Minority Report 2019-20 v Hull City

This is my first game of the Struber era, and once again, I can only hope for the best. From reports of the first two games, he played 4-4-2 in the first game (Blackburn Rovers), with the middle 4 arranged as a diamond and attacking width coming from the full backs. In the second game (Middlesbrough) the team was arranged as 4-2-3-1. Both games were lost and there was no breakthrough, but Minority Report is mainly interested in the mechanics of the game, and I shall be watching closely to see what new ideas our new coach can introduce. There have already been a few interesting selections, but I have mainly put these down to the need to have a look at as many players as possible in match situations.


Before I begin my report this week, I just want to have a look back at the eras of Stendel and Murray to try to draw out some conclusions from the way that they both played. The fans have decided “en masse” that the problem with the team this season is lack of experience. Anyone who read my series of 5 papers about finance will already know that I disagree. In my analysis, the problem at our club has been under funding as compared to the money that has been spent elsewhere in the Championship, or should I say the illegal over-funding in most of the rest of the Championship. The lack of experience is no more than a symptom of that main problem, and that is not the fault of the board, unless you see their reluctance to throw their own money away senselessly, as a problem. In the circumstances that have prevailed so far this season, many have searched for a scapegoat. A reason why they should not blame last season’s promotion hero. I was not wedded to Daniel Stendel, and even less so to his system. Last season, he presided over a team of individuals that were of a better quality than most of the individuals in the teams that we played against. How would he react this season when the individuals in his team were bound to be weaker than the members of most in opposition teams?


The answer is that he was unwilling to change his basic style to take account of the new circumstances. We still played with a press, even though most teams in the Championship are happy to soak up pressure, and to play on the break. There has been lots of talk about defensive mistakes, and there is no doubt that there have been plenty. However, mistakes are more costly when your players are already out of position because the method of play asks them to occupy positions too far ahead of the ball. Of course, we would be less entertaining if we had not been so over-committed for much of the time, and we would certainly have scored fewer goals, but is it goals that we want to see, or is it wins. I have watched several games at Oakwell when we would have turned draws into wins if only we had not played in such an open way. I am raising these points now because I want to illustrate that the owners can only do their best with the finance that they have. That there is also a responsibility on the coach to get the best results he can get with the players made available to him by the level of finance available, and I do not think the Herr Stendel did that job as well as we all would have hoped, if we are prepared to be honest with ourselves.


I will admit it. I do not like the high press. I believe that it pulls the team too far forward and leaves too much room for the quick counter by superior opposition players. That is why I was pleased to see that Adam Murray used a different system (3-5-2), and why I was encouraged by his early results. However, the Stoke game was as bad as it gets. Even though, in the end, we lost by only 2 goals, it could and should have been double that. Murray’s blind spot was our left side. For some unknown reason, he refused to play left sided players on our left side. Now readers are going to point out that the first two killer Stoke goals came from our right side, and I willingly accept that, but I have talked at length about “balance” in the past, and if the team has no left side, it can have no balance. In the end, Murray knew that the game was up, even before we did, I think. He had tried his big idea on the big stage, and the big idea had not brought us the wins he promised.


I am sure that there will be plenty to find fault with as the weeks pass, and we get to know Gerhard Struber better. Nevertheless, even though I might find fault, it has to be said that what the club most needs now is stability. It may not be possible to save the team from relegation. I might hate the way that the coach choses to play the game. His results may be even worse than those of the coaches that preceded him, but I will not call for him to go, and I will not call for any of the players to go either. Like it or not, for better or for worse, these players are our future and I intend to support them in the truest sense of the word.


I wrote those words before the match (against Hull City) fully expecting us to be beaten again. It is a great relief that we won the game, but I do not intend to let my relief spoil this week’s Minority Report. Indeed, criticism come far easier after we have won because readers will know that my motives are well intentioned.

