Minority Report 2019-20 v Huddersfield Town

Today, we saw a match of two halves, refereed by Dr Jeckyll in the first half and Mr Hyde in the second half, and that is exactly the way I am going to write it up.


First half: Barnsley 1 v Huddersfield Town 0

I was happy to see Mowatt further forward and in a position where he could influence play more directly, but frankly Huddersfield were awful in the first half. They were too negative, they were too deep and they were lucky to get away with being only one goal in arrears. At half-time, I turned to my mate and said, I thought these Cowley Brothers had a reputation to uphold. They have play a back 9 and left only Campbell up and he has been existing on scraps. The referee had had an easy half. He had jumped on everything and had protected Barnsley as they played their one touch football at a pace and intensity that Huddersfield could not live with. We built from the back, as we have to do, playing the ball between the goalkeeper and the back four until the movement of the players ahead of them puts someone into space and opens the field up for an accurate pass to feet. It was lovely to watch, and if it had gone on like that in the second half, I am confident that the goals would have come. At times, we looked a very good side, and at times Huddersfield looked awful. The lead was no less than we deserved. In the first half, the game was a game for the aesthete.


Second half: Barnsley 1 v Huddersfield 1

The Cowley Brothers must have gone bananas at half-time, because their team played like a different team in the second half. They changed two players at the start of the half, but it was what they said to the players that really made the difference. They asked them to let us know that we were in a game. In the second half, they left in a shoulder after the tackle so that our player ended on the ground. They never gave us an easy ball, or if they did, they made sure that they stopped the game with a foul. They did their best to obstruct off the ball, so one of our players was temporarily taken out of the game. These are the dark arts of the game. The things that wind the opposition up (along with their fans), but which the referee finds hard to punish without continually stopping the game, thereby breaking up the flow of things.


More than that, they got further up the field, and they stopped us passing the ball across the back four and waiting for players ahead to find space. They forced us to kick long, and kicking long for a team that has no target man, is kicking the ball away. We were unable to build our attacks, and we were unable to retain possession for long. We scored, but it was against the run of play. We were bullied by physically taller and stronger players. It is a man’s game, and the referee had little sympathy for our plight. The second half of the game was being played according to different rules, but if football is to be a man’s game, the rules must allow the game to be played by men. They were different rules to the ones we played by in the first half, but nevertheless, they were still the rules of the game.


We needed a change. But when Struber turned to his bench, he found no big men. He found no target man. He found no midfield enforcer. All he found were players who were equally poorly equipped to play the sort of game that we were now involved in. All he could do was to change the most clearly mismatched pair (Thomas and Chaplin), but their replacements offered little hope of a sudden change of circumstances. A benevolent referee obviously held nothing against Huddersfield (other than 3 of their 5 yellow cards) for the abuse that they handed out to him and his assistant because he added 5 minutes to our suffering. The questioning of the officials’ decisions was another sign of the blatant gamesmanship in the second half, as Huddersfield investigated every avenue back into the game. I must confess that at the end of the first half, I did not expect to spend the second chewing my finger nails, and the urgings from the crowd for our defence to launch the ball forward seemed to confirm that I was not the only one with nails chewed to the quick.


Once again, my long walk home produced some interesting questions. The first of these is about how the game was refereed. It is easy to become biased when your team wants to play in a particular way, and your opponent is not letting your team play the way it wants. It is easy to fall into the trap of arguing that the game was presided over by a weak referee, one who would not use the same interpretation of the rules of the game as those that would suit our play best. And indeed, seemed to adopt a different interpretation in the second half, to that of the first. Unfortunately, referees have to interpret the rules to suit all styles of play, and there is no doubt that his second half interpretation better suited the style adopted by Huddersfield. But as I have said before, it is a man’s game, and the rules must reflect that.

It does make me worry though, and this is my second point. Our coach seems to want to play a game that uses mainly feather-weights, but there is nothing to stop others using heavy-weights if they want, and we are all familiar with that old phrase or saying aren’t we. The one that goes, a good big un will always beat a good little un. Can Struber’s system survive as more and more coaches recognise that we have a weakness to which we have little response? Are those English bully boy tactics going to do for us in the long term? Struber has rejected the way of playing the game that requires a target man who competes for the long ball. The second half today would have been ideal for Wilks, but Wilks is out because he does not work hard enough and his movement is not good enough. But we had no-one on the bench who could play in a different way. We had no-one who could have given them some of their own medicine. Can Struber develop an alternative remedy when Plan A encounters trouble that does not involve going back to old ways that he has firmly rejected? Who knows, but watching the system change as it reacts to problems is going to be interesting.


