Minority Report - Talking Tactics (3)

Thank u RR good stuff that.
I would also argue that to employ any system successfully u need the right staff to carry it out with the right coach a d application.
I strongly believe we have the latter but at the moment dont have the former.

 

Just noticed I picked out something in a post of yours yesterday that I didn't agree with and I'm doing the same again, I'm not waging a low-key one man vendetta (honest).

I think that in those circumstances it's the personnel that's flawed not the total football concept. You're right that not all players can play in all systems. If a coach wants his team to play in a particular way then the players need to be able to play in that way, not all players can. You'd hope that if a coach is identifying players to play in his team, this is taken into account.

 

I make a partially similar point below. I think the coach must believe he can adapt the players he's got or choose new ones to fit. I think he's been engaged in the recruitment process so let's see....

 

I never noticed. No offence taken.

 

This was a thought-provoking read, so thanks for it. It will be an interesting test of Stendel's tactical awareness this season, especially in terms of how he decides to set up at the start of both home and away games. It seems to me that this is a start set-up of 4-5-1 (you can make the 5 into 2-3 if you prefer) with a view of controlling midfield and having width. Our success this season will hinge on how well we have scouted the opposition in order to a) counter their strengths and b) exploit any perceived weaknesses and we can expect that the opponents will have done this better on us than some teams last season. I think that Stendel will show the tactical know-how to give us a balanced season with at least a mid-table finish, even if we struggle in some of the early games. The players have come to learn and develop and I have no doubt that is what they will be given the opportunity to do. I can see us switching in this system, which is more flexible than last year, to 4-4-2 as need arises within a game. The 'high press' is integral to Stendel's system and I don't see that changing, nor the basic 4-5-1/4-2-3-1 formation until needs must. As Danny W said before the Premiership season, 'it will be depressing at times and exhilarating at others, but it won't be dull.' I'd settle for that. We need the same siege mentality of fans as we had in the Premiership days. The quality of Championship football is much closer to Premiership these days, so it will be a stern (no pun) test for coaches and players. COYR.

 

I too have no interest in an argument and you clearly are a valued contributor.

However I’m not sure you can construe my assertion that there was a condescending tone to your post as being abusive, and I’m certainly no bully.

Regarding the majority of your content, there is little in the way of counter argument from me, you’ve covered a lot of the bases. If I thought you were wrong I’d say. As I already have said, I don’t see the current set up as a 4-4-2, You could see it as a 4-2-3-1, a 4-4-1-1 or even a 4-3-3. It is fluid, and the players need time to get used to it.

What I would add though is the possibility that the subtle changes and nuances can as easily be attributed to the different personnel so far carrying them out as to it being a solely due to a marked change in approach. For example the way the full backs played, Sibbick doesn’t look to be a natural overlapping right back, and Cavare will of course tend to come inside onto his right foot from the left. The wide players further forward are new to the club, Bahre too is playing more centrally but it seems a fluid free role, he’s often very deep. Even Woodrow as the 9 drops deep at points, he always did, though this sometimes leads to little or no central outlet up top accentuating the need for the threat to come from wide.

You would hope that Stendel has the capacity to adapt tactically to the division and also hope that the players can take that on, though I’m always of the thought that undertaking such a level of analysis this early in the season is a tad wasted. I always prefer to assess where we are and how we’ve got there after say 8 - 10 matches.

I will read future minority reports with great interest, possibly responding should your analysis give a different view to what I have seen on the pitch.

I maintain that you didn’t need to say that ‘the BBSer just blames the nearest defender’ - that was a sweeping generalisation and very assumptive. Not everyone will analyse the game in such a detailed way as you do - maybe nobody - but that doesn’t mean that all have such a simplistic and uneducated view.

As I conceded in an earlier post, maybe my reading of the rest of your posts was tainted by that and I hope you didn’t intend to put yourself in a self appointed lofty position.

You should continue to do as you see right, as there are many contributors to this forum who appreciate your minority reports (myself included, this isn’t the first one I’ve read, you did post them publicly last season I recall?), though I would suggest, should you see fit, that you maybe didn’t ought to make sweeping statements about the rest of the contributors to this site. Your views and analysis stand strong enough without that element.

Please keep posting these though, they obviously take a lot of time so I will at least thank you for that.

