Wes Tender

Cedric had a very good match generally. On a couple of occasions the commentators praised his well-timed and crucial tackles.

Give him until Christmas and pull the trigger if we're in the bottom 5. Although he deserved to given a chance for keeping us up last season after the shambles thrust upon us in the form of The Clown, it was not a good portent that the manager we appointed to take over from him was the one sacked by the club immediately below us in the table.

Are you including Manchester United among the winnable games? That makes five, unless Watford going like a train is one we'll surely lose.

The commentary had Wolves apparently lacklustre and off the pace for much of the match, so we should be thankful that they weren't on their game, or we could have been really thumped. Or could it be that apart from the opening 15 minutes, we actually played pretty well ourselves. For that period until the last 15 minutes, we kept possession and passed the ball well between us, frustrating them. We were winning most of the 50/50 balls in the middle of the pitch and they didn't pose much of a threat until late on in the game. We had our chances, but hit balls straight at their keeper, or wide. Ultimately though, I think that it was the depth of quality that they had on the substitutes bench that tipped the balance in their favour, their pace and directness exposing the weakness of our defence. Our full backs played well today, Bertrand solid and Cedric making some very good interceptions. But in the middle of defence, we have Vestergaad who is slow and Hoidt who is also not the paciest and prone to errors. What is the problem with playing five at the back, at least for away matches? What exactly has Yoshida done wrong to not be given a place in the starting line-up with his experience, pace and ability? I can't help but feel that we are missing Tadic. Redmond ahead of Bertrand doesn't work anywhere nearly as well and Elyounoussi ahead of Cedric doesn't have the guile that Tadic had. Redmond was back to his frustrating self, dribbling into blind alleys and losing the ball too often. Hojbjerg had another decent game, although picked up by the commentators for another suspected dive to win a free kick, but at least not in the box. Lemina had a poor game again, and lacks consistency. I suspect that the lack of change in the players selected more recently could be because Hughes is trying to get a settled team who will grow better from playing together, but we are ponderous and slow up top, lack real leadership in midfield, and weak and disorganised in defence. However, McCarthy is proving to be an excellent goalkeeper and produced a World class save to ensure that it wasn't 3-0. Keep McCarthy and build from him upwards.

Oh, is this the Brexit thread? I thought it was the one about the hapless and gormless leader of the so called opposition. My therapist allows me the occasional foray in here to mock him. How is yours managing with your various complexes?

Spesm? Please elucidate.

:lol: Who said satire is dead?

As McDonnell says, it will be self financing :lol:

Thank you Hoedt for gift-wrapping Liverpool's first goal. I have news for you; unlike former CBs who used to play for us like V-VD and Lovren, you'll never play for Liverpool even though you score goals for them before you're even their player. Quite how Yoshida can't get a game ahead of you is a mystery to me. I think Hughes got the starting formation wrong and we ought to have started with a back 3/5. Lemina also had a shocker, but Romeu and Hojbjerg, also Cedric and Redmond were OK. Without Hoedt's stupid own goal and gifting them that free kick, it could have been a more respectable 1-0 at half time. McCarthy wasn't too busy, even though Liverpool had looked dangerous on occasion. Difficult to assess what sort of effect Hughes' changes brought about in the second half, as Liverpool were comfortably ahead and able to introduce a couple of fringe players. But our tactical changes also seemed to at least add more bite in midfield and we bossed possession for a period, without being able somehow to get the ball behind their defence. Armstrong put in a good shift and I sincerely hope that he gets more game time in the coming weeks. I wonder whether in view of our lack of striking options, whether it might have been a chance to introduce Sam Gallagher? I suppose that it isn't worth sulking at 3-0 against the sort of form that Liverpool are currently in, especially when Ings couldn't play, and Gabbiadini is injured. We will have more of an idea where we are against Wolves, who seem a decent team, but without the fire-power that Liverpool have been able to buy.

They've got three good strikers and we've got Long. We've got our best three midfielders all on the pitch and yet they're still not controlling the midfield. There's no reason why Liverpool shouldn't score another three in the second half.

Yes

I've watched highlights of their penalty several times, and in slow motion, and it is one of the softest I've seen in a long time. OK to give it, certainly, but only if there is consistency. I've witnessed countless similar incidents in other matches, but can't recall many such penalties being awarded against the glory teams. I will wait to watch Taylor officiating at the next glory team match and see if he applies consistency there.

