[SmethDan]

Good post Liam.

However I think those who believe our best form of defence is attack are basing their opinions on evidence based examples garnered from game week one as opposed to the more recent time frame.

The ramparts have been reinforced since game week twenty three but they stand on foundations of cranial incontinence. We're only ever a brain fart from being in a right old mess.

I believe they believe we're better off dumping our bombs on our opponents heads before our opponents dump their bombs on ours. Or summat like that.

[NJS]

3 pts off safety, 25 games to play and a transfer window, is not impossible.

Just curious, why do you think we hired Sam on the contract we did if everyone involved thought staying up was impossible?

It wasn't impossible, it has only turned out to be impossible.  We needed the safety line to be a lot lower and it simply hasn't transpired that way.

The Titanic was unsinkable but it turned out that it was sinkable - stuff happens.   Maybe if we'd have been 3 points above safety ...

[Albionic]

I keep seeing posters referring to us being unable to defend and therefore our set up wrong.

Our best premier league form has always been when we have been pragmatic, hard to beat and clinical when needed. The assumption from some is that we need to go full throttle attack which will clearly open up the team and actually make us more vulnerable to defeats.

If you review our form from match day 23 which was a defeat against Spurs then our record is the following:

14 points from 12 games, 12th in the league. In that time we’ve scored 13 goals and conceded 13. Worth noting that those period of fixtures included Chelsea, man United, Leicester and Tottenham whereby we conceded 8 of those 13 goals.

Our defensive record in that time are joint 5th for the best in the division. Throughout that period only 9 teams have scored more goals than us and those teams are the top 7.

This side is hard to beat, it is competitive and with a distinctly average bunch of players is showing the hallmarks of a good side in this division.

This notion that we’re not any good at defending and that it does not suit us is simply untrue. They are demonstrating that they are capable of defending in this division. Furthermore, some of our forward play has been easy on the eye and had we been more clinical in some games then our points tally would be greater.

I’ve used the benchmark of week 23 as that is when SA had the full quota of loan signings to choose from. I accept that it has taken to long to get here, but for a side which were whipping boys before Christmas, then I am pleased to finally see this bunch of players showing some resolve in this division.

Simply put our best performances and points yielded came from defending from the front, not capitulating on our 18yd line. So what did the genius do, revert to the 18yard line. 

[boinging_along]

It's an amazing point of view though.  The job is possible, until it turns out to be impossible - then you can say the job was actually impossible from when they were hired.  No failure to see here - it was impossible from the start - except when it actually started and it was possible.  But it's impossible now.  I think I've got it.

Staying up was possible if we knew the number of points needed to stay up would be a record low.  We didn't know that at the time - 38 pts is the average of what's been needed the last 5 years.  It seems entirely fair to say the board, the manager and the players all thought that 38 pts was in reach - that's why we made the change and brough Sam in.   

I don't recall a single interview where anyone from the club said we can only stay up if the number of points needed is 32 or something.  If they had, and someone can link me up to it, I'll reverse my opinion on Sam's success as we'll be near enough the target.

[Atomic]

Simply put our best performances and points yielded came from defending from the front, not capitulating on our 18yd line. So what did the genius do, revert to the 18yard line. 

Are you trying to tell me we didnt revert to the 18 yard box under Pulis? I remember one particular game vs a poor Stoke side at home and we didnt cross the half way line other than Rondon for the first 25 minutes.

Liam is bang on right with everything he says.

We didnt retreat to the 18 yard box against Wolves either. They pushed their full backs forward in support of their wide men which kept our wing backs back so we couldn't get out. That's how you can succeed against wing backs if you play a four at the back you overload the wide areas 2 on 1 and it makes it very difficult for the other team to impose themselves, especially if they fail to keep the ball well.

[ronnie_allen]

The Zonal Marking podcast from the Athletic did a piece on the three (effectively) relegated clubs today. One guy does consistently talk in XG  (Expected goals)  to an annoying extent and doesn't tend to provide much insight beyond that. So I do tend to take his input with a pinch of salt.

