Minority Report v Queens Park Rangers

The system that we used last night was very open because the wide players were not retreating to deeper positions when the ball was lost. In an open game, the team with the better strikers will usually win, because they will take a bigger proportion of their chances, and it worries me that we are bound to lose those games for that very reason. It was Stendel's philosophy, and it worked fine in League 1 when our strikers were superior, but it failed in the Championship when they were not.

It is easy to get carried away on the back of a comfortable win, but unless you take into account the major factor in that win, you are going to be disappointed when the following game plays out differently. As far as I can see, that is what is happening on the BBS. Fans are raising their hopes on insufficient concrete evidence. Personally, I will want to see much better evidence before I will assume that score line will be repeated any time soon.

 

I agree he was all over the place to start with but he did improve markedly. I say this as someone who isn't really a fan of the player.

 

The major factor for me was that the players were in a system that they appeared more comfortable with, and which made the most of their relative youth and energy levels. It was a bonus that it was a more attacking, and therefore more entertaining setup. If that leaves some gaps at the back, then so be it. As I said, some sides will overcome our system. I expect that against many teams in this league it will be enough to give us a good chance of surviving in the division more comfortably than we did last year. If it is entertaining along the way then all well and good.

 

Tbf it normally is hard to play against ten men as they form a defensive line which Is hard to break down .
Stoke did it but the few times we got behind them we couldn’t finish .
QPR didn’t go defensive at all and continued to try and get a goal which ten men don’t normally go all out to do .

 

Or maybe it was always the plan to get James onto the field in the second half, and he felt Styles warranted staying on? Not necessarily that Oduor was awful? He struggled against Adomah for the first fifteen minutes, that has to be said. It wasn’t his strongest game generally in all fairness but we’ve seen much worse performances from barnsley players over the last year or two.

Your OP is a little too critical of the first period of the first half - or at least for too long a period of it.

Our play and organisation was terrible for the first ten to fifteen minutes - I even posted at the time we looked like a pub side. So I’d completely agree for the first part.

However from there we grew into the game and were matching them comfortably, and looking more creative if anything. So to say we can make no conclusions due to the sending off I find a little disingenuous, I’m sure you could see the improvement and promise as much as the rest of us.

The penalty came from good play generally and a cracking through ball from Styles to Woodrow, this after ten minutes or so of us looking much more composed and growing gradually into the game.

From there on we are in the lead and against ten men - but I’ve rarely seen any team perform so well against ten men. The second goal came from more good play and eroded their hope of getting back into the game before half time. The second half was great, and very much controlled by Matty James in the middle of the park.

We picked them off at will, created gilt-edged chances. My concern, a very strong one, was that we missed them all. The third goal was very lucky, Woodrow should have left the ball to the unmarked man behind him (I forget who it was now), but tried and failed to control it - only for the centre half to toe-poke it past his keeper. We should have scored four or five second half and got only one very spawny one. That said though, some of the number of chances missed, particularly by Schmidt, might well have been taken had Woodrow been on the end of them and he was clearly substituted to rest him for Watford after his minor muscle injury the other day.

Of course we were assisted by the sending off, but it wasn’t the sole factor in the win. Callum Brittain looks a real find, and the formation favoured by the new gaffer was always going to take some time to adjust to, even with the adjustments being relatively minor. Dominik Frieser looked busy and more effective. I wasn’t impressed with Chaplin, but he got a goal and the confidence boost that brings may bring him on. I’d go the same again v Watford, fitness permitting - Matty James perhaps starting in place of Oduor and Styles playing on the left. Romal Palmer and Jordan Williams warrant consideration for starts too when fit.

 

I think we were a bit surprised by QPRs quick start and for ten minutes looked like we were struggling. We hit lots of long balls which were probably done to try and get time to regroup but the ball just kept ending back at adomahs feet and they came again. However, we overcame the initial onslaught and we're back in the game well before the sending off and once we had some decent possession i thought we played some decent stuff on the deck.

Second half QPR didn't sit back like Stoke did last week which allowed us to hit them on the counter the likes of which we haven't seen since the hecky years. Matty James just found killer balls for fun and some of his flick were sublime.

 

You are right. Matty James definitely starts when he is fit enough, and when we are not playing two games each week, he also plays 90 minutes. In my opinion, Williams also plays when he is fit. That gives us a problem because there is no place in the first team for Styles, Kane, Palmer, Thomas or Christie-Davies because there are only 2 midfield players included in 3-4-3. For me, that is too much talent wasted.

 

We can't have it both ways, if we have competition for places it's a waste of talent. If we don't, then we have a threadbare squad. We want experienced players, but then it's a problem when the inexperienced players can't get a game...

 

I find your analysis of the game in general terms to be roughly the same as mine. Your minority is therefore at least not wholly your own.

