Palace v Ipswich Match Thread

[RubinsCube]

I have two family members and a close friend that have played or currently play professionally. You are talking nonsense. All three have regularly informed me that anyone that thinks you can simply switch system without a considerable amount of work/practice on the training ground thinks they understand football but dont.

Quite. Apart from the actual patterns and individual in possession roles changing completely with most formation changes, what spaces get pressed, when and by whom is another level of complexity which takes time to dial in. It seems to me the latter is where we are getting found out so far this season.

 

[Painter]

Picture the scene a few weeks hence, Parish calls Howe or Frank in,
'We really like the cut of your jib....but you have to play a back 5 and Kamada as a number 10 because we only play two in midfield and we spent quite a lot of money on Timber...'

You appear to have an overactive imagination. Sage isn't going anywhere, Howe and Frank have previously turned us down anyway.

 

[PatrickA]

Alas I cannot provide this information as I am not possession of the precise formations deployed.

I'd hate to see these forums if 13 different systems were employed.
It's difficult enough to advocate a fairly uncontroversial move to a back 4 .

 

[NEILLO]

Some of the posts on here could well have been written 2 years ago.

'' the Manager doesn't know what he's doing '', '' put Paddy in charge '' '' back 3 doesn't work '' etc etc.

That season started badly, no win until 24th October. Ended quite well as I recall.

Players returning from international duty either injured or out of form. Which was one of my concerns on the ' Trepidation ' thread a few weeks back.

I don't know if Sage spoke to Glasner after he accepted the job. If he did, I wonder if Glasner said '' just make sure they don't sell your best centre back without replacing him - they did that to me ''.

And we certainly did it again when selling Lacroix.

So there are some parallels with that time. Now, as then, there were positives to take from games. But we weren't quite there and had to wait for that first win. This season we haven't had that long wait but I think performance wise we aren't even at the levels of that run 2 years ago

I think what we are seeing at the moment is a perfect storm of ;

* a new manager without any previous Prem experience
* a disjointed pre season ( again )
* a lot of new players being integrated
* injuries to key players

The Sarr and Mateta situations are having a detrimental impact too of course.

So, Saturday. Although good value for a 1-0 lead, the defence didn't inspire confidence. There's precious little midfield protection either. We are too easily played through.

Quite what possessed Disasi to charge upfield and make a challenge like that in that area of the pitch, I don't know. I suspect Pierre Sage didn't either. That's something no manager can legislate for.

Overall I felt the team deserved a point despite playing with 10 men for an hour. But that has to be balanced against what I thought was an undeserved win at Fulham.

Looking at the next run of fixtures, it could get worse before it gets better.

A test of everyone's nerves.

 

[PatrickA]

You appear to have an overactive imagination. Sage isn't going anywhere, Howe and Frank have previously turned us down anyway.

It's called a sense of humour .
Try it some time.

 

[park the bus]

You know what? Keeping a clean sheet would be a really good way to start the new revolution - respect the point!

 

[Plaistow Eagle]

Picture the scene a few weeks hence, Parish calls Howe or Frank in,
'We really like the cut of your jib....but you have to play a back 5 and Kamada as a number 10 because we only play two in midfield and we spent quite a lot of money on Timber...'

This is due to Parish - why should Sage carry the can..!!

Look we sold Guehi then Lacroix - “replaced” them with a player Chelsea don’t want and an 18 year old - albeit he looks decent - but still very inexperienced.

I’ve said so many times before - Parish is our greatest ever Chairman - but he’s dealings in the window are too slow and too conservative.

It costs us season after season - when will he learn.

 

[ASCPFC]

Quite. Apart from the actual patterns and individual in possession roles changing completely with most formation changes, what spaces get pressed, when and by whom is another level of complexity which takes time to dial in. It seems to me the latter is where we are getting found out so far this season.

This isn't fully the case. The players start with their role and their familiarity with that role. Most of our team will be more used to a back four system than a back three. One who I wouldn't think would, would be Khalaili and wouldn't be sure about people like Honest. However, Mitchell will have played more in a back four than with a back three. I'd suggest any older centre back will have done. We'd probably have to put Tomiyasu on the right, who did exactly that job for Arsenal. Mingueza would seem similar. Chilwell would be used to it.
In fact, we could argue that the back four is more naturally suited to our players. My main worry is the width and the wing backs trying to provide that on their own. I'd rather natural attackers do it and keep the defence as a defence. The unnatural part of current football is the full pitch running up and down of Wing backs who are then supposed to get back somehow. When Mr Bolt would be hard pressed to get back too. Hence the wide channels and people running through our defence.
Personally, I'd use wingers with Strand-Larsen and I'll even say that seems quite common sense. Quite uncontroversial. I don't think the same of Mateta - he should be good in the air but it isn't his forte. If he comes back, I'd play more centrally with through balls for him to hassle the defence. For now, next game even - so not much preparation for it, completely personal and will certainly not happen:

Narrower four at the back holding a line. Wider three at the front with an attacking midfielder making runs into the box too.

