Minority Report - Sheffield Wednesday

It is hard to know how to start this week. I am so unhappy with so many things.


The first thing is that it looked to me like Yiadom was asked to play with an pre-existing injury. The likelihood of Yiadom completing the game with a shoulder that keeps popping out was zero. The lad has volunteered to play, but it is a manager’s job to take those decisions out of the hands of even the bravest of the brave, and the decision to play him was wrong. The decision to allow him three more attempts to finish the game was inexcusable. I do not care how short of players we are, or what the opposition is, the manager’s job is to take the hard decisions, and Hecky allowed the player to take the decision away from him.


That first half was as bad as I have seen. Frankly, both teams were terribly poor. We have had two weeks to work on a formation, and the best we could come up with was 4-1-4-1, with Matty James playing in front of the back four. I have just listen to Hecky explain that Scowen and Mowatt were supposed to get up to support Bradshaw, but with the sort of ball that Bradshaw was getting, that was never going to be on. Instead, our midfield played so deep, it looked like we were the away side. Not that Wednesday played any better. They didn’t. In fact they were awful. At half time I was convinced that Wednesday were the worst team to visit us this season, and our formation had prevented us from giving them a spanking.


The game only livened up after we gave them their goal, and Hecky belatedly changed back to 4-4-2. The game became open and, not before time, entertaining. I was left feeling that if our admission money was to pay for 90 minutes, we deserved a refund of two thirds. Now that the players were more comfortable with the system, the problem became lack of quality. We knew what we needed to do, but we were missing the players of quality to do it. I have defended Armstrong in the past because of his youth and will continue to do so, but in his interview Hecky expressed frustration that he was playing so deep. I had assumed he was doing so under instruction, but if Hecky is as frustrated as I am, the lad must be broken of the habit. When the leveller came, it was a huge relief. I had expected Conan to dominate this board for the next six months with his constant snivelling about Winnall being allowed to leave for nothing in the January window, and scoring the winner at Oakwell. Let us be honest, Wednesday are not good enough on that evidence for a top six place, and that includes Winnall, but neither are we.


Highlight of the day. It was of course the stuffed pig thrown at Winnall’s feet from the ESL. It even got a laugh out of me, and that is not easy.

 

Not often I've seen 4 consecutive paragraphs of drivel, well, except the line about the pig, so I'll concede it was just 3

 

Whilst your post is formation based as ever, when you post about "lack of quality", you simply post upon the root of our difficulty. To a point. We're stuck with a lack of quality, as ever. But it's up front.

We sold much of our team recently. But we have carried on without them.

A manager with vision can try to structure a team to play in a way that defends competently and attacks efficiently. We have such a manager.

You can pontificate all you like but it seems to me that we have a highly competent coach who knows what to do, but doesn't have the forwards to complete the job.

This is nothing more than a chance create and finishing problem.

We have lacked the finish in so many games this season.

Lord knows where clubs like us find them.

 

We have to distinguish between what I have said, and what you think I have said. First of all, I have not said that I want Hecky to leave. For a start, I just do not do that sort of thing, but secondly I agree that we have a very good young coach. What I did do was I criticised him on two very specific points, points which I think he got wrong. I am not from within the game, and I never purport to be from within the game. I criticise very rarely indeed, but today the criticism was obvious. I know only too well that Hecky has to do his job even when players are sold even when he would prefer to keep them, and I make allowances for those sales. Having said all of that, the comments I made I judge to be fair under the circumstances. The passing was very poor at times and if you cannot pass accurately, particularly when not under pressure, then you cannot create anything. It is not a finishing problem if you did not create any chances because your passing was poor.

Wednesday were equally poor in that respect, and I lost count of the times that they had the ball in promising positions, only to pass the ball all the way back to their keeper. Both teams were poor today. The quality was not up to the standards that we have seen earlier in the season, even when we have lost games. That is down to the quality of the teams and the negativity of the systems of both managers. That was not rectified until the final 30 minutes, when the game became much more entertaining, and much more enjoyable in consequence.

 

It wasn't a pre existing injury was it? I thought he did it when he fell in the penalty area

 

That is indeed the question.

Honestly, I do not know for sure, but the way that it was dealt with in the game suggested to me that it was not unexpected by either the player or the physios. These things are very painful when they are put back in joint, which is why it was done out of sight. Yet everyone seemed to take things so casually, just like it had happened before and they all knew what to do. If it has come out once, the tendons are weak and it is inevitable that it will come out again. There was no way he would finish the game, and there is no way that he gets away without it being pinned. If I am right, that is him done for the season. Hecky also dealt with it quite casually after the game, listing the appropriate strategies rather than saying, we will have to see what is wrong.

 

The passing was indeed poor for the first half hour. On both sides.

