Minority Report v Chelsea (FA Cup 5th round)

Chelsea made 10 changes. This was not their first eleven. Their coach brought on a kid whose has hardly played before. Yes, they are all expensive players, but they were effectively starting together for the first time. Their manager is new and he is introducing new ideas. He is still experimenting with the right way to play. He appeared to be frustrated and also bamboozled at times by Ismael's 3-4-3. If that was the purpose of the system, then all is well. I am different, and I always will be different. If you want to read the same sort of stuff as you read everywhere else, then do not bother with me. I am driven by logic and reason. I think about things long and very hard before I commit to an idea. I am not trying to justify a hatred of 3-4-3 because 3-4-3 can be played in other ways. Our current owners would not allow it to be played without a press, but there is no reason why it has to be played with the long ball. I hated the long ball when it was used by Wimbledon, and I hate it more as used by Barnsley.

 

Red Rain.

Which performance did you prefer?

Losing 6-0 under Struber, but playing your formation and attempting to play out from the back (which directly cost us at least 2 goals)

Or

Losing 1-0 under Ismael, with a slightly 'agricultural' style of football, that minimised risk and limited the same opposition to just one shot on target whilst creating more clear cut chances for us than the League Cup game?

 

Your reports on matches are always interesting to read (even if I disagree with much of what you say) but as others have said, if you make statements such as “I think long and hard before I write”, “I am driven by logic and reason” it seems patronising and detracts from the valid points you can make. The rest of us aren’t chimpanzees just banging out random characters on a keyboard.
The stats from each game are on the website and we consistently play fewer long balls in a game than the opposition. We play more as a proportion of our total passes but how many passes did Chelsea make in their own half? Surely the best solution, unless you have exceptional ball playing defenders, is to get the ball out of your own half and nearer the opponent’s goal, which is what we do. We just need the forwards to make it stick more. We had more shots on target than they did, the difference being the quality of play and finishing in the box but given our budget we should be pleased with that. We might not play like Brazil but I personally don’t see it as boring and as the players improve we’ll play better and score more. What more can we ask for or expect?

 

But logic and reason would suggest that 3-4-3 worked for us last night? We lost to their only shot on target; that's not bad tactics - just bad luck. We could have had two ourselves on another night. I think we gave a great impressions of ourselves verses a top 6 PL side, and a draw in 90 minutes or even a 1-0 in our favour would have been fair.

Yes, we lost, but I think VI can count this game as tactically successful.

I think if we went for a back four, especially after playing a back 3/5 (depending on phase of play) for so long, we would have been burned at the stake.

My first time replying to one of your Minority Report threads I think, and want to say that I do very much enjoy the read, and my reply is simply my opinion. Keep them coming

 

Very happy with how we played and competed. Other than taking our chances (which seems to be a common problem in the big games) I don't think we could have expected much more.

 

Wow. Once again, any merit or value in your argument - which much as I disagree, it does have - is diluted by your insistence to place yourself as superior.

No need. There really isn’t.

 

I did not watch the game in the Caribao Cup, but I understand your question, and I do not want to avoid it.

The scoreline in the FA Cup is certainly the better scoreline. In the first game, Struber's team was not ready. Struber had lost the player who made his system tick (Jacob Brown). He had not been able to spend that money, and because of that, his team was a team in transition. When I saw how Ismael intended to play the game, I said that he would have to change 6 players. I was told that I was talking rubbish. In the last transfer window he brought in 3 players and he got rid of 7 more. The squad no longer contains any wingers, and instead, our width comes from deeper. We have to change the hardest workers after an hour because the system is so wearing on the front 3 and the middle 4. That is OK at the minute because we are allowed to change 5, but next season, it will revert to 3. Then, we will be playing with tired players for the last 30 minutes of games. We shall see what our future holds. I think that we will be fine this season, but after that, I am not so sure. The question that I would ask is this one. You are quite happy at the moment because results are OK, but what would your reaction be if we were playing like that and results were not OK. That is the future I see, but of course, we must all wait until our futures play out. Only time will be the judge of what I say, and what others say in response.

