Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

Ronald Koeman discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
No mate. The FBs were usually there, they just didn't get close enough to wide men to stop them swinging crosses in...just like they're still not doing.
The FB's under Brown shoes were regularly caught out of position on the counter, he employed the 2x DM's to supposedly cover the wide areas but we were often undone by a ball into the full back channel
 
It is.

The more times you hit it long in an area, the likelihood of something happening

Hoof it to Bolasie 10 times, something will happen at least once.

Its as clear as day that none of our attacks are structured, no build up, just repetition until we catch a break.

What was the stat yesterday? 30% were long balls?


A theory first expounded by the guru of the long ball game....one Charles Hughes.

(there's one for the teenagers)

Mr. Hughes was some kind of a technical bod and coaching honcho at the F.A. in the 70s and 80s.

And his theory was to knock the ball long into what he called the POMO........the Position Of Maximum Opportunity.

The POMO being the final third of the pitch or preferably as deep into enemy territory as one could welly a bladder ball and then one's men go charging after it.

Chuck had no time for intricate passing movements, patient build up or the idea of football as an art form.

No sir.

He believed stoutly, based on number crunching a century's worth analysis, that "most goals" came from moves which involved three passes....or less.

Hence his doctrine was hit the POMO with a hoof and let the Devil sort out the rest.

Bizarrely, part of his theory was based on RAF tactics during the war :Blink:

It might sound ridiculous to our younger friends on here now, but this theory held sway, still holds sway to a great extent, in this country for decades and among its practioners were Jack Charlton, Howard Wilkinson, Graham Taylor, anyone whom managed Wimbledon in the 80s and Big Sam.

In the present era Pardew, McCarthy, Hughes and Pulis among others adhere to it.

Moyes does to an extent....and it looks to me like Koeman is off that ilk.

And Charlie Hughes, almost single handedly, is the reason England's international team has fallen so far from grace this past three or four decades and why English players are so technically inept compared to those in other countries.

Because while Spain and France were advancing Pele's notion of the Beautiful Game in their academies, English lads at Lilleshall and at their parent clubs were being coached by disciples of Charles Hughes and being urged to hit the POMO in under three passes :(

Of "hoofs" as we like to call them round these parts ;)
 
People talk about the players not being able to learn as if they've spent their entire careers playing one style of football and just aren't capable of taking on new ideas. It's absolute rubbish.

Once again, we started yesterday with 4 players signed by this manager - that's a decent portion of the team. We've then got players who spent a fair chunk of their careers playing under Moyes, who like it or not appears to have a very similar style of play to Koeman. They've also played under numerous other managers with different styles at club and international level, and seemingly had no issue adapting in the past. Coleman and McCarthy for example seem perfectly capable of playing high tempo pressing football under Martin O'Neill for Ireland, so why can't they do it for us?

There are clearly issues with the players, and certainly some of them aren't going to be good enough in the long run. The idea that they're all completely useless is ridiculous though. Bournemouth are establishing themselves as a decent Premier League side with players signed from Woking, Southend, and Coventry and we're saying Argentine, English, and Belgian internationals aren't good enough to do better than 1 win in 10?
 
A theory first expounded by the guru of the long ball game....one Charles Hughes.

(there's one for the teenagers)

Mr. Hughes was some kind of a technical bod and coaching honcho at the F.A. in the 70s and 80s.

And his theory was to knock the ball long into what he called the POMO........the Position Of Maximum Opportunity.

The POMO being the final third of the pitch or preferably as deep into enemy territory as one could welly a bladder ball and then one's men go charging after it.

Chuck had no time for intricate passing movements, patient build up or the idea of football as an art form.

No sir.

He believed stoutly, based on number crunching a century's worth analysis, that "most goals" came from moves which involved three passes....or less.

Hence his doctrine was hit the POMO with a hoof and let the Devil sort out the rest.

Bizarrely, part of his theory was based on RAF tactics during the war :Blink:

It might sound ridiculous to our younger friends on here now, but this theory held sway, still holds sway to a great extent, in this country for decades and among its practioners were Jack Charlton, Howard Wilkinson, Graham Taylor, anyone whom managed Wimbledon in the 80s and Big Sam.

In the present era Pardew, McCarthy, Hughes and Pulis among others adhere to it.

Moyes does to an extent....and it looks to me like Koeman is off that ilk.

And Charlie Hughes, almost single handedly, is the reason England's international team has fallen so far from grace this past three or four decades and why English players are so technically inept compared to those in other countries.

Because while Spain and France were advancing Pele's notion of the Beautiful Game in their academies, English lads at Lilleshall and at their parent clubs were being coached by disciples of Charles Hughes and being urged to hit the POMO in under three passes :(

Of "hoofs" as we like to call them round these parts ;)
The ex Cambridge manager was a proud follower of POMO to the extent he would order the corners of the pitch to be waterlogged by the groundsman to hold the ball up in thise areas after the hoof
 

He gets time to prove his worth


This, really.

I can't lie, I wasn't keen on the appointment, think it lacked imagination and I'm not fully convinced of him as a coach. That being said, it's way too early to say whether reservations like mine are in any way justified. It takes time for any manager to get a team dancing to his tune and, frankly, I'm far more concerned with the attitudes and abilities of our players
 
This, really.