I know that you do not wish Hecky to leave nor would you suggest it.

Today is not a fair day to draw conclusions because these games are always emotion filled.

But we've done wonderfully this season, and to a certain extent we are beyond criticism, having regard to the sales we have effected, if financial security and division safety is the determinant for a footballing season.

I am one of an absolute minority brigade who thinks that we could have built upon what we lost in January, in order to acquire better.

I think Winnall and Hourihane were overrated. In our system. Bree would have helped us till the end of the season. But we ought to have been able to replace him , not least because he was defensively suspect.

Anyway, you always advised last season that promotion would be a banana skin.

It hasn't been. It's been great, especially for those who go around the country supporting us. Salt of the earth they are.

To conclude, we need to try and keep Roberts, Scowen and Watkins. They are the players, irrespective of how they line up, that should be trotting out.

 

It was a dull game. I enjoyed the last 5 minutes.

 

The Minority Report has been an entertaining and debate-stimulating contribution to the Forum this season. But I have to say that whilst it is not uncommon to find points to disagree on (which presumably is the point of it) I find this week's edition surprisingly loose in argument and somewhat downbeat.

Starting with Yiadom, I am unaware of any evidence to support the idea that the injury was a pre-existing condition. Indeed, that's a fairly disparaging thing to allege against Hecky. The fact that our (award-winning) sports science and medical team repeatedly attempted to patch Yids up does not imply that they were waiting for it to happen. Our present difficulties at full back were fairly well advertised before kick-off, and it is little surprise that the staff would strive to get Yids through the game if at all possible. The way that we missed Josh Scowen in midfield when he had to fill in at left back shows why it was desirable to try and nurse Yiadom through the remainder of the game.

"The first half was as bad as I have seen." Really? I thought it was an interesting tactical battle which demonstrated Hecky's astuteness in trying to combat a strong Wednesday midfield with a change in formation. I enjoyed it. I was very happy with the way we were playing (given our resources - more later) at half time. Was that 4-1-4-1 or 4-5-1? Is there much difference? With five in midfield it follows that some of the five will be more offense-oriented and some more defensive. In the end it makes little difference - there were five midfielders, were there not? Of course some folk have called out for 4-5-1 before! "It looked like we were the away side". I don't know how the two halves split out, but the BBC reckons the possession stats were 53%-47% in our favour, and the shot count 13-14 in Wednesday's. That doesn't suggest that we looked like the away side, and it didn't seem like that to me. In fact my impression was that we seemed to have less control and possession when Scowen had to drop to full back. "Wednesday were the worst team to visit us this season." What? Worse than Rotherham? Come on! I concede they were poorer than Newcastle, Brighton, Reading, Fulham and Huddersfield, but I think they were some way off the worst.

And lack of quality? From the man who has championed the sale of our best players in the interests of solvency? You can't have it both ways, RR. And I think Armstrong is a terrific prospect, even if we don't necessarily have the range of players to bring out the best in him. My heart was aching to be losing to our rivals solely due to a one-off and uncharacteristic mistake. So the fact that we kept on and had the cojones to turn the deficit around at the eleventh hour was gratifying to say the least. So I think that to achieve that outcome in all the circumstances of the game was deserving of high praise. Derbies are rarely classic footballing encounters, and passion often counts for more than the purity of play on show. But I do think in terms of game management and team spirit our players deserved accolades today - especially from the high priest of prudence!

One thing I will agree on though - I thought the baiting of Winnall was world class!

 

I'm pretty sure his shoulder popped out intercepting a cross early in the first half, he fell awkwardly and stayed down.

 

This is an excellent response to red rains minority report. I find it quite disturbing also that he makes the assumption that hides had a pre existing condition. For a man who likes a fact based argument, his judgement here is rather flawed. It is reasonable to assume that yids got the injury during the game. He is basically alleging that our mngt team put the lad at risk by starting him. Mmmmmmm.............
I also agree with your reading of the match orsen. We deserved that point if not more. A cracking derby game full of passion and toy pigs.

 

Ah. So we look better at 442.

Brilliant

 

Chortle

 

You always pride yourself on your application of logic to the argument. Yet, while you laud Cryne's 'strategy' of cashing in on any remotely saleable asset as soon as possible, you imply criticism of Heckingbottom for our lack of quality and options. That is not logic.

 

You are right, my reports are partly a vehicle to stimulate debate, and this week it seems to have done just that. So let us deal with your points one by one.

