Minority Report v Watford

Before the start of the game, it was clear that Watford would pose a sterner test for Ismael’s 3-4-3 system than did a 10 man QPR. It has been a worry of mine that we do not have the right man in Cauley Woodrow to play the central forward role in that system, but Woodrow has a hamstring problem that will cause him to miss at least the next 2 games, and that means a player who is even less suited for the role must deputise. The pre-match question was who would that be? The only candidates appear to be Patrick Schmidt or Elliot Simoes, with Victor Adeboyejo and George Miller as outsiders in the race, in my view. However, they all have their drawbacks.


Even though Ismael plays the front 3 closer to each other than I had expected, and even though the 2 wider players in the front 3 appear to have less of a wide midfield covering role defensively, the central player in the 3 is going to be further away from his closest support player than he has been used to. In those circumstances, that forward needs to either be quick (e.g Jamie Vardy), or strong and mobile (e.g Sergio Aguero). Even Harry Kane has had to move back into a linking role in order to make way for the lightning quick Son at Jose Morinho’s Spurs. So who is there at Oakwell who fits the bill? Well, as I have said before, Woodrow is a good chance taker, but he is not quick, he is not strong and he is not especially mobile. But what of his proposed replacement. Well, I suspect that they will each do the job for half the game. But which of the two is the most suited to the role. Well, Schmidt is a chance taker, but otherwise, he does not seem to be involved in games. He does not work hard, and he does not seem to make a nuisance of himself. He is not particularly quick, but neither is he strong enough to retain possession against a big, strong marker. He does not seem ideal, but neither does Simoes, who also seems less qualified as a chance taker. It is a problem. A problem that we have known about since last season. In fairness, we have been searching for a player to fill a different role in the team. We have been searching for a big man to play in a front 2. Someone to link play and to support Woodrow, or either of the other two in their striker roles. The ideal player for the striker in the 3-4-3 system is different, as illustrated above, and the search has to begin again using different criteria. Do not expect our problem to be resolved from the ranks of the unemployed and unfit. The sort of player that we need is in high demand currently, because this system is currently the one in vogue, and the right one will be hard to find, and even harder to fund.


Obviously, I wrote those words before the match began, the reason being I wanted a contrast between my expectations, and what actually happened. Clearly, Watford has better players than we do. I accept that and I know that there is little the club or coach can do about it. It is important that I try to distinguish between the things that are controllable, and the things that are not, and after all, we have won the game with a fantastic strike by Mowatt. We have also restricted Watford, a team that played in the Premier League last season to zero shots on goal. Nevertheless, the game was very poor entertainment, and professional football is first and foremost an entertainment. It will be well known that I do not like 3-4-3, and the opening paragraph shows that I do not think that we currently have the players to make it work. When I analyse the game, I must be careful not to simply conclude what I already think, and that is not easy. I have to try to separate the fact that they have better players, from the effect that the system had on the game.

I have argued that the press is a defensive ploy, that the press enables the team to stop the opposition passing the ball forward with any freedom, and that it allows us to defend in their half of the pitch, rather than our own. I have no problem with the press. What I do have a problem with is the way that we fail to keep the ball when we win it back. If you simply hit the ball long, you are simply kicking it back to the opposition, and given that the opposition cannot score when they do not have the ball, you are presenting them with yet more opportunity. But why were we hitting the ball long? Well, we did that partly because the midfield got drawn too deep, partly because the gap between midfield and forwards was too great, and partly because it was the coach’s policy to do so. You could argue that we were playing for breakaways, and it is true that our forwards were simply not good enough to capitalise on the few chances that we made, but I do not want to watch my team sacrificing possession and playing on the break when they are playing at home.


Many will assume that because we have 3 forward players instead of the usual 2, 3-4-3 is a more attacking formation. They will argue that the additional player has been sacrificed in defence, but is that true? I would argue that the defence is actually 5 players when the opposition has the ball, and that midfield has actually sacrificed 2 or even 3 players. That sacrifice, means that in practice, the team has given up midfield control. The team is stronger defensively, but because it has sacrificed control of the ball, it is weaker in an attacking sense. It just cannot get good quality ball to the front 3. The front 3 gradually get isolated. That is exactly what we saw today. We scored early and gave up any pretence to play attacking, possession based football


Then there are the individual players, and the effect that their lack of quality had on the way that we played. Well, up front, Cauley Woodrow’s two deputies (Schmidt and Miller) were as poor as I feared. I think that Woodrow would have been isolated in the way that they were isolated, but Woodrow would have done better with the few chances that we created. In the first half, once again, we were very weak defensively on the left. Andersen looks a shadow of the player he is in the centre. In midfield we did as well as could be expected, but in goal, Walton was faultless.