 

Struber’s first team at Oakwell was chosen in a 4-4-2 formation, with a midfield diamond and with attacking width coming from the full backs. It also relied upon the high press. Given my opening remarks about Daniel Stendel, it will come as no surprise that I did not find everything to my taste. Many will wonder how I can say that after so long without a win, but my control freak side insists that I look around the corner, and what I find there makes me worried about our future with this method of play. Not everyone will want to join me as I analyse our problems, and I will quite understand if you refuse to do so. My main problem is to do with our system. In my opinion, our full backs continue to play too far in front of the ball. When the ball is lost, and when the opposition is quick, there is still loads of room down our flanks on the counter, our centre backs gets draw out in coverage, and there is panic as the team tries to cover the resulting space that is created. We were by far the better team in that first half, and we scored a fantastic goal, but fantastic goals and mis-hits into the corners count for the same value on the scoresheet, and twice we were lucky to get away with mis-hits on the break. We continue to push too many players ahead of the ball, and we continue to have to work far too hard to win the ball back with our press. As Grant McCann correctly pointed out in his post-match comments, if Hull had kept their heads when they won the ball back, they would have caused us more problems.


I was interested to see the diamond, and I wondered how it would work. Halme is a warrior. His best games in a red shirt have been when he has been physically matched against a big forward. Asking him to fill the hole in front of the back four does not make the best of him. Asking him to win the ball back and pass it safely is outside the comfort zone of a central defender more used to simply clearing the half-way line. Asking him to get further forward and join in with passing moves is beyond his ability. He looked like a square peg in a round hole. Similarly, Cauley Woodrow has spent all his career sniffing out chances in the box. He is not quick. He does not have a good engine. He is not even a particularly good footballer. He is good at one thing, and one thing only. The thing he is good at is scoring goals, and he is not going to do that much from his new position at the attacking point of the diamond. He has been sacrificed because the coach wants two vey mobile, very quick players up front. I thought that Brown, and particularly Chaplin played very well, but the question is, do we want (or can we afford) to make Cauley Woodrow redundant, because that is what he was for a large part of today’s game.


It was clear that McCann had shaken up his team at half time, and the two early substitutions bore witness to that. He intended that they would compete far better in the second half. The played higher and their pace troubled us more. It was touch and go for a while and they are still searching in Monk Bretton for one Diaby clearance, but I thought Bahre’s very fine second had won the game for us. With nothing to lose, Hull threw everyone forward and after their goal, we were hanging on. However, that second half saw the roles reversed. Hull pushed forward relentlessly, whilst we had time and space on the break, and it was on one of those breaks that Chaplin scored a memorable third to put Hull out of their misery.


There were some memorable performances from those in red. Mads Andersen has received an almost constant torrent of criticism, but today, he was the pick of our back four. I am no great admirer of Bahre, but today I thought he was excellent. Mowatt was his usual all action self, and he scored the pick of 3 very fine goals, and up front, Chaplin ran his blood to water and was still able to get forward for the third goal, when his head said don’t bother. I am going to have a love/hate relationship with Gerhard Struber. He plays a game that has less control than the game that I best understand. We are certain to have our ups and downs, but today he has left me very happy, in spite of what I have written here.


Rookie Watch


Sami Radlinger had little to do (Hull had only 1 shot on target) other than to disentangle himself from the netting after they had scored.


Bambo Diaby continues to be a huge contradiction. He looks great for 90% of the time, and then makes a mistake that cost a goal. Are you Cavare in disguise?


Aapo Halme is for me, not at home at the defensive point of the diamond.


Conor Chaplin certainly enjoys the freedom he gets, up front with someone else who is quick. His partnership with Jacob Brown was key to our win, but is does leave me wondering about Cauley Woodrow’s future.


Luke Thomas was not on long enough to have much effect, although he did play a part in the 3rd goal


Patrick Schmidt as usual, he was virtually anonymous.



