Some thoughts about yesterday’s game and where we are right now

Let’s begin with some positives. I approached this season strongly believing that after 10 games or so we would be firmly in the drop zone, and that after that our season would take shape and modest improvement would allow us to climb a little bit higher. This was based upon the massive drain of talent we experienced from the new year, the delay in our recruitment, and the limited time which Hecky and Jamie Clapham had had to work with the new lads and inculcate them into our style of play. Instead we find ourselves three places and two points above the third bottom club, with the joint best goal difference of the bottom six. Three of the five clubs below us have significantly better resources and bigger average gates than we do. That is a terrific platform given the young age and relative inexperience of what I believe is a talented squad. We certainly have the potential to improve as the season goes on, provided that other factors do not conspire to derail us.


Yesterday’s game did not lack entertainment. The stats say that we had 51% possession, 23 shots to Hull’s 8 (5 on target to their 3) and perhaps surprisingly, that we won 61% of the aerial duels to Hull’s 39%. I assume that the majority were our defensive aerial duels. Hull played in a careful, controlled way and while they could be said to have been unadventurous – particularly in the first half – they were well-marshalled by the experienced and effective Dawson. I think that yesterday was the first time we had started in 4-4-2 formation at home, or perhaps in any game this season. For all the possession and attempts stats, the gut feeling is that we were not as creative as in previous home games, and certainly not as threatening or convincing. It’s difficult to go through any game – let alone one against opposition with recent Premier League experience – without giving the other side chances, and Hull’s duly came. It did feel from early on that it might be one of those games where we succumbed to a sucker punch. The formation, to my eyes hadn’t allowed us to get ahead before we conceded, and Hull protected their lead once they went in front. I have to disagree with Red Rain here. He says that in a game like yesterday’s, with wind and rain affecting matters we should have had alternative strategies to our ‘ball to feet’ mode. But the physicality of our front two was not such as could realistically challenge the experience of the Hull back two. To my mind we should have persisted in trying to play our quick passing game, and utilised the speed of our attacking players. We may or may not have acclimatised to the conditions had we done that. It was a great shame that Adam Jackson’s fine performance was abruptly curtailed, and McDonald looked hopelessly at sea from the corner immediately after he came on, but I don’t think he was responsible for the goal. All in all, while the work rate of our players could not be faulted, it was a performance that lacked the confidence and sparkle of some of our earlier home games.


Systems. Yesterday was the first time we have started with 4-4-2. We have otherwise begun in 4-1-4-1 formation. Against Ipswich we went 4-4-2 after 57 minutes with the score at 1-1 and ended up losing the game. Against Villa, we went 4-4-2 at half time when we were losing 2-0 and ended up losing 3-0. Against QPR we went 4-4-2 at half time when we were 1-0 up and ended up drawing. Against Boro we switched to 4-4-2 on 53 minutes when we were 2-1 up and were hauled back to 2-2 within 7 minutes. Yesterday we were 4-4-2 throughout. There was a time when I called out for two men up front, but we have successfully used the five man midfield setup this season, and I think it is what the players have become used to. For me our best performances in home league games have been against Forest and Sunderland, where we stayed with the 4-1-4-1 throughout (bar one minute in the latter game).


International breaks. I hate them. (I hate watching England anyway.) They are disruptive, and break up the flow of the season for domestic fans. We came off the Forest and Sunderland wins for the first one and then took just two points from the next four games. Last time we came off the brilliant performance at Millwall and have taken one point from six in two home games. Maybe it’s just coincidence, but it seems to me we have lost some momentum each time.


Ownership. I mentioned this this week and was told “don’t rock the boat”, “be patient”. Well fair comment, but it’s the elephant in the room, isn’t it? Hecky is again sounding frustrated and bemoaning the distractions which take him away from the training pitch. The sooner it is sorted, the better. Hopefully the staff can be bolstered, particularly on the recruitment side. On the pitch I don’t feel we are a long way off. The only real gap for me is that we have not yet truly replaced Conor Hourihane. We have a need for one experienced strong leader in central midfield. I believe this group of players are well capable of growing around such a figure. I believe that if we can get the midfield five working again and play on the ground then we have enough up front to win our fair share of games. The addition of McBurnie in January would of course only help, but let’s not forget that he would only be a loan player. The takeover otherwise would help us resist bids in January for the likes of McGeehan, Lindsay and Thiam (my opinion) if he begins to get regular starts. (Why are we not using a £1M striker?) A club eminence gris questioned with me yesterday whether the takeover would be a wholly good thing. He was worried about the implications of the club being seen as an ‘investment’. Fair point, but I think that if that investment prospers then we will be able to witness the results and enjoy the entertainment along the way. We have done great with what we have, but we cannot guarantee the continuing quality of the bargain basement recruits – particularly as other clubs begin to pick up on our modus operandi and emulate it. It’s time to move it on.


There we have it – and not one mention of Brexit!

 

Well argued post mate.

Can't disagree on the main points.

