Rnd 5 Vs Roar @ Suncorp. Friday 7.50pm

[KSK_47]

3 minutes ago, haz said:

We caused that type of reffing from our previous performances, Lowe, Muscat and Bambi have all come out in the last few weeks saying how we are to soft and the referees need to open their etc. etc. So particularly after Kilkenny's Broadway performance last week, we will constantly see this happen over the next couple of matches.

Yup. Thanks for the theatrics guys. Its been really helpful

[bt50]

We were shit but we still had more than enough free kicks and corners to get something out of that. Real off night for Brattan, and our crossing and final ball was putrid all night.

Was reminiscent of watching Everton under Martinez last season we were that slow with moving the ball. 
Don't think it cost us the game given how bad our set pieces were, but we were absolutely monstered by the ref all night, playing right into Aloisi's bullshit through the week. Sucked in Peter Green you twat.

The ultimate irony was Brisbane playing anti football and going down easy in the challenge on numerous occasions.

[n i k o]

Wish I could be a fly on the wall when the video analysis of this match gets sent back to Manchester 

[KSK_47]

5 minutes ago, bt50 said:

 

Was reminiscent of watching Melbourne City under JVS last season we were that slow with moving the ball. 

 

[Dylan]

So we were beaten by anti football?

[KSK_47]

The blueprint to topple City

After their 4-1 derby demolition of city rivals Victory, fans, pundits and coaches alike where left asking: just how can City be stopped?

Five matches into the season and that question looks to have been answered, firstly by Kenny Lowe and now John Aloisi. Block the central areas and allow minimal forward run, particularly from Luke Brattan.

He looked threatening whenever he picked up possession in the early rounds and made teams pay many a time, but the same cannot be said against Roar. Brattan’s influence was mooted, particularly by a tireless Matt McKay.

Such was Brisbane’s sturdiness, City failed to register a shot on target despite clocking up 61% of possession, 489 passes and 10 corners.

Less glamorous, but no less effective

http://outside90.com/talking-points-brisbane-roar-1-melbourne-city-0-city-clickers-suffocated-917/

[thisphantomfortress]

TTDIM; going out for dinner with friends instead of watching this game

[KSK_47]

3 minutes ago, thisphantomfortress said:

TTDIM; going out for dinner with friends instead of watching this game

I am so jealous of you right now! 

[japiedog]

haven't read anyone else analysis

quite simply, Kenny Lowe and Perth showed how to stop us

Bambi and BrisVegas did it better,

not a single shot on target says something

our corners , we must have had 10 or so, the delivery was very poor

 

[KSK_47]

13 minutes ago, japiedog said:

haven't read anyone else analysis

quite simply, Kenny Lowe and Perth showed how to stop us

Bambi and BrisVegas did it better,

not a single shot on target says something

our corners , we must have had 10 or so, the delivery was very poor

 

Pretty much sums it up

[Kiro Kompiro]

3 hours ago, haz said:

We caused that type of reffing from our previous performances, Lowe, Muscat and Bambi have all come out in the last few weeks saying how we are to soft and the referees need to open their etc. etc. So particularly after Kilkenny's Broadway performance last week, we will constantly see this happen over the next couple of matches.

It actually says more about how insecure the FFA and the League is for football  to be seen as a physical game.

Simulation and exageration happens in every sport.  Preductably the FFA over-reacted to Aloisi's whinge and the ref allowed our players to be kicked off the park- even Michael Bridges couldn't believe one incident in the second half where our player was smashed to the ground with no attempt on the ball. Also since when is a deliberate double shirt pull back after being beaten by the winger not a yellow?

The real issue with the A-League this season has been the incessant butchering and clear reds not given.  Its been a hack's paradise so far.  We're not innocent in this BTW.

 

[Harrison]

Read in the paper yesterday an article about the match, with JVS talking about their counter attacking style. I was meaning to post something along the lines of 'we should be prepared, no excuses' but I'm glad I didn't.

Honestly, how can you persist with a back three (comprised of only one actual CB) and let them choke the midfield, knowing full well that they will overload when going forward? Retre and Kilkenny are very similar, and as said by others Caceres would have given us a bit more creativity where it mattered. 

Individually we were not up to standard, but it just seemed like a complete tactical defeat to me. Outcoached, again.

[Kiro Kompiro]

1 hour ago, Harrison said:

Read in the paper yesterday an article about the match, with JVS talking about their counter attacking style. I was meaning to post something along the lines of 'we should be prepared, no excuses' but I'm glad I didn't.

Honestly, how can you persist with a back three (comprised of only one actual CB) and let them choke the midfield, knowing full well that they will overload when going forward? Retre and Kilkenny are very similar, and as said by others Caceres would have given us a bit more creativity where it mattered. 

