I know that this is not particularly relevant so long after the game, but I have posted it for sake of continuity. It is also very long, so it will test the new system. Before I talk about the game, following the closure of the last transfer window, I would like to say a few words about the way that we have played this season. Many regular readers will note my often voiced regret that we play a system that does not allow us an equal share of possession of the ball. I have often advocated playing 5 in midfield, especially as we now have at least 3 midfield players (Williams, Mowatt and Moncur) for whom that is the most logical system. On the few occasions we have used 5 in midfield, is has been 4-4-1-1, in other words 4 ½ in midfield, a sort of a hybrid. However, the one thing that has made it hard to utilise a 5 man midfield is the lack of a front man who can play that system, and without such a player, the system simply cannot function properly. I was disappointed that we did not pick up that sort of striker during the last transfer window, and I will continue to hope for such a player to arrive during the summer window. But we are where we are and it is unavoidable that we will continue with the system at least until then. Many will argue that our results and performances argue for a continuation of 4-4-2 anyway. And they have a point, because the system clearly works. I clearly have no argument, you play the system that best utilises the players at your disposal, but I decided to think about why the current system works so well. So here are my thoughts. The members of the team are clearly well drilled in the way that our particular version of 4-4-2 works. This season, the system has survived the loss of Mawson, Winnall, Bree and Hourihane. It has survived the test of integrating new players Yiadom, James, Kent, Armstrong, Bradshaw, Jones, McDonald, Moncur, Morsy etc, etc. I know that quality is very much in the eye of the beholder, but to my eye, the quality of the players turning out for us now is nowhere near the overall quality of the players who turned out against Millwall in the play-off final. And yet, we continue to compete effectively in a higher division and against, in the main, players who are better individuals, and we continue to hold down a place in the top half of the league. There can be little doubt that the main contributor to this is the 4-4-2 system. That and the thoroughness of the analysis of our opposition and their strengths, weaknesses and tactics. But what is it about our system that makes it successful, against the odds? The main attribute is shape, and the requirement that the team keeps to that shape at all times. The players have to be willing to make the sacrifices in their own game that retention of the shape enforces upon them. The whole team has to be prepared to work, that is a given, but I am thinking of the sacrifices that individual players have had to make. For example, the central midfield pairing have to be willing to curb their natural desire to get forward in support the forwards. The conversion of Hourihane from an attacking midfield player, into one who only advanced forward for set pieces, was an eye opener. The change made him into a far better player overall, but I have my doubts whether the new Hourihane works as well in a different system, and whether his limitations will be exposed as he tries to adapt to his new surroundings at Aston Villa. Matty James, who has replaced Hourihane is much happier in the basic defensive shape of our midfield, and consequently he has fitted his midfield role very easily. His natural game fits better with Scowen’s natural game, and consequently they are a better fit than were Hourihane and Scowen, hence the need for Sam Morsy at the time. However, the reduction in the number of goals conceded and scored is as much a reflection of James’ strengths and weaknesses, as it is of the reduced effectiveness of our counter-attacking style. James is not as good at seeing a pass as Hourihane was, and although many will put the reduction in our goals for tally down to the sale of Winnall, I feel the loss of Hourihane is at least as strong a reason. Of course, we have not seen James and Mowatt together yet, and no matter how strongly I support Scowen for his work rate, he does not offer the passing range or vision of Mowatt. Assuming James is picked every week, if only for his height and his defensive abilities when our team is without the ball, there is just no room for both Mowatt and Scowen in a 4-4-2 system. We saw as much from the first two goals that we conceded when we played Wolves. We lack the extra tall player to defend at the near post on set pieces when Mowatt and Scowen play together in central midfield. The final point that I would make is that better players, those with higher profiles, are often less willing to sacrifice their individual talents in the name of a strong team ethic. Many have moaned, not least myself (see earlier), about the absence of fresh talent in the last transfer window, but it is hard to find the players who are better than the ones we have, but who are right for the system, have the right attitude towards sacrificing their own individual talent for the sake of the team and are prepared to accept a wage that is within our pay scales. Make no mistake, one bad egg, one player unwilling to contribute his all every week because he thinks he is better than the rest, one player who believes he is more important than the team and the whole fragile edifice will come crashing down. There is more to recruitment than picking up players with better individual skills. Players are always going to leave for more money and ultimately, there is no way that we can, nor should stop that happening. Players will sign for us on salaries which are often below market value only with the expectation that they will improve whilst they are with us, and will be sold to both their benefit and our own, at the right time. The hard part comes when we try to replace them, and keep the magic that has