Minority Report 2017/18 - Nottingham Forest

Totally agree re hedges. He did nowhere near as much tracking back as Hamilton, who once more, put in an amazing display of skill and hard work. You Ryan needs to take a lead out of Adams book. If he ups his work rate then he will become a much better player a good prospect and I agree with some others on here. ......could be a good option as a striker as he does have the instinct and wants to shoot when he's within range and it's on his left peg. Over to you Hecky!

 

I've hung fire a bit after last night's Minority Report because I wanted to give some thought to the issues raised. First up, I look forward to reading the Minority Reports because I think they are thought-provoking, and judging by the responses, productive in stimulating the debate. I had my suspicions of Mr Rain's format at first because I thought that his main or only aim was to stand out from the crowd. I do think that as his reports have progressed they have become quite thoughtful, and that Mr Rain has become more sanguine about the responses they provoke. There again, perhaps I have just got used to them!

I don't take great exception to much in the Nottingham Forest Minority Report, but in the spirit of the thing I do have some views about some of the points raised. I totally agree that last night we beat a very good side - and according to Mr Warburton a side playing their best game of the embryonic season so far. I have less sympathy with the view that we were very fortunate. That we were overshadowed in terms of possession and attempts on goal can't be disputed. But we set out with a plan prescribed by Paul Heckingbottom, largely carried out that plan to the letter, and certainly rode our luck at times when Forest didn't finish as well as they might have. But ultimately we stuck to our plan and achieved our objective. To that extent I believe that we were in considerable part, architects of our own good fortune. You could say that Forest were fortunate not to concede more goals to us.

As regards the tactical stuff, I've said before I'm not a great one for tactics. When I say that what I mean is that I think there is an over-emphasis on systems and formations. At the end of the day Hecky and Jamie will have a job assigned to each player, and they have the responsibility of carrying out their allotted task(s). Systems and tactics don't turn bad players into good ones or vice versa. To whit: Adam Hammill is a midfielder, but in some of his best periods last night he became a defender, and a very good one at that. 4-5-1 or whatever we were playing didn't define that. Sure you have to have some sort of shape when you start the game, but I think it's importance is overstated. Equally, Hedges was a midfielder, but at least at one crucial point he became a striker. And we won the game. So whether he was one of the 5 in 4-5-1 or one of the two in 4-4-2 didn't really come in to it. He did his job at that vital moment.

And that leads on to the notion that that was the only thing he did all game. Well I don't know about that because I can't honestly remember everything he did (or didn't) do! I do remember however my Dad taking me to Hillsborough in 1968/69 to see George Best (and Charlton and Law, for that matter) play for Manchester United against Wednesday. I've never forgotten how Best was marked out of that game for 89+ of the 90 minutes that night. In the few seconds short of 90 minutes that night Best got free twice and scored twice. Manchester United won 3-1. No-one went home that night saying "Best didn't do much"! And mindful of the result last night I wouldn't make that observation of Ryan Hedges - even if it has some truth. When it mattered, he did his job!

I also have some difficulty with the notion that we succeeded last night purely due to Herculean effort. We demonstrated no little amount of skill and attacking endeavour. That opening twenty minutes was better than many Premier League games I've seen in person. As the game went on players tired (on both sides) and errors occurred. But the game was an absolute treat to watch. And Mark Warburton's assessment of his side's performance only confirmed that view. Now as to whether we can replicate last night's approach in games to come, I feel as sure as I can that Hecky has instilled that work ethic into the whole squad - not just the eleven who started last night's game. On Saturday we may or may not have Mr Thiam and Mr McGeechan available, and the alternative options in midfield have not exactly gone uncommented upon! Harvey Barnes didn't kick a ball last night (despite the announcer's words!). Nor did Ike Ugbo. Hecky may not feel the recruitment is complete just yet, but it can't be denied we have alternatives available to us to refresh the side after a tough game. As for being able to control games, let's not forget we were competing last night against a big money team who probably received for Assombalonga alone what we brought in for Stones (sell-on), Mawson and Hourihane combined. I don't know that we can realistically 'control' these games. But as last night showed, with the application of skill, work-rate and concentration, we can give them a damn good go.

I don't know about the set piece defending, except to say have we conceded any of our six league goals so far directly from this? (I honestly don't know, and I wasn't at the Morecambe game).

I just want to conclude that despite my comments above, I respect Mr Rain's original comments, and those of anyone posting in good faith. We are none of us right or wrong - we just have opinions about this great game and great club. I thought that last night's football, whilst not technically perfect, was as good a game as I've seen at Oakwell in months, if not years. Huge, huge credit to Paul Heckingbottom, Jamie Clapham and every member of last night's squad for putting on such superb entertainment.