Individually we were not up to standard, but it just seemed like a complete tactical defeat to me. Outcoached, again.

What if JVS has been told by CFG he has to play 3 at the back no matter what?

[playmaker]

21 minutes ago, Kiro Kompiro said:

What if JVS has been told by CFG he has to play 3 at the back no matter what?

Then he needs to play 3 real CBs and 2 DMs.

Edited November 5, 2016 by playmaker

[belaguttman]

12 hours ago, playmaker said:

 

Retre in front of Caceres

3 back defending defending forward 3

 

This is the problem, if we'd played a back 4 then we could have chosen a more attacking midfield and started with Caceras, instead he chose the more conservative option of Retre

[playmaker]

9 minutes ago, belaguttman said:

This is the problem, if we'd played a back 4 then we could have chosen a more attacking midfield and started with Caceras, instead he chose the more conservative option of Retre

Problems is I didn't see Retre dropping deep very much, and I think Caceres is better at pressing in the midfield, forcing the turnover, and creating via better distribution. Caceres is a much better player where Retre just tends to get lost and becomes positionally ineffective.

[belaguttman]

3 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Problems is I didn't see Retre dropping deep very much, and I think Caceres is better at pressing in the midfield, forcing the turnover, and creating via better distribution. Caceres is a much better player where Retre just tends to get lost and becomes positionally ineffective.

Yes, another problem, Retre was positioned as if he were Caceras. He's no Caceras

[kingofhearts]

13 hours ago, Kiro Kompiro said:

Any shots on target?

You'll be back...they always come back

When people say they are going to stop supporting the team

 

[tommac]

I'll bet anything that we won't make the top 2 this year with JVS as coach. This season will be really similar to last IMO. 

He has come up with tactics that will produce inconsistent performances over the course of the season. Some games we will dominate and teams won't be able to deal with our attack, and others will be like last night. Against teams who like to sit deeper, play compact and hit on the counter ( Perth, Roar, Sydney) why can we not try 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or a compact 4-4-2?

Our go-to formation is the perfect template to LOSE against those teams, and we make them look a million bucks. We have so little play between the lines in the middle of the park. We need Brattan and Kilkenny on the ball centrally, playing incisive passes into our wingers/ attacking midfielders  and Bruno who are finding space between defenders and midfield. At the moment, Kilkenny is restricted by having to be constantly cautious of us losing the ball and being hit on be counter,  and Brattan is more often than not stuck too wide on the right. With Cahill not really a creative #10,  but someone who is adept at arriving late in the box we have no creativity in the MIDDLE of the pitch. 

This means slow SLOW build up, not many incisive passes centrally or players receiving the ball on the turn and going at the defence ( like Holman did last night very often). This also means defences are set and the threat of Cahill's timed runs into the box to finish crosses is nullified. 

Overall, so many reasons why we need at LEAST a plan B to switch to in games, or even better a different plan A against teams we know like to sit deep and play on the counter. 

Up to JVS to change it now, and based on history- it's unlikely to happen. 4th place here we come!

Edited November 5, 2016 by tommac

[haz]

16 minutes ago, tommac said:

Up to JVS to change it now, and based on history- it's unlikely to happen. 4th place here we come!

JVS Coaching Book

Step 1: Choose formation (do not change!)

Step 2: Win a few games, particularly derbies

Step 3: Lose and remain expressionless on the sideline.

Step 4: Be within mathematical chance of winning the premieres plates with 5 rounds to go

Step 5: Finish fourth

Step 6: Unconvincing loss in semi-final

 

Rinse and repeat!

Edited November 5, 2016 by haz

[playmaker]

Often with my mates I refer to the Italian team in the Euros where they played a very similar system. They played a pressing 3 back with fast wing backs, a target forward with a fast goal poacher. Our players are perfectly suited to this 5 3 2 formation even with Colazo out.

Its a pretty simple counter attacking game plan really, defensively solid, and doesn't rely on the complexities of the high possession game.

Main difference is Conte vs JVS.

[belaguttman]

6 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Often with my mates I refer to the Italian team in the Euros where they played a very similar system. They played a pressing 3 back with fast wing backs, a target forward with a fast goal poacher. Our players are perfectly suited to this 5 3 2 formation even with Colazo out.

Its a pretty simple counter attacking game plan really, defensively solid, and doesn't rely on the complexities of the high possession game.

Main difference is Conte vs JVS.

Just a little bit of difference there! 

[Jestr]

I'm not sold on Fitzgerald. 

Kid runs hard and tries to penetrate along the side lines  

however when it comes to penetration with his passes or delivery into the box he falls short too many times. 

A little too predictable 

I like the kid but he needs to work on it

[Torn Asunder]

As ineffective as our play was, to their credit the players still tried pretty hard to force the issue for the full 90. It must have been pretty draining physically and mentally to have the ball that much and not get any type of foothold in the game. 

