Question for the radio man to ask Oscar.

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Mar 28, 2014

Something just struck me. I feel I'm fairly right in my views on Oscar on the other threads, but are we missing something?

He came here promising attacking football. Many would agree that this has been far from the case.

We have had a bad injury list this season, but not once has Oscar changed formation/tactics to suit the players he has.

We all thought that Oscar being our "Head Coach" and not manager was due to Poyet's possible court case.

But is their another reason? Has Oscar been told to keep the system.... "The Brighton Way"... if you like, and does he have his hands tied?

The last time I recall he switched to a more basic 4-4-2 was against QPR in the 73rd minute. We all know what happened there. Exiciting attacking football and goals in the right end. But since he's gone back to the "Brighton Way".

So whilst a lot are calling him boring, including me, could he switch to a sy for example 4-4-2 if he wanted to, or as head coach and not manager, can he only coach the players to play "our" system, and not manage the system as a manager would? So does the term head coach mean exactly that in our case?

So the question I would liked asked is "Oscar, a lot of fans are saying we are too negative and would like to see a more attacking/direct system (as he was asked last week). Is it your choice to play this system, or is it a system the club want to play? Could you play a 4-4-2 or 5-4-1 or another system if you wanted to".

Why else could it be that he will not change, despite our goals scored this year being pathetic in comparison to our league position. Surely with the amount of injuries we've had, you would have thought a "manager" in full control would have adapted the system....... starting to wonder now if getting on Oscars back is fair!

London Irish · Mar 28, 2014

I think Oscar is a true believer in his tactics, I credit him with that

Seagull73 · Mar 28, 2014

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
Something just struck me. I feel I'm fairly right in my views on Oscar on the other threads, but are we missing something?

He came here promising attacking football. Many would agree that this has been far from the case.

We have had a bad injury list this season, but not once has Oscar changed formation/tactics to suit the players he has.

We all thought that Oscar being our "Head Coach" and not manager was due to Poyet's possible court case.

But is their another reason? Has Oscar been told to keep the system.... "The Brighton Way"... if you like, and does he have his hands tied?

The last time I recall he switched to a more basic 4-4-2 was against QPR in the 73rd minute. We all know what happened there. Exiciting attacking football and goals in the right end. But since he's gone back to the "Brighton Way".

So whilst a lot are calling him boring, including me, could he switch to a sy for example 4-4-2 if he wanted to, or as head coach and not manager, can he only coach the players to play "our" system, and not manage the system as a manager would? So does the term head coach mean exactly that in our case?

So the question I would liked asked is "Oscar, a lot of fans are saying we are too negative and would like to see a more attacking/direct system (as he was asked last week). Is it your choice to play this system, or is it a system the club want to play? Could you play a 4-4-2 or 5-4-1 or another system if you wanted to".

Why else could it be that he will not change, despite our goals scored this year being pathetic in comparison to our league position. Surely with the amount of injuries we've had, you would have thought a "manager" in full control would have adapted the system....... starting to wonder now if getting on Oscars back is fair!

Can you sum up in less than 10 words what you are implying?

Cowfold Seagull · Mar 28, 2014

I think that Oscar, rightly or wrongly, is prepared to live or die playing football 'his' way, in much the same way as Gus did.

symyjym · Mar 28, 2014

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
Something just struck me. I feel I'm fairly right in my views on Oscar on the other threads, but are we missing something?

He came here promising attacking football. Many would agree that this has been far from the case.

We have had a bad injury list this season, but not once has Oscar changed formation/tactics to suit the players he has.

We all thought that Oscar being our "Head Coach" and not manager was due to Poyet's possible court case.

But is their another reason? Has Oscar been told to keep the system.... "The Brighton Way"... if you like, and does he have his hands tied?

The last time I recall he switched to a more basic 4-4-2 was against QPR in the 73rd minute. We all know what happened there. Exiciting attacking football and goals in the right end. But since he's gone back to the "Brighton Way".

So whilst a lot are calling him boring, including me, could he switch to a sy for example 4-4-2 if he wanted to, or as head coach and not manager, can he only coach the players to play "our" system, and not manage the system as a manager would? So does the term head coach mean exactly that in our case?

So the question I would liked asked is "Oscar, a lot of fans are saying we are too negative and would like to see a more attacking/direct system (as he was asked last week). Is it your choice to play this system, or is it a system the club want to play? Could you play a 4-4-2 or 5-4-1 or another system if you wanted to".

Why else could it be that he will not change, despite our goals scored this year being pathetic in comparison to our league position. Surely with the amount of injuries we've had, you would have thought a "manager" in full control would have adapted the system....... starting to wonder now if getting on Oscars back is fair!

I disagree that a lot of fans think we are boring.

It's not the system at fault, it's not being clinical.

Of course the system is his choice.