driven us forward to this point. Hecky has spoken at length recently about his love of coaching, and his desire to keep doing so. As a coach, his aim is to bring players together, improve them and make the team better than the sum of its parts. To do so, he needs players who are willing to temporarily forego their own personal ambitions for the sake of the team. But he also needs a clear understanding of his own players’ strengths and weaknesses as well as the opposition strengths and weaknesses. At the moment, that appraisal means that the team has to play to a very restrictive formula, and this is what I personally find difficult. It is because that formula means that we often cede possession of the ball to our opponents in order to maintain our most effective shape, and confine our attacking to bursts, often on the counter. It is effective, but one wonders if there is any other way of doing things. Do we have an upper limit to our payroll cost that will prevent us playing in any other way, or does Hecky have other plans that would allow us to play in a different way, when and if there is more cash to spend on wages. The way that Newcastle played on the break at Oakwell suggests that Our Style is one that is also used by bigger clubs with more resources than we possess, so the probable answer is “no”. The fact that after the Villa game, we once again have more away victories than home victories suggests the system works better when there is less pressure upon the players to attack, and by attacking, reduce the reliance on the tried and tested resilience of the system. Anyway, after the closure of the transfer window, that is now a question for next season. We have the cash to spend, but can we spend it without breaking team spirit, or our pay structure. Both are so important to the way that we play, and do players of better quality inevitably prove a challenge to the team spirit that is built on the core of the team reaction to adversity. It is going to be an interesting summer as the new CEO and the Chief Coach struggle with these knotty problems. In finding replacements for players who have already left, players who will inevitably leave and players who we need to improve us and drive us forward they must solve the inevitable breakdown of that core strength built from past success. All of that must be achieved within a very restrictive pay structure. Good luck to all. I wrote the above paragraphs after the Villa game. I hoped that the team ethic would be enough against Brighton. It was not, and the reason that it was not is that Brighton have a very good team, with some very good individuals. In fact, I thought that they were as good as Newcastle were earlier in the season. We stayed with them for 25 minutes, and I can even make an argument for us being ahead by then, because I thought there was a very strong shout for hand ball early on. The saying is that goals change games, and if we had scored first, we would not have had to chase it. But immediately they scored, the game was over as a contest. The only question left to answer was the margin of our defeat. Today there was no contrast of styles because the two teams both played 4-4-2 in exactly the same way. Both pressed, both held back their central midfield players, both attacked with pace down the sides, except Brighton had more pace. When Brighton scored, they did what we would have done. They dropped their midfield players deeper, they made sure there was no free space ahead of the back four and they played on the break. It was only two, but in truth, they had chances to make it more. It was an eye opener, and an education. It taught me that better players make an even better job of the system than we do, and it taught me that the system alone cannot get us beyond this league. You also need better players. Whether we can ever get those players, based upon the restrictions of transfer budget and especially pay budget I do not know. But I do know that it is a tough ask. Watching Brighton play was like watching Barnsley, but with better players. Not that our players played badly. They did not. They played as well as their talent allowed. Of course some of them have a chance to improve, but on the evidence of today, they have a long way to go. Nevertheless, it was interesting because it showed how far we have to go before we have a team that can challenge realistically for promotion. Brighton showed us our strengths, but they also showed us our weaknesses, and on the day, our weaknesses were more obvious than our strengths. Of course, there is no comparison between the pay budgets of the two clubs. In the circumstances, we are much closer than we should be to their standard, but the large difference in budgets buys that small but telling increase in quality, and when that quality is spread right throughout the team, it is hard to combat. There is little prospect that we can make up that difference in quality. All we can do is hope to keep moving in the right direction, and pray for a miracle. Earlier in the season, I would probably have argued for an early change to 4-5-1. As I say, it was obvious from 25 minutes that they were going to dominate the midfield battle, and that we were going to see less of the ball as a result. Nevertheless, we have been effective in other games when we have soaked up pressure and hit teams on the break. I see that now, and although I considered the change, I was willing to watch events play out if only to learn from the exercise. The big problem with staying with the system was the pace that they had at full back, which meant that our method of attack was ineffective because our method played to their key strength. Pace out wide. Our system has its strengths, and it has virtually ensured us a second season in the Championship, against the odds, but against quality out wide, it is bound to struggle. We need a plan B, but plan B implies an investment in players and their pay, and we just do not have that kind of money. In the end, less money equals a small squad, equals a lack of options.