When it comes to the individual technical stuff, I do not absorb enough to be able to decide what should be right for us as a team to do. I believe however that I can see what might be wrong. There was plenty of it last night at first.

Please do not be discouraged from further posting by those who attack the man and not the ball.

 

Is your cup half full or half empty?

 

I enjoy reading Red Rain's reports and have told him so in the past. They are a very welcome part of the board and offer something completely different in terms of analysis. Doesn't mean we can't disagree if we view something differently one week or think he might be being a bit unfair, eh?

 

In terms of the players I'm referring to, Woodrow (albeit mostly in terms of his ability to fit into Struber's strategy, although I believe downplaying what he is good at) and Lindsay immediately spring to mind ( I agreed and found it funny in that case).

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with debate. In fact I welcome it. The game is all about opinions, and no-one including me, can ever be 100% correct. What does grind my gears is the personal attacks. It is fine to disagree, but to then deduce that I have a character flaw which makes me write the way that I do is hurtful. I do not respond. I just cry for the rest of the day.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with our "vertical passing" tactic against other teams. It seems like with the front 3 the object isn't to hit a long ball to someone with their back to goal - my idea of the traditional long ball - but to play the ball early and long if required, behind the defenders - almost all the long balls or forward passes looked to be into space infront of our front 3 to run onto. The issue with that is that if a team sits deep and narrow - and plenty come to Oakwell and do that (despite their fans being under the impression that its "only Barnsley" and they should not need to defend) - with this defensive tactic (we don't score from crosses so pack the middle) you can no longer play balls through and will end up with our small strikers with their back to goal - not a situation which is going to bring any success IMHO. In summary against 3-4-3 - play deep and narrow, and hit your wide attacking player quickly behind our wing backs. This is a new tactical approach for Barnsley I've never seen before, even under Wilson (first time) it was more 3-4-1-2, and we definitely didn't play it long, so interesting times that's for sure.

 

In the main I agree with RRs post match summary.
Odour needed taking off. I have the same doubts about his positional sense and ability to defend. Looks like VI has those same doubts. Mebbe Clarke is more suited to an attacking midfield role. He is talented and he will develop with us but he needs to read the game better if he continues to get chosen at FB/WB.
Like all of us I thought MJ was a dream to watch. He really is a different class of player.
What surprised me last night was the clear instruction to play longer passes behind the opposition defence. I guess this is consistent with Vals commitment to vertical play and quicker attacks. Mads is particularly adept at playing the long diagonal pass.
RR makes a valid point re the fact that this style of play exposes us more. One of the important things when playing the long ball is, if we lose it, picking up the second ball aggressively by way of defending the ground made with the long ball.
I too think that it was a cracking win, but like RR says, its difficult to judge when we played 60 mins against 10 men. What concerned me was missing all those golden chances. With better finishing it could have been 11-0. I reckon Val probably feels the same.
Some v positive comments on this board. Lets hope they dont turn into the overly negative when we lose a few. Patience and perspective needed again.
The other pleasing thing last night was seeing Brittain, Helik, James, Mads, Solly, Frieser and Chaplin and Styles all put in good performances. All players who were brought into the club under the current regime.

 

So you'd sacrifice the result to nurture talent?

 

Mines a furry one.

 

I perhaps have unfairly failed to point this out before now RR, but I have found your recent posts to have a less condescending tone to them; I don’t know if that is a conscious effort or coincidence, but either way it is to be acknowledged. I know you didn’t like when I and others pointed this out - I was never convinced you were doing it intentionally to be fair - and so it is only right to accept I am not seeing that on recent threads.

You are always strong of opinion, I like that. I don’t always agree with you, sometimes disagreeing completely or sometimes only on smaller points, and am happy to debate those finer points at times, as we have on this thread. As a further point, I think we do have the ability to make the 3-4-3 system work. I also see your point about midfielders, but unfortunately we won’t have James for long I fear and we have cried out for competition for places.

As I’ve always acknowledged, you obviously take a lot of time about what you do and it has a lot of value, so thank you for that.

 

Have read all the above and I feel it is a situation where nobody is trying to destroy Oduor or write him off but he was struggling especially at first against Adohma and we can only fit 11 players on the pitch at one time.
I also think that Oduor has got into lots of promising positions in the last few games but his final ball and decision making having got into those positions is less assured than Styles has been able to produce.
Clark is only a young lad making his way - I just don`t think he`s currently as developed a player as Callum styles at present. as I say only 11 can be on the pitch at once and CO will have his time I`m sure but he currently would`nt be in my 1st eleven.

 

No. I am saying all of the listed players have talent, but because the 3-4-3 system uses just 2 midfield players, there is no room in the team for any of them. Furthermore, the listed players represent a considerable investment, and one of those players cost £1.25m earlier this month, after Struber had already left. It does seem a strange decision if the owners were about to employ a new coach who was going to opt for a system that means Kane is surplus to requirements.