Where did I said that it wasn't a penalty? I'm often amused though how our 5'7" midget can so easily floor their great big lump.

And there were another couple of incidents when their players also went down in the box trying to con the ref into awarding penalties too. What with several other incidents of their players pushing ours in the back which went unpunished by the ref, they have a cheating policy instilled in them. But we shouldn't have given the referee the opportunity to award the penalty in the first place.

A really good first half, good intent, midfield domination, good passing and movement, first to the ball and winning the 50/50 balls. Hojbjerg, Redmond and Lemina excellent, defence steady, McCarthy virtually a spectator. A bit of a mystery why Ings didn't get more service to him though and Long was Long, getting into good positions and then slipping on his arse or unable to control the ball with too heavy or misdirected kicks. The second half was poor by comparison, letting Brighton onto us, not closing down early enough, not winning the midfield, sitting back deep inviting them on to us. Tactically it was not good, nor were the substitutions when they had a head of steam having pulled a goal back from some inept defending gifting them a free header. Gabbiadini for Long, fair enough, but bringing on two midgets into the midfield in J-WP and Davis was plainly going to invite them onto us even more, or to pump high balls into the box. Why wasn't Romeu on the bench? Didn't we also sign quite a useful midfielder from Celtic? Armstrong, wasn't it? Whatever happened to him? Injured presumably, or surely he might have been handy in the last half hour too. If you're going to sit back, then why not enforce the back line with another CB, like Yoshida? He also has pace too. Or why not go left field and put on Gallagher as a threat up top, but also some height and muscle defending set pieces at the back? Or Austin? Or why when there was space opening all over the pitch as they pressed forward didn't we just keep possession passing it around to frustrate them and run the clock down, instead of hoofing up field only to give away possession and put us under the cosh again? When will we ever learn? The exciting football we played under Pochettino and Koeman seems a distant memory.

I only posted to remind Timmie of his bet. I didn't come on here to indulge in any sort of dialogue with blinkered arch remoaners like you, Verbal Diarrhoea, apart from this post, of course.

We won't be having the Norway option and the charity of your choice will be benefiting from the £50 bet you placed on it and lost.

That is why we need Yoshida alongside him. He doesn't get outpaced by many.

It is too easy to dismiss the starting formation of 3/5 at the back if it isn't being played to its strengths, which it wasn't today. To work properly, it needs two pacey wing backs to get up the pitch when we are playing out, to give width, and three solid central midfielders, at least one of them possessing pace. It requires a solid midfield ahead of them. It also needs the three CBs to have a good understanding between themselves and confidence in each other and the keeper. Cedric didn't get up the field much, so was an obvious candidate for substitution. The lack of pace at the back probably needs to be addressed by playing Yoshida. Vestergaard was solid and reliable, but it is understandably early days for him to meld with the others at the back. He had a good game though. For these reasons, it seems that this formation was responsible for a very poor half an hour. There might have been an element of Burnley partly having a game plan to put us under immense pressure at the start, combined with some nervousness following our systematic dismantling by Burussia Munchenglabach, and we were constantly losing the 50/50 balls in midfield, aiding them with the usual passing sideways and backwards dross that we have come to loathe during the past couple of seasons. The match had evened out by the last quarter of an hour of the half as either we found our feet or they tired a little. A couple of great saves from McCarthy and some last ditch defending kept us in it, but Austin wasn't getting much service up top and one of the few highlights was Armstrong's willingness to surge forward with the ball at his feet, until he went off injured. As we had shown improvement towards the end of the half, it wasn't necessary to change the starting 11, but we started the second half in the similar dire style of the first half. Fortunately Hughes recognised it early and made the substitutions that totally changed the game for us. Replacing the injured Armstrong with Ings maintained the forward attacking thrust, maybe even increased it. Elyounoussi for Cedric and making a back four with Stephens at right back gave us more movement and inventiveness in midfield and suddenly the momentum switched in our favour and we strung together a succession of attacks. Redmond put in one his best performances for some time, switched to the right where he is at his best and was a real threat running at Burnley's defence. Ing's ball control and movement was very good and when Gabbiadini came on for Austin, it was very much a case that for the last 20 minutes we were in total command, keeping possession and passing forwards at every opportunity and shooting at will. A succession of last ditch blocks and some good saves by Hart, combined with some blatant time wasting gained them the point. Just a few incidental mentions in passing. Cork provoked Stephens into pushing him over and he was lucky to escape without a yellow. Shades of the incident with Wilshere; he needs to control his temper. The referee gave free kicks for the merest of contacts. That red carpet is truly awful, as was the interval and pre-match music. We have Sammy Saint drumming up the atmosphere and it seemed to work. Stand out performances from McCarthy, Armstrong, Vestergaard, Lemina, Redmond, Ings and Elyounossi At the equivalent match last season, they beat us 1-0, so we're one ahead of last season already. We started off with a 0-0 draw last season against Swansea