Still interesting that extrapolating out Bilic's portion of the season in charge would have seen us been the worst performing team on that basis over past six years. Since Allardyce's return we have been on the cusp of teetering just above the relegation zone; including the succession of games we were getting regularly battered 3 , 4 or 5 to nil.

A mixture of fitness and getting decent signings that had relatively quick impact I think are probably the two main reasons for that.

[DaveWBA]

I keep seeing posters referring to us being unable to defend and therefore our set up wrong.

Our best premier league form has always been when we have been pragmatic, hard to beat and clinical when needed. The assumption from some is that we need to go full throttle attack which will clearly open up the team and actually make us more vulnerable to defeats.

If you review our form from match day 23 which was a defeat against Spurs then our record is the following:

14 points from 12 games, 12th in the league. In that time we’ve scored 13 goals and conceded 13. Worth noting that those period of fixtures included Chelsea, man United, Leicester and Tottenham whereby we conceded 8 of those 13 goals.

Our defensive record in that time are joint 5th for the best in the division. Throughout that period only 9 teams have scored more goals than us and those teams are the top 7.

This side is hard to beat, it is competitive and with a distinctly average bunch of players is showing the hallmarks of a good side in this division.

This notion that we’re not any good at defending and that it does not suit us is simply untrue. They are demonstrating that they are capable of defending in this division. Furthermore, some of our forward play has been easy on the eye and had we been more clinical in some games then our points tally would be greater.

I’ve used the benchmark of week 23 as that is when SA had the full quota of loan signings to choose from. I accept that it has taken to long to get here, but for a side which were whipping boys before Christmas, then I am pleased to finally see this bunch of players showing some resolve in this division.

Lock this thread and throw away the key, nothing more needs to be said on the subject.

I didn't want Allardyce, but at least he's made us competitive. A far cry from the unfit, disorganised shambles we were for the last ten months under Bilic.

[boinging_along]

Are you trying to tell me we didnt revert to the 18 yard box under Pulis? I remember one particular game vs a poor Stoke side at home and we didnt cross the half way line other than Rondon for the first 25 minutes.

Liam is bang on right with everything he says.

We didnt retreat to the 18 yard box against Wolves either. They pushed their full backs forward in support of their wide men which kept our wing backs back so we couldn't get out. That's how you can succeed against wing backs if you play a four at the back you overload the wide areas 2 on 1 and it makes it very difficult for the other team to impose themselves, especially if they fail to keep the ball well.

No idea why you're going on about Pulis - we don't want those days back do we?

We did retreat to the 18 yard box against Wolves, especially early on before we were forced to make the change because we got the set up so wrong.  I can't remember when the start was produced - sometime during the 1st half but I mention it in the match thread - but 3% of the play was in Wolves' THIRD of the pitch.  Even at the start when we expected them to line up with 3 at the back and they went with 4 - it should have meant our wingbacks would get forward and we'd have the extra man in midfield.  Except we barely got out of our half.  Where was our goal going to come from with the only two attacking players on the pitch being Pierera and Diangana?

This is why some of us have a problem with Sam.  When we choose these tactics we lose all control of the game and don't even look vaguely like a threat.  It's just defending for your lives, smashing it clear and giving the ball away and hoping we hold on.  When we press further up the pitch, win the ball back earlier, and attack we look miles better.   

Which makes it mind-boggling that Sam keeps reverting to the 18 yard line tactics.  It only takes a long range effort, the ball to drop kindly, a mistake from a defender and that's you conceded.  It's what happened against Villa - when we attacked we looked dangerous, when we sat deeper and deeper we look shakey.  It doesn't help that we don't have a keeper who commands his box, and we have a mistake waiting to happen in Ajayi, or fullbacks prone to being caught out of position. 

