Glasner Out

He's not going, but nonetheless Glasner's limitations are becoming clearer by the game.
Half a game against 10 men and he persists with three centre backs aimlessly passing the ball around.
No service to Larsen, little in the way of early delivery.
By our standards we've spent a fortune on forwards, yet me persist in relying on Mitchell trying to beat his man and cross the ball.
Even his mum would acknowledge this is not his strength.
Inept, and today wasn't a one off, but Glasner persists with this tactics.
 
PatrickA said:
He's not going, but nonetheless Glasner's limitations are becoming clearer by the game.
Half a game against 10 men and he persists with three centre backs aimlessly passing the ball around.
No service to Larsen, little in the way of early delivery.
By our standards we've spent a fortune on forwards, yet me persist in relying on Mitchell trying to beat his man and cross the ball.
Even his mum would acknowledge this is not his strength.
Inept, and today wasn't a one off, but Glasner persists with this tactics.
Click to expand...
I believe someone mentioned this a while ago.
 
We have a system that's designed to play away against the top half.

It has been totally found out that a team of (Macclesfield demonstrated) non-league standard or higher can sit in against it and get a result. Every manager has worked it out.

Fredrikstad, Larnaca twice, Zrinjski Mostar, Macclesfield, 10 man Forest, 10 man Leeds, almost 10 man Wolves...

Glasner is either unwilling or incapable of doing anything about it.

He has more resource than any manager in our history. His system is consistently producing less than the sum of its parts. And above all, it's awful to watch.

Surely the only possible reason he's still here is that the replacement is still in a job elsewhere.
 
PatrickA said:
Glasner's limitations are becoming clearer by the game.
Half a game against 10 men and he persists with three centre backs aimlessly passing the ball around.
Click to expand...

Whilst it's Glasner's decision to stick with three centre backs surely he hasn't instructed them to continually pass the ball backwards and forwards to each other as that's down to the players' own limitations
 
Midlands Eagle said:
Whilst it's Glasner's decision to stick with three centre backs surely he hasn't instructed them to continually pass the ball backwards and forwards to each other as that's down to the players' own limitations
Click to expand...
I agree. There’s no need to defend Ollie, but to pin all the blame on him seems a bit too simplistic to me. One poster did say that you could tell from this match that the manager was on his way out. That may well be, but it also looked as though most of the players on the pitch were on the way out.
 
Midlands Eagle said:
Whilst it's Glasner's decision to stick with three centre backs surely he hasn't instructed them to continually pass the ball backwards and forwards to each other as that's down to the players' own limitations
Click to expand...
I think he has instructed them.
It doesn't matter what the make up of the back 3 is, the tactic persists.
The ball is rarely played early into the channel for the forwads and is usually pushed out to wing backs or midfield players, who invariably pass the ball back to centre backs.
Sure possession is retained, but it's possession with no purpose.
The slow build up means it super easy for the opposition to organise themselves and Larsen and Sarr are then often double marked.
We narrow the play which may work with Munoz rampaging down the right, but not otherwise.
It was evident today that poor Mitchell was left with the responsibility to provide the atracking width and it's not his game.
Glasner seems theoretical in his approach i.e Johnson can play wide right so therefore he may be the answer.
In practice it doesn't work .
 
PatrickA said:
I think he has instructed them.
It doesn't matter what the make up of the back 3 is, the tactic persists.
The ball is rarely played early into the channel for the forwads and is usually pushed out to wing backs or midfield players, who invariably pass the ball back to centre backs.
Sure possession is retained, but it's possession with no purpose.
The slow build up means it super easy for the opposition to organise themselves and Larsen and Sarr are then often double marked.
We narrow the play which may work with Munoz rampaging down the right, but not otherwise.
It was evident today that poor Mitchell was left with the responsibility to provide the atracking width and it's not his game.
Glasner seems theoretical in his approach i.e Johnson can play wide right so therefore he may be the answer.
In practice it doesn't work .
Click to expand...
It appears to me that Glasner has his template from which he does not deviate. The template goes up on his laptop screen and he overlays it with any player of his choosing. Players can be swapped round on a whim but the template remains fixed. Some players are not adept for the role they are asked to fill.
 
Midlands Eagle said:
Whilst it's Glasner's decision to stick with three centre backs surely he hasn't instructed them to continually pass the ball backwards and forwards to each other as that's down to the players' own limitations
Click to expand...

a) a good chunk of the reason they're doing it is because he's set up a team without options in forward positions. Playing wingers against 10 men to stretch the game and create holes for the 10s is such a basic requirement.

b) He absolutely has. Do you think it's a coincidence that every time we get the ball against 11 men, Mitchell pushes forward onto the left wing, the LCM sprints into the left back position to become an option and the left attacking midfielder drops into the LCM hole to become a back to goal passing option? The set up is entirely scripted.

When it is game after identical game against 10 men or teams with a fraction of the budget, with different players to when it was happening pre Christmas, it's the system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top