Full Time: Barnsley 2 Huddersfield Town 1


Rookie Watch


Marcel Ritzmaier lasted the full game, which surprised me because I thought he struggled a bit with the pace of the game in the second half. He will improve, as he needs to do.


Player of the Match


I thought Mowatt was much better today for his change of position, but for his two assists, the Minority Report award goes to Jacob Brown.

 

It's in boxing that a good big un beats a good little un.

Many of the top international and European football teams are of less than average height.

Anyway we do indeed need to try and play the ball out from the back if there is no target man.

As a result of this the centre halves get dogs abuse on this forum, because they are not always quite up to the quality of passing sometimes needed.

Yet those giving the abuse do not realise that if Radlinger just boots it up front, then it'll be back in our area in no time at all.

The referee didn't do anything different in the second half. Huddersfield did.

Somewhat ironically for a team assembled at a cost that we can only dream of, Huddersfield's best tactic would have been to lump it straight forward. Their strikers were nodding it on regularly. That they did not do this as much as they could have was to our great benefit.

Jordan Williams raised his game today a notch and i would not take motm away from him.

 

Nothing wrong with a team being bigger and stronger if they win the ball fairly. Todays ref let too many clear fouls go (both halves). When some of the dirtier fouls went unpunished Town just upped the ante. His approach led to the melee of 2nd half bookings. Thought he was one of the worst refs this season.

 

Pretty much agree with that assessment of the game RR. Huddersfield definitely employed the 'dark arts' in the second half, but surely the ref has to do something about the off the ball obstructions - it was like watching a game of American Football at times, with the Barnsley player being blatantly blocked by a player not in possession to allow a team mate to win the ball. It pretty much went unpunished for the whole of the second half. That's not allowed in any football rule book and the ref failed to address it.

 

The dark arts are dark because it is hard to do the right thing on all occasions. It is easier for we fans. We have our natural bias which always favours our team. That is why I tried to pose the ref's conundrum as a question, rather than saying what I felt he should have done about it. He has to try to be even handed and purely judgmental based upon the evidence presented to him, whilst all about him try to influence his decision-making. The pressure to do otherwise is constant throughout a game and comes from the crowd, the players, the coaches etc. Frankly, I would have made a very poor referee as would have been unduly influenced by all those extraneous pressures. At moments during today's game, I was very annoyed with his performance, but the good thing is that I have a long walk home afterwards, and that allows me to calm down and to try to discipline myself to think rationally. I tried to wonder what my reaction would have been if we had been the heavy-weight team being beaten , and they had been the team trying to play the beautiful game with a team of light-weights. I would have wanted my team to get into them, even if that meant sailing close to the wind as regards the rule book. What would my reaction have been if the ref had not allowed my team to play that way. Would I have been calm and rational, or would I have alleged that refs are not willing to let British teams play the very British way. You see, as a fan, you just cannot exclude the fact that your view is probably biased. In that case, the only thing to do is accept the refs judgement of fair play, and comment on other things. And that, in the main, is what I try to do.

 

Pretty much agreed with you appraisal there RR.
I do think town had "a proper half time ....errrr talk" they were second to the first and second ball and kindly decided not to press our keeper and back 4, which suprised and pleased me in equal measures!
The Cowley's obviously told them to get a grip and "let them know they were there" for the 2nd half. Been the more experienced (and some x prem players) as you say t hey seemed to excel in the dark arts, after 15 minutes both teams had forgot the finer arts of passing and it became a slug fest....and a poor spectacle. An unknown hero was probably Halme as he applied his size to the task in front if him. We hung on and i was very very greatful for the 3 points.
Well done today reds....hard fought, not pretty, for long periods but thank goodness... 3 much needed points.

 

I thought the opening goal was slightly against the run of play. It was also a bit soft. Something we have rarely experienced this season.

I’m a little surprised that we do not exploit the diagonal pass a little more - since Jacob Brown often has the beating of his opponent. So, I don’t entirely agree that we need a “target man” to be able to vary our style of play.