JVS clearly out coached by anti football.

Strangely I am confident that the football department (with the help of CFG) will work out a way to beat the bus parking tactic when employed against us. But last night, the post match was fascinating in that JVS literally had no answer ... he looked so lost.  

Edited November 5, 2016 by Torn Asunder

[haz]

8 minutes ago, Torn Asunder said:

But last night, the post match was fascinating in that JVS literally had no answer ... he looked so lost.  

Isn't this what he is like all the time? 

[Alexxxandro]

17 hours ago, belaguttman said:

Plan B is Plan A, JVS clueless and out coached by Ross Aloisi

Subtle but beautiful.

[Jacques Le Cube]

• Kamau and Brandan are completely nullified when they can't beat their direct opponents with pace.

 

• Brandan, Bruno and Cahill are all finishers, we lack a creator (hopefully its Colazo)

 

• The number of times Brattan, Retre and Kilkenny had the ball 25 yards out and didn't know what to do was very concerning. Despite having 5 or 6 players ahead of them, none of them are making runs to receive the ball.

 

• We have no attacking structure, no system (classic JVS). Every player is making it up as they go along, its the football manager equivalent of ticking the 'free role' box for every forward and midfielder.

 

• A back 3 can work, but a back 3 without wingbacks or a disciplined defensive midfielder will not work against 3 forwards.

 

• The back 3 is also hindering us from playing out from the back. The rest of the team pushes so far forward that our defenders run of passing options and keep going back to Dean 'the distributor' Bouzanis who then kicks long or into the crowd.

 

• We are lucky that Brisbane only have Holman as their 10, if they had Castro we would’ve lost by plenty. There was so much space for their midfield to operate in front of our back 3 and so much space for Brisbane on the wings it was disturbing.

 

• On the subject of Holman, I wonder how many more games of 0 goals, 0 assists and 10 over-hit passes it will take before the media stop blowing smoke up his arse. Industrious but ineffective.

 

Edited November 5, 2016 by Jacques Le Cube

[Shahanga]

I would have thought 442 with Cahill & Tuna up front would be a pretty effective plan B.  2 smart strikers who could play off each other and Cahill gives you the option of long balls that he can feed to Bruno. Bit of variety means defending is no longer as simple.

[johnno cpfc]

In reply to those who somehow have the idea that three at the back is what CFG want i can't believe that  notion as was shown this weekend by Guardiola, he played four at the back against Barcelona so where is the directive from CFG to play three at the back . We should play four defenders in those matches when we come up against teams like Roar who like to hit on the counter even me with very little knowledge of tactics realises that we are going to get caught out against these sorts of teams.God help us he has to go before the and of the season preferably  very soon he is really pissing me off with his insistence of three defenders. 

[bt50]

31 minutes ago, johnno cpfc said:

In reply to those who somehow have the idea that three at the back is what CFG want i can't believe that  notion as was shown this weekend by Guardiola, he played four at the back against Barcelona so where is the directive from CFG to play three at the back . We should play four defenders in those matches when we come up against teams like Roar who like to hit on the counter even me with very little knowledge of tactics realises that we are going to get caught out against these sorts of teams.God help us he has to go before the and of the season preferably  very soon he is really pissing me off with his insistence of three defenders. 

I actually like the current formation witg three at the back against every team bar Sydney, Perth and Brisbane ; the teams that are most capable on the counter.

 Think it will work well against the lesser sides, even more so with Colazo in the side. The three sides i mentioned above have better counter attacking cattle than the rest and 4 at the back is prob more appropriate.

My suspicion is that the coaching staff are concerned about the second cb alongside Jakobsen.

[Jovan]

22 minutes ago, bt50 said:

I actually like the current formation witg three at the back against every team bar Sydney, Perth and Brisbane ; the teams that are most capable on the counter.

 Think it will work well against the lesser sides, even more so with Colazo in the side. The three sides i mentioned above have better counter attacking cattle than the rest and 4 at the back is prob more appropriate.

My suspicion is that the coaching staff are concerned about the second cb alongside Jakobsen.

So against nearly half of the League.

Problem is when it's plain obvious to change things we persist. When you cop an early goal things change you now have to score 2 to win so tactically you must change from your original. 3 at the back can work but need 3 quality cbs and 2 quality wing backs. I agree Colazo changes everything but at the moment the plan that has been hatched over the last 6 months has been worked out and it's pretty clear we don’t have an alternative. 

[playmaker]

5 minutes ago, Jovan said:

3 at the back can work but need 3 quality cbs and 2 quality wing backs.

Exactly right. Nothing more to say.

[Jovan]

16 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Exactly right. Nothing more to say.

Actually it is. We dont have either. So it's destined to fail. But going by previous seasons we will persist stubbornly. 

