Being more direct is the way to go?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Khalekan said:
Dave, there are lies and there are damned lies.

And then there are statistics.

Me?

I hate this stat driven era of football by numbers.

All's I can say is I have been at every home game bar two this season and this last two are the only two I have enjoyed since August.

It looked better.....it felt better.....so in my eyes it was better.

And most importantly it seemed effective and I felt we'd could score every time we crossed the halfway line.

I felt positively nostalgic for the old days when Joel just feckin' lumped it long in the general direction of our re-invigorated battering ram of a centre forward in the business end of the pitch rather than start a game of keep ball with his centre half :)

That display today.....that is what this bugger wants to see on a regular basis......and to heck with "passes in the defensive third".

;)
Click to expand...
...and those last two games, as welcome as they've been to staunch the loss of confidence, have coughed up two draws.

The point made here is that the manager likes to play a more measured build up because he believes it gets the right opening to consistently get winning results. Well this season that is born out again....on top of the winning percentage we had last season with even greater amount of defensive third passing.

Maybe we should leave it to a very good manager to do the thinking for us on systems and tactics rather than screaming for a constant stream of longer balls?
 
davek said:
That's the mundane point to make. The question is why we've had success only by playing a greater number of passes in the defensive third and why the hell are some people advocating we move away from that to voluntarily going more direct.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it means the system is too easy to play against if the win/loss record is so sketchy. The reason we have success only by playing a greater number of passes is because we play no other way under Martinez, or didn't until West Ham/City. So every loss on there is due to passing in the defensive third, every draw is, and every win is.

You can't say we lost because we somehow didn't pass in the defensive third; it just means we did it badly in those games.
 

Tubey said:
Yes, but it means the system is too easy to play against if the win/loss record is so sketchy. The reason we have success only by playing a greater number of passes is because we play no other way under Martinez, or didn't until West Ham/City. So every loss on there is due to passing in the defensive third, every draw is, and every win is.

You can't say we lost because we somehow didn't pass in the defensive third; it just means we did it badly in those games.
Click to expand...

Also worth noting how improved Martinez' club record signing Lukaku has looked in mentioned two games.
 
Khalekan said:
Dave, there are lies and there are damned lies.

And then there are statistics.

Me?

I hate this stat driven era of football by numbers.

All's I can say is I have been at every home game bar two this season and this last two are the only two I have enjoyed since August.

It looked better.....it felt better.....so in my eyes it was better.

And most importantly it seemed effective and I felt we'd could score every time we crossed the halfway line.

I felt positively nostalgic for the old days when Joel just feckin' lumped it long in the general direction of our re-invigorated battering ram of a centre forward in the business end of the pitch rather than start a game of keep ball with his centre half :)

That display today.....that is what this bugger wants to see on a regular basis......and to heck with "passes in the defensive third".

;)
Click to expand...

Very well said, mate :)
 

davek said:
That's the mundane point to make. The question is why we've had success only by playing a greater number of passes in the defensive third and why the hell are some people advocating we move away from that to voluntarily going more direct.
Click to expand...

Because since we lost away to Spurs after being caught in posession in our own defensive third the players haven't been the same.

They haven't looked comfortable since opposition players have pushed up high and put them under pressure. We tried to carry on doing the same thing and them playing their way out of it but that didn't work.

So we needed to play a different way, which we did against WHU and City. We looked far better, they players were more confident and played better. 2 draws rather than 2 losses.

Once again, people wanted changes because what we were doing was no longer working. The fact it worked previously doesn't come into it because the reason for it no longer working was a change from the opposition. Thus meaning we needed to change to stay one step ahead.
 
davek said:
...and those last two games, as welcome as they've been to staunch the loss of confidence, have coughed up two draws.
Click to expand...

And those two draws have totally transformed the atmosphere around the ground.

People were on a high leaving the ground today.

As you said on another thread, it feels like the fever has been broken.

It feels like the manager is unshackled and in turn Lukaku and Barkley have been unchained, unleashed and uninhibited.

We are on the move again, pal.

Just rejoice instead of getting hung up about passing the ball in our own danger area.

Because another "stat" suggests we suck at that this season and have given more goals away in this fashion than any other team.
 
Seamus Colemole said:
Because since we lost away to Spurs after being caught in posession in our own defensive third the players haven't been the same.

They haven't looked comfortable since opposition players have pushed up high and put them under pressure. We tried to carry on doing the same thing and them playing their way out of it but that didn't work.

So we needed to play a different way, which we did against WHU and City. We looked far better, they players were more confident and played better. 2 draws rather than 2 losses.

Once again, people wanted changes because what we were doing was no longer working. The fact it worked previously doesn't come into it because the reason for it no longer working was a change from the opposition. Thus meaning we needed to change to stay one step ahead.
Click to expand...

Doesn't get much more straight forward than that.
 
davek said:
The argument has been we need to stop playing it about at the back so much and get it forward more quickly. We've done that today and in the cup and it's being pointed to as the reason we stopped the rot. However, this lot seems to contradict that view and suggests that playing more patiently across the back serves us better in terms of games won.

Passes in defensive third - 2014/15:

Win
Draw
Loss


v Leicester (A) 124
v Arsenal (H) 106
v Chelsea (H) 96
v WBA (A) 132
v Palace (H) 100
v Liverpool (A) 70
v United (A) 94
v Villa (H) 158
v Burnley (A) 164
v Swansea (H) 80
v Sunderland (A) 65
v West Ham (H) 78
v Spurs (A) 120
v Hull (H) 121
v City (A) 88
v QPR (H) 100
v Southampton (A) 45
v Stoke (H) 99
v Newcastle (A) 60
v Hull (A) 66
v City (H) 52


Average defensive third passes in games won = 126
Average defensive third passes in games drawn= 103
Average defensive third passes in games lost = 85


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

We have to do both and more as and when required
In Boxing terms; we have to be Fighter, Boxer, counter puncher, be able to dance round the ring like Ali when required, pummel them in a corner and be able to be prepared for and give out the odd low blow and head to the eyebrow.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top