We are better at it now than when Sam took over (not hard, you can't keep being battered 3/4/5 to nill all the time), but it's still not the strength of the team.  And in situations like ours, where we need the 3 points - it seems an even crazier approach. 

[boinging_along]

The thing is, we don't have that balance between defence and attack. 

We've got better at defending when we stick every many on the edge of our own box - you'd expect that.  But when we do that we don't have any possession and it completely nullifies any attacking strategy we have beyond "win a set piece".  We don't seem to have a plan on how to transition from defending deep to getting possession further up the field other than hoping Diagne chases something down.

When we've pushed teams onto the backfoot, we've lost a bit defensively but it means we've scored goals and look a threat.  The goals for\against over the last few weeks looks great but we're a Jekyll and Hyde team when it comes to tactics.

The closest we've come to that balance was against Southampton - and our tactics were much closer to the game against Chelsea than it was to the game against Wolves.

[Atomic]

No idea why you're going on about Pulis - we don't want those days back do we?

We did retreat to the 18 yard box against Wolves, especially early on before we were forced to make the change because we got the set up so wrong.  I can't remember when the start was produced - sometime during the 1st half but I mention it in the match thread - but 3% of the play was in Wolves' THIRD of the pitch.  Even at the start when we expected them to line up with 3 at the back and they went with 4 - it should have meant our wingbacks would get forward and we'd have the extra man in midfield.  Except we barely got out of our half.  Where was our goal going to come from with the only two attacking players on the pitch being Pierera and Diangana?

This is why some of us have a problem with Sam.  When we choose these tactics we lose all control of the game and don't even look vaguely like a threat.  It's just defending for your lives, smashing it clear and giving the ball away and hoping we hold on.  When we press further up the pitch, win the ball back earlier, and attack we look miles better.   

Which makes it mind-boggling that Sam keeps reverting to the 18 yard line tactics.  It only takes a long range effort, the ball to drop kindly, a mistake from a defender and that's you conceded.  It's what happened against Villa - when we attacked we looked dangerous, when we sat deeper and deeper we look shakey.  It doesn't help that we don't have a keeper who commands his box, and we have a mistake waiting to happen in Ajayi, or fullbacks prone to being caught out of position. 

We are better at it now than when Sam took over (not hard, you can't keep being battered 3/4/5 to nill all the time), but it's still not the strength of the team.  And in situations like ours, where we need the 3 points - it seems an even crazier approach.

I just posted a detailed reply to your post but my phone got rid of it for some reason and I cant be bothered to type it all again.

So you get away with it this time. 😉

[Adder]

His pre-match interviews have been 'interesting' of late.
Before the Leicester game he was airing his gripe about the fixtures with having to play Villa on the Sunday...hardly a positive vibe. We played that game against Leicester as though we were minimising energy output.
Then against Wolves he talked about having to be solid...hardly get on the front foot stuff. I had no problems with the team that was picked but the positive intent wasn't there. We've seen it enough it's hard to go up through the gears when you start slowly.

[Albionic]

Are you trying to tell me we didnt revert to the 18 yard box under Pulis? I remember one particular game vs a poor Stoke side at home and we didnt cross the half way line other than Rondon for the first 25 minutes.

Liam is bang on right with everything he says.

We didnt retreat to the 18 yard box against Wolves either. They pushed their full backs forward in support of their wide men which kept our wing backs back so we couldn't get out. That's how you can succeed against wing backs if you play a four at the back you overload the wide areas 2 on 1 and it makes it very difficult for the other team to impose themselves, especially if they fail to keep the ball well.

Please don't use Pulis as justification for tactical aplomb, the coward was inept and comparing SA to him sort of justifies my stance

[alex1]

It's an amazing point of view though.  The job is possible, until it turns out to be impossible - then you can say the job was actually impossible from when they were hired.  No failure to see here - it was impossible from the start - except when it actually started and it was possible.  But it's impossible now.  I think I've got it.

