Team v Swansea

Something that I have noticed, especially this season, is that comments on the BBS are mostly player focused. Player x should be replaced. We must not lose player y. You will have noticed if you are a regular reader of Minority Report that my account of games is largely system focused. So bearing that in mind, my argument about Mowatt is that he cannot influence the game as much if he is asked to play wider, first of all because he is no left winger, but also because his influence when he plays more centrally is far greater. I do not disagree that the highlights suggest that he was more involved than my comments would suggest, but my comments have as their base my post match Minority Report and are based upon my overall impressions of the game. I stand by my remarks in spite of your valid criticism.

I believe that Thomas was selected in order to match with Mowatt on the right, and I assume our coach was trying to make reduced use of our full backs in wide attacking positions because it has caused problems for us on counter attack in other games. Thomas is a wide player by trade, so he found that part of the job suited him quite well. Nevertheless, he was less effective defensively than I was happy with. You see, there has been a huge amount of criticism of our back four, and there is no doubt that on occasion, that criticism has been deserved. However, and referring back to my opening statement, if you only follow the ball, you miss the errors earlier in a move that can result in a goal. Often those errors result from covering players in front of the back four giving the passer too much time and space to pass the ball with timing and accuracy. That is where I have my problems with Thomas in that role. He does not read the game well enough defensively and is caught out of position regularly as a result. Now, I have no doubt that you will tell me that WBA created very little. If you read Minority Report, you will find me critical of their tactics after they scored the opening goal. They were far too negative, and that in my opinion contributed to our overall dominance of the game, the reason why Thomas's defensive limitations were not more obvious.

I have a question. Is Woodrow more valuable in the transfer market as an attacking midfield player, or as a striker who scores goals regularly. I do not disagree with you at all about the effectiveness of Brown and Chaplin as a front two, but my point was about Woodrow's effectiveness, and Woodrow is not as effective at the attacking point of the diamond as he is in a front two with a target man beside him. We are approaching a transfer window. Our owners will have to decide how they should play that window. Should they keep the front line as it is and keep Woodrow in his present role, should they sell Woodrow and seek a better player for that role at the attacking point of the diamond, should they seek another quick forward to complement Brown and Chaplin who can be used when injuries etc interfere with our current status quo, and should they sell Woodrow to fund that acquisition. You see, I watch our current performances and I think we will need 50 points to keep us up (another 30 points). What is the best way to go about that task, and If I were in charge, would I be scared to do the right thing because of supporter backlash. You have hinted at what might be the right thing to do in your piece, and I do not disagree if I have interpreted your hint correctly.

Once again, the same dichotomy hints at my criticism of Halme. I believe he is a far better centre back than he is at the defensive tip of the diamond. For me he would be in the back four and if we are set on the diamond, I would be looking for a defensive midfield player who can fill that roll better than Halme.

I agree with your assessment of both Wilks and Cavare, but unlike yourself, I see no alternative role for Wilks. He does not seem up to the hard work that playing for Barnsley FC requires of players.

I have no football knowledge from within the game. My criticism is often aimed at starting a dialogue from which I might learn more about the game. I have very much enjoyed drafting my reply to the points that you have made because it has forced me to rethink what I have said previously and to test once more whether my thought processes have any validity whatsoever. Whether they do or not is not the issue. The issue is whether I have learned anything from our brief exchange, and I think that I have. I hope that you have also been given something to think about.

 

Pretty interesting debate this and I’ve got a couple of thoughts I’d like to throw into the mix.

The overall effectiveness of Mowatt will only be stifled if he is told to remain in the specific position on the left hand side of the diamond. Such is the fluidity that GS wants this team to play with Mowatt is only really directly ‘stuck’ in left midfield when defending. He pops up all over the pitch when we have possession which is a credit to his conditioning.

In terms of Woodrow as a saleable asset, a striker scoring goals for fun will always be sold for more than an attacking midfielder. It’s just the law of the football jungle. With the tactics and system we currently employ he doesn’t command enough respect as an outlet in the air and doesn’t have the pace to frighten defenders on the counter which is why we play Brown and Chaplin up top. Woodrow does however, have exceptional vision and other teams are aware of his threat. When we attack (providing we are playing a team with two centre halves) they are unsure if they should be picking up the two strikers or the late runner into the box (see Woodrow goal against Reading as an example). Cauley also has an uncanny knack of scoring thunderbolts which also creates confusion for defending teams. Is he Hignett? No of course not. Could be be talismanic from the tip of the diamond? Absolutely!

Halme. He’s a guy learning his craft. Will he be a DM or a CB? Time will tell. BUT, what he does tactically offer you at the moment are a couple of things. With this system of narrow midfielders and full backs being asked to attack, he can drop in deep at any point and make a back 3 if we are stretched. He can and should pick up any late runners into the box. He also offers a real threat in the air at set pieces. When you’ve got Diaby, Anderson and Halme all trucking forward for corners that should really give the opposition something to think about.

As for Cavare and Wilks. Neither work anywhere near hard enough off the ball to fit what we’re doing at the moment. Same goes for Thiam. I wouldn’t be surprised if all three go in Jan, along with Green, Styles on loan and a couple of other forgotten men.

 

I pretty much agree with all of that, even with its very slight changes of emphasis.

