Minority Report V Nottingham Forest

Something that I have noticed about the BBS, is just how few posters are system focused. The problem, if you are player focused, is that the solution is almost always that the club should change the players, no matter how unlikely it is that the club can afford to do so, or is allowed to do so when the transfer window is closed. During my 55 years of watching Barnsley FC, there have been only 2 periods when we could afford to outspend the majority of our league opponents. The rest of the time, we have spent less than our opponents, but we have been competitive because we have been better at managing our resources. That is the philosophy behind Minority Report. It attempts, not always successfully, to answer the question, how can these players be used more effectively. There are many people who are not interested in the answer to that question. There are many for whom football is simply an emotional experience. Minority Report is not for you. My motivation for writing Minority Report is the desire to learn more about the game. The discussions that I have under this banner force me to confront my pre-existing conclusions about the game, and to re-evaluate them in the light of the evidence that other posters present. They force me to rethink the positions that I have taken, and I am grateful for every contribution. The positive result at Derby in spite of negligible possession are statistics that illustrate just what I mean.


I have not seen anything more than highlights from the last 2 games, so excuse me if I ignore them and use the Watford game as my comparative, Even though we won that game, regular readers will know that I was not impressed with the system (3-4-3) and the long ball game that the system imposed upon the team. That game was 3 weeks ago, and there has been an international break in between. The new coach should have had time to get his system and his way of playing across to his new charges. So, what changes have I noted?


Had I written Minority Report at any point before the 85th minute, then it would have concentrated upon the downside of 3-4-3 and the negative share of possession that the system imposes upon the team. If Forest had taken one of their chances in that first half, then in my view, the result would have been entirely different. Forest played an old fashioned 4-4-2. Their keeper kicked the ball long most of the time. There was no point playing our front 3 in a press under those circumstances because the ball would have just sailed over their heads. As it was, the front line when out of possession was set up about 10 metres inside the opposition half, and the ball still sailed over their heads. I honestly could not see the point of the system if the forwards were not pressing. Surely, it makes more sense to match their numbers in midfield.


The commentator was full of praise for Callum Styles, but personally, I thought that he lost the ball too often whilst in an advanced midfield position, when doing so opens up an opportunity on the counter in the left back position. There are those who would argue that Andersen (Styles’ cover) was beaten too easily a number of times, but I prefer to insist that Styles should pass more accurately.


I wrote those words at the end of the first half, and to be honest, I thought we were hanging on for the draw in the second half. OK, we hit the bar twice in the first half, and again in the second half, but Walton saved 3 easy Forest chances. There was nothing in it, and when the Coach began changing players, I was praying for a change in system too. There was no change in system, but the strength of Adeboyejo was an important factor in the first goal. He crossed from the by-line and Woodrow set up Styles, who had moved forward to take over the substituted Mowatt’s midfield position. Styles hit his pile driver true into the top corner and Forest, for all their possession, were beaten.


Many will argue that my report is unfair, and it does have to be said that Ismael knows far more about the game than I will ever do. Nevertheless, I do like to see my team with the majority of possession because I am not entertained by watching our opponent passing the ball about, and Ismael seems to find that statistic unimportant. His results suggest that he is right, and I am wrong, but I will still say that we give the ball away too easily, and that his style of play is not entertaining. Whilst he continues to get results, he will continue to get support, but if the results change, his support will turn against him, because of those underlying possession statistics. If it was not for the spectacular goals from distance we are scoring, then that statistic would have already been questioned.

 

What’s wrong with scoring goals from distance?any goal Barnsley score is a good goal in my opinion.Are you a cup half full or half empty person?

 

To be fair to you RR there’s not a lot of the match report to debate.... at least 60% of your report is talking about yourself.

 

Again, as always, you seem to think that many members of the BBS and football fans in general do not know anything or care about tactics. I have absolutely no idea where you get that from but I'll tell you now that you are wrong.
Why do you think that fans don't want the best from players? What gives you that idea?


