Monday 3 December 2012
Sunday 2 December 2012
Norwich v Sunderland Preview
Norwich come into the game feeling really good about themselves, having gone on an 8 match unbeaten run while Sunderland continued their patchy form, grinding a 0-0 draw against lowly QPR. With both teams expected to be near the relegation places come the end of the season, both managers will be desperate not to let the other team gain an advantage.
Norwich's recent resurgence can be mainly attributed to the good form of Grant Holt. Whether Holt can make a positive impact on the game will be very dependant of referee Phil Dowd. Grant's game is largely physical and often borders on a foul. If Dowd decides to penalize his tiny shoves from the off, he will just concede a lot of free kicks for his team. Credit also has to be given to the back five, with Norwich conceding a goal or less in all of their last five games. Mark Bunn has deputized well for the injured John Ruddy in goal and Garrido is both defensively capable as well as being able to join in attack to deliver a good cross. The only concern I have is of Whittaker, who remains culpable at times defensively. He seems to be slow on the turn and has been caught on his heels a few times this season.
Sunderland knows that they need to pick up points in this game, with a tough run of games looming in the horizon. The goals of Fletcher has dried up of late though the rest of the team has chipped in more than at the start of the season. What Sunderland lacks up front is movement though. I don't recall them scoring many from through balls and that is the problem. Thus, their main route to goal is through crosses and they possess a band of players who can really cross well, especially Larsson. Their main claim to points will be achieved only if they regain their defensive solidity, which they displayed against QPR but had been lacking in previous games. Kilgallon getting into the team seemw to have helped them defensively and I will probably select him over Bramble for his physicality which will be needed against Holt.
Predictions:
I fancy Sunderland to start fast in this game but Norwich to attempt to get back by pressing players forward in the second half. The correct score of 2-1 has a good price of 10/1 but what really tempts me is 5/4 for Sunderland to score first. Sunderland to get a 2-0 lead into halftime is only at 18/1 and I guess the odds are not as good as can be. The last one I like the look of is for Kilgallon to score anytime at 16/1 as Sunderland can be a danger at set pieces.
Fulham 0 Tottenham 3
The scoreline probably made Tottenham look much better than they actually were in the game but I am sure that Andre Villa Boas would not mind. In truth, both teams looked poor in the game and a 0-0 would not have been an unfair result. In the end, it was a mistake from the usually reliable Mark Schwarzer that opened the floodgates for Tottenham. Sandro curled a innocuous looking shot from way out which Schwarzer somehow managed to allow to bounce onto his hands and over him. Granted, the ball was in the bottom corner but it was not with much speed and definitely should have been dealt with. Tottenham never looked back after this gift and Defoe scored a brace in the 72nd and 76th minutes to secure the win for the team.
What interested me more was the positioning of players when both teams attacked. Fulham played with two strikers, Petric and Berbatov, though Berbatov sometimes roamed to the wings during counter attacks. Steve Sidwell started much higher up than he normally does and constantly moved into the box. For Fulham, the winger which is not on the flank of that attack will move centrally but outside the box.
The advantage of this is that when their wide midfielders pass to the fullbacks, the fullbacks are running onto the ball and it is easier to get speed for the cross. This is probably why we saw so many drilled crosses from Fulham instead of high looping ones. In fact, It was only when Damien Duff came on in the 65th minute that we saw the first high cross by Fulham. Also, with the opposite wide midfielder outside the box, Fulham could pick up most of the clearance from crosses and Frei had a chance from such a situation but shot too high in the 12th minute despite having a lot of time. With Sidwell's positioning, there was also a midfield runner onto crosses that posed problems for Tottenham's defence if Sandro did not track him properly. Sidwell did not make use of the chances that came his way though and I really wonder if he is a good enough player for this position. This brings me to the main gripe about the Fulham team, which is that although they have a really defined style of play, they do not seem to have a full set of players to complete it. Players such as Frei, Petric, Sidwell, Kelly and Senderos seemed to not be in tandem with the rest of the team and showed the lack of depth in the team where their Plan A could only be executed if all their first choice players are available. I am interested to see what this team can achieve if Jol manages to strengthen in the upcoming windows and get the players that would fit into the team. For now, he will just have to hope that his team stays fit and players like Ruiz and Kacaniklic return from injury soon to push the team back to the form they had at the end of the season.