Now many will say, what is wrong with you. We won didn’t we, and they are of course right. However, my remarks are not about today. They are about the future, and our chances of winning other games, because do not be fooled by our league position tonight. We are still in a fight to retain our place in the Championship.

 

Agree RR, There is always room for improvement in victory as well as defeat. Lots of instances today of the midfield getting bypassed with the defence looking for an out ball to the front 3. Most of the time the ball going straight to the opposition. Therefore the back 5 under a lot of pressure today and coped with most of it, apart from a couple of corners and a couple of crosses. That said though we were fortunate not to concede on those few occasions when their crosses fell to the opposition.

Lots to work on after today, but another much needed 3 points in the bag

 

miserable bugger

 

Another first class analysis.

Given that Watford have better players than us, then something must have gone right, tactically speaking. I don't think we were "lucky" today.

The front three are not good enough. Takes too much money, or a crafty logarithhm in the spreadsheet, to remedy this.

Lumping it up front, as we will seem to be seen to be doing if results take a turn for the worse, will be unacceptable.

That's what we've started doing, to strikers unequpped , talent wise.

 

I really enjoy reading your posts and I nearly always learn something from your tactical explanations, but one sentence in your analysis shocked me to the core. “First and foremost professional football is an entertainment “
IMO, professional football is about making a living by earning as many points as possible, no matter how, entertaining or not.
Thanks for the report by the way.

 

Football is a passion to you and me.

But if you look at the crowds we got in the Premier League, compared to in the league below.

That's why it's entertainment.

 

Walton was not faultless, he sliced one out for a corner, but he did o k, held low crosses, but they had no shots on target

 

I agree. What worries me is if we go 1 down early I don't think we have the firepower to claw 1back we cannot expect a worldy everyweek to bail us out, we desperately need a striker to hold ball up and give Chaplin chances.

 

Cut him some slack he's from Barnsley, we're all miserable....

 

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! We have different views on the financial setup of the owners and we have agreed to park those.

But really? Two games in to playing 3-4-3. Played 2, won 2, scored 4, conceded 0. One of those games against a team who have spent the last 5 years in the Premier League? I know you can't read too much into two games, but surely you can't use them to take negatives? It may not last. But for now, what more could the team/Valerien have done? It will soon be the season of goodwill to all men (lockdown permitting)!

 

Never happy unless we win 10-0

 

Couldn't have done any more results wise, obviously. 2 games, 2 wins, 2 clean sheets. Brilliant, fantastic impact by Valerien , couldn't have hoped for more by this stage.

That said, there will always be areas to improve on the tactics, the system or fitness. I thought the midfielder's were a little isolated today, with lots of long balls going towards the front 3, but ultimately not reaching their intended target and coming straight back. Thus putting the defence under continual pressure for long periods. That's just one aspect of the system and tactics that can be worked on.

 

How long before VI realises that Halme might be his best option in the centre of a front three whilst Woodrow is out? It would be worth a try, even if were a case of bringing him on as asub, rather than Miller.

 

Nothing wrong with a bit of analysis, but when it removes all of the passion, joy, and humanity out of a result like today, then I have no time for it.

 

Yes, but I didn’t mean to say it wasn’t entertainment, it’s about wages, points and bonuses,, if it’s a good entertaining game as well, that’s a plus

 

Thanks guys. I have kept away for 2 hours because I was frighten what the reaction would be. I think that it could have been much worse to be honest.

I honestly believe in what I write. I try to be honest, even when that honesty is brutal at times. I have a method of scoring games with regard to their entertainment value, and Barnsley got their lowest score of the season for this match. Watford were 10 points worse. The total for both teams was less than a third of the best score this month. There were just 2 shots on target, and that includes both teams. Now I know when you are a committed fan, it is hard to accept criticism, especially when your team has won, but I believe that it could be so much better, and I think that I am right to say what I think, even if it brings criticism in return.