COYR!

 

Thanks for your reply. I love it when posters not only take the trouble to reply, but also take the trouble to read what I have written, and think about whether they agree. I love it when the reply is long and well argued.

You have a point about tactics, and last night tactics had less to do with our win than heart, soul and downright effort. I usually write about tactics because I think that it helps to understand why a team can dominate in particular areas of the pitch. It helps to explain why the things that happened, happened. For example, last night our full backs ( our left back in particular) were criticised for allowing their wide players too much space and therefore allowing them the time to hit accurate crosses, and there is no doubt that this is so. But there was a reason why is was so. Even though Forest played with just one forward, there was lots of support form centre midfield, particularly on the break, and because we had only 1 defensive midfield player (Williams) the two centre backs were being outnumbered on quick breaks. In those circumstances, the full backs have to play narrow in order to try to even up the numbers because Forest were much more likely to score down the centre of the field than they were by crossing the ball. That is why I made the point about the defensive work of Adam Hammill as compared to Ryan Hedges, because Hammill worked harder to cover the space that Forest were creating. There have been many comments on here that Pearson had a poor game because he allowed the Forest wide player too much space, and there is no way to explain that unless you look at the tactical reasons for it.

After the main report of the Ipswich game, I wrote a second piece which attempted to show the reasons why tactics and systems are necessary ( http://barnsleyfc.org.uk/threads/minority-report-2017-18-ipswich-town.258358/ ). Of course both teams are limited to 11 players each, and systems simply decide in which areas of the pitch one team will outnumber their opponents, and which areas of the pitch that team will itself be outnumbered. The task then is to cover for that lack of numbers or make good on the surplus. I like the system used by Forest because it gets more players involved for more of the time, but you have to have the right type of player to make it work, and Forest still lost, even though, in my opinion, they played better than us as a team and were better individually. In the end, they lost, not because they got their tactics wrong. They lost because they could not hit the proverbial barn door with the proverbial banjo. But in the Ipswich game, the change of tactics won the game for Ipswich because we could not react. Sometimes tactics will be important, and sometimes they will not and the last two home games illustrate that.

There is no doubt that Best, Law and Charlton were fantastic footballers, but they played in less sophisticated times. There is also no doubt that if they could play today, they would still be outstanding, but they would not be allowed to play in the same way. The game has moved on in its understanding of how to play winning football. In more ways than one, science has been used to make the players fitter and improve their understanding of how to play. All those improvements have not always been to the benefit of the game as a spectacle or as an entertainment, but while ever the result is more important than entertainment, all and every route will be sought to gain an edge. Back in the glory days of Georgie Best, tactics were not even a mint. It seemed like you assembled the best eleven you could, got them fit, and sent them out to play. The question is, how many Premier League teams would they beat now if they went out and played in the same way. We will never know, but my guess is not many. That is the subject for a debate that could run and run.

I commented to my mate at half time what a good game it was. I enjoyed the game, and I enjoyed trying to work out what was happening and why. I enjoyed the game on two levels, but I find it easier to express my feelings about the game by discussing its technical nuances, than I do by enthusing about my feelings at particular moments. Clearly, I am excited by the goals that we scored and angry about the goal that they scored. Less clearly, I am excited by moments of individual skill that indicate that a particular player might offer us a better future. I was elated when the ref blew his final whistle because it meant we had won a game that, at any moment, could have been snatched away from us. However, for me, those joys are short lived, because then, it is all about the future, all about the next game, all about whether those players can win football matches on a consistent basis. Whatever I say, on a regular basis, about patience , should not cover up the churning that goes on inside when we go on a long run of defeats, or the urges that I feel to encourage those in charge to do something to change future outcomes. The only difference between me and Conan is that my logic circuits generally win control of my actions over my emotion circuits. But you are right that none of us is right or wrong. I try not to enter into debates that involve judgement calls. I just try to interpret what I have seen.

 

I've no great tactical insights except to say that I think both Ipswich and Forest were a bit stunned by the ferocity of Barnsley's early play. There's an exuberance, even breathlessness about it. If it were to be converted to goals we'd be out of sight in 20 mins. True, we are vulnerable, but there is something raw and exhilarating about the the way we open for all its naivety.

 

Red Rain, I think the point about Pearson is very well made. It could equally be applied to other full backs we've had - including some of the standout ones. It seems crazy now to imagine that as a centre back you'd have a John Stones at full back to help you out!