Leeds United v Charlton Athletic | Wed 22 July | Post-match Thread

I’m now kind of hoping schools don’t open in September, on account of the good number of Barnsley supporting kids I teach 😞

Chippycafc said:

How many people have renewed their season tickets for next year....Having been one for 20 odd years and only missing one home game in that time i have not so far....One reason is i dont know when we will be allowed to sit in the stadium again...Cant watch us on TV/Tablet/PC etc...

No chance. For the reason you have stated and the fact im not going to until all the esi/roland scum have departed. Sick of the lot of them and sick of the cesspit of football. Gutted.

LenGlover said:

We're all gutted but Forest fans must be feeling pretty sick too.

They lost 4-1 last night and dropped down to 7th while Swansea nicked 6th place on goal difference (1 goal).

Gallagher might be playing in the Prem after all next season one way or another.

Screw Forest they were absolute pony against Barnsley so I'm pleased they missed out.

That Ben White looks a hell of a prospect, typically that volley he scored was his first of the season...

He must have improved massively under Bielsa, seeing that he's never played in the PL for his parent club Brighton, and the previous season had a 6 month loan spell with Peterborough

MuttleyCAFC said:

It was a great goal but I think we were standing off them too much. Somebody should have been on him sooner. Leeds were passing for fun. Even poorly executed ones were finding a Leeds player because we were conceding space. It makes this sort of game easier. Leeds play from the back and we needed a midfield minefield where it would be difficult to get through. Aneke would have been a good starter as a lone striker and then we needed as many bodies in the midfield as possible with an instruction to get close to Leeds players. If they beat a man, the numbers would allow somebody to cover.

The problem with this is it is difficult to see how it would help us score. But it would have kept things tighter and Leeds may have opened up. Anyway, it was obvious after 5 minutes we were going to get well beaten.

I'd add that Leeds were a lesson to be admired and learned from.  Any midfielder in possession had runners sprinting forward to space, anticipating the pass. Their sharpness of mind and quick movement off the ball were breath-taking.  

MuttleyCAFC said:

It was a great goal but I think we were standing off them too much. Somebody should have been on him sooner. Leeds were passing for fun. Even poorly executed ones were finding a Leeds player because we were conceding space. It makes this sort of game easier. Leeds play from the back and we needed a midfield minefield where it would be difficult to get through. Aneke would have been a good starter as a lone striker and then we needed as many bodies in the midfield as possible with an instruction to get close to Leeds players. If they beat a man, the numbers would allow somebody to cover.

The problem with this is it is difficult to see how it would help us score. But it would have kept things tighter and Leeds may have opened up. Anyway, it was obvious after 5 minutes we were going to get well beaten.

Against Brentford we looked very vulnerable against shots from the edge of the area as we weren't closing players down - everyone was retreating into the penalty box.

We definitely missed Pratley on Wednesday, maybe Lapslie should have started the game instead of McGeady to stiffen central midfield?

Chunes said:

Viewfinder said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

It was a great goal but I think we were standing off them too much. Somebody should have been on him sooner. Leeds were passing for fun. Even poorly executed ones were finding a Leeds player because we were conceding space. It makes this sort of game easier. Leeds play from the back and we needed a midfield minefield where it would be difficult to get through. Aneke would have been a good starter as a lone striker and then we needed as many bodies in the midfield as possible with an instruction to get close to Leeds players. If they beat a man, the numbers would allow somebody to cover.

The problem with this is it is difficult to see how it would help us score. But it would have kept things tighter and Leeds may have opened up. Anyway, it was obvious after 5 minutes we were going to get well beaten.

I'd add that Leeds were a lesson to be admired and learned from.  Any midfielder in possession had runners sprinting forward to space, anticipating the pass. Their sharpness of mind and quick movement off the ball were breath-taking.  

It was a masterclass of pass and move. I see why managers like Guardiola worship Bielsa. 

