Minority Report 2017/18 v Hull City

Today was not one for the purists. After 10 minutes, only the die-hards remained. It was a tough watch. It was also not about systems, though it is bound to be mentioned elsewhere that we reverted to 4-4-2. What it was about was game management in dire conditions. It was also about the fact that the first goal being the winner, and sadly, that is how it panned out.


We are a very young side, and as such, many of our players will not have faced days like that very often. The wind destroys accuracy. It renders a passing game almost impossible. The rain makes the surface slick, and on a slick surface, the ball does not stop. The conditions called for getting the ball forward and supporting in numbers. The conditions called for big men and men with experience who had seen those conditions before and knew what to do. Not only is our team very young, it is also quite small. When we made our changes, we replaced two of our youngest players, in contrast to Hull, who went for physical presence. The game was always going to be won with a single goal, and Hull decided to increase their chances at a set piece. It worked, and marginally the poorer of the two poor sides on view today walked away with the points. It was a lottery and Hull bought the winning ticket.


I am sure that in other threads, long term conclusions are being drawn about our chances of staying up, and about our overall transfer policy. Today was not one for drawing conclusions, today was one to forget as quickly as possible and for moving on to the next game.

 

Do you agree that the formation chosen had nothing to do with the goal conceded?

 

I have just listened to Hecky. He is disappointed by the goal and has blamed Cam McGeechan for losing the player for the first header and Zeki Fryers for losing the scorer at the far post. There are always mistakes for every goal, though the conditions made life very difficult at corners, especially after Hull added more big men. Our system at defensive set pieces would have been the same whatever system we had played, so no, the system was not the reason that they scored.

 

We perpetually water the surface every game to make it slick. It seemed to me that Hull were less prepared than us for it today - they kept overplaying it. It often gave us the ball back. This is England -it's often wet and windy and to suggest we're not used to it is weird. Did you ever play football in your teens? Half the time it was grimmer than grim during winter.

How many of their players were from foreign climes?

Anyway, they were even poorer than us.

Plus our team is not small at all - not when compared to previous teams. Our full backs are not Kennedy- like small. McGeehan (e.g.) is a big unit. We just lack a big 'un up front. Yet still play as though we do have one.

We lost that game through a lack of nouse. Admittedly, kicking it high like Davies does didn't help

They won it because it dropped their way in the box from a corner.

 

If it was always gonna be a one nil game u should have put some money on it........it the old addage when its a tight game should have been ours with chances created......im frustrated ....hull didnt deserve 3 points today...

 

Our front players are not big men, but they were quicker than the Hull central defenders. In such circumstances, our tactics have to be to play the ball quickly and accurately to feet or to play it through or beyond their central defensive line so that our players can run on to it. If the wind renders accurate passing to feet impossible or the wind and rain makes balls hit longer more difficult to control because of both greater inaccuracy lack of control on the slick surface, then you have to have an alternative.

I get that you do not agree with my analysis, but you have not given an alternative explanation for why both sides played so poorly. And both sides did play well below their best, because if they played like that every week they would be in League 2 by now.

 

But did Hull really play that poorly? They looked well organised and offered us little opportunity of direct chances. That meant that when they got a chance they were able to capitalise and then hold out to win the match. Pretty much a text book away performance from a not-especially talented group of players? We'd have taken an away performance like that.

 

Hull played poorly because they have lost all confidence away from home - 24 games without winning (?)

We played (less) poorly because we do not have the ability to play better given our personnel.

We could have won that game had "luck" been ours.

But to blame the surface is missing the point. To moan about us lobbing the ball up high for our forwards is simply to moan about what has been happening all season - wind or not we don't have the forwards to cope.

 

I agree that slick surface and wind can be conducive to errors but we should have confidence in our technical ability to continue to play on the deck like we have done on many occasion slick fast counter attacking football and imposing our style on them, we got drawn into a long ball game with two towering CB that lapped it up.....even with Ugbo. I bet barca dont resort to long ball when windy and raining Mcgregor made 5 saves snd got MOM on fotmob app....

 

Bit of a cop out this week RR? to say it's not about systems in the week we start 442 is very strange when it's always about systems

 

As an uneducated observer, I thought McGeehan and Fryers were our best players. However, a lot of people at a nightclub would tell you that Paul Oakenfold was the best DJ there. And I, as a professional DJ myself, would give several hundred reasons why he wasn't remotely worth the entrance fee.

 

Long ball, long ball..... Maybe if we had a target man it might work but its been a common theme this season. Why does it happen? Are they been told to lump it forward? Is it lack of confidence or composure in order to pick a pass? I just dont think the central midfield is good enough, and considering how many 'central' players we signed its pretty shocking.... Add to the fact were so one dimensional up front! Poor all round.

 

When I saw the weather forecast I knew that it was going to be a difficult day. In view of that, I personally would have stayed with 4-5-1. I would have argued after the event that the players had enough to think about with the strong wind and the heavy rain, and expecting them to also get used to a change of shape was just too much. A second problem with 4-4-2 is that to work well, it needs two overlapping full backs and whilst McCarthy is fine, I do not think that Fryers is. I was surprised when I arrived that we were obviously going to be in a 4-4-2 shape, but what do I know. I am an amateur who just makes comments upon the efforts of others. Having watched the game, and having thought about it on the walk home, I did not think that shape was a factor that influenced the result, or the disappointing standard of our play. I thought that under the conditions, know how and experience were much more important.

 

Your deliberations are not usually confined to the efforts of others.

They are usually concerned with the plans and formations of others.

Which deliberations today seem to boil down to concluding that whoever brought the biggest blokes off the bench were the likely winners.

Because of the weather.

Fair enough.

 

We are where we are. I would love it if we had all the Manchester City players and if we had, I'm sure that we would play better than we do now. Part of the restrictions that I set myself when doing these reports is that I do not crave for something that we simply do not have. I work within the guidelines that the manager works within and I comment upon his use of the resources that he has. A big man would have been useful today because it was difficult to be accurate in the conditions, but that is not true for every match that I have seen this season. On many occasions, our midfield has failed to match that of our opponents, and the problem was that we were forced too deep. That is the good thing about football. The answer is always different because there are so many ways to play the game.