So let me get this straight, it was Stevie's fault for not changing the tactics? Tactics that had served the team so damn brilliantly the entire season, why should he lose faith in those tactics right then and there?
No â the tactics were never to ârelentlessly attack at the exclusion of everything else and with no regard to what was happening in the gameâ. Yes we played a (very) attacking brand of football but the point of the players actually being on the pitch is to make decisions about how to apply those tactics to the match. Thatâs why experience is required to be a captain otherwise whatâs the point of the position.
The truth is that a manager has relatively little influence on the team once it crosses that white line â nearly all of his influence comes in the preparation off the pitch. Using that preparation, the manager gave our team the opportunity to win the league â which is all any player could reasonably ask.
We ended up not winning it because we werenât canny enough against Chelsea â stupidly chasing the goal just before half time then panicking when we went a goal behind hitting stupid crosses and long shots instead of playing Suarez in. Then we ballsed up a three goal lead against Crystal Palace and were lucky to escape with a draw â again, absolutely naĂŻve stupidity letting them run through us when we didnât have to.
Eurored is right in one thing â itâs almost impossible to win the league conceding more than 50 goals a season. If you want to look at goals conceded per game, the statistic takes a sharp upward turn every time Stevie is played in the middle of the pitch â the problem being that it is hard to know where else to accommodate him without him sinking into a huge sulk for being a bit-part player.
You yourself think he needs âdropping this yearâ but I could throw all the arguments back at you that you have written above. Stevie plays â and always has played - like Roy of the Rovers â thatâs his mentality, just as Skrtel backs off or Suarez hassles the referee. Itâs great for winning knockout competitions but history has shown us, that; snot the consistent and patient style that is needed for a league campaign.
Secondly the slip happening 18 yards out or 50 yards out would have made no difference the chance would have still been a goal scoring opportunity. I've heard this argument before but why would the outcome be any different than a one on one? Our CB's always split wide, not narrow so the difference would have only been the distance Ba had to run, the chance presented would, in fact, probably have been easier as Mignolet would have less time to narrow the angle.
Absolute nonsense.
If youâre going to play a suicidally high line you are leaving yourself open to the break against a pacy forward. Thatâs why every team defends deep against pace â itâs utterly basic footballing logic so please donât say it made no difference defending on the halfway line and pushing all our players into their half.
They werenât even TRYING to win â they had nothing to play for. If we were on our 18 yard line their team wouldnât have been pushed up straining for a goal â even if Ba had broken onto the ball, Mignolet, or a lateral player would have more time to close him down and put him under pressure.
In fact Mourinho WANTED us to win ahead of Pellegrini â with whom he has a long running feud. Amazingly though, we managed to balls it up. Put the blame on the manager if you like but as you point out â thos etactics got us into the position in the first place.
If youâre really saying pushing high up the pitch makes no difference I will be interested to see your reaction to games this season when we are trying to hold on to a result.
http://www.espnfc.com/chelsea/story/2133961/chelsea-boss-jose-mourinho-says-steven-gerrard-slip-cost-liverpool-title"It gave the title to City, as simple as that," Mourinho told reporters on Friday. "Liverpool, with a point in that match, would have been champions. Without it, they lost the title."
Chelsea had gone into the match with no real prospect of winning the league after a shock 2-1 loss at home to Sunderland the previous weekend, and Mourinho added: "It meant nothing to us.
"After our defeat against Sunderland, our position was the sub-position. That match, for us, meant just professional pride. You have to go for every game and try to win, but we were not in the race. It was just a match that gave the title to Man City."
"Stevie for all his attacking prowess has never been the most intelligent or ruthless." What kind of a statement is that? You're happy to take all the fantastic assists and goals he produced but you're going to hang him out to dry on the defensive side of the game? That was tactics, last season we sacrificed defensive security for the 101 goals we scored. We played in a cavalier fashion, it was the best football I've seen our club produce in an absolute age and yet here you are ripping it to shreds because we failed at the final hurdles.
Im not ripping it to shreds â I loved our tactics last season â as I said the manager did everything that could be asked of him. Iâm saying Stevie blew those chances to win the league not because of the slip but because of his naĂŻve approach to the game.
The person âripping things to shredsâ is Eurored who is moaning about the manager going about things the wrong way because he didnât âbuild from the backâ. If he had âbuilt from the backâ Stevies would not be at the club as he would have quit by now rather than playing 20 minute cameos.