It was indeed!  I hadn't seen him before, was amused by his unprepossessing appearance: shabby grey clothes, flabby paunch, sitting on a stool and staring at his shoes.  Evidently a very astute thinker underneath all that.  Was he their manager when we played Leeds at The Valley?  Terrific approach play, as I recall, yet they couldn't finish.  

Viewfinder said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

A team like Leeds needs kicking a bit and we are a bit too nice. We should have had loads of bookings on Wednesday but we just let a better team do what they wanted to us. I'd have liked us to ask them the question how much they wanted a meaningless victory.

I don't think we let them do what they wanted!  It struck me that we were comprehensively outplayed from start to finish and all over the pitch! 

That was what they wanted to do wasn't it?

MuttleyCAFC said:

A team like Leeds needs kicking a bit and we are a bit too nice. We should have had loads of bookings on Wednesday but we just let a better team do what they wanted to us. I'd have liked us to ask them the question how much they wanted a meaningless victory.

We didn't get near enough to them to kick them!

I love the idea that there was something we could have done, some technical or strategic nuance that was missing.

They were far far better than us.  So much better that there was nothing this team could have done to alter the result.

Wheresmeticket? said:

I love the idea that there was something we could have done, some technical or strategic nuance that was missing.

They were far far better than us.  So much better that there was nothing this team could have done to alter the result.

Bowyer commented that we really suffered once we had to constantly play twice a week. You imagine if the players were more rested they'd have been able to press Leeds far more effectively

killerandflash said:

Wheresmeticket? said:

I love the idea that there was something we could have done, some technical or strategic nuance that was missing.

They were far far better than us.  So much better that there was nothing this team could have done to alter the result.

Bowyer commented that we really suffered once we had to constantly play twice a week. You imagine if the players were more rested they'd have been able to press Leeds far more effectively

Every respect to Bow but I’m not buying that. Three months off followed by two games a week for five weeks should be meat and drink to professional athletes. And it was the same for everyone and I didn’t see Leeds looking knackered.  

I think that is true compared to Leeds, but in every other game we competed well enough. The issue for me can be found when many of the goals we conceded are looked at closely. There are too many poor ones I'm afraid. We are a funny team as defensively we can defend very well in a last ditch way, but if you keep knocking on the door, not even very hard, somebody is going to cock up big time. And I mean stupidly cock up.

Now every team makes mistakes, but we seem to try to make them (an illusion I know). Poor decisions, panic, whatever. I recall the start against Brmingham where we were tripping over each other from the kick off. Lockyer for Wigan's first. A criminally crazy bit of decision making to come in towards the goal. Anyway it became apparent to me that we are not a team that can park the bus. At the start of the season we could do it - look at the home Brentford and Leeds games, but that went over the course of the season for some reason. For me we had to build that weakness into our tactics and we never did. Had we done so, I think we would have got a point at Brentford and beaten Birmingham at the very least.

I had no issues with Wigan, I thought that was our best performance since the return, but maybe because we were forced to chase it. We deserved a win in that game but had we taken the lead, it would have been a different story. We all know that.

What Leeds do is pass with pace and accuracy and build from the back. Knowing that and stopping that are completely different. The way to tackle it is that you have to build a trench somewhere to halt their progress. That is most sensibly in the midfield. In this area you need as many of your troops as you can get and they kick and annoy and smother as much as possible and hope they don't get sent off. Would that approach have beaten Leeds, probably not but it would have more chance of doing so than standing off them and letting them play. 

MuttleyCAFC said:

I have to admit to something that will be unpopular. I think the stigma against the Long Ball game is a barrier to finding a system that could bring many smaller clubs great success. I think it should be revisited. Dyche is on that sort of track at Burnley. It is folly surely to allow teams like Leeds that are better resourced to just outplay you with better technical players. 

Yeah, I'm not against the long-ball game from an ideological point of view.  It worked effectively for Wimbledon, and for Cambridge under John Beck. But of course it relies on the right men on the end of those long balls. Johnny Pearson nodding down for Jimmy Melrose in our days at Sellout-Park was good to watch.  But long hoofs in the vague direction of Bonne and especially Davison are never going to get you anywhere!