At the moment, I have trouble with the theory that Woodrow can be as effective at the tip of the diamond as he can be as a striker. He was much better against WBA than he was against QPR and Reading, although it is hard to tell definitively because even our system changed slightly from game to game, let alone the system that the opposition used, and I cannot claim to notice everything that our opposition does to improve us or make us worse. That brings me around to a separate but related point. Observers tend to look at every game in isolation, but they are not. Every opposition team will look at what we do, and will try to negate our successes/most influential performers and take advantage of our weaknesses, just as we do when our coaching staff look at videos of our next opposition. I cannot claim to see all the subtleties that are incorporated into our performances. I did notice that against WBA our midfield was wider on the attack and narrower on defence, but I am sure that there must have been loads of other stuff that went completely over my head. When I first started watching the game, teams just used to turn up and play. There was no subtlety to it. But these days, I struggle to keep up with all the changes in systems and methods of play. One thing is for certain though. Players are still the most important thing, and coaches managers and systems only make good players marginally more effective or marginally less so. The purpose of all methods of play and systems is surely to achieve the best balance possible between the relative talents of your players to enable them to achieve a better overall balance of talent and ability than that achieved by the opposition. In order to do that, a coach must be able to recognise the best balance for his own team, and see the faults in the balance of the opposition.

For me Halme's best games have been as a centre back matched against an aggressive target man. He seems to need that physical challenge in order to perform at his best. The problem with that is that most teams in the Championship do not play that way, and against the more usual pass and move players that he has come up against, he has looked a bit lost at times. There is no doubt that he has quality, but at the moment, I am as unsure as anyone else what his best position will be. He is occupying a problem position for us currently. He has not been a total write-off there, but there will be a lot of players about who can do it better, and in that respect, there are definite comparisons between his play and that of Cauley Woodrow.

I am far from being as convinced as others that our salvation is in the hands of experienced defenders. I can see that our current crop of defenders are improving with every game that they play together, and new players, no matter how much experience they have, will take time to get used to their new colleagues and their new surroundings. I would rather not put spanner in our works by trying to bed in a new defence at this point in the season. I would rather keep the team as it is, and introduce any new players gradually. Aside from anything else, you can ruin team spirit that way. My strengthening would be in midfield, but I have no particular insight into the way that Struber is thinking. I do agree with you though on the players who are likely to go, and for the reasons you state.

I have enjoyed your contribution, and indeed that of Jake The Red. It is an eye opener to discover that there are others who try to analyse the game in the same way that I try.

 

Like I said previously, I love a debate. I like to read different views, even if my own are at odds with them. And I'm no expert when it comes to judging footballers or systems. I've watched the game for 40 years but that's not an exclusive club.

I think the club would be crazy to cash in on Woodrow. Whether it's up front or at the diamond's tip, he would be very hard to replace in January. Surely, not every player has to be developed and then sold for profit? Surely we can have one or two who we keep for their contract length and have their contribution as our 'profit'? Like Scowen and Watkins for example. Adam Hammill second time around. But I'm not the accountant at Oakwell and if we get a stupidly high bid, maybe it's impossible to say no? Then you've to factor in what the player wants.

My dream would be to trim the squad a little, try and move out those not involved, we know who they are. Then bolster short term with a few loanees of high calibre, to see us safe this season. I value staying in this division. Because I believe a lot of these players we have will be even better next time around with this season under them. Some of them are already shining brightly despite the results suggesting otherwise.

 

Slowly? If I'm understanding all this correctly I work it out that it took you 35 minutes to type your post. Bloody hell

 

Well that's a more detailed explanation, and you are right, you didn't mention the word experienced. Perhaps our full backs are up to the task that you describe. And yes the Man Utd team had a very experienced core - I knew that - it was just a wind up.

 

Cruel, but unfortunately quite accurate.

 

Do your longer posts usually take you that long?

 

No. Longer.

To be honest, there is also thinking time, re-reading time and correcting time, but you do have the general picture right.

 

I do agree with the sentiments in your final paragraph, but I have written pages and pages on here in a plea for patience, but without much effect. I am quite relaxed about our general policy, but then again I take a great deal of pleasure out of watching young players grow and develop their talent whilst playing for my club. Unfortunately, my club just does not have the fans to compete on the fabled level playing field. That means that we have to have a different strategy to the others. For me, it makes it even better when we can better our rivals, if only for a short period. I have dreams too, but reality tends to get in the way.

 

I'm in the same boat. I've seen us with squads full of dross, of players here on a last pay day, or players with little talent but known to the manager, even ones where nearly half the starting lineup is made up of loanees. None of that is my kind of Barnsley. I admire our bold and unique approach, our strategy. I don't think we should have gone THIS brave with it, I do believe that had we added just two or three of proven calibre at the level that we'd be faring much better this season and I still retain hope that we might well procure a couple next month. But I'd pick this policy over anything else suggested. Knowing that there's no other club doing it like this, that it goes against all logic, that appeals to me.

Definitely have 90% of the squad as ours, with the majority young and developing together. But keep a few of them for longer, don't cash in on every player. And, which is missing at this point, I believe we should always have two or three older, more proven players on loan. Guides for the young core. In key positions. But it's only the way I see things. I don't think there's a human alive who knows what is definitely the right thing to do in football else there would be a club who win every week and every trophy. Even Man City and their £600m squad have come up short this season.

 

This style suits Stiles.
I’d start him instead of Mowatt.
With Bahre on the bench as cover.
Given the energy that Stiles brings to a game - and providing Stiles is given a few games - then I think Mowatt would struggle to get back in the starting lineup.

 

Alex had experienced older players too.

 

I thought it was Styles? Mowatt has to be the first name on the team sheet for me. He is the glue with his drive and determination.

 

This is what I have seen since Struber arrived. I am enjoying watching more now that I expect us to win every game too.

 

Having, after a 'heavy' last night' waded through the thread with detailed analysis of various roles and debates over Woodrow at the tip of a diamond formation or as a striker etc. etc. I would just like to add my comment to the debate ...

Wibble!!!