Tottenham adopted a different approach to their attack despite similar reliance on fullbacks pushing up. The fullbacks were their main source of width, with the wide midfielders moving inwards parallel to them. Verthonghen and Naughton seemed permanently stationed at the wide berths, playing very very high up.
The difference of Tottenham and Fulham is that the wingers move infield even before the cross is sent in and it is not just the wingers on the opposite side that moves in. For example, if the ball is on the left flank, Bale moves in too before passing to Vertonghen who will deliver the cross. This allowed Tottenham more players in the box when the cross came in. However, Fulham caught on onto this and closed down the fullbacks with two players once they got the ball. As the fullbacks received the ball in a stationary position, it was hard for them to deliver the cross with two players blocking him. Villa-Boas should have done better and told his wingers to stay wider and help provide a passing option for the fullbacks. Another problem was that there were no midfielders to collect loose balls when FUlham cleared the crosses as Sandro and Dembele stayed quite deep and Dembele in particular did not make much impact on the game. Tottenham's formation worked better when they played through the middle instead of to the fullbacks. Defoe and Dempsey were both comfortable with receiving the ball with their back facing the goal and both of them made a few snapshots on the turn that were just wide of the goal. However, the goals came when the passes were played behind the defence for Defoe to run into, with Dempsey slipping in the key pass for Defoe in the 76th minute for the last goal. This was a rarity though, and Dempsey mainly looked to shoot instead of taking the pass. I would think that Dembele would be a better fit in that role and Villa-Boas might want to consider this option in the next game to better utilise the talented Belgium.
This London derby ended a great week for Tottenham, when they picked up 9 points out of 9 and advanced up the table. Meanwhile, Fulham continued slipping down the table and they desperately need to start picking up points again as they are now going to the lower half of the table.
What interested me more was the positioning of players when both teams attacked. Fulham played with two strikers, Petric and Berbatov, though Berbatov sometimes roamed to the wings during counter attacks. Steve Sidwell started much higher up than he normally does and constantly moved into the box. For Fulham, the winger which is not on the flank of that attack will move centrally but outside the box.
The advantage of this is that when their wide midfielders pass to the fullbacks, the fullbacks are running onto the ball and it is easier to get speed for the cross. This is probably why we saw so many drilled crosses from Fulham instead of high looping ones. In fact, It was only when Damien Duff came on in the 65th minute that we saw the first high cross by Fulham. Also, with the opposite wide midfielder outside the box, Fulham could pick up most of the clearance from crosses and Frei had a chance from such a situation but shot too high in the 12th minute despite having a lot of time. With Sidwell's positioning, there was also a midfield runner onto crosses that posed problems for Tottenham's defence if Sandro did not track him properly. Sidwell did not make use of the chances that came his way though and I really wonder if he is a good enough player for this position. This brings me to the main gripe about the Fulham team, which is that although they have a really defined style of play, they do not seem to have a full set of players to complete it. Players such as Frei, Petric, Sidwell, Kelly and Senderos seemed to not be in tandem with the rest of the team and showed the lack of depth in the team where their Plan A could only be executed if all their first choice players are available. I am interested to see what this team can achieve if Jol manages to strengthen in the upcoming windows and get the players that would fit into the team. For now, he will just have to hope that his team stays fit and players like Ruiz and Kacaniklic return from injury soon to push the team back to the form they had at the end of the season.
Tottenham adopted a different approach to their attack despite similar reliance on fullbacks pushing up. The fullbacks were their main source of width, with the wide midfielders moving inwards parallel to them. Verthonghen and Naughton seemed permanently stationed at the wide berths, playing very very high up.
The difference of Tottenham and Fulham is that the wingers move infield even before the cross is sent in and it is not just the wingers on the opposite side that moves in. For example, if the ball is on the left flank, Bale moves in too before passing to Vertonghen who will deliver the cross. This allowed Tottenham more players in the box when the cross came in. However, Fulham caught on onto this and closed down the fullbacks with two players once they got the ball. As the fullbacks received the ball in a stationary position, it was hard for them to deliver the cross with two players blocking him. Villa-Boas should have done better and told his wingers to stay wider and help provide a passing option for the fullbacks. Another problem was that there were no midfielders to collect loose balls when FUlham cleared the crosses as Sandro and Dembele stayed quite deep and Dembele in particular did not make much impact on the game. Tottenham's formation worked better when they played through the middle instead of to the fullbacks. Defoe and Dempsey were both comfortable with receiving the ball with their back facing the goal and both of them made a few snapshots on the turn that were just wide of the goal. However, the goals came when the passes were played behind the defence for Defoe to run into, with Dempsey slipping in the key pass for Defoe in the 76th minute for the last goal. This was a rarity though, and Dempsey mainly looked to shoot instead of taking the pass. I would think that Dembele would be a better fit in that role and Villa-Boas might want to consider this option in the next game to better utilise the talented Belgium.
