Of the four centre-backs that we have, we are not able to count on Diego, Pascal or Koch but we're in conditions to resolve the issue.
Where does Marcelo think he could improve personally, after his post-Liverpool comments
I'm never critical of my job or my labour without explaining why. And I did it in the press conference beforehand. The job of a manager is not measured by the quality of the resources that he has, but by those resources obtaining the result we're looking for.
Normally I don't have a problem diagnosing the problems that we suffer but knowing what the problems are doesn't mean have a solution for them. You start using different resources and it's only good how you manage it if the reality changes.
And I clearly saw the plan of the opponent in the last game had a superior effect than the one I proposed in the game.
We couldn't neutralise their set-pieces, not because we ignored the strength of the best two headerers in the Premier League at the moment, but because of the way we chose to combat it wasn't effective. It's necessary to improve our game not to lose the ball in our own half and there's two paths: one that we're not going to use which is not to put it in play in our own half, that means to send it long when we have the ball in our own half we possess it and one path to solve it is to go long and for a 50:50.
We are not going to do this and the other path is what we try: on the base of precision and mobility, dynamic, going from defence to attack keeping the ball. In the first half and second half we had three clear chances at goal, it's not an easy matter to be able to create these chances against a team like Liverpool but the opponent had plenty more than us and they were more effective.
The majority of chances we received were from set-pieces or losses in our own half or throw-ins from our own half. So evidently each of the things I describe and I in particular know this can have a positive or negative effect on the team. When known situations have a negative effect, it is very clear that is the manager's fault.
I always explain when I make myself responsible for my errors because if you don't explain why you're at fault for the reality of the team, that means taking on the responsibility has no way.
Forshaw's recovery and Bamford's hamstring
Bamford has no difficulties and Forshaw is finishing the recovery of his injury. For next he will be available.
After the game I commented, Pascal didn't have any intention to hurt the opponent. His intentions were different to the injury that was produced and he didn't have bad intentions. It's exactly the same thing the injured player said.
Those things are very fine margins in the rules, what I can tell you with security is what I saw in the game. That what happened it was impossible to anticipate when a player completes a successful recovery of the ball. To say in another way, the majority of the plays that are similar to this one don't generate the consequences this one generated. That's why the injured player admits there was no bad intention.
I understand those that judge and decide have different arguments to the ones I've spoken about and the ones the injured player has spoken about and their arguments are the ones that decide the outcome. It's good that it's this way. What would be useful is to receive information which gave an explanation how to avoid these casual things from generating an injury.
Footballers said it, those that said it from close said it, there was no bad intention and it was a casualty that just happened. So it would be very useful for all of us that it's explained how to avoid the consequences, the circumstances with no intention how to avoid them, because clearly they are punished. And the excessive use of the strength, the imprudence in the decision taken by Pascal shouldn't be considered to analyse this action. This action, it wasn't an imprudent use of [force]. Pascal acted with exuberance that belongs to the game and the consequences of what happened linked more to it being a casual event rather than his intentions.
It wasn't possible to calculate that the attempt Pascal made to recover the ball, would generate the injury that happened. What is clear is what I've said is different, to what those who judge interpreted. We should be guided by the thoughts of those who decide, not by me. To hope to receive an explanation is perhaps excessive, but it would help to improve the decision-making of the players.
There is also a very simple exercise: to compare all the identical actions that don't generate the consequence and the amount of similar actions that don't have the same consequence. They're not even punished with a foul, like in this case. After a casual situation like this, which causes an injury, I accept it but I would like to hear an explanation.
Steve Bruce's relationship with the fans and sympathy Marcelo feels
I always feel saddened when this happens to a manager and the own fans go against them. It's one of the worst feelings that a manager can have.
How does Marcelo envisage allowing his attacking players to shine
I just gave a response of about ten minutes with regards to this subject. Sometimes I'm singled out for the length of my responses but I feel obligated to respond once more.
The forwards depend on the type of passes they receive. It's very difficult for us to create chances or a succession of chances leading up to it. We opted for passes that very long. It would decrease the amount of good balls we receive in attack - that's why we don't do it.
But in the look for fluid playing out to get to the opponent's half, we don't manage for that to happen. Our attackers also don't receive the ball in this case. The option that's left is that we recover the ball in the opponent's half and that we avoid them taking it off us in our own half. If we recover in the opponent's half we will have clear opportunities to attack and if we don't lose it in our half we will half clear opportunities.
