Sage in or out

[ASCPFC]

Good post, Pulis did a great job with very average players, i think that is what we need to aim for, realism and organisation.

The obvious thing was set pieces. And why we are crap at them now. That's very basic. An example of pragmatism. A further issue for us is guts. I want to see some guts.

 

[JHB]

Which key positions would you say we have big holes? For me its only in the centre of defence. This was always going to be a problem but its not as if the club didn't try very hard in the last window to bring in two quality central defenders.
This is why Disasi was signed on loan and Honest. I seriously doubt we really wanted either of them but it ended up better than nothing.
People have criticized the sale of Munoz but I'd still do that deal now. Forest paid massively over the top for him and much as I loved Daniel he is definitely past his best

Also the question with Munoz isn’t whether he was past his best. It’s whether he was better than the other available options. Based on the evidence so far the answer is a resounding ‘yes’. He was miles better. Given we invested his transfer fee in Khallali all we did was trade down in quality in a key position

 

[PalazioVecchio]

the problem is not the manager, its our new-player recruitment department.

 

[ASCPFC]

the problem is not the manager, its our new-player recruitment department.

We've had far worse squads do far better than this.

 

[JHB]

the problem is not the manager, its our new-player recruitment department.

Maybe it is both. The recruitment hasn’t been great but the manager’s tactics are a big problem. At the current time we can change one of those things

 

[mtp1958]

Osorio plays for Chile, I believe.

🤣🤣🤣 oops knew it began with C but we still dont know about him . Boy I feel 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

 

[Den1923]

Good players help of course, but the true art is building a consistent team that functions as a unit which outperforms the sum of it's parts.
Pulis would be an example, finishing eleventh with a team of largely average players and making us a difficult team that nobody relished playing.

Glasner to a certain extent too.
Yes, we had better players under him , but he was instrumental in changing the psychology of the club that anything was possible.
It was a strange feeling to turn up at a Palace game and think you had a reasonable chance regardless of the opposition.

At the moment Sage does not convey the bloody minded resilience of a Pulis or the supreme self confidence of a Glasner.
The best managers are able in applying psychology to make players believe they are better than they are so they outperform, or alternatively hint the players are not quite good enough so they become determined to prove the manager wrong and again outperform.

All very well said and thought out, sadly, we now do not have the leadership needed at the back, we are easily passed, are far too slow, very flat footed, unable to defend high balls (especially at the back post), lack the skills or the passing ability to pass out from the back and spend too much time passing the ball backwards or sideways, then due to the lack of skill to be able to play in this way, allow the opposition to press high, forcing us in to making mistakes thus creating unnecessary pressure at the back. We have just not replaced the quality we sold on very well!

 

[PatrickA]

Sage's misfortune is not having the players available to Glasner for a significant period.
His tactics may well have worked with a firing front 3 of Sarr, Mateta and Eze and a defence including Guehi, Lacroix and Mitchell who all excellent 1 on I defenders.
His mistake is possibly to try and play those tactics with only some of those resources available.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

Good post, Pulis did a great job with very average players, i think that is what we need to aim for, realism and organisation.

The first things Pulis did was organise average players into a coherent defensive unit. The second was sign players (or get the club to sign players) who he knew to be good enough and of the right character.

The opposite of what we've done, basically.