1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Transfer Rumours Some big announcement apparently

Discussion in 'Swansea City' started by swan_and_only, Apr 9, 2016.

  1. Kifflom!

    Kifflom! Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,286
    Likes Received:
    4,272
    Completely agree.<applause>
     
    #81
  2. bigkidderz

    bigkidderz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    913
    Very interesting comments from all. From what Guidolin has said post-match yesterday, he has spent the main part of his time here focussing on 12/13 players. He decided that he didn't want to change too much, because coming in and making wholesale changes mid-season usually leads to relegation (Villa have done it, Newcastle bought too many players in Jan and can't gel, Sunderland have tried to change playing tactics with Big Sam but it's not worked so far).

    My take on it, and it's only speculation as we need to see the final 5 games for this theory to be proved right, is that Guidolin decided to keep things as close to under Monk as possible, but cut out the mistakes and do it better. Curtis in his 10 game cameo did the same - kept playing the diamond but to no great success. But Guidolin successfully managed to get the same 12/13 players that Monk was using to execute Monk's gameplan better - keeping more clean sheets and creating more chances. It was hard to watch and not what we're used to, but blame Monk for that. It would've been easier to have come in and made wholesale changes to our tactics because it would have been the board who got the criticism for making hasty changes, not Guidolin (who would've been executing what the fans wanted to see) - but if we hadn't picked up points, we'd be doomed playing fresh systems and hoping our players can somehow get into the swing of things while devoid of confidence from the season so far.

    The closer we've got to 40 points, it seems the more adventurous we're beginning to be. We're slowly adding to our game week on week. We need playing personnel changes, we know that - Gomis and Ayew just don't suit us but appear to have appearance clauses (perhaps another hidden obstacle that Guidolin is tactically having to deal with). We've brought Montero back in at last (albeit through the advice of Curtis) and it looks like he's impressed Guidolin enough to stay integrated on a match-day level. Guidolin has seemed reactive at times, maybe because he's persevering with a playing style he doesn't like and doesn't know that well, but he realised that grit, bottle and continuity are what get you out of relegation trouble, not chopping and changing.

    Now that we're safe in theory (Villa can't catch us, Newcastle can get to 43, Norwich to 46 and Sunderland to 48 if they win all their games), the next 5 games will officially tell us if Guidolin is the man for the job. For what it's worth, I fully agreed with the decision to bring Naughton on and go back 5. Why wouldn't you do that in that situation? Chelsea, no matter what, were going to pepper our box along the ground and in the air during those last 10 minutes, we needed another person on the field that could defend without sacrificing a central midfielder. Naughton has an offensive streak in him too and on a few occasions got forward to assist and we almost worked goals even with him on. If he'd put Barrow on and we'd conceded, would you all be saying he made a tactical error? Or would you be saying he made the right sub and it didn't work out? It's horses for courses, and against West Brom/Crystal Palace, I agree, shutting up shop was a mistake, but against Chelsea, it was the right call. And I don't actually feel that this was 'shutting up shop', it was putting on an additional full back with legs to get forward when required but has more defending pedigree for the final battle than an out-and-out winger. Bringing on Amat for Paloschi along with Naughton for Montero would have been shutting up shop. He first two subs were like-for-like, with Routledge for Ayew actually making us more attacking! If the team had punished Chelsea and been more than 1-0 up, we'd have seen different subs - at 1-0 against Chelsea, he's made the right call.

    Anyway, I'm just trying to put some balance on the argument. Someone has said it, but the jury is definitely out on Guidolin still. Hell of a win yesterday and for me, he got it right from 0-95 mins yesterday, not to 80 mins like some are saying. If we continue to utilise Montero properly and press and play with the pace and power we saw yesterday, Guidolin with Curtis at his side seems like it could be a fantastic pairing to continue this forward momentum. If Guidolin persists to play without wingers, then he's probably not the man for the job. Not because I think he's incapable or not a good manager, but because there will be an ongoing style clash between what the fans want, and what the manager wants to deliver.

    Onto the investment - if the terms are right, the trust keep their 21%, Huw keeps his Chairman status, current problematic directors are ousted, and funds are made available for infrastructure and the team (currently, we're a selling club, we'd have made a significant loss without selling Bony last year), then I'm happy. But before anything, the supporters' trust has to be happy with the deal. I fully back them to look at the offer in detail and ask all the relevant questions. We've been blessed to get where we are, but there is a ceiling to our model. Leicester have spent well, but they aren't where they are through penny pinching, they have a Thai billionaire behind them. Their marketing department is probably second-to-none and their sponsorship deals probably piss all over ours. Those are the areas that we need real global businessmen to improve us - there's a lot of money through foreign market sales and sponsorship that we're missing out on. Currently, we have to make a choice - shall we improve the team, improve the infrastructure/stadium, or improve our global marketing? With the right investor, suddenly all three can be done hand-in-hand.
     