Halme in midfield has been a master stroke. Odour is a wonderful find. Williams was deserving of his MOTM. The supporters have recognised that he is much less likely to get caught out too far upfield under the new coaching regime.

 

Nailed it.

Such was our play and the success that we were enjoying, the Huddersfield team built by millions resorted to long ball and roughhouse tactics.

A win. Not just in terms of the score.

But yeah, lots to moan about...

 

I thought we stood up to the bully boy tactics really well. I was impressed. Two months ago I feel we’d have succumbed but yesterday I saw a mental strength that ran throughout the team

 

I agree with Tonjytyke. Our team has impressed me previously this season in the way they refuse to be intimidated by teams which are often bigger and more muscular than them. I think you're right Red Rain to highlight the referee's performance. He didn't really get a grip on what amounted to persistent foul play by Huddersfield (22 fouls to our 13) and that inevitably influences what the other team continue to attempt to get away with. I think from memory (never my strongest point unless it concerns horses) that he did book two for dissent, but he could have 'done' one or two more of the Terriers' side.

It's right that we were forced to punt upfield in the second half as Huddersfield pressed us for an equaliser. But although we're going to struggle to win the aerial balls, the defenders have to quickly bring the ball under control as our nippier lads up front (Chaplin, Thomas, Brown) are at them as soon as the ball drops to the ground. Our fannying about at the back is slightly concerning - it appeared we were more of a threat to our own goal in the first half than Huddersfield were. But overall, I like what Struber is doing with what he has got. I thought we were woeful at times against Crewe last week, but I suppose those are always going to be strange games - hiding to nothing, and all that. But it was very interesting yesterday to watch our carefully considered style overcome a more physical side who have spent the last two seasons playing in the top division. So I have nothing but praise for our players for their performance yesterday.

 

When I turned to read the BBS after I had completed Minority Report, I expected a deluge of criticism of our two centre backs, and I was not disappointed. There is no doubt that Diaby was once again culpable for the mis-kick that led to their goal, although the strike was a very good hit from some distance. In Minority Report, I have once again resisted the temptation to score easy points by taking the same road. You see, what those who criticise are asking for is the finished product. A player who can win everything in the air, a player who reads the game faultlessly, a player with the strength to win his battles with big men and small men alike, a player with the pace to compete on equal terms with the quickest and who allows the team to maintain a high defensive line because of that. Finally, people want a player who can pass the ball well, who can direct the direction of play from the back and who can carry the ball forward when necessary. They have to be able to do that because the style of play that Struber wants demands that we play out from the back. They want the complete centre back. Diaby and Andersen are not the complete centre backs. They make mistakes. However, the question that Minority Report asks (and Minority Report is there in part to ask interesting and difficult questions) is how much would the club have to pay for the finished product.

Neither Diaby nor Andersen are the finished product. They are young men who are still learning and developing. They both have pace, which is something that you can not teach, but the rest of their game is still in its infancy. They are here on 4 year contracts and we must have patience whilst they develop, because if you do not have the cash to buy the finished product, you must have the patience whilst the finished product grows and matures. I am happy to watch as these two young men get better. I am happy to praise when they do well, and not be over critical when they do not. The easiest thing in football is to criticise errors in the young, and fail to recognise developing talent that is masked by those errors. Minority Report tries to ignore the obvious and support development. If that means that it stands out from the rest, then so be it.

 

Fully agree with this. Can you explain Minority Report style the benefits to this team of playing out from the back Struber style please. Also i didnt think playing Mowatt at the point of the diamond was the best position for him as we missed is industry further back but how can we fit Ritzmaier and Mowatt into the same team without one playing out of position?

 

Our centre backs are victims of a or the system.....ideally we should have a more experienced guy along side one of them. This league is very unforgiving and these two are learning on their feet. It is a massive flaw in "the plan" at this level.

 

Thomas and Chaplin mismatched pair? Really? What?

They both played really well

 

Brilliant write up, l enjoyed reading that, thank you.

 

It's in there if you check. If you don't have one or more big guys to challenge for long high balls, then pumping it long from the keeper means the ball will come straight back. So we have to create angles and and space to pass to feet further up the field by moving the ball from side to side or by one of the centre halves carrying the ball 20 yards up the pitch and releasing as the opposition comes to engage.