Player of the Match


Many will disagree, because today there were many deserving candidates, but my sympathy vote goes to Mads Andersen.

 

Well if you think we can afford to rely on Jacob Brown in the future before Cauley Woodrow i’m astounded. This the first time i’ve attempted to read some of your rambles for a long time, and believe me it will be a long time before I try again.

 

Bit harsh on Schmidt bearing in mind he didn't come on till the 89th minute.

 

Disagree about halme thought he looked good today in the defensive midfield role. Agree with mads Anderson played well today after quite a few poor performances. I'd also like to see jacob brown commit 100% to things sometimes seems to back out of winnable situations.

 

I value your opinion usually, but Woodrow has great ability beyond putting the ball in the net- if you want a footballer who cannot link up play go back to the lad we sold to Millwall, Bradshaw, could not pass wind. Halme did perfectly fine as the holding midfielder - obviously strong in the tackle won his headers and free kicks, don’t remember him making a misplaced pass. Not sure what he did wrong? I thought the setup was very different from Strendel and whilst I agree both fullbacks were too far forward at times, generally the Shape was much better and I didn’t see headless chicken pressing- more an initial press by the closest players and then dropping into position. Very different in my mind to what we saw before.

 

Nearly stopped reading when you said that Woodrow isn’t a good footballer. I know it’s all about opinions but that’s absolutely barmy.

Agree about Anderson. Not seen much about him on here after the game but I thought he had a good game and was the pick of the defenders in my opinion.

 

I enjoyed reading your thoughts and agree with lots of it, particularly your assessment of Stendel and Murray.

However, Aapo Halme was my man of the match and I can't believe anyone would try and dismiss Cauley Woodrow as merely a goalscorer. He looks decent in that floating position and we've scored five times in the two games he's played there. I don't expect him or Mowatt to be here in February.

I think Struber has a plan and I'm intrigued to see how it plays out.

I felt pure joy watching us today, when Chaplin scored. It's been a long time waiting and boy was it needed.

 

Woodrow oozes confidence and ability, covers a lot of ground and tracks back very deep at times.

He's scored some belting goals from all kind of distances.

 

I disagree with your assessment of Halme. He played his best game for us today and adapted himself well to the role he'd been given. We need someone in that slot with a physical presence, who can win headers and play football - Halme covered all three. There were numerous times when I expected him to simply head the ball forward, but instead he opted to chest it down and play it. Along with Mowatt, Chaplin and Bahre, I'd be surprised if he wasn't in with a decent shout at the BBS MoM this week.

 

As always your reading of the game is worth a read but on the basis that it's all about opinions I really do think that to call out cauley woodrow as not being a particularly good footballer is absolute codswallop.
next time you go to a game do your thing and analyse his contribution a little bit closer. despite his lack of pace, look out for the way he reads the game and the vision he has when he has the ball looking for the right pass. look out for the space he finds when he's off the ball and how he makes himself available for a pass. look out for his little flicks and touches when we go forward and play short interchange passing movements at pace. oh yes and look out for his ability to score goals..........
"Cauley Woodrow is not a particularly good footballer" . !!!!!!!!!!
Gimme a break Red Rain. not that you ever admit to being wrong but in this case your wrongness holds no bounds.
Just my opinion of course.

 

I have stated before i enjoy reading your appraisals of the games and as i have discussed with you before, i will challange certain things. In this case your assesment of Woodrow, forget his position today and how deep he comes etc. Im talking about the merits of this man as a footballer. Imho he is a VERY good footballer. He has a great first touch, he reads the game and intellectually can see a pass and execute it usually to a high degree of accuracy. His overall hold up play is good and so is his ability to bring team mates into the game by linking play, his finishing is also of s high standard (usually).....his Achilles heel of course is, he isnt blessed with pace.
I do believe as you were describing him.....it sounded more like Winnall...imho cauley Woodrow is a very good footballer. I have been critical recently of our ability to pass and keep the ball, when required. I have noticed now we have bahre back and a trio of chaplin, mowatt and cauley.....we can do all of those things much better and we look a far better side for it too.
On the whole a good report of the match, just thought id share my opinion of our main striker.

