial bragging rights). As I said in the OP, I would have brought on Faurlin.
But maybe I'm wrong. I'm really good at Football Manager though. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:19]
|
Well I'm with you on this one, as Dave says the only option would have been three at the back but that would have been the brave and adventurous option.
What we ended up with was a toothless 4-4-2 on the pitch, Chery and Luongo were removed who were our creative attacking threats. We had a midfield two of Henry and Toszer which the majority on here agree is nowhere near good enough in that type of formation.
It appeared because the midfield two were so ineffective we resorted to hoofball which was a total disaster, Philips had another poor game, he's nowhere near as good as his reputation.
The reason we should have gone to three at the back was there for all to see, we were being totally outplayed in the middle of the park.
There was the option to bring either Doughty or Faurlin on both would have added extra energy to the midfield, Faurlin would have done something our midfield players were incapable of and that's keeping possession and looking for a pass, Doughty would have been a good option if you wanted somebody with pace to contest for the ball. I know Faurlins lost some of his pace and he was never the quickest but I still don't think he would have been eaten alive.
I didn't go to the Huddersfield away game but we won that 1-0 with a midfield of Doughty and Faurlin, I still think that combination should be given another chance.
Yes it would have been a gamble but that's what managers are paid mega bucks for, and I agree Perch did ok when he came on but that was purely to fight fires and defend. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:45]
| | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:34 - Oct 31 with 4177 views | TGRRRSSS |
I think Holloways view is that to a large degree Ramsay can only really do like for like subs or very similar.
Bringing Perch on was a straight sub for the injury but maybe something different might have been a better option (losing anyway by then).
Perch did fine as I saw it and it wasn't his fault he came on as a like for like.
Whether somebody else and a change of shape might have changed things is a case in point but generally Ramsay doesn't really do this other than maybe going more defensive say bringing an attacking type player off for a more defensive one. |  | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:40 - Oct 31 with 4155 views | daveB |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:31 - Oct 31 by Blue_Castello |
Well I'm with you on this one, as Dave says the only option would have been three at the back but that would have been the brave and adventurous option.
What we ended up with was a toothless 4-4-2 on the pitch, Chery and Luongo were removed who were our creative attacking threats. We had a midfield two of Henry and Toszer which the majority on here agree is nowhere near good enough in that type of formation.
It appeared because the midfield two were so ineffective we resorted to hoofball which was a total disaster, Philips had another poor game, he's nowhere near as good as his reputation.
The reason we should have gone to three at the back was there for all to see, we were being totally outplayed in the middle of the park.
There was the option to bring either Doughty or Faurlin on both would have added extra energy to the midfield, Faurlin would have done something our midfield players were incapable of and that's keeping possession and looking for a pass, Doughty would have been a good option if you wanted somebody with pace to contest for the ball. I know Faurlins lost some of his pace and he was never the quickest but I still don't think he would have been eaten alive.
I didn't go to the Huddersfield away game but we won that 1-0 with a midfield of Doughty and Faurlin, I still think that combination should be given another chance.
Yes it would have been a gamble but that's what managers are paid mega bucks for, and I agree Perch did ok when he came on but that was purely to fight fires and defend. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:45]
|
I thought it was a mistake to leave Henry and Toszer on again especially in a 4-4-2.
On the goal I thought Onouha was dreadful again, switched off and let Judge just run into space and he does that every week | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:41 - Oct 31 with 4147 views | Neil_SI |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:31 - Oct 31 by Blue_Castello |
Well I'm with you on this one, as Dave says the only option would have been three at the back but that would have been the brave and adventurous option.
What we ended up with was a toothless 4-4-2 on the pitch, Chery and Luongo were removed who were our creative attacking threats. We had a midfield two of Henry and Toszer which the majority on here agree is nowhere near good enough in that type of formation.
It appeared because the midfield two were so ineffective we resorted to hoofball which was a total disaster, Philips had another poor game, he's nowhere near as good as his reputation.
The reason we should have gone to three at the back was there for all to see, we were being totally outplayed in the middle of the park.
There was the option to bring either Doughty or Faurlin on both would have added extra energy to the midfield, Faurlin would have done something our midfield players were incapable of and that's keeping possession and looking for a pass, Doughty would have been a good option if you wanted somebody with pace to contest for the ball. I know Faurlins lost some of his pace and he was never the quickest but I still don't think he would have been eaten alive.
I didn't go to the Huddersfield away game but we won that 1-0 with a midfield of Doughty and Faurlin, I still think that combination should be given another chance.