 

Struber had the luxury of 5 subs too don't forget.

 

can we take from you therefore, as all your protestations indicate you were more entertained when we got battered 6 nil at chelsea playing your preferred formation?

its a funny old game if so.

Edit: ive just seen your response to fonzie and i feel your reply skirts around the issue.

 

In what way am I skirting the issue. I did not see the game and have gone as far as I can in those circumstances.

 

I see your point - especially the last question regarding results changing.

I would prefer us to play football along the floor of course. But with the personnel we have (especially in defensive positions) that isn't an option - as we found out to our cost last season and earlier on in this.

In the short term, I much prefer a risk free style of play - the amount of stress it used to cause me when Radlinger gave it to Anderson in his 6 yard box from a goal kick was monumental.

Perhaps if we improve as a team and a club then we can revert back to playing a different style.

 

80% of your reply to fonzie was telling us how Vals team needed this and needed that. it skirted around the question you were asked, i suspect because truthfully your answer didn't fit the narrative you are running with. its admirable and i respect your opinion and your willingness to stick up for it. sometimes however it plainly obvious the script need re writing.

 

I thought that you've posted in the past that the uneducated masses on here want to be entertained at oakwell while you are focused on the tactics and gaining the upper hand which is what you find entertaining rather than us simple folk who like free flowing football. This post seems to say completely the opposite

 

Stats as always can be interpreted/used.
According to BBC:
We had 4 players who scored more than Chelsea highest In Gilmore.
We had 14 chances to their 6
We 4 on target to their 1
Seven corners to their 2.

Those stats in addition with yours would suggest the press is working, we just need to improve our conversion rates.

Don’t forget Leicester won the Premiership with almost identical stats to the ones you posted.

 

The owner wants us to play with a press, and apparently VI always plays 3-4-3. The issue that I have at the moment is the long ball. It is undoubtedly a safer way to play the game the way that VI does because is does not result in as many players being out of position when we lose possession, but my point about Ismael's way of playing is that it sacrifices what I enjoy most about the game in order to ensure we play with less risk. It is an exchange that many are willing to make. They are more interested in winning football matches and less interested in the way that it is achieved. Personally, my balance of risk and reward is in a different place and I will continue to try to explain why that is.

 

W-M, same as they used to use in 1926 when he first started going.

 

Agree with most of this, Dike looked off the pace and it’s not really surprising, he was keen and eager, but looked raw in his eagerness to chase after the ball, what I saw when he came on though was the team did not support him as well in his press and often on his own, Woodrow as an example started dropping deeper on the right so by default wasn’t high enough to back up.
Wether this was the change in personnel, positioning time will tell.

 

You have a good memory. A far better memory than I have.

I thought that Stendel also had the balance of risk and reward wrong. I thought the his balance was tilted too far toward the risk bit. He played 4-4-2 with a press, and I felt that it left us far too open. The style he used was entertaining in League 1, but I always felt that it would be too open for the Championship. I said so when we were winning, and that is never a popular opinion, as I am finding once again now. Nevertheless, I give my opinions in good faith and I try to support them with reasoned argument. Things are fine for many at the moment because results are better than they were. My point, as always is this, will you still be happy if results were not fine.

 

Me? Happy? I think you've asked that to the wrong person

My view is that football is a combination of results and entertainment. If you're winning then the style of football becomes less important, if you're losing it becomes more important. It's not a case of one or the other it's a kind of sliding scale.

 

No, you are right. The press was not as intense after we changed 2 of our front 3. Personally, I am not sure if this was caused by VI reacting to the tiredness in the pressing players (Woodrow in particular), or the fact that the replacement pressing players (Dike in particular) were less qualified to perform the press in the way he wanted to do it.