 

An interesting read RR - football is a game of opinions and it’s good to debate different views.

I’ve managed to miss a few home games due to poorly-timed holidays, but from the games I’ve seen Woodrow has been isolated as the spearhead of attack, and as you point out lacks the pace to play on the last man. I do have a different view on his footballing ability however, so think this shift in position both indulges Woodrow and enables us to get the best from him (in this league, with this set of players).

The shape was much better today than under Stendel in this league; to my eyes this is due to playing three in central midfield which enables us to compete in the most crucial area of the pitch. I agree with your note about the fullbacks being ahead of play and they continue to look our weakest area and where we look most likely to concede. Not sure what the answer is here, other than to pick what is his preferred personnel and hope they gel as a defensive unit.

Personnel selection was interesting, wth a few players selected in what I would deem to be, not their natural position. Perhaps as you say, Struber is evaluating his team. Jacob Brown, certainly gives his best but I do feel he lacks the quality to play in a central forward position in this league - I can’t help but think a properly motivated (also the HCs job) Malik Wilks would improve the side with his pace, physical presence and ability. Perhaps I’ve just seen his better games, but I really do think he adds a lot.

Aapo Halme, who had a good defensive game does (IMHO) lack the technical skills further forward that the CDM position demands - is Dougal not the natural answer here?

Bähre touched on it in his interview with Radio Sheffield, where he (paraphrasing) said the win today will give the boys a mental edge, which losing consistently deteriorates. This has to be the biggest thing to come out of today and hopefully this gives them self belief and momentum to close out games, which we’ve seemingly lacked in the first 40% of the season.

A step forward in the right direction... here’s hoping for a good December, whereby we close the gap and give ourselves a fighting chance in the second half of the season.

-2d

 

The comments about Woodrow not being a good footballer or not being very quick, I’m afraid I have to disagree. He held the ball up very well yesterday, he also used his strength and pace time and time again.

Don’t write him off in that role as he knows he has 30 yarders in his locker

I also thought Halme played very well in that role too. You could tell his instructions were to win the ball and pass it, which is exactly what he did. The second headers to protect the defence is also what we’ve been crying out for so I’d say he handled that position pretty well.

 

completely agree. halme was very effective. classis anchor man performance. winning tackles. simple passes. winning headers and also effective going forward. good footballer.

 

I'm not sure what you want of me. My thought processes obviously frustrate you very much, but you seem to expect me to analyse the game, go to great lengths to describe that analysis and then agree that it was all a mistake, simply because you disagree. Clearly, I am not going to do that, and if that is what you expect, I recommend that you stop reading me. These are not facts. They are my opinions. These opinions have been put together after a lot of thought. That does not guarantee that they are correct, but no opinion ever is. All that it guarantees is that they are my opinions, and mine alone.

My point about Cauley Woodrow is one of effectiveness. Is he most effective in playing in the hole at the head of a four man midfield and behind a quick front 2, a role that requires him to be able to pick a pass, cover more ground, get back and defend when needed and be able to shoot from distance. Or is he more effective in the box in sniffing out chances, finding space where it is very limited and instinctively scoring goals. Do we have other players capable of playing in that role in the hole between the lines, and conversely, do we have other players capable of being the instinctive goal poacher. The sort of game that I watched us play yesterday is a very much more modern game. It is the sort of game that is played at the very top levels of the game. It does not need the target man that I was brought up watching and have enjoyed watched for most of my life. It is the sort of fluid game that Jurgen Klopp has brought to Liverpool. I appreciate that what we did yesterday is the modern way, but I am not sure that I like it better than the game that I have watched for the last 40 years. It means that there is no longer a place in our team for the likes of Trevor Aylott, Ashley Ward, and yes, Kieffer Moore. Yesterday, I witnessed my football heritage potentially being thrown in the bin, and that is perhaps fine if it is going to be a more effective way to play the game. But the question I am left with is this. Is it going to be more effective. What we saw yesterday has been our direction of travel, ever since the new owners took over the club and GG announced that following Hecky's departure, he wanted to see a Chief Coach who would play the press. Cauley Woodrow will leave the club, not because the club is interested in cashing in on every asset it has. He will leave the club because he represents a way of playing that the club considers to be in the past. The future is movement and pace. The future is players like Chaplin and Brown, players who will drag a defense about and create room for others because of that movement.