 

I think it was part of the game plan to not play too much football today, to not go toe to toe.

That is more our strength - but today’s opposition have much better players and would have picked us off.

We have conceded possession and territory today, but not many clear chances and not one shot on target.

Schmidt was a waste of a shirt really today, he just isn’t suited to a hard working, distance covering forward role. But whilst he’s clearly not good enough as, in your words, a chance taker, I saw a bit of promise in that regard with George Miller.

He was busy, he was a nuisance, he absolutely fluffed his lines when presented a decent chance, but I thought he worked their defence more in half an hour than Schmidt had in twice that time. I think he’s unlikely to be a regular goal scorer but he could do a job, from the bench probably, being energetic and working defenders. We dropped very deep and isolated him, he was feeding off less than scraps and had no chance, but he covered a lot of ground.

 

You point out that Watford on paper have a superior team, and I would agree with that. You could tell we were trying with our maximum effort to keep a lid on them. Whilst they didn’t have a shot on target it felt to me like we were just about holding on and at any moment they might create that chance and score, but they didn’t. You then say you don’t want to watch us as a counter attacking team at home. Do you think the two might be related in this instance? We had to play like that because we couldn’t keep the ball because individually Watford have better players? Ismaël was continually urging the defence to push up in the 2nd half and not sit deep and just conceded possession. I don’t think we tried to play counter attack, as you say we defended from the front and didn’t sit back - which is generally what you do when counter attacking.
We can all see that the biggest issue right now is in the striker department. Without Woodrow we lack that quality, both Frieser and Chaplin work hard for the team but neither currently look like scoring many, and whilst we have hope based on the past form with Chaplin that he can get into double figures still if he finds form in front of goal, we have no such pointers for Frieser, and as for the third option - Simoes, Miller and Schmidt - if we have to rely on them for the rest of the season then I feel we will be struggling come April.

 

The new coach said from the start that he wanted us to be a vertical team, whatever that means. I took him to mean that he wanted us to be more direct. I linked that in with the use of the long ball, and I added 2 + 2. The fact is that we would not have just hit long balls under our last 2 coaches because they believed in playing football from the back and on the ground. They believed that retaining possession is important, and generally, I go along with that view, in spite of the risks. I do not want to see my team have only 34% of possession at home. I pay my money to watch us playing with the ball, and not the opposition.

There were times when Watford looked certain to score, and yet they contrived to miss. That header that bounced up and over the cross bar was one, and they contrived to kick the ball weakly to our keeper when they were 2 to 1, on the only occasion that we were caught on the break from a corner. In spite of their individual quality, they showed no quality whatsoever in finishing. It will be different next week, but this week, we were lucky, and there will be times when we are not so lucky. I did not want to wait until one of those times. I wanted to draw attention to the problems now, so that when the inevitable happens, I am not quite so disappointed.

You say that the difference was in the quality of the players, but I am not quite so sure that it can be all explained away so easily. As I said, the engine room of a team is its midfield. It is those players who exercise control, who determine a team's share of possession, who decide who should win the game. The forwards and the defenders decide by how many. The fact that we had so little possession tells you who was in charge in midfield, but that was not because we lack quality in that area. Mowatt and James were two of our better performers on the day. It was the lack of numbers that was the problem in my view, and that is a problem with the system. I have not liked 3-4-3 when I have seen it in the past, and I do not like it now.

I have probably hit this topic too hard this week. I have probably gone over the top, because Watford do have quality, but I am investing in the future here, and I think that 3-4-3 is a bad investment, especially when you do not have the players for it.

 

Thanks for that @Red Rain. You mention we need to look to the future and assess our chances of winning games, but we also need to look back on the first half of last season. Your comment 'We scored early and gave up any pretence to play attacking, possession based football' is correct. I actually found this approach refreshing however in how we ground out the win. At the start of 19/20 we would have got the first goal and continued to attack gung-ho, and we would have ended up getting battered. These tough wins will make all the difference come the end of the season and show some progression and maturity on the last one.