I can't lie, I wasn't keen on the appointment, think it lacked imagination and I'm not fully convinced of him as a coach. That being said, it's way too early to say whether reservations are in any way justified. It takes time for any manager to get a team dancing to his tune and, frankly, I'm far more concerned with the attitudes and abilities of our players

Yeah, it was hardly an exciting appointment that made me leap up and go "Wow! What a coup!"

But at the same time, I also felt he was at least ambitious and we'd get 2-3 years of steady improvement before he moved on

That could still happen at this point
 
Next game I would love to see 442, we looked a lot better and more of a threat when went 442 and had Valencia and lukaku up front together.

Stek/robles

Holgate Williams Mori Baines

Bolasie Gueye Davies Mirallas


Lukaku Valencia


That's what I would like to see against Watford next Saturday, give barry a rest and let young davies have a go.
 

This, really.

I can't lie, I wasn't keen on the appointment, think it lacked imagination and I'm not fully convinced of him as a coach. That being said, it's way too early to say whether reservations like mine are in any way justified. It takes time for any manager to get a team dancing to his tune and, frankly, I'm far more concerned with the attitudes and abilities of our players
Do they actually know what music he likes though?
 
A theory first expounded by the guru of the long ball game....one Charles Hughes.

(there's one for the teenagers)

Mr. Hughes was some kind of a technical bod and coaching honcho at the F.A. in the 70s and 80s.

And his theory was to knock the ball long into what he called the POMO........the Position Of Maximum Opportunity.

The POMO being the final third of the pitch or preferably as deep into enemy territory as one could welly a bladder ball and then one's men go charging after it.

Chuck had no time for intricate passing movements, patient build up or the idea of football as an art form.

No sir.

He believed stoutly, based on number crunching a century's worth analysis, that "most goals" came from moves which involved three passes....or less.

Hence his doctrine was hit the POMO with a hoof and let the Devil sort out the rest.

Bizarrely, part of his theory was based on RAF tactics during the war :Blink:

It might sound ridiculous to our younger friends on here now, but this theory held sway, still holds sway to a great extent, in this country for decades and among its practioners were Jack Charlton, Howard Wilkinson, Graham Taylor, anyone whom managed Wimbledon in the 80s and Big Sam.

In the present era Pardew, McCarthy, Hughes and Pulis among others adhere to it.

Moyes does to an extent....and it looks to me like Koeman is off that ilk.

And Charlie Hughes, almost single handedly, is the reason England's international team has fallen so far from grace this past three or four decades and why English players are so technically inept compared to those in other countries.

Because while Spain and France were advancing Pele's notion of the Beautiful Game in their academies, English lads at Lilleshall and at their parent clubs were being coached by disciples of Charles Hughes and being urged to hit the POMO in under three passes :(

Of "hoofs" as we like to call them round these parts ;)

Disagree with a lt fo that mate.

For one Hughes isn't a long ball merchant as a manager - if anything he's the opposite, been trying to get Stoke away from that and to a great extent has done now that he has had the time to change the personnel he inherited from Pullis i think, his City team also weren't long ball.

As for being technically inept - really? Bale, Ramsay, Stones, Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Rooney, all came up through this system

Venables and Hoddle also managed the English Side, Cappello and Sven, none of whom would be described as long ball managers

Major problem with the English national team is a lack of actual desire from most players, coupled with a corrupt FA who don't want change and a media obsessed with destroying any manager, player before there even started

Most managers who advocate the long ball do so because inherently they dont have the talent of other teams available and turning a game into more of a physical challenge can bridge the gap - otherwise you end up with the prem resembling the spanish league and 2-3 teams routinely winning 33-35 games of their season - great if your a madrid or barca fan ofc, not so great when your not

Right now the fast counter attack strategy seems to be in vogue and on top, and the gegenbellendpressing, but neither of those by itself are an exciting style of play, what turns a game into a good watch is a blend of the two teams playing and if it meshes.

Can tell you right now, i have neverbeen more bored watching anything as watching that supposedly exhillirating spain team a whilst back, tiki taka to the extreme and incredibly dull to watch - 88 minutes of utter tedium with at most a couple of minutes of sped up tempo spred through thew game in there where they create 4-5 chances and usually scored to win the game.
 
The schedule must have been severely pegged back since the summer then. Remember when it was all talk of getting a top class manager in and going all out for a Champions League spot and putting Everton back at the top table?

Yes we would love to but they won't come. Emery whatever that is. Koeman was the best we could hope for at the time. He got 6th and 7th with Soton and is used to the PL.
 
The FB's under Brown shoes were regularly caught out of position on the counter, he employed the 2x DM's to supposedly cover the wide areas but we were often undone by a ball into the full back channel
Yes, balls were launched into that vacated area but the result was usually that a CB or CM would get across to face the threat up and allow FBs time to funnel back into position.

We saw this the other week against Chelsea when Coleman was caught up the pitch but Williams got across to face up Hazard - Coleman gets back in there but both of them fail to challenge Hazard who gets his shot off. That was typical of the situation under RM.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top