In my opinion, the second half was our worst half of football at Oakwell this season. This week, Minority Report will attempt to understand why. In the first half, both teams played 4-5-1 formations. The difference between the two was that Barnsley arranged their central midfield triangle with 2 attacking midfield players, whereas the QPR midfield triangle was arranged with 2 defensive midfield players. I wondered whether Josh Scowen would have been as keen to move on had he realised that his talents would be as criminally wasted as they are in the defensive midfield role. Surely the warmth of his welcome by the home fans must have given him reason to think. The game had no great quality with both sets of players effectively neutralising each other, and the strike that gave us the lead was very much out of character compared to what went before. The goal served to open the game up, and it improved as a result. QPR had push one of their defensive midfield players further forward, and as a result, they looked more in the game. A succession of corners showed Ugbo to be weak defensively, as he contrived to lose his man in half a dozen different ways. Nevertheless, we arrived at half time still with our narrow lead intact. I was not surprised that QPR went 4-4-2 at half time, but what did surprise me was that we did so as well. Barnes fell victim to the change, being replaced by Bradshaw. In addition, Potts was removed from central midfield in order to fill the wide right position with Hammill moving over to the left side in order to replace Barnes. The changes were a 100% failure. Potts is too slow to play in a wide position and Hammill was less effective on the left than he had been on the right in tandem with McCarthy. So, what might have been in Hecky’s mind? Well Fryers had struggled at times in the first half, and Hammill represents a far better defensive option in support of Fryers than do either Barnes or Hedges. This also explains why when Hedges replaced Potts, but played on the right side for the rest of the game. However, this does not explain the arrival of Bradshaw and the change to 4-4-2. If we had stayed with 4-5-1, even though QPR would have changed to 4-4-2, the game would not have become as open as it did. The start of the second half was far too open. Admittedly, there were chances at either end, but when protecting a narrow lead, a manager does not usually want to see the lottery of an open game. However, as the game wore on, our 2 forwards became detached from the rest of the team. We got deeper and deeper, and in the end, the only route forward was the long punt from back to front. It is anathema to my football principles to hit the ball long. That is not how I believe the game should be played, and that it the reason for my opening remarks. Not only that, we do not have the players to play the game that way, so there is absolutely no point. We lost control of a game that I believe we could have gone on and won because we changed to 4-4-2. There will be those who say that we should not have changed Moncur, or indeed Potts, but in both cases their legs had gone. In the end QPR scored because we were 1 man short at the edge of our own box, but in truth, the goal had been coming since half-time. Has Hecky been reading the BBS? Did he bow to the clamour for 4-4-2, or did he simply decide to show us all what can happen when you give up control of midfield. Who knows, but my guess is that it will be a long time before we see that system used again when we are in a winning position.
You will not have an easier appraisal of a match at oakwell all season. This one was great for you too ....as i notice you usually concentrate on formations and the effect on the overall performances. Cant disagree with anything in your report. Hopefully Hecky will see...we are a long way off in the develpment if these players ...to enable us to play 442
Good summary of the game Was a surprise to me to see Barnes withdrawn. The amount of hoofball in the second half was depressing & I think in the end we only deserved a point from the match. A match we needed to win in my opinion.
Good report . As we had looked so comfortable in the first half against a poor qpr side I couldn't believe the change to 442 at half time . There was no apparent need to do it . Talk about upsetting the apple cart .
Totally agree with the Minority Report Mr Rain (sorry, that's helping turn it in to a majority report!). Further thoughts: I remain convinced that Hecky is one of, if not the best managers we have had. But he is not infallible. The half time switch was a big mistake in the context of the game. Having seen Hecky bravely stick to his principles with the starting lineup, it was a surprise to see him abandon them at half time. It mystified us old codgers in the ESL, which is admittedly a low bar. Trying to be too clever? Trying to impress the onlooking visitor? (I'd thought it was Billie Beane, but elsewhere on here I'm told it was Paul Conway). Is Hecky secure in his position, with HuddsReds telling us the finalised takeover is due to be announced tomorrow? Who knows. And Hecky's spat with the snidey Holloway follows on from bust-ups last season with Lee Bullen (Fowls away) and Lambert (Wolves, home). He needs to rein that in, despite the occasional frustrations. But I stand by my first sentence. Unlike others on here, I have certainly not given up on this group of players, despite the blips. They are young and lacking in experience (although that excuse will only wash for so long). The performances against Ipswich, Forest, Sunderland and Derby are still fresh in the mind, and they have shown the ability to produce at that level when the circumstances are right. There is lots more to come from this squad. Clearly McGeechan and Thiam can't be deemed fit to Hecky's standards just yet given their limited game time. But surely there is plenty to come there. We also have yet to be able to play Cavare, Yiadom and Izzy, so more options there too. But last night we looked flat after the Villa/Spurs/Wolves games. So the break after the Millwall game may be coming at the right time. With Burton, Bolton and Sunderland all losing last night and Brentford held to a draw we actually gained ground. Managerless Birmingham face the still-smarting Fowls tonight. Millwall on Saturday is winnable if our energy levels have recovered a little. It shouldn't be too hard to guess what formation we will play on Saturday! This takeover thing could really do with concluding, because I get the strong feeling that that is causing uncertainty at the moment. But for now we are a long way off "rock bottom"! COYR!