 

I wanted to keep my thoughts about specific games to the Minority Report for that game. The Fulham game is the only game that I have watched this season and I have written about that game in the Minority Report 2019/20 v Fulham. My greatest surprise in that game was how well we played. I said at the time that I was not expecting it. The big problem with changing lots of players is that understanding, both in terms of team play, and in terms of systems takes a lot of games to get right. This piece is about how I see Stendel's interpretation of a standard system. It is his interpretation that many new young players will struggle with and I was surprised that we were as effective as we were. Having said all that, I did note the holes in our defensive organisation at times, and I was worried about the space at the edge of our box at times too. Perhaps we just beat Fulham because they were rusty, and we played the game as an old fashioned cup tie when the inferior team relies on aggression and hard work.

Those who point out that we did not play 4-4-2 in the Fulham game are right, and if you look at my report of that game, I describe it as a hybrid of 4-4-2 and 4-3-3. But this piece is not really about a specific game. It is a general discussion about a system, and how it is being re-interpreted by Stendel to gain some differential advantage. A differential advantage is when you ask your team to play in a slightly different way because being different gives the opposition a new problem to solve. We did play 4-4-2 last season, though I do accept that we did not play that way very often, and we never played it again after Moore was injured at Gillingham.

The question is not whether our actual system was 4-4-2 because I do accept that it was not our system very often. I called the system that we used against Fulham a hybrid because it looked like 4-4-2 some of the time and 4-3-3 some of the time, and it changed to 4-4-2 for the final 25 minutes when Bahre and Wilks exchanged positions. I do not agree with those who call the system 4-2-3-1 because that would leave Woodrow on the shoulder of the last man, and that is quite definitely not how Woodrow plays. He has neither the height nor the pace to pose a threat that would change the positioning of the opposition back four. He is a No10, and he cannot play any other way. He is not a selfless runner who creates chances both for himself and others with his movement. Instead, he seeks out space outside the box, and he takes chances within it. I do not think that he can play the role of a lone striker as I understand that role.

Last season, when Woodrow played the same role, he was supported from wide by Thiam and Brown. They did not play like wide players. They did not try to beat their full back to the outside and hit crosses from the goal line. They were much more likely to cut inside and seek to link up with either Woodrow or the advanced midfield player, or have shots on goal. My next paper is about the 4-3-3 system and how that worked under Stendel, because last season, our play was much more similar to the classic 4-3-3 system. If I disagree that Woodrow is the lone front man, which I do for the reasons that I have stated, and I insist that our wide players cut inside in order to link up with others, then I am automatically describing a different system to 4-2-3-1, where the front player does not do as he has been instructed. You see, I cannot accept that Stendel would not have corrected Woodrow's positioning, and the fact that he has not, means that Woodrow is playing as per instructions. I have a rule. If something goes wrong once, it is an error. If it goes wrong repeatedly, it is the plan and my assumptions are wrong. In most other respects, 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 are exactly the same system. They are simply the attacking (4-3-3) and the defensive (4-2-3-1) descriptions of the same system and there is really little point in getting too exercised about the differences. The difference of opinion is summed up in the way that I have done so earlier.

 

As I have said in another post, I was using Minority Report -Talking Tactic to talk generally about the way that Stendel changes a particular system in order to gain a differential advantage. I accept that he did not play that way against Fulham, but you have to read my match report on that game to get my specific thoughts. Taking Tactics is intended as a general discussion on subjects that interest me, and it is not intended to relate to any recent game.

There does seem to be a pattern in Stendel's defensive recruits this time. He has gone for height and pace all the way across the back four. I have assumed that there is no accident in that. That was the starting point for my thought processes. I have noticed how the positioning of the full backs has changed since my youth. They used to mark the wide player tightly, but now their position is far closer to the centre back because they want to cut out the defense splitting pass, the pass that went between the two, or the threat of that pass that drew a gap between the centre backs. That automatically means more space initially for the wide player. It is not a long stretch to say that the full backs can now cover for a defense that alters position in coverage but maintains the distance between the players as they are drawn from one side of the field to the other, just like the back three used to work. That is of course something else that is new that the new players have to learn. It all takes time.

Please do not assume that any sweeping generalisation relates to you. Here is another. I have noticed how individuals on the BBS jump to the defense of something that clearly does not relate to them. I have no idea why it happens, but it is common on this forum.

 

The problem with sweeping generalisations, particularly when they refer to ‘the BBSer’ is that it doesn’t state whether ‘the BBSer’ refers to all or some - and it implies all.

Anyway that matters little. I, as you, would rather engage over the proper content and the tactical discussion.

I was surprised that we didn’t sign a taller left back (I don’t know how tall Oduor is to be fair), as the signings as you correctly assert point towards taller, mobile defenders in all positions.

Oduor might be the choice but from what I’ve read, whilst he can play left back, he’s not so much a defender. I’d have anticipated a left back who could also play left centre back maybe, a more natural defender, should the apparent tactical choice be fully realised.