    #82
  3. Kifflom!

    Kifflom! Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,286
    Likes Received:
    4,272
    I agree in part BK but if Guidolin was so right to make the changes at 83 minutes how come we got worse and Chelsea became better from 84-95? I understand what you're saying but for me the change was unecessary because we were doing well and coping with them adequately. After 84 minutes we didn't and were rocking at the end. For me (and the fans around me, including your mate lol) he got that wrong.

    But credit where it's due. The lineup and tactics were dead right beforehand.
     
    #83
  4. Stumpy

    Stumpy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    I think our safety is because of a collective effort between our players, Curtis (and backroom staff) and Guidolin.

    Much of the credit has to go to our players (most of them anyway). I've/we've bagged them all year but they've shown courage and played through fear while under extreme pressure. They've grafted most games since Christmas and its not been pretty and on times down right ugly but respect from me to them, we're safe because they threw up, laced up, ran out and did the job <applause>

    Curt has shown he's not just a part of our history but integral to our future. He too has shown his metal and if anyone ever doubted he's shown what he means to the club and to us. <applause>

    Guidolin, came to ensure safety which he has done <applause> but I find it difficult to judge him or work out if he's the manager for us. His mindset was to win points and he set us up to grind out results but if he wants the job come summer and endear himself to us fickle fans then, imo, he has to show something else for the rest of the season. He's succeeded in his remit but now he has to show us what he can do.

    Re the new investors, look at them like salvage hunters. They 'buy to sell', that's it, there is no other reason for investment, particularly American investment. An investment simply purchases the right to sell at a profit. All these guys will do will be to give us a polish and shine through cost cutting and then when we're as lean as we can be they'll sell us piece by piece. Whatever they put in they'll want to double their money.

    Not saying its the end of us but look what's happened to Man Utd, Liverpool, Newcastle, Villa who all opened their doors to American investment on the back of rediculous dreams of future success. I'd personally prefer an oil rich Sheikh a la Man City or a rich Russian, a la Chelsea to buy us. I'd rather be their toy than an Americans pension plan.
     
    #84
  5. When Swans are flying

    When Swans are flying Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,175
    Likes Received:
    2,507
    There was 1 phase in that last 10, when I said to the guy next to me we've totally lost our fvckin shape now!!! That could've proven to be a self-implode episode...

    If not broke....

    We should've brought on a fresh Barrow with a remit to just run at them, they had 2 defenders on a yellow!! Surely that's not rocket science..
     
    #85
  6. trundles left foot

    trundles left foot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    8,003
    I couldn't agree more, I cant remember one American who has taken over a football club and improved them. I suppose we must trust Jenkins, but somehow cant help but think that this agreement to invest has come on the back of us keeping our PL status and knowing how much more money Sky will give next season. Investment is probably needed but not from yanks who flit from sports club to sports club. I am on the no side of this, but looks like a done deal and just have to hope it works.
     
    #86
    ValleyGraduate12, Stumpy and Kifflom! like this.
  7. Kifflom!

    Kifflom! Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,286
    Likes Received:
    4,272
    Good posts above. <applause> Even though the Moaning Police will clip your wings soon, well said, guys. <ok>:police:
     
    #87
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2016
  8. bigkidderz

    bigkidderz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    913
    My take on it is that Chelsea became better from 84-95 not because of a substitution, but because our team had run their socks off, we'd never beaten them before and were becoming more and more nervous anxious (not just the players, the crowd), and Chelsea stepping up their game.

    The reality is that Chelsea from 65 minutes were coming more and more into the game - it wasn't like the substitution was like opening a tap to Chelsea's attack. You could feel from 65 minutes that Chelsea were ramping it up. We made the first sub of Routledge for Ayew - the 100% right sub at the time. It made us more attacking - two proper wingers. That was Guidolin reacting and saying, "Ok, this week I'm going to make an attacking sub when the tide of the game changes". He did, and to be quite frank, Chelsea just kept coming at us. Routledge spent more time defending than attacking. The second sub on 75 minutes was Gomis for Paloschi - if I'm honest, I'm almost certain Gomis has some sort of appearance clause like Ayew. Gomis completely hindered us and stopped doing the defending from the front of Paloschi - but to be honest, Montero and Paloschi had run themselves into the ground at this time, both had to come off. As a result of those 2 becoming more tired (and Gomis not running), the midfield were starting to become overrun and were tiring themselves - Fer and Cork the most. 50/50s were starting to fall at Chelsea feet, not Swansea.