 

I'm sure that us not having a big man upfront isnt the main reason we play this way because if we had Struber would play the exact same way. I see it more to do with retaining possession, creating more space ahead, playing at pace, running with the ball, quick passing etc. Diaby Anderson and Radlinger getting all the grief and they keep playing this way when they know that they are making mistakes but they keep going, keep their heads up because continuing this way is benefitting the team at their own expense. I was hoping RR could put it in more detail.

 

What I would like from our centre halves is for them to hold position and know their limitations. Unfortunately they both have more belief in their own ability than is warranted and therefore continue to make the same mistakes over and over.
They believe they're skilful enough to dribble out of defence so time and again they try, lose it and we're left exposed. They believe they can play a pinpoint pass to feet from out wide to a crowded central midfield so time and again try it, give it away and we're left exposed. They believe they can turn a man on the edge of our area but time and again they're dispossessed and we're left exposed. Yesterday Diaby believed he could do a flying scissor kick but he missed it and we conceded.

I don't want centre halves capable of all the above. I just want them to be in the right position and attempt to win their battles. No flying scissor kicks, no turning on the edge of the box, no dribbling runs, no passes into crowded areas. Simple short passes to the nearest man or into the channels if nothing is available. Or just boot it. I'm not after the finished article, just players who play within their capabilities, to their own strengths because they do both have some.

 

Playing Out from the back

We do not play with a target man. Brown does his best with high balls, but no-one would describe him as a target man. Therefore, we have to have a different way to get the ball forward. The players ahead of the back four are encouraged to find space, but that is not easy at set pieces (goal kicks and free kicks) when marking is predictable. Therefore, there has to be movement and interchange of positions in an attempt to shake off the close attentions of markers. Players cannot always find space when the first defender gets the ball. The defender looks forward, finds no-one ahead of him with enough space to receive and control the ball before passing it on to another player with space and time, so the ball is knocked sideways or backwards to the keeper. The process is repeated whilst players ahead of the ball move and move again in an attempt to find the space they need to receive and control the ball. Eventually, a player becomes available. He controls the ball and turns. The fact that the ball is now higher creates increased confusion, and space becomes available to others, especially so as all those months of training together have given the players an understanding of the way their colleagues move and the passes their colleagues will try to make. Play advances through a number of short passes, from individual to individual who are all on the same wavelength.

It is the modern way. If you look at football played at the top levels of the game, you see that it is becoming less reliant upon brute force, and more reliant upon pace, movement and passing ability. Many of us crave the simpler game. The game that thrived upon the long ball to a target man, the knock down and play beginning from 50 yards further up the field. It is what many of us grew up watching, and what many of us cannot help harking back to. The game is full of fashions. Football always moves on to new ideas, and any idea that is successful attracts a hoard of followers who try to copy and mimic the successful formula. I do not rule out the possibility that the long ball game will return eventually, but for today, the game is being played differently.

Ritzmaier and Mowatt

In the last few games, Mowatt has been asked to play on the left, at times to cover in front of the full back, and not get as far forward. He was partly at fault for allowing a cross that led to a goal recently (Crewe, I think) because he was asked to cover pace, and whatever qualities Mowatt has, pace is not one of them. But more that that, because Mowatt's starting position was wider, further back and further left, it was detrimental to his normal game. Cutting inside for a shot at goal, or even a pass, put the ball onto his weaker foot, which clearly puts him at a disadvantage. There were comments on the BBS about Mowatt not being at his best, and many associated that with his recent illness. I had a different explanation. Today, he played further forward and he was much more at the centre of things, much more influential upon our play. He also scored.

It is not just that Ritzmaier and Mowatt are left footers. Our midfield has 3 left footers and that is not great for balance. I have no idea how Struber will reconcile matters once Woodrow is fit, but I do not think the head of the diamond suits Woodrow either. That is a puzzle that Struber must solve, and I shall be watching with interest in order to see how he does that.

 

Except every time Radlinger kicked the ball from a goal kick it stayed in the opposition half for about 5 minutes and almost every time we tried to play it out from the back we presented Huddersfield with a goal scoring opportunity. I understand the theory but the theory hasn't held up. It has proved to be a poor theory in practice and therefore requires a different one.