JCL666 · Mar 28, 2014

Can someone define "attacking football" for me please?

If you've got the ball more than the opposition, you cannot be "defending".

As myself and others have posted on a number of occasions, we do have a decent number of shots. It's not "defensive football" just because the people taking those shots KEEP MISSING.

ANd before anyone says "passing it backwards and forwards between defenders isn't attacking"... No it isn't attacking, but it's not defensive either, it's keeping hold of the ball until a decent opportunity arises to pass the ball forward or as listed on wiki "a large number of primarily short passes are deployed by multiple players of the team before culminating in a definitive strike on the opposing team's goal."

(i've put the bit in bold that's an issue)

Anyway.... I'd ask him if he thinks playing possession football requires a higher level of technical skill, and if that is the case can that be achieved using the sort of players available at Championship level.

Seagull73 · Mar 28, 2014

Cowfold Seagull said:
I think that Oscar, rightly or wrongly, is prepared to live or die playing football 'his' way, in much the same way as Gus did.

Which made Gus arrogant in the eyes of a lot of fans - so why isn't Oscar arrogant?
Gus used to get pilloried for not having a 'plan B' - whatever that is. Has anybody seen anything like an alternative to our way of playing this season, much like last? In which case, why isn't Oscar arrogant too?

Baldseagull · Mar 28, 2014

Seagull73 said:
Which made Gus arrogant in the eyes of a lot of fans - so why isn't Oscar arrogant?
Gus used to get pilloried for not having a 'plan B' - whatever that is. Has anybody seen anything like an alternative to our way of playing this season, much like last? In which case, why isn't Oscar arrogant too?

Oscar does not say he will go home and play golf if we don't like it.

Oscar does allow the players to knock a long ball over the top or through from deep if the opposition press us high up the field, this is the plan B I wanted to see from Gus.

drew · Mar 28, 2014

JCL666 said:
If you've got the ball more than the opposition, you cannot be "defending".

Not going to disagree with everything you said but the above surely depends on where you are keeping possession. If the ball is merely being played around the back four then that is far more defensive than attacking however, if you actually working the ball forward, even if there is a pass back before another forward then that can be construed as building an attack. All depends on the aim. If the aim is to keep the ball and defend a lead then possession at the back is defensive, if you building from the back it is attack minded. However, at the end of the day, football can turn from defence to attack and back again in the blink of an eye!

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Mar 28, 2014

JCL666 said:
If you've got the ball more than the opposition, you cannot be "defending".

Anyway.... I'd ask him if he thinks playing possession football requires a higher level of technical skill, and if that is the case can that be achieved using the sort of players available at Championship level.

Err, I would strongly disagree with the first line. I understand what you say about keeping the ball and playing across the pitch waiting for a chance, but I would call that negative.

However, as for the question you would ask, could not agree more with that question. I would love to know his answer to that as well!!!

I don't think you can. I think that belongs in the higher reaches of the premiership, which would not be a problem, IF we get there, but I can't see it taking us there.

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Mar 28, 2014

symyjym said:
I disagree that a lot of fans think we are boring.

It's not the system at fault, it's not being clinical.

Of course the system is his choice.

Well, if we play the same way against Borough tomorrow and draw and blank, I think you will find that a lot of people do!

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Mar 28, 2014

Seagull73 said:
Which made Gus arrogant in the eyes of a lot of fans - so why isn't Oscar arrogant?
Gus used to get pilloried for not having a 'plan B' - whatever that is. Has anybody seen anything like an alternative to our way of playing this season, much like last? In which case, why isn't Oscar arrogant too?

I think Oscar is just as arrogant as Poyet. The difference is Oscar is likeable and not in your face with it, whereas Poyet came over as a first class prick.

Wellesley · Mar 28, 2014

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
Well, if we play the same way against Borough tomorrow and draw and blank, I think you will find that a lot of people do!

I agree. Anyone that says we aren't boring must be doing it out of blind loyalty or are frightened of being labeled a bad fan for admitting it. We don't have many shots on target and we don't score many goals. I appreciate nice football as much as anybody else but the real excitement in football comes from shots and goals surely.

Sergei's Celebration · Mar 28, 2014

4-4-2 should be thrown in the football formation dustbin it has had it. Only any good for park or Sunday football when thats all people understand.

Guinness Boy · Mar 28, 2014

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
But is their another reason? Has Oscar been told to keep the system.... "The Brighton Way"... if you like, and does he have his hands tied?

The last time I recall he switched to a more basic 4-4-2 was against QPR in the 73rd minute. We all know what happened there. Exiciting attacking football and goals in the right end. But since he's gone back to the "Brighton Way".

So whilst a lot are calling him boring, including me, could he switch to a sy for example 4-4-2 if he wanted to, or as head coach and not manager, can he only coach the players to play "our" system, and not manage the system as a manager would? So does the term head coach mean exactly that in our case?