    So here we stand at 83 minutes. What do you do? Your team has slowly been losing control over the past 20 minutes - your left winger is knackered, your midfield are knackered. Your team has missed numerous guilt-edged chances to score more goals. Your two attacking like-for-like substitutes haven't worked. Why would you possibly put on another winger at this point?

    The Naughton for Montero sub was a recognition that the team was going to face a barrage given what he'd seen for the last 20 minutes. It was a pro-active substitute that won us the game. Naughton was effective at defending when he came on but also got up the right side a few times - which was obviously what management wanted from him. I actually felt the substitute gave us better balance at the time given the relative fatigue of the team - and while we conceded the pitch, we actually defended Chelsea with even more ease once Naughton came on. Taking Montero off didn't open up holes in the middle of the park - tiredness did.
     
    #88
  9. Stumpy

    Stumpy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    Totally agree BK, good post <applause>
     
    #89
    seabreeze and DragonPhilljack like this.
  10. trundles left foot

    trundles left foot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    8,003
    I know it is about opinions but totally disagree with the last past. Leaving us short in midfield and playing 5 at the back, just invited them on, because of the change in formation it left Fer and Cork completely exposed, while allowing Chelsea to outnumber us. Our shape went from two good defensive lines to 1 outnumbered and 1 line of five where none knew what or where they should be. We gave them every opportunity to come at us while simply not occupying them, which we had done for the previous 83 minutes. It is all about opinions I know and ours is obviously totally different as it is to all sitting where I was were wondering how long it would be before Amat or Naughton would come on at the expense of an attacking player and we had our answer on 83 mins, then all were screaming at the way we lost our shape because of the change.

    Still a great win.
     
    #90
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2016
    Kifflom! likes this.

  11. Kifflom!

    Kifflom! Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,286
    Likes Received:
    4,272
    ^^^^What he said. :emoticon-0110-tongu

    Yes our players were knackered but we're talking 10 minutes, that's all. No need to change it imo. When the change happened it was like a switch was flipped and we struggled for the remainder of the game.
     
    #91
  12. Stumpy

    Stumpy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    3,624
    I still agree with BK here guys. I think Naughton for Montero was a good sub.

    Montero was out on his feet and also had two defending him all second half and he was getting less and less effective. Chelsea were beginning to make inroads down our left too and Naughton coming on countered and stopped this forcing Chelsea to play through the middle where we had numbers. That's how I saw it anyway, but good to be talking about this instead of how crap we were yesterday.

    We're safe, warm, happy and I haven't felt this fuzzy all season, nice feeling isn't it guys <ok>
     
    #92
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2016
  13. 55282

    55282 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2014
    Messages:
    15,060
    Likes Received:
    18,484
    Thank goodness for Siggy.
     
    #93
    ValleyGraduate12 and Stumpy like this.
  14. bigkidderz

    bigkidderz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    913
    The fact is, if we had put Barrow on and conceded because we didn't have enough bodies at the back, there'd have been even more stick for Guidolin. You see more and more late goals these days, and that's why the comment "we're talking 10 minutes" doesn't wash with me personally - it takes a second to score a goal, sometimes only 2 passes needed from keeper to net. 10 minutes is a heck of a long time when you have tired bodies all over the field.

    This is Chelsea we're talking about, not West Brom or Palace. Against those teams, we went more and more defensive as soon as the second half started - an error that resulted in lost leads. We didn't against Chelsea. We went more attacking, made two attacking substitutions (neither worked and still brought Chelsea onto us), so how can you guarantee that a third attacking substitution going to have more effect than the other two? Chelsea had over 60% possession yesterday, do you think that all happened in the last 10 minutes? They had started dominating the ball and the middle of the park long before Montero was swapped for Naughton.

    He made a sub, we didn't give away any clear chances after the sub and we won the game. That for me is a good substitution, and done at the right time. Had he put Amat on for Fer/Cork, that would have been too defensive a substitution (much more more so than a winger for a full back) and would have created holes in the middle. But the midfield stayed intact - the holes opened up because the 3 in the middle got tired - but at least we had more bodies behind them to mop up anything they missed - which the defence did with ease as a unit of 5, but we had the flexibility to get Naughton up field if required (which wouldn't had been there if we'd brought Amat on - perhaps evidence of a lesson learnt by Guidolin?).