This London derby ended a great week for Tottenham, when they picked up 9 points out of 9 and advanced up the table. Meanwhile, Fulham continued slipping down the table and they desperately need to start picking up points again as they are now going to the lower half of the table.
Saturday 1 December 2012
West Ham 3 Chelsea 1
I only caught bits and glimpses of the match but from what I saw, West Ham playing deep did work well for Chelsea. In the first half, Chelsea dominated and should have been three or four up. Only with Allardyce going all out in the second half, pushing the whole team higher did West Ham's performance really improve. This was shown especially in the last goal, where Diame pressured Cole high up the pitch and caused him to make a mistake. I also heard the commentators mention about Diame changing the match and I felt that Allardyce made a terrible mistake leaving him on the bench.
As to why I missed the match, I was watching the Singapore and Laos Suzuki Cup match and it turned out to be a thriller, with 7 goals. Of course, there will be no review as I am sure most of you will not be interested. I will be catching Fulham v Tottenham or Everton v City and the review should be up when i wake up tomorrow morning(GMT+8 time), maybe 11 hours later hopefully. Do visit and read.
Last note, anyone thinks Benitez is in danger of losing his job yet?
As to why I missed the match, I was watching the Singapore and Laos Suzuki Cup match and it turned out to be a thriller, with 7 goals. Of course, there will be no review as I am sure most of you will not be interested. I will be catching Fulham v Tottenham or Everton v City and the review should be up when i wake up tomorrow morning(GMT+8 time), maybe 11 hours later hopefully. Do visit and read.
Last note, anyone thinks Benitez is in danger of losing his job yet?
West Ham v Chelsea Preview
Benitez and Allardyce have a long standing feud from years back and they will definitely try to up one another again in this game. West Ham come into the game in 10th while Chelsea remains in third.
West Ham's form has faltered slightly of late, picking up 2 point out of a possible 18. Confidence does not seem to be running high in the team but they will be consoled by the fact that on loan striker Andy Carroll has opened his account for the season last weekend against Tottenham, albeit it being a consolation goal. They will also be bouyed by the return of Mark Noble, with him being instrumental for starting the team's attacks. West Ham should largely be utilising the tactics they employed to gain a point against Manchester City, sitting deep and trying to catch the opponents on the break. The key players will be Momo Diame and Matt Jarvis. Diame is good at skipping past challenges when the opponents pressure, which Chelsea is likely to do high up the field. Once he gets past that first challenge, he will be able to pass to Jarvis who has the pace and trickery to get to the byline. Chelsea needs to be wary of this as he can deliver a pinpoint cross and the aerial threat of Carroll is well known.
Benitez knows that the heat is on him coming into the game after two successive 0-0 draws. He might have solved the defensive problems that plagued the team but he left the lone striker Torres very isolated up front during the game against City. This is where West Ham playing deep might actually be favourable to Chelsea. They will be able to push more players forward in support of Torres and not lose the ball everytime they pump it up. It will also be useful for Eden Hazard, who will be able to run at the defenders at speed. Chelsea will need to play Mata in the game in place of Bertrand as Mata has the ability to unlock defenses in a way that others cannot. His carefully weighted passes can win Chelsea the game, but only if Torres and the other attackers make good runs into space.
Predictions:
Benitez's previous approach suggests that he will look to defend first and his stubborn nature means that this is unlikely to change. That is why I am surprised that there are odds of 1/3 for West Ham to score a goal or less. I also like the 8/13 on offer for it being a draw at the 30th minute as neither teams are fast starters in games. With both teams needing the win, I fancy taking on the bet of there being a card between the 75th minute and full time at 1/2. Lastly, there is 8/1 to be taken if anyone fancies a third successive goal-less draw for Chelsea though I will advise punters to look more at a 1-0 scoreline but I can't seem to call which way it will go.