Although it is longer than most, the report of last night's game was done without much depth of thought. I have decided to append a few more thoughts that have occurred to me during today. There cannot be many professions that are judged by so many complete amateurs as football management. In my own case, I have never played the game to a decent standard, I never took any coaching qualifications and I have no experience in teaching the game. And yet, I was quite happy to call the change to 4-4-2, by someone who has all of those things, a mistake. Furthermore, if I was a skilled potter, I would struggle to produce the finest porcelain if all I had to work with was brick clay. Yet my work would be judged against the work of others using the finest materials on no other basis than the finished product. Hecky is having to work with players who are not yet ready, and this is partly the result of injuries and bad fortune, things he has little control over. It takes time to build a team and this is something that I recognised when Lee Johnson was at the sharp end. When Hecky took over from Johnson, the transition was over and the team had turned the corner. It had started to win and Hecky reaped the rewards. But now it is Hecky who is at the sharp end, Hecky who is going through the hard time and who must keep his head whilst all around him are losing theirs. The thing that I admired about Johnson was the way he remained open and honest in his media interviews throughout, even when he was under the severest pressure, and I hope that Hecky will take lessons from Lee Johnson. He said last night that QPR had only 2 shots on target and he was never worried throughout that second half. Well I was because the team had stopped functioning, were hanging on, and an equaliser looked inevitable. After the first of those on target shots, Hecky removed Moncur because his tiredness was on of the reasons that they made that chance. He was clearly worried, and to state otherwise does not reflect those feelings. He has said in the past that the team has not practised in the 4-4-2 shape enough and that this was one of the reasons he had not used it more. That looked a more accurate assessment of last night, that and the fact that we do not currently have the players to compete in that shape. And yet he left them in that shape until the end, even when everyone in the ground could see that it was not working. I am sure that Hecky had his own reasons for using 4-4-2 in that second half, but I would appreciate a bit more honesty about the reasoning behind that decision, rather than the statement that, " I was not happy with the team performance in the first half". There has to be more to it than that. If it appears that I am having a go at Hecky, nothing could be further from the truth. As I have already said, he knows more about the game than I will ever know. All that I want from him is honesty when he discusses his reasons. I remain positive that given time, he will get it right. In the meantime, we all need to be patient.
I take your point about what Hecky inherited, Red Rain. But it's worth also reflecting on the circumstances he has been working under for the last 19 months. As you say, Johnson had put the building blocks in place, but there can be no doubt who would have been blamed had the 2015-16 team not gone to realise it's potential so spectacularly. Although the Stones sell-on money came through that summer, there was little evidence of much of it being put at Hecky's disposal. There was therefore a question mark, to say the least, as to whether the promotion squad would hack it in the second tier. Andy Ritchie's experience in the same circumstances with the squad of which Hecky was a part was not a helpful precedent in that regard. As it was, the team hit the ground running but was almost immediately weakened by the sale of the rapidly developed Alfie Mawson. More good work saw Angus McDonald rapidly accelerated and a favourable position going in to the New Year. We all know what happened next. In the period since promotion, Hecky lost the comradeship of Ben Mansford, with whom he worked well. He also lost his trusted assistant in the 'honey trap' scandal. This was followed in January by the sudden departure of another Chief Exec, for reasons which have still to be fully explained. Hecky achieved safety despite the wanton weakening of his squad, but found himself having to rebuild for much of the summer without a new Chief Exec, which not only placed a strain on him personally but also delayed the identification and signing of new recruits. Clearly, for much of this period discussions were ongoing regarding the sale of the club, with all the uncertainty that that must have entailed. Consequently Hecky embarked this season with inadequate player resources who had not been provided in a timely fashion. All while he had barely been a manager/head coach for 18 months. That we have reached this point without being in the drop zone speaks volumes. As you say, we need patience, and we need to remember that Hecky himself is still learning the job (assuming his position is confirmed following the takeover).
Yes, I agree with much of that, and that was the reason for my potter analogy. The thing that I was complaining about was his inadequate explanation for the change to 4-4-2 in his after match interview. As fans, we have few rights and little knowledge, but speaking personally, I appreciate it when the Chief Coach goes to the trouble to explain his decision-making process. I feel that it improves my knowledge and my understanding of the game. Hecky did not do that, and he even took steps to avoid a direct answer to the direct question posed by the interviewer, whereas Lee Johnson was always full in his explanations, whether you accepted them or not. The sale of Mawson was made for cash flow purposes, but that was the only one. All the sales after that happened because it was the right thing to do. No club can hold a player who wants to move on. Even Manchester United had to let Cristiano Ronaldo go. The players that we sold knew that they could earn more elsewhere than what Barnsley could afford to pay them, or would be allowed to pay because of the limitations that are imposed by the wages structure. It is better to forget about all those past decisions and concentrate on the future. The players who are with us now, are with us because they were willing to accept wages that were within our pay structures. We changed too many players last summer and it is going to be very hard to get them to gel. Currently, they are having to work so hard on a Saturday in order to plug the gaps in organisation that there is nothing left for the Tuesday game. That is how it was with Johnson too, but Hecky is facing the same problems but in a higher league and with more injuries. I am sympathetic to his problems and I fully intend to be patient until he can resolve them.