The opponent managed to take the ball off us in our own half and they didn't allow us to recover the ball in their half. That added to the effect of the set-pieces and the throw-ins, inclined again in Liverpool's favour. Whilst adding to that we played with ten men for thirty minutes. In this scenario, we played against one of the best teams in the best league in the world, our intention to play a balanced game was [inhibited].
How will Leeds' players deal with the early pressure this season?
So far this season we've played against Man United, Liverpool and Everton who are all high in the table and we played an opponent like Burnley who was also in need of points like us. The difficulty of the next game is not superior to the games that I've singled out. I can assure you not any game that was played in the week would allow for a long period of the competition to find a game without any pressure.
In your time at Leeds have you been in discussions with the referees which are instructive on why certain decisions are made?
I haven't had it. I think the job of the referees is very very difficult. And I think that I have to support that task by being understanding to the decisions that they make against any doubt that any team has, the organisers of the competition but our availability, or the tools possible to interpret the faults. So that what I said before is not incoherent I'm going to give an explanation.
Because I've just said ten minutes before it didn't need an explanation and now I'm saying I do. If there's a league that values the nobleness of the player and punishes speculation it's this one. You saw the commitment of the player, very well-prized, the recovery of Pascal in that ball, despite the fact we were losing 2-0 was very well-prized by the public.
The public praises the commitment and like it shouldn't be in any other way, they punish those who are timid. So it's important for the public to understand or know, when the rules limit the players making an extreme effort to recover the ball. If you see Pascal made an extreme effort to prevent Salah from scoring a goal prior to the sending off of course.
I'm sure that the lukewarm attempts or not giving yourself in an extreme manner, will be demanded from the public from the players. That's why previously I suggested that the decision was explained why there's something that happens casually, [the reason] why it is punished. Perhaps the explanation is the same action that doesn't have a bad intention, one generates a severe injury and the other doesn't and what determines the injury is something by chance, then the difference between the challenge that injures and doesn't injure is accidental. Opposite to the casualty is intention.
It would be useful if we reaffirmed that the challenges that happen by chance that generate an injury and sending off or if there's any other explanation that hasn't been offered. I insist that there's a very accessible response: the imprudence or excessive force of Struijk and this is compared to the argument of something happening by chance. I reaffirm my position because it's the same thing the player who received the foul said. That's not to say those who judge don't have solid arguments which is why I propose to explian, not so much to me but for the public, that finally is the one that jduges players.
How has Pascal responded to this?
It's very easy to clear up. Without Pascal on the pitch, the superiority of Liverpool was evident. The second thing is that there was an appearance in the four/five games played, is Elliott. The same appearances as Mount or Foden and those who love football, when a player of that nature is injured, we're saddened. Pascal is a noble person, with good intentions and of course he regrets the injury.
But the generosity Elliott had to describe things as they were, it helps to ease the effect on Pascal. The footballers always end up being the most pure thing in football, the players say what they think without speculating. When the injury to Elliott happened, the demands of it was explicit, the convenience of playing half an hour with one player less, behind evidently a grave injury to player, the pressure of the referee had that intention. But the players are a lot less speculative than us.
I value a lot what Elliott [said that] made Pascal exempt.
Rodrigo from my point of view, even though I substituted him. He played a very positive first half.
For a striker it's very difficult to receive the ball and create danger and I give a lot of value to those actions.
Rodrigo had had ten interventions of this type.
He was close to creating danger. In none of the actions did he manage to accomplish it. I give a lot of value to his constant looking.
After you can fail to shine by not finishing the chances or you can fail to shine by not generating chances. And Rodrigo in the first half of the last game created a lot of chances that would have imagined us scoring a goal.
Fountain of all knowledge and wisdom
Fountain of all knowledge and wisdom
Rodrigo starting is one of the reasons we are not winning matches.
Poor Kalvin must be tearing his hair out covering so much of the midfield.
- Irish Ian
- Site Contributor
- Posts: 7833
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:53 pm
- Location: Directly above the centre of the Earth.
Well played Marcello.
'I am quite clear in my mind that one has to feel sincere love for those he leads, and if he doesn't feel it naturally, then he must learn how to feel it' Marcelo Bielsa
'Would he kill his granny to win a match?' Bobby Collins