Staying up was possible if we knew the number of points needed to stay up would be a record low.  We didn't know that at the time - 38 pts is the average of what's been needed the last 5 years.  It seems entirely fair to say the board, the manager and the players all thought that 38 pts was in reach - that's why we made the change and brough Sam in.   

I don't recall a single interview where anyone from the club said we can only stay up if the number of points needed is 32 or something.  If they had, and someone can link me up to it, I'll reverse my opinion on Sam's success as we'll be near enough the target.

I think its a waste of time trying to guess how many points will be needed to survive relegation. Allardyce did it as well when he started.  It's different every season and nobody can predict all the results of the teams involved. You should be just trying to get the maximum points from every game.

[johnny Cash]

It as if people think we decide how the game will go and the opposition have no say in it.

Opposition performance
Momentum
Confidence
The way the opening 5 minutes of a match go and who grabs the initiative.

All things that could make a game plan in any individual match silly or ill thought out. He judged the situation and made a change. Most managers wouldn't have. We still conceded after the change but it was still the right call. 

The 'he was employed to keep us up and won't so he's failed and should go' is also such a lazy argument I'm struggling for the inclination to argue with it in any depth.

Liam's post is fantastic. We are much improved under Allardyce, the results are much better and for me at least he inspires confidence that he will take us in the right direction. I do share some of Stan's reservations about problems he could leave us with, but that up to Dowling (unfortunately) to manage him and keep a bigger picture in mind.

SA will no doubt want some assurances for next season, like he did for this but it doesn't seem like he was overly unreasonable since he only got 3 loans and free transfer with at least some money coming back in from moving Krov and Austin out.









 

[TheJacko2000]

It as if people think we decide how the game will go and the opposition have no say in it.

Opposition performance
Momentum
Confidence
The way the opening 5 minutes of a match go and who grabs the initiative.

All things that could make a game plan in any individual match silly or ill thought out. He judged the situation and made a change. Most managers wouldn't have. We still conceded after the change but it was still the right call. 

The 'he was employed to keep us up and won't so he's failed and should go' is also such a lazy argument I'm struggling for the inclination to argue with it in any depth.

Liam's post is fantastic. We are much improved under Allardyce, the results are much better and for me at least he inspires confidence that he will take us in the right direction. I do share some of Stan's reservations about problems he could leave us with, but that up to Dowling (unfortunately) to manage him and keep a bigger picture in mind.

SA will no doubt want some assurances for next season, like he did for this but it doesn't seem like he was overly unreasonable since he only got 3 loans and free transfer with at least some money coming back in from moving Krov and Austin out.

Momentum particularly is lost on a lot of posters on here. Teams that are winning very often get pushed back as the opposition seek parity. Not always, as stated with depressing inevitability on here, choosing to sit back.

[baggiejohn]

It as if people think we decide how the game will go and the opposition have no say in it.

Opposition performance
Momentum
Confidence
The way the opening 5 minutes of a match go and who grabs the initiative.

All things that could make a game plan in any individual match silly or ill thought out. He judged the situation and made a change. Most managers wouldn't have. We still conceded after the change but it was still the right call. 

The 'he was employed to keep us up and won't so he's failed and should go' is also such a lazy argument I'm struggling for the inclination to argue with it in any depth.

Liam's post is fantastic. We are much improved under Allardyce, the results are much better and for me at least he inspires confidence that he will take us in the right direction. I do share some of Stan's reservations about problems he could leave us with, but that up to Dowling (unfortunately) to manage him and keep a bigger picture in mind.

SA will no doubt want some assurances for next season, like he did for this but it doesn't seem like he was overly unreasonable since he only got 3 loans and free transfer with at least some money coming back in from moving Krov and Austin out.

Think I would take issue with the sentence in bold being a lazy argument.

SA was employed to keep us up & (baring a miracle) he has failed, had he succeeded, undoubtedly his tenure would have been extended.