Yiadom's problem was that his shoulder kept popping out. Initially, that type of injury needs a very heavy blow. The contact he took for the first displacement did not seem sufficient to me, but what do I know. Thereafter, a minor blow, or even a tug is sufficient to displace the joint. The process of putting the arm back into its socket is exceedingly painful. It is a process that would affect anyone mentally. When you are worried about an injury, you tend to protect it. You tend to guard against it happening again. All told, Yiadom had his shoulder put back in place 4 times. At what point do you think that our management team should have thought, this is enough. Personally, I said that he should have been substituted immediately. Even if it was not a pre-existing injury, I would not have allowed him back on. Even after the third occurrence, he was allowed to start the second half. The final incident was no more than a pull on his arm. Just how bad does an injury have to be when a pull to an arm is sufficient to cause it to pop out again. I stand by my original comment, not because I made it on here, I stand behind the comment because I made it live, and well before his manager took action. In our current position, there was just no point in taking the risk, no matter who our opponents might be.

Our system had James playing in front of McDonald and Roberts with Kent, Scowen, Mowatt and Hammill playing ahead of him and Bradshaw in front of them. You may recall that I was not keen on Bradshaw playing as a lone target man in our previous home game. In that game, I had felt that he was not strong enough to hold off the first challenge, which resulted in him having the ball taken away from him repeatedly. This time the problem was different. The passing up to him was so poor that his best chance of winning the ball was to chase a defender and try to win a tackle. Part of the reason that our passing was so poor was that our best midfield player was so tied up supporting our central defensive pairing that he never got forward and he never made a telling pass. Scowen did well as usual, but Mowatt is far too left sided at the minute. He will need a lot of work. We made an absolute mess of two free kicks on the edge of the Wednesday box, and I will repeat, our passing was very poor. Now I know you were a Hourihane fan, and I know he would have made a better job of those free kicks, but all the other decent passers are still at the club, so losing Hourihane does not explain why all the others were so poor on this occasion. I'm sorry but losing Hourihane does not explain everything. That is not to say that Wednesday were any better, they weren't. In fact, they were worse, which explains why I thought that we should have gone for them, rather than effectively defend with 5 outfield players from the off. I have explained Hecky's comments after the game, which seemed to suggest that the system had not worked because Mowatt and Scowen had not been able to make a link to Bradshaw, but for me the answer was more obvious. Our starting formation was too negative and our passing was too inaccurate to allow a link to form. And that is precisely why I made the claim.

I have supported the board for their January transfer dealings because I did not think that there was any alternative, but I have never said that there would be no effect on quality, results and league position. There was bound to be an effect. Nevertheless, it should not affect the basics of the game, and passing is a basic of the game. We got back into the game because of a change of system that allowed more players to get forward. Beyond that it was down to pure will power, and we scored our equaliser when Hammill found a decent cross from a dead ball position and McDonald did the rest. Until then, Wednesday looked like holding on.

 

But we still have options. I can think of loads.

 

We certainly looked better at 4-4-2 than 4-1-4-1, but there are more than two systems you know, in fact there are more than two systems with 5 in midfield, most of them far more attacking than 4-1-4-1.

 

No, actually. You need to learn how to distinguish between how your running commentary sounds to you, and how it is going to be perceived. Why do you think there is such an ongoing battle between Red Rain and the rest of the BBS when it comes to post-match summary?

You are a little guilty of presiding over the board with your view, then sighing and 'explaining' when someone doesn't see eye-to-eye.

For the record, I enjoy Minority Report, it's a decent read, and you've a nice insight into BFC. Can't say I always agree, but that's how football works!

 

I do not agree that you have correctly identified the difference between Minority Report and other post match comments on this board. In my opinion, the difference is that most post-match reporting is very influenced by the emotion of the game, and Minority Report is very much less influenced by emotion, which allows me to deal far better with what actually happened. I accept that your interpretation of whether this is a good thing or not is very much a choice for the individual, but that is how I see it. Let us take yesterday as an example. Not only is it a derby against possibly our closest and historically our greatest rival, but the fact that our star striker moved there in January added additional spice. The anticipation of the game as expressed on here made it clear that emotions were running even higher than usual. The footballing powers saw it, and appointed a senior referee to officiate at the game. Everything was set up for a huge and emotional post match reaction in some form or another. I have read but have not commented upon, many other post match threads on here that make it very clear that emotion has clouded an awful lot of judgements about the game.

In summary, if you want to read an emotional reaction to the game, do not read Minority Report. If you want to read about my opinion, an opinion in which emotion does not influence judgement, then go ahead. It is not pontificating or presiding any more than any other opinion expressed here pontificates or presides. The opinions that I express represent my views, and no more than that. But those views are expressed with less emotion than most, and that is all.

 

Have to agree to disagree, Red Rain. But at the end of the day we did get a point against a team who up to 4.55 pm were top six. And it was an exciting finish to the game. I'd have thought you'd have rejoiced in that, to say nothing of our ongoing solvency! I was surprised your report was so downbeat yesterday and couldn't help wondering if your butler had taken unanticipated leave or your Chablis was inadequately chilled?