We might get goals from midfield even! Imagine that. We know Kamada can do that. Unless it's only in games which end in Cup.

 

[PatrickA]

This is due to Parish - why should Sage carry the can..!!

Look we sold Guehi then Lacroix - “replaced” them with a player Chelsea don’t want and an 18 year old - albeit he looks decent - but still very inexperienced.

I’ve said so many times before - Parish is our greatest ever Chairman - but he’s dealings in the window are too slow and too conservative.

It costs us season after season - when will he learn.

Well I don't know if it's Parish, but there does seem to be a disconnect between some of the players brought in e g McNeil, Guessand and how Sage wants to play.
The story is that he wanted the Lens centre back, Fofana and the midfielder that Brentford bought.
There's probably sound reasons why we didn't get the players, but the real question is now can he get the best out of those we did bring in.

 

[eritheagle]

This is due to Parish - why should Sage carry the can..!!

Look we sold Guehi then Lacroix - “replaced” them with a player Chelsea don’t want and an 18 year old - albeit he looks decent - but still very inexperienced.

I’ve said so many times before - Parish is our greatest ever Chairman - but he’s dealings in the window are too slow and too conservative.

It costs us season after season - when will he learn.

Parish said that after last season’s transfer window, when he handled a lot of it due to DF leaving, that he wouldn’t get involved again and would leave it to others.

Also our first choice to replace Lacroix (the Bruges player) is injured otherwise we would have signed him instead.

I think the manager does have to tan a lot of responsibility especially when he says the defence will get better by regularly playing together and then changes it.

 

[Plaistow Eagle]

Parish said that after last season’s transfer window, when he handled a lot of it due to DF leaving, that he wouldn’t get involved again and would leave it to others.

Also our first choice to replace Lacroix (the Bruges player) is injured otherwise we would have signed him instead.

I think the manager does have to tan a lot of responsibility especially when he says the defence will get better by regularly playing together and then changes it.

And you honestly believe that Parish left it to others during this window - when it follows the same pattern of others he’s overseen..

Really🙈

 

[park the bus]

And you honestly believe that Parish left it to others during this window - when it follows the same pattern of others he’s overseen..

Really🙈

I honestly can't believe Parish does the research and sourced the players himself, he's got others around him to advise him on suitable players surely? Blame them for dubious recruitment choices. Unless Parish is in fact responsible for signing another right sided forward or bringing in the likes of Guessand - lazy recruitment.

 

[JessieJ]

Some of the posts on here could well have been written 2 years ago.

'' the Manager doesn't know what he's doing '', '' put Paddy in charge '' '' back 3 doesn't work '' etc etc.

That season started badly, no win until 24th October. Ended quite well as I recall.

Players returning from international duty either injured or out of form. Which was one of my concerns on the ' Trepidation ' thread a few weeks back.

I don't know if Sage spoke to Glasner after he accepted the job. If he did, I wonder if Glasner said '' just make sure they don't sell your best centre back without replacing him - they did that to me ''.

And we certainly did it again when selling Lacroix.

So there are some parallels with that time. Now, as then, there were positives to take from games. But we weren't quite there and had to wait for that first win. This season we haven't had that long wait but I think performance wise we aren't even at the levels of that run 2 years ago

I think what we are seeing at the moment is a perfect storm of ;

* a new manager without any previous Prem experience
* a disjointed pre season ( again )
* a lot of new players being integrated
* injuries to key players

The Sarr and Mateta situations are having a detrimental impact too of course.

So, Saturday. Although good value for a 1-0 lead, the defence didn't inspire confidence. There's precious little midfield protection either. We are too easily played through.

Quite what possessed Disasi to charge upfield and make a challenge like that in that area of the pitch, I don't know. I suspect Pierre Sage didn't either. That's something no manager can legislate for.

Overall I felt the team deserved a point despite playing with 10 men for an hour. But that has to be balanced against what I thought was an undeserved win at Fulham.

Looking at the next run of fixtures, it could get worse before it gets better.

