THE CONCRETE ROUNDABOUT (TCR)

Something people get confused by is "direct" means long ball, or hoof ball. I never once felt we were long ball under Paul Tisdale, direct? Definitely.

It can be, and often is totally different. Chelsea weren't a hoofball side under Mourinho, but it was often a long kick from the keeper, controlled in midfield by the likes of Essien, spread on by Lampard to the wings with Robben and Joe Cole etc, and crossed in and headed away by Drogba. As direct as it comes without playing boring football.

Direct football is generally just getting on with it in a quicker and less about a stylistic patient build up where an opponent can't get the ball. I like both styles, they have pros and cons as much as each other

_________________
#DonYourWhite

Turn Stadium MK WHITE In The Playoffs

https://donsaction.co.uk/

GET THIS SEASONS HOME SHIRT FOR £16.50 ↓↓↓
https://shop.mkdons.co.uk/collections/23-24-home-kit

During L2 we were definitely hoofing it pointless forward. Nothing direct about it.

We weren't though? I'm just not having that. I sit in the same seat on the halfway line now that I did then, and walked away from almost every game frustrated we didn't kill teams off, but the weird corner routines etc - never once did I get fed up about the ball always being in the sky. We invited pressure on, sure, because Tis liked to sit back and defend leads, but I'll never have that we were an aimless hoofball side when Jordan Houghton, Dave Wheeler, Callum Brittain, Ryan Watson, Rhys Healey and Jake Hesketh were playing some wonderful stuff over the course of the season at times

_________________
#DonYourWhite

Turn Stadium MK WHITE In The Playoffs

https://donsaction.co.uk/

GET THIS SEASONS HOME SHIRT FOR £16.50 ↓↓↓
https://shop.mkdons.co.uk/collections/23-24-home-kit

Sorry, I meant to say L1 haha. Which may change your response

I definitely thought we played many aimless balls forward. Also receiving a mid/long kick from Foster in midfield we had plenty of time to bring it under control but elected to head it, giving possession to them.

I’m not knocking the slick passing moves that led to our goals. But we frequently and needlessly gave the ball to Wrexham. Definitely more hoof than direct on those occasions. No target for them whatsoever.

Unless they’re being coached to play those balls whether or not we have a player running into the space there…but that would seem a bit dumb

The other argument to be had is they are balls orchestrated to give the ball to wrexham in areas we can win it back and exploit them. Rather than turning possession over in our own box trying to be man city we are keeping the ball in areas its dangerous to them. So rather than being aimless we are putting balls in areas we can exploit any mistakes they make on receiving it.

Totally agree about Harvie, don’t really rate him, can’t stop a cross and was targeted by most of the Wrexham attacks, fair play on his goal but think it was very scuffed which fooled a very old keeper lol

Good day out but they really need to sort the food and drinks out, nothing to eat outside so ended up 35mins queue for a pie !!

That would make more sense if we had a player within 15 yards to challenge the second ball.

That's harsh. It wasn't scuffed, the keeper just didn't expect it. It was well placed.

Pretty much agree with this. The passing for Leko's second goal was superb. More of that please it was almost like Brighton - passing forwards with pace but on the ground and through the press. Lovely stuff.

However there was a lot of aimless long balls as well. What I would say, as one of the 'possession Russball purists' on here is that we scored 5 goals and I thoroughly enjoyed the game. So in this instance the trade off was absolutely worth it and it was entertaining throughout. If we keep scoring goals we will all be happy.

If the goals dry up and we still punt it long things might sour quickly.