My point about Halme is a different one, although it begins from the same place. Do we have players capable of playing that role in the hole ahead of our back four better than Halme. You see, for most of the tasks that Halme was required to perform there, I believe Kenny Dougall would have been the better choice. There is one role that Halme will perform better than Dougall, in my opinion. That role is at defensive and attacking set pieces where Halme provides the additional height that is no longer provided by a target man in the mold of Kieffer Moore. It is my view that a place had to be found in the team somewhere for another tall man and the choice is either Halme or Sibbick for that role. My choice would have been Sibbick, because I believe he is better at the rest of the game, with Halme moved to the back four.

Of the points that I made yesterday, that still leaves us with full backs who are, in my opinion, too far ahead of the ball. Clearly, the centre backs are expected to cover the full backs, because there is no way that full backs can be expected to recover their ground when they are caught up field by a quick counter attack. The player at the defensive point of the diamond will be expected to drop into the centre of defense in order to cover the centre back, and effectively, that rules out Kenny Dougall for that role and limits it to Halme or Sibbick. Whether it is simply my lack of ability to read the theoretical disorder that results from a full back being caught too high, or whether that disorder is real, only time will tell. It is certainly something that our organisation still seems to be having problems coping with, according to my interpretation at least.

I enjoy talking about tactics, and I enjoy learning new things. I enjoy having the opportunity to explain my logic, and why I have interpreted things in a particular way, but as I have said many times before, I have no professional qualification in the game and I have much to learn. I have nowhere else to test the theories that I develop through observation other than here. I am happy to have those discussions, but you must understand that those discussions are better when they happen in an atmosphere of mutual respect. For some reason, you seem to want our discussions to happen in a totally different framework, one of right and wrong, black and white. I am not happy to continue in this way, and I hope that you will try to respond differently now that I have pointed it out.

 

Thanks for posting, always an interesting read and a post I look out for, I too was worried with Halme and Woodrows starting positions, how could a lad who has not managed to find a red shirt with a pass from defence be put in the position of being in midfield and it being his job to take the ball from the defence to do just that...........however he did a sterling job, Woodrow also did well but I have not changed my mind on that is a waste having him there when he is our main goal scorer.

still a couple of mistakes in the game that we got away with this week- but how did Anderson get out jumped for their goal by the smallest player on the pitch? Other than that he also had a steady game.

 

Thanks for that. Just to clarify. All I'm doing is disagreeing with you on some of what you have said.
I have tried to explain why I think CW is a good footballer.
I have also tried to define why I think Aapo played well yesterday.
I respect your opinions but I am entitled to disagree. Respect is a two way process.

 

Interesting read, enjoyed it but simply can't agree on several points.

You've picked 2 players, at the points of the diamond, Halme and Woodrow, and suggested they weren't very good. I thought they were absolutely magnificent and played a massive part in our victory. Brown on the hand looked a bit off the pace today, as if he was injured or ill. He seemed to give up the chase on a couple of occasions, maybe he was just knackered? Agree with you on Chaplin though. Schmidt, even though he only had a few minutes, played his part by annoying their defenders and helping to.prevent the ball coming straight back.

And as for that Bambo clearance, it actually landed in the river Dearne, and ended up being swallowed by a pelican in Old Moor nature reserve.