A test of everyone's nerves.

It certainly will and mine, when it comes to Palace are shredded as a matter of norm! I have not been able to comment on the match or indeed the extreame comments so far posted here because I was still seething at the result until now, when my anger has subsided somewhat with each passsing hour.
At the risk of being shouted down any comments suggesting that Parish should get deal done early in the window are simply naive at best and generally ridiculous. Any half decent player or his scum of an agent will wait for a better offer. If a player agrees early, a la Johnson it has to be because the current club wants him out so much and look where that gets us. One fly in the ointmnt to my theory is Sangare at B'mouth; he went early and chose not to come to us despite or because Sage tried to intervene.
Next point, as i have repeatedly mentioned, the club didn't decide to sell Olise, Eze, Guehi or Lacroix. The players decided it for themselves. What is Parish supposed to do? Refuse? Result is evident with a brain-cell i.e. player virtually goes on strike thus disrupting the squad. Or, they wait out their contract and we a fat zero in the bank. next, how does anybody think that the club is going to replace the afroementioned first 3 players with anybody with similar ability? I didn't include Lacroix there because i think that Disasi, Tomoyasu, Ahanor are equally as good and i don't know what all the fuss is about with Lacroix. he wasn't that good but suddenly people think he is a world-beater. Re Eze, he was good for us. For the Arse and England he a bench-warmer at best. Olise remains class and irreplaceable. How much more do some people want us to spend on replacements even if we didn't have financial constraints??? This also takes into account th corrupt system whereby the big wealthy six have stiched up the future for themselves.
Now, I am not saying for one minute that Mr Sage is the man we need at the helm but he at least says it how it is and sees the issues. Time to fix them is obviously not a given in the results oriented world of footy.
Next point; why all the uproar because canvot was dropped from the squad? Ahanor certainly looks ahead of him in the little I have seen (not live). We finally have cover for each position, a squad of +25 players ( no judgement here on respective ability) so how is Sage supposed to keep everybody happy??? How does anybody know that Canvot is also going to be the next 'striker'? Putting him on the bench would have meant leaving out either Tomiyasu or Mangueza. That's the reality of bigger squads. What none of us can control is whether the player in question will throw their toys out the pram. Clearly though, they are so damm stupid/arrogant/infantile to realise that the club has to come first and not their pathetic egos.
So, at the end this rant, no answers, but i feel better 🙂

 

[RubinsCube]

It certainly will and mine, when it comes to Palace are shredded as a matter of norm! I have not been able to comment on the match or indeed the extreame comments so far posted here because I was still seething at the result until now, when my anger has subsided somewhat with each passsing hour.
At the risk of being shouted down any comments suggesting that Parish should get deal done early in the window are simply naive at best and generally ridiculous. Any half decent player or his scum of an agent will wait for a better offer. If a player agrees early, a la Johnson it has to be because the current club wants him out so much and look where that gets us. One fly in the ointmnt to my theory is Sangare at B'mouth; he went early and chose not to come to us despite or because Sage tried to intervene.
Next point, as i have repeatedly mentioned, the club didn't decide to sell Olise, Eze, Guehi or Lacroix. The players decided it for themselves. What is Parish supposed to do? Refuse? Result is evident with a brain-cell i.e. player virtually goes on strike thus disrupting the squad. Or, they wait out their contract and we a fat zero in the bank. next, how does anybody think that the club is going to replace the afroementioned first 3 players with anybody with similar ability? I didn't include Lacroix there because i think that Disasi, Tomoyasu, Ahanor are equally as good and i don't know what all the fuss is about with Lacroix. he wasn't that good but suddenly people think he is a world-beater. Re Eze, he was good for us. For the Arse and England he a bench-warmer at best. Olise remains class and irreplaceable. How much more do some people want us to spend on replacements even if we didn't have financial constraints??? This also takes into account th corrupt system whereby the big wealthy six have stiched up the future for themselves.
Now, I am not saying for one minute that Mr Sage is the man we need at the helm but he at least says it how it is and sees the issues. Time to fix them is obviously not a given in the results oriented world of footy.
Next point; why all the uproar because canvot was dropped from the squad? Ahanor certainly looks ahead of him in the little I have seen (not live). We finally have cover for each position, a squad of +25 players ( no judgement here on respective ability) so how is Sage supposed to keep everybody happy??? How does anybody know that Canvot is also going to be the next 'striker'? Putting him on the bench would have meant leaving out either Tomiyasu or Mangueza. That's the reality of bigger squads. What none of us can control is whether the player in question will throw their toys out the pram. Clearly though, they are so damm stupid/arrogant/infantile to realise that the club has to come first and not their pathetic egos.
So, at the end this rant, no answers, but i feel better 🙂