There is if Scowen plays on the right as he did so quite effectively for a few games to accommodate Morsy....food for thought.
Agreed. It's worrying that we've only scored in one of our last four games. Three goalshy games in such quick succession isn't what we've been about this season. That's what happens when you sell your first 20 goals a season player in the past few decades and have to rely on Adam Armstrong.
With respect I think it was a bit remiss of you to mention the missed opportunities of one side and not to mention of the missed opportunities of the other team. There was a 7 minute period in that game that was quite defining. It started with a miss by Hammill which was as a result of one of our best moves of the game a great one touch counter-attacking move. The same player lost possession which Brighton duly got their second goal from. There was also a clear-cut penalty not given with the scores at 0-0. As good as Brighton were I believe had the 3 afore-mentioned incidents gone differently it havecould quite easily have seen a different result.
Some decent points RR as per.......... I know from previous posts (which I do enjoy reading) that you constantly challenged Hourihane's effectiveness to play in a four man midfield, however as you say he worked very hard and changed his game considerably to fit the "style" You hit it on the head too with the 4-5-1. we simply do not have the forward at our club (at the moment) capable of performing the required job role efficiently on a consistent basis (even Lee Johnson conceded this, realising that Winnall was not a holding player and could not bring players into the game, as the role requires). However the system we do employ with this bunch of players and coach have by far exceeded all my expectations so far, I think that in the main is due to our very own manager, I have enjoyed watching us too! Another point on the subject of midfield and systems is, it looks like Moncur is having to change his natural game for "the system" and IMHO with Mowatt also available I think that will become a straight choice between the two. This summer promises to be interesting, lets hope Hecky and the team keep finding gems and turning then into what we have now............ a very efficient, capable team, on a very limited budget.
I wriite about our pen appeal having seen it several times since and nothing has changed my mind. I don't accept the contact with Bradshaw affected him handling the ball so high up. If you mean the incident in which their player was booked, I couldn't tell at the time, but it proved to be a correct decision anyway. Therefore that's why I speak in what could've been. Anyway, my main point to the op was that we also had near misses and the game turned in what was a defining period in the game.
Not to mention the excellent cross that Hammill stuck on Watkins' head that he really should have buried.
Good read RR although I'm not sure how you can say that Mowatt is a better passer than Scowen based on a diabolical half game debut when he did nothing to convince me he could be first choice in central midfield. All about opinions but unless you've seen him play for Leeds, I don't really know how you can reach a conclusion like that. Moncur, however, has played well since his introduction and he deserves to stay in the team in my opinion, so it will be interesting to see who accompanies James once Scowen is fit again.
Thanks for reading. I did mention the possible, or should that read probable, handball, but in fairness you were probably dropping off by then because it is quite late in the piece. I agree that a penalty might have made a difference. I take your point about the Hammill chance, but the purpose of Minority Report is not to go through the game detailing every incident. Rather, it is an analysis of the game and the reasons that I think it worked out like it did. I often focus on tactics, but there was no point this time, because both teams employed the same tactics. I very much rely on my overall impressions to the exclusion of individual incidents. After the second goal, we were caught out three times on the break, once in a 3 v 1 situation. They all finished without addition to the goal tally, and I did not mention these incidents either. In fact, I don't think I mentioned the goals. Everyone was at the game, and they could see the goals as well as I could. I want to talk about things that others do not see, hence the angle that I take when reporting. It is, after all, a Minority Report.
Thanks for reading. That is a really good point. Have not seen enough of Mowatt to be able to tell. I usually wait longer before I make that kind of assertion. However, the reason I made the point is that Scowen tends to pass short, which is fine in many situations, but if the midfield is playing deep, that is, there is a big gap between the lines, the longer pass, in order to change the focus of our attacking play may be a better option. However, your original point is a good one, and I consider myself chastised. I thought that Moncur did OK. However, he was caught badly out of position in the first half in an attack that Brighton did not score from, and I was wary of his defensive play thereafter. In fairness, the goal at the start of the second half meant that we had to get out of shape in order to chase the game, and their chances during the second half were largely down to us abandoning our shape to chase the game, rather than being the fault of any individual. However, Matty James has to play, and if we are playing with 4 in midfield, two out of Scowen, Mowatt and Moncur begin by sitting on the bench.
