Ronald Koeman discussion

PhilM · September 17, 2017

nsnojosh said:
Because Giroud (Or any target man-type striker) would automatically solve our problems with pace, width, team shape, tactics etc.

Giroud or a suitable alternative would have almost certainly made our current approach at least more efficient, so I agree with the OP to an extent.

However, like you're suggesting, we do have a clear lack of pace and width which could slightly be resolved if didn't adhere to shoehorning.

Khalekan · September 17, 2017

brigadier said:
What is he thinking? FFS

Playing for the sack if you ask me.

Get his next two year's wages without having to even give the impression he is doing sommat to merit it.

Woolverhampton_Blue · September 17, 2017

Timak said:
He's had £220m to spend in a little over a year in charge, only having to sell Lukaku and Stones from the first choice XI.

We've known Lukaku woudn't stay for almost all that time.

The system he has coached his entire career doesn't contain space for a number 10 yet he signed 3 of them. 2 of whom (Sig and Klas) require a creator and pace around them to function at all.

Wasn't aware he had only coached one system during his entire career. Southampton mostly played a 4-2-3-1 which can certainly accommodate a number 10. I believe he only switched to 3 at the back when they suffered a poor run of form.

It is baffling how many similar players we signed, and how little pace we have in the side. Even Vlasic, who I thought was a winger, apparently prefers the number 10 role.

jaycee · September 17, 2017

Bungle said:
Oh look, utterly clueless Ronald pulls even more baffling tactics and squad selections out of his arse.

With a bit of luck the stories about him banging a prostitute will be accurate and that coupled with his horrific managerial ability will mean he gets bounced out the door this week.

Id rather the story was Ronald is the prostitute,giving handjobs for transfer money,I might like him slightly then

tommytowne · September 17, 2017

Khalekan said:
Playing for the sack if you ask me.

Get his next two year's wages without having to even give the impression he is doing sommat to merit it.

Arrogant prick.
Anybody doing a sweep on the time for the first renderings from the OT hordes of "Sacked in the morning, You're getting sacked in the morning"

GwladysBlue · September 17, 2017

Khalekan · September 17, 2017

tommytowne said:
Arrogant prick.
Anybody doing a sweep on the time for the first renderings from the OT hordes of "Sacked in the morning, You're getting sacked in the morning"

What about a sweep for when our lids will be singing it lol

jonnyboy316 · September 17, 2017

PhilM said:
While there may be some element of truth in this, it's naive to solely blame the board and the lack of a striker for our recent failings on the pitch.

He also knew that Rom was off and clearly we prioritised the acquisition of other targets over a striker, or felt overly confident that we'd get one.

He's the manager (not a head coach like Conte et al.) and regardless of other individuals responsibilities, he should shoulder some of the blame.

He prioritised Siggurdson rather than a striker as the marque signing. When the price for Gilfi got above 30m we should have said no thanks and moved on to acquiring a quality striker.

Woolverhampton_Blue · September 17, 2017

nsnojosh said:
Because Giroud (Or any target man-type striker) would automatically solve our problems with pace, width, team shape, tactics etc.

Woolverhampton_Blue said:
a striker, which he did say publicly we needed. Then again, even that wouldn't fix how disjointed we look as a team.

Tubey · September 17, 2017

Once again shoehorning Sigurdsson and Rooney into the same team I see, regardless of form or common sense...

Paul Rideout · September 17, 2017

We bought three number 10s. We needed 2 max. We're trying to fit two or three in every game, which imo is why it's not working. We're also clearly favouring purchases over youth, which I'm not impressed with.

Saying that, I hope he pulls it around, I like his honesty

PhilM · September 17, 2017

Tubey said:
Once again shoehorning Sigurdsson and Rooney into the same team I see, regardless of form or common sense...

Playing Rooney and Sigurdsson in the same team isn't the problem, rather it's shoehorning in positions that do not suit either player or the team.

Tubey · September 17, 2017

PhilM said:
Playing Rooney and Sigurdsson in the same team isn't the problem, rather it's shoehorning in positions that do not suit either player or the team.

Indeed.

fuko~ · September 17, 2017

nsnojosh said:
Because Giroud (Or any target man-type striker) would automatically solve our problems with pace, width, team shape, tactics etc.

Yes, Giroud may give something difference to us but it also tell us RK does not have an effective plan B.
I mean Giroud CANNOT play all match in a season and he may also have injuries. Is it really a good excuse?

APN_EFC · September 17, 2017

nsnojosh said:
Because Giroud (Or any target man-type striker) would automatically solve our problems with pace, width, team shape, tactics etc.

Thats the thing

If its Giroud, then Giroud, Rooney, Gylfi, Sandro plus Klassen, Lookman etc present a VERy different approach to Lukaku Barkley Bolasie etc, so it means a totally different approach in training and tactics.

He would have been on very thin ice to say, if Giroud had joined, that NOW everything is in place. I get the feeling that Koeman is never positive or happy, just happy to play politics and complain all the time.