Yes it would have been a gamble but that's what managers are paid mega bucks for, and I agree Perch did ok when he came on but that was purely to fight fires and defend. [Post edited 31 Oct 2015 11:45]
|
You have to look at it this way. There's been a lot of clamour for 4-4-2 and playing two strikers, and we did that for a period in this match with JET and Austin. Yet we barely created anything as a result, and they were hardly involved. Austin had so few touches of the ball.
If you do not have ball playing defenders, it's always going to cause you problems when you try to build up play. If they do not pick the right first or second passes, or do not make the right movement in terms of angles to provide triggers for movement ahead of them that generates options, then you're always putting yourself at the mercy of probability balls.
Here's where we could improve in the 4-4-2 sense. If you play direct like we did, which is fine, if you have two powerful forwards, then there's two ways to go about it. One is to try and play down the flanks, and have your wide men be in form and be able to beat their man and put balls into the box, and then ensure players are getting in the box and anticipating the balls from those areas.
We didn't do that well enough at all. We have creative players who are lacking a little bit of confidence to be able to beat their man, let alone get a ball in. But even with one up top, when we got wide, we had players like JET not really getting into dangerous areas in the box. When we had two up top, often it was Austin lurking around somewhere and sometimes a wide player, like a Hoilett trying to support, but without conviction. In the same way I guess, as Phillips not showing enough conviction with that header he had. If that was Austin, it would surely have been a goal.
The second is the type of ball in from the defensive players. If you don't go down the wides, you can deliver from deep, but diagonally across the box. We never played that type of ball, and I think that type of ball would have worked better with the two up top. So if you imagine this scenario, Perch or Onouha are on the right, they should cross all the way to the far side of the box with one of the two strikers loading up back there in a bid to win the header and put it across the box (think of the ball played to JET for his goal at MK Dons, just like that). When that ball is in the air, the supporting runners need to break into the box or join just outside to scoop up clearances. It's really that simple. That's how you play direct and effective. But we played so many straight balls and lacked that bit of intelligence to give ourselves a better chance. | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:50 - Oct 31 with 4104 views | HollowayHoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:26 - Oct 31 by Neil_SI |
The way Brentford packed and flooded the midfield area, would have meant someone like Faurlin would have been eaten alive and overrun. This wasn't the match for him, and our midfield struggled to cope with that as it was, although we could have done with Toszer having a better game, because his passing wasn't as good as it could have been.
Henry covered an awful lot of ground in that match from back to front, but nobody will realise that, he worked harder than anybody on the pitch and covered a lot of distance.
But, the way Brentford flooded the midfield, and then had their full-backs overlapping into wide areas, would have left us wide open if we switched to three at the back. That's not something you'd want to do at that stage of the game, when you want to stay in it as long as possible to see if you can create something. Sure, perhaps it's fine to do that in the very last minutes, if you're willing to throw caution to the wind and be happy with losing 2-0 in a bid to try and get the equaliser. But as our performance had disintegrated after the goal, I think doing that would have more likely led to a 2-0 loss (and further groans) than a 1-0 or 1-1.
We conceded a soft goal, and the person who should have done better first was Jay Emmanuel-Thomas. He was too flimsy and casual, and should have done better at contesting the pass played to him. He didn't hold up the ball well enough all night, and Luongo apart, neither did any of our front players. Onouha may have looked lazy to peoples eyes, but it's because in that turnover of possession and scramble to react, we panicked, and he tried to play the player offside and didn't get it right, but the damage had already been done though how cheaply we conceded possession in the first place. That scenario would have been repeated much more easily if we switched to three at the back.
Welcome to the board. :) |
Anyway, the only person who know's conclusively what would or would not have happened had we brought on Faurlin and switched a back 3 is Clive, so I guess we'll just have to wait for his match report. | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 12:43 - Oct 31 with 3933 views | TheBlob |
Yes,welcome to the board.
It's refreshing to find someone called Holloway that can spell and is not obsessed with impregnating lesbians.
You must have a half decent job in order to be contemplating stumbling up the aisle.
Lend us a tenner. |  |
| |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 13:01 - Oct 31 with 3909 views | Toast_R |
I'm with Hollowayhoop. The midfield was not working all game and Ramsey did nothing to try and solve the problem. High balls to JET the whole night ensued. With the players at his disposal that crap football was just not good enough
[Post edited 31 Oct 2015 13:05]
|  | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 13:30 - Oct 31 with 3856 views | Bluce_Ree |
Play the game the exact way again but have Luongo's two shots go in rather than hit the post and this would have been a gutsy away performance.
This isn't the game that gets Ramsey sacked. |  |
| ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE THROUGH MARTI THE REDEEMER WHO STRENGTHENS ME. |
| |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 13:48 - Oct 31 with 3814 views | Addinall |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 13:30 - Oct 31 by Bluce_Ree |
Play the game the exact way again but have Luongo's two shots go in rather than hit the post and this would have been a gutsy away performance.