Friday 30 November 2012
More About Benitez
Observant readers will notice that I did not list down bad with transfers as one of the minuses of Benitez's appointment, a point often used to deride his time at Liverpool with. There are two reasons for this exclusion. Firstly, he has only been appointed for a year so there is only the January transfer window from him to work with and Roman Abramovic might not even provide him funds to buy players unless there is an injury crisis. Secondly and more importantly, I think his transfer record is not that bad actually. And here is why:
I have looked around the internet and most of the investigations into the topic are of Benitez's net spend. I have instead decided to go a different route and focus solely on Benitez's purchases as some of the money that he made is from selling players already at the club. A look at the table shows that he has spent a total of 226.01 million while 214.975 million has been earned from the sale of the same players. That represented a loss of 11.035 million, not discounting the players that are still in the team. Those players are namely Reina, Agger, Leiva, Skrtel and Johnson. That makes up almost half of the starting eleven for the current Liverpool team. I am sure that Agger alone will make up the 11 million loss and if all five players are sold, it can be said that the players Benitez bought actually turned in a profit for the team.
Moreover, a number of the players that Benitez bought in did a decent job for the club before being sold. One example of this is Luis Garcia, who had performed decently in the attacking roles in the team before being sold for a 2 million loss. Another guy also sold for a 2 million loss, Kyrgiakos, was brought in to temporarily strengthen the center back positions due to injuries and his contract was terminated when he was no longer needed. The losses can be said to have been payment for their services during their prime years and they were moved on when their form dropped. Therefore, Benitez actually was trying to push the team forward using the limited resources available to him.
It is reasonable to say that Benitez did not fare that well in the transfer window though. One thing that points greatly against him is that he has brought in players at big fees, only to sell them not long after after he realised they did not fit well into their plans. Robbie Keane is the prime example here. Signed for 16 million, he only lasted 6 months in Liverpool before being sold back to Tottenham for a loss. Such indecision on the part of Benitez on the players he need is of course frustrating for the fans, who know that the money can be better spent on other players to improve the team. The money is there, just that it was not spent well, although the overall loss was not a lot. This is a major difference from teams that do not have the money to spend and the fans will know that it is not the manager's fault.
I will say that Benitez did a decent job at purchasing players at Liverpool but definitely not a fantastic one. It remains to be seen whether my opinion will change in the coming transfer window, with Chelsea probably needing a few good signings to really challenge for the title.
I have looked around the internet and most of the investigations into the topic are of Benitez's net spend. I have instead decided to go a different route and focus solely on Benitez's purchases as some of the money that he made is from selling players already at the club. A look at the table shows that he has spent a total of 226.01 million while 214.975 million has been earned from the sale of the same players. That represented a loss of 11.035 million, not discounting the players that are still in the team. Those players are namely Reina, Agger, Leiva, Skrtel and Johnson. That makes up almost half of the starting eleven for the current Liverpool team. I am sure that Agger alone will make up the 11 million loss and if all five players are sold, it can be said that the players Benitez bought actually turned in a profit for the team.
Moreover, a number of the players that Benitez bought in did a decent job for the club before being sold. One example of this is Luis Garcia, who had performed decently in the attacking roles in the team before being sold for a 2 million loss. Another guy also sold for a 2 million loss, Kyrgiakos, was brought in to temporarily strengthen the center back positions due to injuries and his contract was terminated when he was no longer needed. The losses can be said to have been payment for their services during their prime years and they were moved on when their form dropped. Therefore, Benitez actually was trying to push the team forward using the limited resources available to him.
It is reasonable to say that Benitez did not fare that well in the transfer window though. One thing that points greatly against him is that he has brought in players at big fees, only to sell them not long after after he realised they did not fit well into their plans. Robbie Keane is the prime example here. Signed for 16 million, he only lasted 6 months in Liverpool before being sold back to Tottenham for a loss. Such indecision on the part of Benitez on the players he need is of course frustrating for the fans, who know that the money can be better spent on other players to improve the team. The money is there, just that it was not spent well, although the overall loss was not a lot. This is a major difference from teams that do not have the money to spend and the fans will know that it is not the manager's fault.
I will say that Benitez did a decent job at purchasing players at Liverpool but definitely not a fantastic one. It remains to be seen whether my opinion will change in the coming transfer window, with Chelsea probably needing a few good signings to really challenge for the title.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)