Also there is an irony in your report today. You criticise fans for being emotive and not solely focusing on tactics (you will say it isn't criticism but it is) but then you criticise the new manager because he doesn't entertain you enough.

 

Evening Red Rain. I do love a good Minority Report and the effort you must go to to write it is fantastic. One of the joys of football is ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. I’m not going to pick apart your opinion, for it is yours, however, I will respectfully disagree with a couple of points. These being:

Styles was excellent in a position that isn’t his favourite but has made his own. He completely nullified Knockeart defensively, broke with vigour and showed real controlled aggression in the tackle that won him a number of 50-50’s. The odd errant pass is down to the level of difficulty of the pass being attempted. The very best players lift their heads, look forward and try to progress their team up the pitch. By doing this the pass often becomes higher risk than one just dollied from side to side. If Styles continues to progress as he has done so far it’s impossible to predict how far he could go. The goal was the icing on the cake.

The second one is in relation to possession. I’d rather us be effective and threatening with the ball than ‘turn the ball over’ between the back 3 and have zero penetration. For me it’s about moving the ball into goal scoring positions quickly and accurately giving players the highest possible opportunity to hit the target. If that means we do it in 3 passes rather than 15, great. I may be in the minority here but I hate the Barcelona tiki taka style of football that seems to be highly thought of. I used to love watching the swashbuckling teams that played with pace and flair who would happily concede if it meant they could score 2. On a side note, isn’t it interesting to see we’ve stopped conceding so many soft mistake laden goals now we’re asking our big defenders to head it and kick it rather than making them play like prime Beckenbaur.

Just an alternative viewpoint. Keep up the jottings.

 

60% telling us all how intelligent he is, 30% telling us how stupid we all are and 10% talking about the game

 

Fixed

 

It's all about the system.

Picks Styles apart for misplacing a pass.

 

Nothing new there then

 

MPM report. Won 2-0. Pi55ed it. Having a beer and enjoying life.

 

To be fair to Red Rain let's get off his case. We've won 4 in 5. I'm guilty of it as much as everyone else.

Crack on with your reports RR, you reds.

 

He's a good player, that Woodrow!

 

I always read your report with both interest & respect but I am baffled when you say the style of football is not entertaining , once again I have enjoyed the match which i thought was very entertaining , its a long time since a Barnsley side manages to get so many players in the opposition box as the current side does , we appear to have plenty of options now & we keep going for the whole 90 + minutes , apart from the Cardiff match where I think we tried playing square pegs in round holes , our new coach has got it right & long may it continue as I am finding it very entertaining.

 

Agree with your view on Styles 100% That's as good a summary of his contribution as I've seen today. Well done, sir. You should post more often.

 

Did everyone miss where I said that I want contributions from others. I virtually said that I hope to increase my knowledge by debating the points raised by others, and yet most people would prefer to debate me, someone who you have never met and know only from the BBS. Funny old world isn't it.

 

Would you have preferred us to have had more possession and lost?

 

Far too negative (again) but that seems to be your way. That was a JOYFUL performance by an emerging young team who will only get better still.

I don’t care for your “system analysis”, if that’s what it is. I only care about what happened and how it happened. Some readers on here might remember that I used to write lengthy match reports, both in this guise and my previous one of Gloucester Red. I hope I didn’t bore people in doing so but I can say with absolute certainty that I always told the story as I saw it. I had no need to delve into tactics or systems or the theory of the game.

It’s just entertainment after all, or should I say we HOPE that it is. This team has plenty of mistakes in it, just like everyone else, but I love watching them. Some are young lads, barely out of their teens, but any side that can make me shout out very loudly and jump out of my comfy computer chair like I did twice today is well worth watching.

Frankly, I’m not interested in your analysis. I just like to read a good match report.

 

Interesting review some of which I agree with and some I don’t but a thoughtful contribution as ever.

 

Majority report.