    There's no way to know how the game would have gone if Barrow had come on, so I suggest not getting too hung up on something that didn't happen. Guidolin made a call that after making two ultimately ineffective attacking substitutions, and realised making another one could have been suicide. What's the point in having a fresh winger on that nobody can support? All it would have meant is that we have one less player back, our midfield have to waste even more energy to get forward and support Barrow, and then as everyone is tired they are then struggling to get back - so Chelsea will either have more counter attacks against fewer players, or Barrow is a wasted sub running down cul-de-sacs while the rest of the team watch from our half. I'm sorry, but I can't agree that Barrow was the right substitute.

    However, while we do disagree in opinion, it's good that we're debating not only after a win, but about the last 10 minutes only - not about the tactics as a whole. Lots of managers would have approached the last 10 minutes differently - lots of managers would've lost the lead and lots would have won. We got the win and, in the end, no matter what you think, when you look back at those last 10 minutes, we didn't struggle. We were composed in defence and held Chelsea at arms length.
     
    #94
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2016
  15. bigkidderz

    bigkidderz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    913
    Btw, I'm still cautious on Guidolin. I think the only thing we're disagreeing on is the 3rd substitution yesterday. I'm making quite a meal of it because I am literally in complete disagreement with those who think it was a bad substitute, but otherwise I think we're all singing from the same hymnsheet on Guidolin and whether he's the man for the job. Five games Francesco - show us what you've got.
     
    #95
  16. trundles left foot

    trundles left foot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    8,003
    I am not so sure it is even the substitution i feel more the shape and formation we played, If we had put Naughton on the left or right in front of the full backs and stuck with the 4-5-1 i could see it, but going to 5 at the back was the issue for me in that you ended up with 3 centre halves each not looking like they knew where they should be and it seemed to weaken us in midfield. when prior to that although Chelsea were putting pressure on the 2 line were more than coping.
     
    #96
  17. bigkidderz

    bigkidderz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    913
    Fair, I can see your point. But I still didn't feel like it made that big a difference and when you look back at the match - Chelsea literally had nothing to shout about during the last 10 minutes. When you have tired legs, the sign of a good manager is to adjust to give what you have on the field at that moment the best opportunity to win the match. The back 5 (with the ability to move into a 4-4-2 by pushing Naughton onto the wing in attack and push Routledge next to Gomis) was versatile enough but also solid enough for a team with 3 knackered midfielders to implement with ease.

    We surrendered a little more of the ball in the middle during the last 10 minutes, but we absolutely dominated defensively in our final third. The 2 lines were coping up until then - but we've been calling for pro-active subs from Guidolin, and he obviously could foresee that if he left it as it was, more and more holes would open up. Montero was tracking back less and less, Fer and Cork were tiring by the minute, and the more 50/50s they lost, the more pressure would come on our back four. So he made the sub, changed the shape and we saw out the game quite comfortably in the end. We've argued enough that Guidolin just sits there and doesn't make changes before bad stuff happens, well yesterday he did just that but he's getting abuse for it. Go figure.
     
    #97
    DragonPhilljack likes this.
  18. trundles left foot

    trundles left foot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    8,905
    Likes Received:
    8,003
    I think i saw a different last 10 mins to you, as soon as the change was made they went straight through the middle, Rangel was trying to get across to the others what Guidolin wanted and i just thought we looked shapeless when we hadn't before. But still who really cares we won and are now safe.
     
    #98
    ValleyGraduate12 likes this.
  19. bigkidderz

    bigkidderz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,163
    Likes Received:
    913
    I agree the middle looked shapeless, but I just see if from a different perspective. The midfield stopped winning 50/50s because they were tired - not because we took off a left winger. I find it hard to believe that taking off a winger that had all-but stopped tracking back would unhinge a midfield? For me, Guidolin could see his midfield flagging and decided to back them up, not give them more work to do by putting on a fresh winger who would stretch the field even further.

    Indeed, though. We won, so it's better to be debating this sort of stuff rather than the ifs, buts and maybes that surround conceding a lead or losing.
     
    #99
    ValleyGraduate12 likes this.
  20. Kifflom!

    Kifflom! Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    10,286
    Likes Received:
    4,272
    You're wrong. Were not all singing from the same hymsheet, BK. Read the posts elsewhere. He's the Messiah apparently. Talk about getting caught up in daft, misplaced euphoria. No lessons have been learned it seems. But IMO you're dead right to remain cautious.
     
    #100

Share This Page