 

Interesting post as usual, Red Rain. Interested to hear what effect you think the new rule regarding goal kicks will have/has had on our press and how opposition might look to exploit it?

 

When will you be posting that, I'm looking forward to it.

 

I had to read this back as I though a generalisation as crass as lumping the whole of the BBS into one wouldn't fit with the tone, which I think is a considered one. I see the slight confusion though. If you read it in context, the only generalisation is the use of 'he' - this assumes a male response, when clearly we have many females on the BBS also. Red Rain's words doesn't generalise, and 'the BBSer' line follows on from the following: 'When a BBSer blames the defence, he is generally referring to the back four, but in truth a goal could result from any outfield member of the team losing concentration, and not doing the job that he has been assigned. The BBSer simply blames the defender closest to the player who scores, and generally, he looks no deeper than that.' This doesn't imply 'all' (the whole of the BBS), it is referring to the previous statement 'When a BBSer blames the defence.'

Very thought-provoking and insightful stuff, and long may it continue. Cheers Red Rain!

And @troff don't get me wrong, it's good to challenge the words/content, as this is what Red Rain has said he wants from these reports i.e. open discussion/debate.

 

For me Bahre is the man to set up balls for the wide players running inside & for Woodrow. He wasn't playing on Tuesday, as presumably Stendel is saving him for Saturday. I expect us to take up the same shape as the first two league games on Saturday & the two midfielders need to firstly protect the back 4 when we don't have the ball and then look to move it quickly forward, either wide or to Bahre when we do, not stroke it around in our half like Man City, as we are not up to that.

 

I do not not think that the revision to the goal kick rule has much to do with our method of play, if I'm honest. With no tall player up front, kicking it long is almost bound to lose us possession. In fairness most teams in the top two leagues are doing it. Football is about possession. The opposition should not be able to score if our team has possession. That is a very brief summary of why it has been adopted. Whilst possession is great, possession close to your own goal is bound to invite the press from the opposition, and the team is then reliant upon the passing and movement, generally of the back four players plus the keeper, who must also be good with his feet. These are players not renowned for their ability to either pass or to move. That is precisely why, when we did our Summer shopping, we looked for defensive players and keepers who are all comfortable with the ball at their feet. That allied to pace and height. However, not giving the ball away in a dangerous position relies on more than passing. It relies on movement, and to do that successfully the players must have played together for a while, and be comfortable with all their colleagues' movement. It worked very well against Fulham, but I gather it worked less well in our other two games.

It may look a very slow way to get the ball forward, and in fairness, it can be if things do not work as they should. However, the opposition is also taking a risk if they put too many players in the press near to our goal. The risk is that the defending team may beat the press, and get the ball to a midfield player in space and beyond the press. If that player turns and runs at goal, he attracts a marker who must leave another of our players. We have created chance on the break, and all because we broke the press. It is something that I have gone on about for almost 12 months in connection with our counter-press, but the press is no different in concept.

I was brought up with a concept that the 4 defenders and the midfield 4 immediately retreated to their defensive positions when the ball was lost. This new world of press and counter-press is taking some getting used to. As for recognising the triggers. Well I have no idea what they are. But that is the thought process behind the short pass from the goalkeeper and the press that is consequent upon that first short pass.

 

we play 4231 and thats what we played pretty much the whole of last season.
daniel has gone for pace with the guys playing in the 3 and hes also expecting them to be interchangeable.
Woodrow is playing too deep. I think that needs correcting. he hasn't got the pace but he can turn a defender. he's tricky and is more useful to us in and around the box, not dropping in as an extra midfielder.
in the 4231 ( and it is v different to 433) our wide men are expected to track back throughout the 90. they're also expected to cover their full back if he's gone way up front.
Liverpool play a 433 with mane firmino and sala. they are not deployed in the same way we deploy our wide men.

 

I afraid that I do not agree.

Last season was divided into thirds. In the first third Woodrow was not fit. In the last third Moore was not fit. In the middle third both Moore and Woodrow were fit. In that middle third, we played 4-4-2 with Moore and Woodrow as a front two.

In the last third, we played a front 3, and they played just as you describe for Liverpool. The wide players did not track back.

We played slightly differently against Fulham.

I wrote Minority Report for the whole of last season and I was forever commentating on how our wide players were not expected to track back and how we aspired to play in the same way as Liverpool, and how both teams had German coaches. I guess that there is no way to resolve our difference of opinion on this, so I guess we go our separate ways.

 

Mmm. Agree that we disagree and move on. however my mistake.....you are right about when Moore and Woodrow played together. that was 442.

 

Well at least we agree on something.