"We are going to the big teams to win"

[SteKelly]

I think Martinez needs at least 2/3 seasons in the job before we start questioning his away record at the 'top' teams. He's already bettered Moyes in terms of wins anyway.

Edit: winning at the 'big 4'

Forget about Moyes now.

 

[4737carlin]

Apart form Anfield i think we played well in all of them, even at City i didnt think we played that bad, certainly better than we did at Palace anyway. We were awesome at Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea like griffla says abve were harsh

 

[Gibbo4]

We actually won the possession against Liverpool as well. 61%. We also won the corners 8-5. No striker against Liverpool, Spurs, Chelsea = No goals.

 

[ah11984]

Apart form Anfield i think we played well in all of them, even at City i didnt think we played that bad, certainly better than we did at Palace anyway. We were awesome at Arsenal and Spurs and Chelsea like griffla says abve were harsh

We were not "awesome" at Spurs and Chelsea. You've got to carry a goal threat to warrant that description.

 

[Sideliner]

if we don't have the money we need the brains -
hopefully Martinez has that to secure us an upcoming star striker and attacking CM -
if we can't buy them we have to manufacture them or discover them or reinvent them -
as simple as that - lets give the man 3 or 4 seasons - we have made great progress in the 1st

 

[dholliday]

Is keeping the ball for the majority of the game and doing nothing with it really "Going to games to win" ?

good thread, the quoted bit is a philosophical question which calls to mind how Barcelona appear attacking when playing that game, yet Spain appear defensive. The key being Barca have Messi (and now Neymar) while Spain do not. We have Osman, Peanut and Kev...in this case there's an argument that we're not a very attacking team and we're not "going for the win" simply because of the lack of consistently-dangerous attacking threat we offer.

 

[Mancuso]

I was thinking about this quote after the Chelsea game yesterday, and I went through our results against the 'big teams' at their grounds this season. Here our the results:

Man City 3 - 1 Everton
Man Utd 0 - 1 Everton
Arsenal 1 - 1 Everton
Liverpool 4 - 0 Everton
Spurs 1 - 0 Everton
Chelsea 1 - 0 Everton

I think its fair to say we dominated the majority of these games possession wise (Bar Liverpool) however I find it alarming that we have only scored 3 goals against the big teams at their grounds.

Now yes, it clear we are in need of some better quality attacking players and someone to really create chances. However for me its clear that this whole "We are going to win" concept isn't strictly true. Is keeping the ball for the majority of the game and doing nothing with it really "Going to games to win" ?

You have to watch the games, not the score lines to assess the validity of the remark. "Going to games to win" is much more about the mindset of the squad going into the game than the result itself. It seems that we're much more willing to take chances and dominate play early in these big matches. First halves such as against arsenal, united, and Chelsea yesterday have yielded many more opportunities than I'm used to seeing in these types of games.

That being said, if we were able to consistently go on the road and beat these big teams at their parks, then we would be considered one of those big teams too. Which we're not yet. Other than clearly lacking a consistent striking option, I don't think the results listed are anything to be too heartbroken about. Frustrated, of course. But certainly an improvement on years past, even if the score lines don't initially make that clear.

 

[mawders]

we are going to win because we don't go with 6 defenders on the pitch, full backs actually get forward, and we don't isolate the striker.

 

[Abraders]

We were not "awesome" at Spurs and Chelsea. You've got to carry a goal threat to warrant that description.

It's more like we were awesome at everything, but the lacking part was that goal threat.

 

[CahillsCornerFlag]

Given how much these spend on players its hardly surprising we're not being them is it. We're doing our best, but the quality in the final third is lacking, which it will be, given we always have a negative net spend and everyone around us spends £100m a season. It really is that simple.

 

[toffeejack]

I was thinking about this quote after the Chelsea game yesterday, and I went through our results against the 'big teams' at their grounds this season. Here our the results:

Man City 3 - 1 Everton
Man Utd 0 - 1 Everton
Arsenal 1 - 1 Everton
Liverpool 4 - 0 Everton
Spurs 1 - 0 Everton
Chelsea 1 - 0 Everton

I think its fair to say we dominated the majority of these games possession wise (Bar Liverpool) however I find it alarming that we have only scored 3 goals against the big teams at their grounds.

Now yes, it clear we are in need of some better quality attacking players and someone to really create chances. However for me its clear that this whole "We are going to win" concept isn't strictly true. Is keeping the ball for the majority of the game and doing nothing with it really "Going to games to win" ?

we would have won at chelsea and spurs if we had spent about a quarter of what they'd spent on their attacking players, possibly less than a quarter.

it's been a big improvement both performance and mentality wise - a lot of us can see that. these sort of things take time, take a lot of time with the finances we have as well.

city had billionaires but it still took them a few years to even be title contenders.

we're not just going to go from the odd draw a season to winning at all these places within a year - the united win is a good stepping stone though to the future, regardless of the other teams that have gone there and won.

we've caught the last three of those games with a limited team and more importantly no actual strikers, you'd like to think this won't be the case next season as well

 

[nigelcoyb]

If we're not going there to win we shouldn't get the bus out, nonsense to go to any game and not try and win.

"he who dares ...." rodney.

 

[4737carlin]

We were not "awesome" at Spurs and Chelsea. You've got to carry a goal threat to warrant that description.

Yeah i no mate, i meant "We were awesome at Arsenal, and Spurs and Chelsea like griffla says abve were harsh"

i missed a comma out lol

 

[Big Fat Sam]

Just absolutely gutting thinking how brilliantly we've played only to be done by bigger-spending teams. I am confident if we had a Suarez or a Rooney up front we'd have won every single game from the big teams away, aside from versus the RS.

 

[artetas_biggest_fan]

It's a straight choice of; more possession, or more cutting edge.

We flood midfield (and push both fullbacks forward)... while this will almost guarantee more possession it also leaves the team short in other areas. At Anfield both fullbacks were caught upfield time and time again which was exposed when they broke. We also play a higher line which is also exposed against a pacy attack. Two holding midfielders gives more stability in front of defence but comes at the the cost of having more attacking threat. We don't create enough chances never mind have someone to finish them (nothing at Anfield, one deflected shot in 2nd haf vs Chelsea, and nothing in 2nd half vs Spurs).

Last season Liv played with five in midfield and would harp on about possession stats. This season they've pulled a central mid and played with another upfront and the difference is obvious. They are looser yes but are far more threatening. The one game it backfired was against Villa when they went for two upfront and so were outnumbered in midfield.

We are like the boxer Wayne McCullough, plenty of punches (possession) but not hurting the opponent. Hull are far more of a threat now with two forwards. Possession may look neat on a stats sheet but possession doesn't appear in a league table.

We lack a too quality creative player, a #10, and two quality strikers.