The first choice back three in the first half of last season, and the season before, was Guehi/Lacroix/Richards (Riad occasionally featuring but mainly out injured). Two of those - Guehi and Lacroix:

1. Made relatively few mistakes
2. Had excellent recovery pace when they did make mistakes
3. Were leaders on and off the pitch
4. Combined well with Richards

There can be little argument that the opposite of the above has been painfully evident since Lacroix left. It seems he was the only remaining centre back who was a leader (I include Disasi in that based on what we've seen so far) with excellent recovery pace and who made comparatively few mistakes.

In this context it is no surprise Richards looks all at sea - what is needed from him is not the same as last year given his new colleagues, plus he does not have the same understanding with these new colleagues.

For me, that is what the fuss with Lacroix is about.

There is time for Disasi to get it right. There is time for Canvot to step up. Ahanor looks really good. We know Richards is better than he has shown. Lerma can fill in, as can Chilwell at a stretch.

So it is not all doom and gloom but the fact remains we would have needed to score at least three goals in any league game we played this season to win it. This is not good enough and - left unrectified - this is why teams go down.

 

[RubinsCube]

This isn't fully the case. The players start with their role and their familiarity with that role. Most of our team will be more used to a back four system than a back three. One who I wouldn't think would, would be Khalaili and wouldn't be sure about people like Honest. However, Mitchell will have played more in a back four than with a back three. I'd suggest any older centre back will have done. We'd probably have to put Tomiyasu on the right, who did exactly that job for Arsenal. Mingueza would seem similar. Chilwell would be used to it.
In fact, we could argue that the back four is more naturally suited to our players. My main worry is the width and the wing backs trying to provide that on their own. I'd rather natural attackers do it and keep the defence as a defence. The unnatural part of current football is the full pitch running up and down of Wing backs who are then supposed to get back somehow. When Mr Bolt would be hard pressed to get back too. Hence the wide channels and people running through our defence.
Personally, I'd use wingers with Strand-Larsen and I'll even say that seems quite common sense. Quite uncontroversial. I don't think the same of Mateta - he should be good in the air but it isn't his forte. If he comes back, I'd play more centrally with through balls for him to hassle the defence. For now, next game even - so not much preparation for it, completely personal and will certainly not happen:

Narrower four at the back holding a line. Wider three at the front with an attacking midfielder making runs into the box too.

We might get goals from midfield even! Imagine that. We know Kamada can do that. Unless it's only in games which end in Cup.

All fair points. That said take Mitchell as an example. Let's say we reverted to a back four.

No argument he is more of a left back than a left wing-back (even given his progress in the last year or so which has been impressive).

But what about the overall team shape? And how might this affect Mitchell, who would arguably be the squarest peg in the squarest hole?

Do we play with one deep lying midfielder (Wharton?)? And if so does Wharton's role involve deconstructing as much as what we know he excels at with the ball? As much as I think he is brilliant he is not Kante or Makelele - we'd likely be exposed just as much with this shape.

So do we then play with two deep lying midfielders (Timber and Wharton?) and if so is one or both of their jobs to shield the back four?

Do we play with three narrow central midfielders with the expectation that width on the left comes from the fullback more so than on the right? Or vice versa (would make more sense if Khalaili was playing at full back)?

I think the points I am trying to make are

1. even well defined positions, where we know the players are comfortable, can become quite nuanced depending on overall team shape.
2. it would take time to dial this in no matter how well the players know the positions
3. success assumes the coaching team can deliver on those team shapes with the players we have and quickly.
4. Players make systems more than vice versa. The Daichi Kamada who seems to do very well for Japan, for example, plays mainly in a 3-4-1-2 team.

 

[Frenchaigle]

You appear to have an overactive imagination. Sage isn't going anywhere, Howe and Frank have previously turned us down anyway.

Howe might be swayed with European football

 

[Frenchaigle]

This is due to Parish - why should Sage carry the can..!!

Look we sold Guehi then Lacroix - “replaced” them with a player Chelsea don’t want and an 18 year old - albeit he looks decent - but still very inexperienced.

I’ve said so many times before - Parish is our greatest ever Chairman - but he’s dealings in the window are too slow and too conservative.

It costs us season after season - when will he learn.

Chelsea didn't want Guehi either .
Having said that we can't compare the two ... for the moment .We live in hope