This signing is a bit meh. Liverpool take the cream of our players and we get their rejects. It would be lovely to be proved wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

Hughes got it wrong tactically today with the starting line up, selecting the team based on the good performances against Celta Vigo, instead of the team that would be best against Borussia. As it turned out, the better players on Wednesday were mostly poor and vice versa. Armstrong was OK, but not up to the standard he set before. Targett had looked a real prospect, but was poor on the right wing, and in the second half Hughes switched him with Bertrand who did better there. Romeo who was poor Wednesday was much better than Lemina, who had flashes of quality, but far more poor passing and losing the ball and seemingly not that bothered to win it back. The defence was dire, especially Bednarek, who was beaten all ends up for pace for their first goal. The second goal was poor because they were not closed down and able to take a shot from distance, which McCarthy could only palm into his own net. Gabbiadini was OK again with his play near their box, but Austin as a goal poacher, needs service and we seldom had the ball anywhere near their defence. Elyonoussi didn't impress greatly on Wednesday, but showed touches of class yesterday and looks as if he could grow into a very good player once used the English game. Of course it could be that later in the game when we looked far better for the substitutions, it could be argued that BMG had weakened their team and content to be three goals up and not under much threat. But the same could be argued for us, that we were putting on some second or third choice players too. However, with Redmond and Long, we had two players with genuine pace, but not the two best strikers. Yoshida provided both a stronger, quicker defence and also a threat up top at set pieces. I am fairly certain that he wouldn't have been beaten for pace like Bedarek was. Also had Cedric been available, neither would he have been. Stephens also made the defence more secure, but we were under less threat from them, either because they took their foot off the peddle in the searing heat, or because they weren't winning the midfield battles any longer, or had to be wary of us hitting them on the break with the pace of Long and Redmond. In any event, it seemed to me that we might not have done our homework on them, either that, or we relied too much on what we had seen on Wednesday. In conclusion, the match raised more questions than answers and Hughes can't be much closer to knowing what his best team is.

You can make your own comparisons if you wish; it's a free country. And anybody else is entitled to argue the toss on them. But naturally you must accept that caveats have to be attached to argue that the variables can be explained away to justify the logic behind the reasoning. You didn't answer my question; how many matches as a minimum do you accept as a reasonable basis for comparing one manager's record with another who had a much longer tenure? Nine + a Cup Match, obviously. Any fewer than that? How many of those matches should that new manager be allowed before he starts to turn around the defeatist attitudes of players falling into the relegation zone after a sustained period of decline? Or do you believe that the impact should be immediate? Is any allowance to be made during that earlier part of his tenure that he has to face top 5 clubs when his club is a bottom 5 club?

But then you're quite happy to compare Hughes at Stoke with Hughes at Saints, although they're different clubs, different players. This is the reason why managers are successful at one club and then failures at their next one and vice versa.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that if you want to make comparisons between his record and Puel's and Pellegrino's, or indeed with any other manager, then the more equivalence there is between the three samples being considered, the more credibility there is. As you have admitted that Hughes sample size is low at Saints compared to the other two, you must accept that your conclusions are therefore flawed. Additionally, as I pointed out, Hughes had to turn around the demoralised squad that Pellegrino left him. Where exactly do you draw the line in small sample comparisons? For example, if he had only been here for five games and we had won them all, would you therefore be comparing his stats with Lawrie's or Koeman's?

This is a ridiculous assertion to make. Not only is it a nonsense to compare his record over 9 matches + a Cup match with a manager from two seasons ago with some different personnel, but it isn't feasible to make that comparison anyway without any evidence that the other two would have produced better results in the same fixtures under similar circumstances when both of them had considerably more time to assess their options. You sound as if you would have preferred the Clown to Hughes.