Before the game started, I wanted to put on record the questions that I would be posing in Minority Report. I was worried about our pressing game with Woodrow and Chapman as our front two. The press had worked very well with Jacob Brown last season, but Woodrow is not an athlete in the same sense and he does not close down the defender on the ball in the same way , or as quickly as Brown did. I was concerned about Andersen because with Helik occupying the central ball winning role, Andersen has to play on the left, and that requires different skills. I was concerned that we did not have a defender on our bench as Halme was left out. Finally, I was concerned about the endurance of Thomas as I expected him to play No10. Well, in some ways the game worked out as I expected, but in other ways, it did not. The first thing is that Coventry dominated possession in the first part of the game. We just could not get our close passing working and we were driven back because we could not keep the ball. Coventry dominated central midfield because their 3-4-3 gave them an additional man as compared to our 3+1 further forward. Struber had to change our system in order to try and get us into the game. He matched their 4 in midfield and Thomas had to play deeper. Even so, Mowatt and Styles were repeatedly caught too high, allowing Coventry to get their midfield players into the hole between defence and midfield. If I am honest, I was disappointed with Styles defensively in that first half. Yes, he won plenty of interceptions because he read his opponent’s intention. But it is not always possible to do that and he has to be goal side when it is not, and he has to be stronger in the tackle when there are 50/50 balls going. He is of course very young, and he is bound to get better as he gets stronger, but it posed the question in my mind about what his best position might turn out to be. Today, in that first half, he looked more like a No10 than he did a No4. Similarly, Ludewig was not comfortable in that first half. The wing backs are expected to provide our width in the 3-4-1-2 system, and the fact that we were a man short in that area did not help, but we were continually caught too high with Coventry in good possession, and I lost count of the number of times their wide player went clear of our back 3. On the ball, he just did not have the space to express himself either. It was his worst half game in a red shirt. Andersen is not as effective on the left side of a back 3. Since he arrived, he has played centrally. His job has always been to win the ball in the air, either by winning the aerial challenge, or by reading play and beating his man to the ball. On the left side, he has a different job. He has to read play in order to decide whether to cover the central defender eg when the ball is being crossed from our right, or whether he is covering the wing back who has been caught too far forward to recover his defensive position in time. They are different skills and it takes time to learn those skills perfectly. He is also more involved in passing the ball constructively after we have won it back, and it is not helping either him or his left side colleague (Williams) that they are passing most balls with their weaker foot. That was not the problem for the corner though, when City hit the bar. At set pieces, Andersen does not have a marking job. His job is to win the ball and clear it. However, the weakness of the system seems to be when the kick is hit beyond the far post, and the opponent has placed their main ball winner there. As far as I could see, he was not marked, and that was partly because Coventry had arranged a block in order to prevent a defender a free run towards the cross. The attacker should have been blocked as well, so that he did not have a free run at the cross either, but Mowatt, his blocker started in the wrong position and could not get anywhere near Ostigard. Arguably, we were lucky to go in level at half time. Struber has to do something to get us back in the game. Nevertheless, I was surprised by his choice. He replaced a centre back (Helik) with a forward (Frieser) and went 4-3-3 (Chaplin and Frieser wide and Woodrow down the middle). When I watched Frieser before he signed, he was playing in a 4-3-3 system, as there was immediately an improvement in our play. We created a couple of half-chances, which Woodrow did not do well enough with. It has to be said at this point that Woodrow looks nothing like the striker he once was. He has never been quick, but he could take a chance. There are those who argue that he would be better with a big man beside him, but frankly, he would have taken those chances at one time, and today, he never came close. I have never been a fan of Chaplin in a wide position, and once again, he disappointed. He kept his place for the next substitution, as Simoes inevitably replaced Thomas, but his substitution was also inevitable as Schmidt replaced him, with and Simoes going wider in a 4-4-2 system. If Struber has set out to make a point, then he could not have made it any better. He tried 3-4-1-2, 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and 4-4-2 again. He kept faith with Cauley Woodrow for the whole 90 minutes, and we never looked like scoring. The message was there, loud and clear. Our current strikers are not good enough and we need to spend some money if we are going to survive this season. Rookie Watch Helik made an error early on when he allowed a long ball to bounce. After that, he was OK without being outstanding. His substitution was simply to allow a change in formation. Frieser looks like he is being asked to play in a system he is not comfortable with. It is going to take time for him to adapt. Player of the Match This is a tough one because no-one played that well. I narrowed it down to Mowatt or Williams, flipped a coin, and Williams won.
One thing that did strike me with the HT change is that with a back three including Williams, we do not have to make a substitution to switch to a back four. We can do this switch as many times as we like during the game. Today, we did not have that flexibility of formation (otherwise we could have adjusted after 10 minutes). Coventry played that long pass down our right hand side several times without even looking. Incidentally, I believe we have lost that equivalent outlet with departure of Jacob Brown. He often was able to win those battles down our right hand side.
Agree with this, if we are to play a back three, one of them needs to be able to play as a normal full back. Williams would often double up down the left with the wing back when he plays there. Andersen would've been man of the match for me, purely on the fact he didn't make any mistakes that I can remember. 4-4-2 with Frieser on the wing for me. Schmidt to start up front with whoever wins the game of rock, paper, scissors between Chaplin and Woodrow.
Something else that I noticed during the first half yesterday but forgot to include in Minority Report The fact that Coventry played a back 3 meant that we could not have pressed effectively, even with Jacob Brown in the team, with just 2 forward players. There was always one of their defenders free to receive the ball from their keeper and in space. Thomas tried to get forward to bridge the gap and match their numbers, but he could not close the gap quickly enough to put them under any proper pressure. I was interested before the season began on what opposition coaches would do in order to counter Struber's very successful pressing system. It looks like 3 at the back could be an answer, because both Reading and Coventry have done it. Struber could have to go back to the drawing board.
I dont disagree with any of your comment re Saturday's v disappointing performance. Mark Robin's tactically out thought Struber. Also agree with the coin which you flipped. Williams was my motm also. Together with Mads, he's turning in a consistent level of 8 out of 10 performances every game. Passing accurate. Pacy. Can beat a man. Versatile. CB or WB. I think he could be our next £m sale.