The phrase is "top down, bottom up" which Sheffield Wednesday fans find hilarious, as they do John Inman.

But it's a good phrase and if you read Oscar's interviews more widely you'd understand what it means. It means we play the same system from under 15s or whatever, through the development squad and in to the first team. It's the way Barca do it. By the time you are ready to move up through the ranks you know exactly what it expected of you in every position, what your philosophy is home and away, just what the system is.

That's great in ten years time. There is no doubt that Tony Bloom wants some of his money back. If we are producing Premier League quality young players who want to stay because of the facilities and the system then we hit that promised land of top quality football cheaply, and of being able to sell on certain assets for a good value, should we need.

The question is what do we do in the meantime? The squad we have is, IMO. not good enough to play tippy tappy attacking football at pace. However, the football philosophy HAS to come from the first team. I think the summer will be fascinating. If we keep most of the same squad and add to it with other season long loans like Andrews then we have no ambition of actually achieving the long term goal, nor getting the PL money that would fund it. At some point we have to strike a balance between a side that can play that style properly and making ends meet. I'm not sure we can do it.

shaolinpunk · Mar 28, 2014

It's not defensive football, it's patient.

[yt]CXWq34XByjc[/yt]

phazza · Mar 28, 2014

symyjym said:
I disagree that a lot of fans think we are boring.

It's not the system at fault, it's not being clinical.

Of course the system is his choice.

absolutely right

JCL666 · Mar 28, 2014

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
Err, I would strongly disagree with the first line. I understand what you say about keeping the ball and playing across the pitch waiting for a chance, but I would call that negative.

However, as for the question you would ask, could not agree more with that question. I would love to know his answer to that as well!!!

I don't think you can. I think that belongs in the higher reaches of the premiership, which would not be a problem, IF we get there, but I can't see it taking us there.

What do you disagree with?

You think that having the ball more than the opposition is defending?

Defending by it's definition is to resist an attack. To attack the other team need the ball. Or are you saying that we are defending when we have the ball and they are attacking when they don't?

There is a difference between defending and being negative. Also by selectively quoting you have missed the most important thing. The point of possession football is to work the ball into an area where you can then shoot.

I think the idea that you have to be constantly working the ball forward is wrong. In possession football the team constantly have the INTENTION of moving the ball forward, but should only do so if the opportunity to move it forward does not risk losing possession, or the risk is outweighed by a high percentage goal scoring opportunity.

This may sound convoluted, but it's actual based on systems theory. Plus if you're someone who plays poker successfully using a tight aggressive strategy, then possession football makes complete sense.

phazza · Mar 28, 2014

JCL666 said:
What do you disagree with?

You think that having the ball more than the opposition is defending?

Defending by it's definition is to resist an attack. To attack the other team need the ball. Or are you saying that we are defending when we have the ball and they are attacking when they don't?

There is a difference between defending and being negative. Also by selectively quoting you have missed the most important thing. The point of possession football is to work the ball into an area where you can then shoot.

I think the idea that you have to be constantly working the ball forward is wrong. In possession football the team constantly have the INTENTION of moving the ball forward, but should only do so if the opportunity to move it forward does not risk losing possession, or the risk is outweighed by a high percentage goal scoring opportunity.

This may sound convoluted, but it's actual based on systems theory. Plus if you're someone who plays poker successfully using a tight aggressive strategy, then possession football makes complete sense.

spot on. it doesn't spain too much harm!!

LamieRobertson · Mar 28, 2014

JCL666 said:
Can someone define "attacking football" for me please?

If you've got the ball more than the opposition, you cannot be "defending".

As myself and others have posted on a number of occasions, we do have a decent number of shots. It's not "defensive football" just because the people taking those shots KEEP MISSING.

ANd before anyone says "passing it backwards and forwards between defenders isn't attacking"... No it isn't attacking, but it's not defensive either, it's keeping hold of the ball until a decent opportunity arises to pass the ball forward or as listed on wiki "a large number of primarily short passes are deployed by multiple players of the team before culminating in a definitive strike on the opposing team's goal."

(i've put the bit in bold that's an issue)

Anyway.... I'd ask him if he thinks playing possession football requires a higher level of technical skill, and if that is the case can that be achieved using the sort of players available at Championship level.

do you think people define attacking football as more direct? Playing with more ''attacking'' players...more gung ho approach?...i'm sure all this was discussed by the OP after the Sheff Wed game

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Question for the radio man to ask Oscar.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Sienna's Heaven

Fan of the 17 bus

Banned

absurdism

Sienna's Heaven

Well-known member

Drew

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Tofu eating wokerati

[Insert witty title here]

Active member

absurdism

Active member

Not awoke

Share this page