The major problem area all season has still to be addressed...

I usually do not comment on games that I have not seen live, because, well, I have not seen the game live. However, on this one occasion, I am going to because it illustrates the difference between the 'player focused approach' and 'the system focused approach'. The difference that I want to illustrate is the difference in approach to the analysis of goals conceded. If you are part of the system focused group, you believe that in order to concede, several things must have gone wrong. Rarely is a goal down to a single player error. If you are from the player focused group, someone has to be blamed, and a witch hunt is organised to find a consensus of who was at fault. If you are from the system focused group, you concentrate on finding a way that the same errors cannot happen again. If you are in the player focused group, the club needs to replace every player making an error as soon as possible. The player focused group seem to have agreed to blame Jordan Williams, even though to follow the advice (replace him with someone better) is likely to ruin his confidence and cost the club a lot of money (see endless pieces about overspending in The Championship and endless pieces about the need for patience until our young players mature).

Judging only from video footage, and limited knowledge about the failings of the midfield diamond system, this is how I saw it. I have numbered the errors leading up to the goal so everyone can see them.

It is well known that the diamond is strong down the middle, but that it achieves that by being weaker down the sides (1). The ball was cleared by City, and the clearance caught us a little unprepared as it landed at the feet of one of their quicker players. Luke Thomas over-committed to his left, and failed to make a challenge (2). Because Thomas did not slow his man down with his first challenge, when the City player arrived at Williams, he was already moving, whilst Williams was on his heels. Williams showed him outside, but because the City player was already moving, he could not get close enough to make a challenge (3). When the City player crossed the ball, our central defenders were correctly positioned at the near post to make the challenge, but the low cross missed them out and went beyond the far post to the scorer. His marker had been draw towards the ball, and he had been left too much space (4). The covering defensive midfield players were taken out of the equation by the speed of the counter (5). There were 5 mistakes that led to the goal, but the player focused group need a scapegoat, and multiple errors is no good to them. They need a victim. They need someone to pay.

Personally, I am not happy when individuals are singled out for criticism. We attack as a team, and we defend as a team. The system helps with those aims, and every coach operates a different balance of risk and reward, because if we attack with too many players, we are at risk on the counter, and if we defend with too many players, we cannot expect to score as often. The system of play accounts for why some teams can score more often, even though the opposition have far more of the ball. It is because they are set up to attack at pace and on the break. There is more to this great game of ours than can be summarised by calling out individuals. If that were not so, Sheffield United would be struggling at the bottom of the league, and not challenging for a place in Europe. I would ask all those who have a purely player focused approach to seek to understand the game a little better, and I know that sounds condescending, but I have been rattled by this constant criticism of individuals.

 

Do you think there is any way for us to break out of the yo-yo cycle of League One/Championship/League One/Repeat?

 

Could it not also be argued that those who seem to focus fully on tactic versus tactic without taking into account the ability of the players at your disposal need to also learn to understand the game better? After all the main part of football is how human beings perform not how mathematical formulas and algorithms perform.

 

Plans are in progress to strengthen the back line.

 

The reason that Sheffield United are being successful is not that they have the best quality players. It is because they have, in the main, players who have played together for a long time, and they have a manager who rather than seeking to strengthen when he sees weakness, instead finds a way that the team can cover any deficiency in an individual.

I am encouraged that our team has been mainly signed on long contracts. I am encouraged that their youth, which is currently an disadvantage, will turn into an advantage as they improve and mature. I see lots of promise in our mainly young squad, promise that needs time to come to fruition. Of course, players will continue to be sold, but hopefully, the number of players signed together means that we can keep the majority of the squad together for longer, and that future replacements will not have to be signed in quite the same numbers as was the case this summer. It is teamwork that is keeping Sheffield United up there, and that lesson appears to have been adopted at Barnsley. Even if we do not survive this season, I am very hopeful that things are gradually getting better under the policies that have been adopted at Barnsley. Unfortunately, those policies require patience, and most of my stuff reflects that need.

 

I do not use mathematical formulas or algorithms. Humans are at the very centre of my focus, and I cannot see how the systematic deconstruction of a player's confidence can help with anything, can you?