[hakz7]

2 hours ago, Jovan said:

Actually it is. We dont have either. So it's destined to fail. But going by previous seasons he will persist stubbornly. 

 

[bt50]

15 hours ago, Jovan said:

So against nearly half of the League.

Problem is when it's plain obvious to change things we persist. When you cop an early goal things change you now have to score 2 to win so tactically you must change from your original. 3 at the back can work but need 3 quality cbs and 2 quality wing backs. I agree Colazo changes everything but at the moment the plan that has been hatched over the last 6 months has been worked out and it's pretty clear we don’t have an alternative. 

Yep, 6 of the 9 if you like.

From a raw numbers point of view, if it only worked against those 6 sides youd end up with 54 points for the season (6x3x3), which has been enough to win the title in 4 of the 6 years in the 10 team comp. The other two were 57 fwiw. Adelaide won it last year with just 49.

I know thats a simplistic way of looking at it, and we'll drop points in those games just as we'll pick up points against the other three, but it gives you an idea of what we need to achieve.

We're all frustrated with JVS' apparent lack of plan B, im more just saying i think Plan A is quite suitable against most of the sides in the league.

[Jovan]

16 minutes ago, bt50 said:

Yep, 6 of the 9 if you like.

From a raw numbers point of view, if it only worked against those 6 sides youd end up with 54 points for the season (6x3x3), which has been enough to win the title in 4 of the 6 years in the 10 team comp. The other two were 57 fwiw. Adelaide won it last year with just 49.

I know thats a simplistic way of looking at it, and we'll drop points in those games just as we'll pick up points against the other three, but it gives you an idea of what we need to achieve.

We're all frustrated with JVS' apparent lack of plan B, im more just saying i think Plan A is quite suitable against most of the sides in the league.

So for the teams we can't play against that structure with a solid defence and hit on the break, Sydney Perth and Brisbane you concede we won't win. Thats straight up 9 losses out of 27. (Not to mention the upcoming cup final). Also I wouldn't be that confident about Adelaide and Wanderers once they get their shit together. That leaves Wellington Jets Mariners and the Tards we have to get maximum points home and away. To have a hope of finishing top.

As soon as we get into the finals we are gone. So basically before we go anywhere we cannot expect to win 2 out of the 3 available titles.

I just doesn't make sense. There is no way we would be that stupid.

What I'm saying is this plan A is not achievable and the sooner it's changed or remodled the better. 

 

[japiedog]

3 minutes ago, Jovan said:

So for the teams we can't play against that structure with a solid defence and hit on the break, Sydney Perth and Brisbane you concede we won't win. Thats straight up 9 losses out of 27. (Not to mention the upcoming cup final). Also I wouldn't be that confident about Adelaide and Wanderers once they get their shit together. That leaves Wellington Jets Mariners and the Tards we have to get maximum points home and away. To have a hope of finishing top.

As soon as we get into the finals we are gone. So basically before we go anywhere we cannot expect to win 2 out of the 3 available titles.

I just doesn't make sense. There is no way we would be that stupid.

What I'm saying is this plan A is not achievable and the sooner it's changed or remodled the better. 

 

i hear what you are saying

but is Mr 33% able to make the necessary changes ?

 

[Dylan]

Kind of agree with BT in that I like the way we play and just need to tweak it when we come up against teams of quality that will sit back.

tbh I wouldn't be surprised to find out that JVS is manager in name only this season given that he is leaving anyway. What I mean is that our success or failure this season I don't think will be because of JVS

[bt50]

17 minutes ago, Jovan said:

So for the teams we can't play against that structure with a solid defence and hit on the break, Sydney Perth and Brisbane you concede we won't win. Thats straight up 9 losses out of 27. (Not to mention the upcoming cup final). Also I wouldn't be that confident about Adelaide and Wanderers once they get their shit together. That leaves Wellington Jets Mariners and the Tards we have to get maximum points home and away. To have a hope of finishing top.

As soon as we get into the finals we are gone. So basically before we go anywhere we cannot expect to win 2 out of the 3 available titles.

I just doesn't make sense. There is no way we would be that stupid.

What I'm saying is this plan A is not achievable and the sooner it's changed or remodled the better. 

 

Haha no youre taking it too literally. Im just saying i think theyre sound tactics to employ against the teams that arent particularly counter attacking.

We obv need to tweak every game here and there to suit our opposition, that might mean 4 at the back it might mean three. No two games are exactly the same.

On the point of opposition Adelaide i could see improving, dont think wsw have the cattle tbh. At the end of the day theres no such thing as an easy game in the A League, but ill back our quality in over the mentioned six sides regardless of which funny orange man is coaching us.

[belaguttman]

1 hour ago, japiedog said:

i hear what you are saying

but is Mr 33% able to make the necessary changes ?

 

33% of the time