The fact that he failed allows the football club to revue their position & look for the best way forward.

Personally, I'm on the same page as Stan, if it were my FC, I'd look towards a re-build with a much stronger structure, which would be more attractive to a buyer.

From commentators who know the Chinese political scene well, it looks as though GL is under some considerable pressure to get rid. So it's likely that we'll end up with a cobbled together, lowest possible cost, sticking plaster solution. I couldn't think of another manager better equipped to deliver that than SA.

[SirTonyM]

I know nuance is lost in modern discourse but for me Allardyces tenure has both positive and negative too it. It’s obvious we are more competitive and in games and harder to beat now we have a more settled side and more quality. Allardyce bringing in Yoksulu particularly made a difference and shows he saw some of our deficiencies.
On the flip side we haven’t won games we should have and will be relegated and we will likely end up not even coming close to staying up points wise.
The way the conversation on the thread has gone at times you’d think Sams either Terry Connor or Guardiola. What if he’s done ok but not brilliant. If he stays fair enough I don’t actually mind but I would also be open to someone else. This season bar Chelsea and the Dingles feels pretty forgettable.

[baggie82]

Momentum particularly is lost on a lot of posters on here. Teams that are winning very often get pushed back as the opposition seek parity. Not always, as stated with depressing inevitability on here, choosing to sit back.

That was Mourinho's excuse to explain the setbacks at Spurs before he got the sack. Allardyce likes to play with a lower block than Bilic, that's obvious, that doesn't make him Tony Pulis either - he's not that sort of dinosaur.

[Albionic]

Momentum particularly is lost on a lot of posters on here. Teams that are winning very often get pushed back as the opposition seek parity. Not always, as stated with depressing inevitability on here, choosing to sit back.

Momentum is bi-directional, go in front and push on to positively win the game rather than go passive or defensive

[johnny Cash]

Think I would take issue with the sentence in bold being a lazy argument.

SA was employed to keep us up & (baring a miracle) he has failed, had he succeeded, undoubtedly his tenure would have been extended.

The fact that he failed allows the football club to revue their position & look for the best way forward.

Personally, I'm on the same page as Stan, if it were my FC, I'd look towards a re-build with a much stronger structure, which would be more attractive to a buyer.

From commentators who know the Chinese political scene well, it looks as though GL is under some considerable pressure to get rid. So it's likely that we'll end up with a cobbled together, lowest possible cost, sticking plaster solution. I couldn't think of another manager better equipped to deliver that than SA.

Sam Allardyce was employed to ‘try’ and keep us up. It’s an important distinction. I very much doubt he ever made any guarantees.

Unfortunately until he was able to change some personnel he found it difficult. I think given the position we were in and how bad we were, the majority of managers would have struggled, good and bad.

[wodenson46]

Think I would take issue with the sentence in bold being a lazy argument.

SA was employed to keep us up & (baring a miracle) he has failed, had he succeeded, undoubtedly his tenure would have been extended.

The fact that he failed allows the football club to revue their position & look for the best way forward.

Personally, I'm on the same page as Stan, if it were my FC, I'd look towards a re-build with a much stronger structure, which would be more attractive to a buyer.

From commentators who know the Chinese political scene well, it looks as though GL is under some considerable pressure to get rid. So it's likely that we'll end up with a cobbled together, lowest possible cost, sticking plaster solution. I couldn't think of another manager better equipped to deliver that than SA.

Not an Allardyce fan and will be glad when he has gone, but this is an excellent point, and most unfortunately I have to agree with the last part as well. 

[TheJacko2000]

Nominated for manager of the month for April. Well done Big Sam.

[Droitwich Baggie]

Nominated for manager of the month for April. Well done Big Sam.

That's us stuffed.

[wodenson46]

Nominated for manager of the month for April. Well done Big Sam.

Not by me he wasn't

[smethwickw]

That's us stuffed.

4 defeats to come then.