On IdlePete's criticisms of Ramos I think you're disadvantaged in not having the full story. I don't either but i know there is one and it's not the one you have told. if you forced me to guess at ramos' reasoning I'd assume:
By following steps one and two I can speculate, for example, that Ramos wanted to throw the PSV coaches plans out of kilter.
- That there was a rationale
- That if I can't see it I should look to my own reasoning first.
Hanibal (the Cartegenian not the psychopath) was one of the greatest generals to have lived, one of his famous victories involved playing up to his opponents expectations before revealing something quite different at the last minute.
He encouraged the Roman's to attack down the middle in the traditional style of warfare favoured at the time, the Roman's duly obliged as they knew their better drilled heavy infantry held the advantage over the Carteginians veterans.
Except Hannibal had not placed in his elite in the centre, he'd arranged his foreign auxillaries there but dressed them as his crack troops. Instead he'd placed them on his wings, with cavalry and light infantry kept in reserve. The Roman's attacked and inevitably the Carteginians centre gave ground, emboldened in the knowledge the enemy had nowhere to run (Hannibal had so arranged his troops that their backs were to a river) the Roman's crack troops pressed forward. Now though their auxillaries arranged on the wings were coming up against Hannibal's veterans and getting slaughtered, they got funneled into the gap their comrades had made down the centre and like the horns of a stag beetle Hanibal's forces encircled the Roman's who'd almost reached the river. Unexpectedly attacked from the side and behind and with no where to run they panicked, even seasoned soldiers threw down their arms and legged it. When the Carteginian reserves joined the fray catching the Roman cavalry completely by surprise it became a massacre. The larger Roman army was wiped out with the dead measured in the tens of thousands, Hannibal lost less than a thousand and of those it was only the foreign and raw recruits.
Apologies for the long-winded analogy, but here's the point. PSV were expecting us to attack down the wings, they were prepared to defend there and get at us through the centre, instead we loaded the centre and went at them directly and it threw them out of kilter, made them uncertain where the previous week they'd been full of confidence and known what they were doing. What is more Ramos had a very attacking bench. This meant that as the game got older and legs grew weary he could conjure width and pace. PSV grew incresingly frantic and our attacks progressively more penetrating. Perhaps we should have put away one of the earlier chances, but it was no surprise that the goal came late in the game, I suspect it was no surprise to Ramos either who's hall-mark is teams that play at a frenetic attacking pace from kick-off to final whistle. The result was job done.
Your wish that we'd just gone at them ala Martin Jol was precisely what they'd trained all week to defend against, it was the game plan which so effectively stifled us at WHL. Instead of criticism, Ramos deserves your admiration. And if not that then enough respect to try and puzzle it out, rather than your slightly glib analysis.
Ok I’ll take back my apology for that, but having read what I wrote again I will say sorry for being a bit ott in my criticism of what you wrote.Don't apologise for the long-winded analogy. your long winded analogies are entertaining.
I didn’t describe what I meant by job done properly. As a coach you can’t guarantee a win, you can put out a team to achieve certain goals which you hope if attained will lead to the result you require. You can’t put out a team which will either result in Berbatov scoring with an exquisite volley from the edge of the box, or prevent Malbranque putting one wide when he should have put in Keane or got it on target. That’s the slings and arrows of any game. So Ramos’ job was to disrupt PSVs game whilst maximising ours over a 90 minute period. I argue that he achieved this and that however scrappy we appeared at times we achieved our potential considering the opposition. I further argue that we did this as a result of Ramos’ tactics. You believe on the other hand that a less technical approach and a more gung-ho attitude would have seen a better result. I think you’re wrong and for evidence I’ll point you to Ramos’ record, the previous match at WHL and the record of the previous season. With your approach we may well have gone down in a blaze of glory, but imo it would more likely have been a fizzle of ignominy.Ramos has got my admiration. Like I said in both threads, I already understood his reasoning and his tactics and it very nearly worked out for us. There wasn't anything for me to try to puzzle out.
The bit I've highlighted is the bit that's wrong. Maybe you got a little bit too excited and forgot what actually happened on the night while you were writing that lot out, if so I'm sorry to have to tell you that we're not in the draw for the next round of the UEFA Cup. It's also worth remembering that we didn't go there to win 1-0, we went there to win 2-0. Poyet said that's what we were going to do immediately after the first game (I can imagine Ramos already had his gameplan for the 2nd leg all but sorted before the final whistle). So scoring that late goal, although it was invaluable and kept us in the tie, was less than Ramos had planned/hoped for from his gameplan. We were a long way off job done.
And this is what I refute and I refer you the ‘West Brom fan’ analogy of my previous post. There’s a reason Ramos is the coach he is and it’s not for want of plan, tactics or strategy. You can guarantee there was a reason we went gung-ho against Arsenal and tight against PSV and it’s not for lack of balls. Each match demanded a different strategy and in the case of the PSV match the minimum that was required was the stiff ask of an away victory. The worst we could have got is very far beneath that. The best proved just out of reach. What we did achieve was hugely praiseworthy and as the thread starter indicated should have made fans proud.I don't suggest for a minute that we should have played exactly the same way as we did at WHL (you haven't explicitly said I did, but others have). There were lots of changes we could have made in terms of personnel and tactics without sacrificing width or attacking intent. I've got enough belief in Ramos's ability to know he could have set us up in a more attacking fashion that could have also have thrown them out of kilter and seen them steamrolled out of our way (particularly with all the aerial freedom we had cos of their midget CBs). Yes, it would have been more risky. Yes, it goes against the conventional "this is how you win a European Cup" style of football. Like I said, I'm not making a major criticism of Ramos for his tactics. To use an anology of my own, it's a bit like Roy Wanker used to say on Catchphrase: "It's good, but it's not good enough."