 

I fear you may well be right Helen but I'm clinging to the hope that they will realise that their current recruitment model needs some adjustment if we are planning a long term future in the championship.

 

Tactics themselves are essentially based on algorithms.

I don't think anyone has suggested systematic deconstruction of a players confidence but there has to be a realisation that the players are far more important than the tactics. The tactics are important but I would argue the best 11 players in the world playing a simple 442 formation with the simplest of instructions would beat 11 of us off here utilising the world's best and most advanced tactics because the players on the pitch are by far the most important thing. Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of those players and daring to say that some need replacing does not mean somebody doesnt understand football as well as you do not is it to be seen as making them a worse fan.

Take our penchant for passing to Andersen and diaby so often. Tactics say it's brilliant, it creates space etc. My eyes tell me that the humans asked to do that task are not good enough at doing it and the focus there needs to be on the players weakness because only when identifying and highlighting a players weakness can you avoid the problems associated with that weakness. Ie not passing the ball 3 yards to those two.

You say that highlighting those weaknesses rather than the tactical benefit of the short pass demonstrates a lack of football knowledge. I would say that blindly repeating 'but on paper this works' whilst ignoring what is happening in front of you and the reason why demonstrates an equal if not bigger lack of REAL football knowledge. Football is after all not played on paper.

Just my opinion of course

 

I agree. Tactics are there to assist the players that you have. The right tactics will help them to achieve their potential. So let us look at why we are playing the ball from the back where we can, rather than hitting the ball 50 yards up the pitch and beginning from there. In summary, we are doing that because we do not have a player who can win the long ball on the halfway line, control it, and begin to play from there with a good first pass. I can guarantee that if we had a team to play that way, that our coach would be doing it. We can only play the way that our playing squad allows us to play. You might not like the ball played across the line of the back 4 until the movement of the players ahead of the passer finds him the space he needs to control the ball, get his head up, and find a team mate, but that is how we must play if we do not have the players to play otherwise, and personally, I enjoy watching that style.

As I have said elsewhere, on many occasions, our players are not poor. In fact, I would say that they are above average for their age. The problem is, they are young and we all need to have patience until the learn and mature. I have gone through the reasons the club bought mainly young players on many occasions before, but basically, young players fit in with our trading policy, current business plan and pay budget. I have also gone through why all that makes from a financial point of view. I do not wish to repeat all of that as the first time that I wrote about it, it was 30 pages wasted.

Football is definitely not played on paper, and I am not asking that it should be. I am asking for supporters not to destroy the confidence of our young players.

 

But you seem so obsessed with saying that the forward line is incapable of winning long balls but seek to refuse to acknowledge that our defenders are incapable of playing it out from the back as demonstrated by the numerous and pretty regular mistakes when attempting to do so.

I know one thing. I'd prefer Jacob brown to lose the ball in their box than Mads Andersen in ours

 

Interesting replies but have you tried the Post Office for the post code

 

Then you will be happy if we are relegated. The long lump to half way is pretty standard down there.

Do you not enjoy the football of Gerhard Struber? It is his logic that is driving the tactics and the system of play. It is his instructions that the players are following. If you think that Mads Andersen is incapable of playing that way, your complaint should be directed towards the coach, who is telling him to play that way, rather than the player, who you believe does not have the talent to do so.

 

To be, or not to be.

What was the question?

 

I keep reading this, that it was poor finishing that cost us the game. Admittedly, Thomas should have scored, although it came to him very fast and he just stuck out a leg, but all the other good chances were Bristol City's and it was their poor finishing that stopped it being a proper hammering.

 

Well it was wrong, no yellow card for him.

 

Hmmm, not sure about that mate.

Both sides had numerous chances. On the balance of play I think it’s unfair to say it could have been a proper hammering. Both teams had a fair amount of guilt edge chances, and we definitely had a lot more than just that Thomas chance.

 

Just imagine if we had a back line of:

Butland

Holgate Stones Mawson Trippier


Then I woke up

 

Diedhiou had an absolute stinker for them. A more competent striker could have had 3 or 4 goals. We had a few chances but Thomas’ miss was the only comparable one.

 

I think we had plenty of the ball and created a number of reasonable chances, but they had more chances and easier ones. It was their finishing that was poor.