This isn't the game that gets Ramsey sacked. |
Precisely! | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 14:04 - Oct 31 with 3775 views | JAPRANGERS |
Wow I didn't know Holloway could write such an erudite post. Thought he was too into his lesbians for anything else! |  | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 14:16 - Oct 31 with 3751 views | Toast_R |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 14:04 - Oct 31 by JAPRANGERS |
Wow I didn't know Holloway could write such an erudite post. Thought he was too into his lesbians for anything else! |
Different Holloway | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 14:51 - Oct 31 with 3681 views | JAPRANGERS |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 14:16 - Oct 31 by Toast_R |
Different Holloway |
You mean there are 2 Holloways??  | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 15:01 - Oct 31 with 3646 views | kensalriser |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 12:43 - Oct 31 by TheBlob |
Yes,welcome to the board.
It's refreshing to find someone called Holloway that can spell and is not obsessed with impregnating lesbians.
You must have a half decent job in order to be contemplating stumbling up the aisle.
Lend us a tenner. |
If enough of us lend you a tenner, Blob, will you come to a game with your bro? |  |
| |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 15:05 - Oct 31 with 3619 views | sevenhoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 11:41 - Oct 31 by Neil_SI |
You have to look at it this way. There's been a lot of clamour for 4-4-2 and playing two strikers, and we did that for a period in this match with JET and Austin. Yet we barely created anything as a result, and they were hardly involved. Austin had so few touches of the ball.
If you do not have ball playing defenders, it's always going to cause you problems when you try to build up play. If they do not pick the right first or second passes, or do not make the right movement in terms of angles to provide triggers for movement ahead of them that generates options, then you're always putting yourself at the mercy of probability balls.
Here's where we could improve in the 4-4-2 sense. If you play direct like we did, which is fine, if you have two powerful forwards, then there's two ways to go about it. One is to try and play down the flanks, and have your wide men be in form and be able to beat their man and put balls into the box, and then ensure players are getting in the box and anticipating the balls from those areas.
We didn't do that well enough at all. We have creative players who are lacking a little bit of confidence to be able to beat their man, let alone get a ball in. But even with one up top, when we got wide, we had players like JET not really getting into dangerous areas in the box. When we had two up top, often it was Austin lurking around somewhere and sometimes a wide player, like a Hoilett trying to support, but without conviction. In the same way I guess, as Phillips not showing enough conviction with that header he had. If that was Austin, it would surely have been a goal.
The second is the type of ball in from the defensive players. If you don't go down the wides, you can deliver from deep, but diagonally across the box. We never played that type of ball, and I think that type of ball would have worked better with the two up top. So if you imagine this scenario, Perch or Onouha are on the right, they should cross all the way to the far side of the box with one of the two strikers loading up back there in a bid to win the header and put it across the box (think of the ball played to JET for his goal at MK Dons, just like that). When that ball is in the air, the supporting runners need to break into the box or join just outside to scoop up clearances. It's really that simple. That's how you play direct and effective. But we played so many straight balls and lacked that bit of intelligence to give ourselves a better chance. |
Neil, in your desperation to be "reasonable" and "understanding", you do come up with a load of cobblers. why not the game for Faurlin, exactly? Why, because they "flooded their midfield" did that mean that Faurlin couldn't cope. Why would you not have your classiest midfielder on in those circustances (or under any circumstances for that matter). Henry (uselessly "covering a lot of ground" a better option than Faurlin? do me a favour. |  | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 15:12 - Oct 31 with 3594 views | QPR_John |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 13:30 - Oct 31 by Bluce_Ree |
Play the game the exact way again but have Luongo's two shots go in rather than hit the post and this would have been a gutsy away performance.
This isn't the game that gets Ramsey sacked. |
But that did not happen did it. I could easily have said after the MK Dons match that if the goals did not go in what a poor performance it was. Equally ridiculous. | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 16:54 - Oct 31 with 3504 views | HollowayHoop |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 13:30 - Oct 31 by Bluce_Ree |
Play the game the exact way again but have Luongo's two shots go in rather than hit the post and this would have been a gutsy away performance.
This isn't the game that gets Ramsey sacked. |
I agree, and had we been winning or drawing at the time then the substitution would have been easier to justify. For me it was the wrong sub to make and guess what, we lost and created little in the final 15 minutes. We were one decent ball from faurlin to Phillips/Austin/JET away from a point. Instead ... Well, we all know what happened in the end. | | | |
| The straw that broke the camel's back on 17:00 - Oct 31 with 3478 views | captainmycaptian |
Did some one mention impregnating lesbians ? as this is a profession i would enjoys doing where do i apply ?? | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