Despite Hull fan's complaints, they have some players we could never dream of signing. We were the better team.
Lack of strike power for me is our main shortcoming. I'm hopeful that Gardiner, when fit may be able to add that bit of experience, as I agree it is lacking in the middle of the park.

 

It is fair to say that we saw yesterday's game totally differently. You say the game did not lack entertainment, I began complaining about the lack of quality as early as the 10th minute. There also seemed to me to be a lack of quality on both sides of the ball. Passes were misplaced, hit out of play when there was no real pressure on the passer. Surely Hull are not as poor as their play yesterday suggests they are. OK they did defend their box, restricting us to long shots most of the time, but are we as poor as the lack of accuracy of those shots might suggest? The lack of quality on both sides of the ball suggests that there was some other factor. Frankly, I was very disappointed with what I saw yesterday, but the lack of quality comes after a performance that I enjoyed a lot the previous week. Middlesborough were a very good team, who dominated possession and forced us back because of that quality. But we hung on, and could even have won the game. What has happened in the week since that game to turn us from being a team that competed and played well to a team whose general play was so lacking in quality?

I was disappointed that we started 4-4-2, but when deciding that the system cost us the game, you must have more than circumstantial evidence. In some of the games that you have listed when we changed from 4-4-2, there was more than circumstantial evidence, but to my eyes, that is not true of yesterday. Hull did not dominate the centre of the field because of their extra man, which is the first thing that I look at. Neither did they get their extra man into the hole between our defensive lines, which can sometimes happen. They played the standard 4-5-1 out of possession and 4-3-3 in possession. Their wide players supported their striker when they were 4-3-3 but they found it very difficult to get the ball to them because of the conditions. Their system just was not a threat and their goal was scored from a corner, where systems are irrelevant. It was also nothing to do with changing our centre back. The ball was flicked on at the near post with our McDonald miles away, and marking his man.

So if our system did not cost us the game defensively, as the last paragraph argues, did it cost us the game because we failed to score because of it. We dominated possession of the ball, particularly in that first half when we played with the wind, but we failed to create any chances inside the box, just long range shooting opportunities. On the right side, McCarthy repeatedly joined in with attacks, making the extra wide player and there were a lot of crosses into the box from both Hammill and McCarthy, albeit mostly inaccurate crosses into the box. On the left side, it was a different story. Fryers does not have McCarthy's pace and quality on the ball and Barnes struggled all the game, so there was nothing from that side. In fact both Barnes and Ugbo struggled, which is why they were both replaced in the second half. But Thiam also struggled when he came on. The common factor with all of them is their lack of experience in those conditions. But back to the system. Was 4-4-2 the reason that we did not score or was it a combination of players and conditions as I concluded. Yesterday, a big man would have undoubtedly helped, but that is true whether we had played 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. To my eyes, it was clear that the conditions had changed our method of play. To my eyes it was clear that Hecky had seen the conditions and thought that playing through midfield would be difficult. To my eyes, he had taken the decision to get the ball forward quickly, route one if you like, play the percentages and hoped we had some luck and hope that the ball dropped for us. It was not pretty, and because we do not have a big man, it is not a style that suits our play, but I maintain that it was a practical solution to the problem posed by the conditions and we would have played in a similar manner no matter what system we played. 4-4-2 is not more of an attacking threat because it has 2 players further forward, because it has fewer players in positions that can dominate possession, but if you have decided to miss out midfield, it has two players who can fight for possession of the long ball hit over midfield and that is why it was probably more appropriate in yesterday's conditions.

I do not produce Minority Report in order to criticise the manager, I produce it in order to try to explain his decision-making. Yesterday, I felt that the conditions dominated that decision-making process and that is why Minority Report concentrated on the conditions.

 

Excellent post.

 

Chuff me I agree with all of that.

 

You spoilt it....

 

"I was disappointed that we started 4-4-2, but when deciding that the system cost us the game, you must have more than circumstantial evidence. In some of the games that you have listed when we changed from 4-4-2, there was more than circumstantial evidence, but to my eyes, that is not true of yesterday. Hull did not dominate the centre of the field because of their extra man, which is the first thing that I look at. Neither did they get their extra man into the hole between our defensive lines, which can sometimes happen. They played the standard 4-5-1 out of possession and 4-3-3 in possession. Their wide players supported their striker when they were 4-3-3 but they found it very difficult to get the ball to them because of the conditions. Their system just was not a threat and their goal was scored from a corner, where systems are irrelevant. It was also nothing to do with changing our centre back. The ball was flicked on at the near post with our McDonald miles away, and marking his man."

I don't think I went that far, Red Rain. I did say that for me our best performances in home league games have been against Forest and Sunderland, where we stayed with the 4-1-4-1 throughout. Also, I did say that while McDonald looked hopelessly at sea from the corner immediately after he came on, I don’t think he was responsible for the goal. I am saying that our failure to score cost us, and to me, the 4-4-2 setup hindered our chances of scoring. I accept you and others may take a different view, but that was how I saw it. With Bradshaw not overly tall and Ugbo still physically developing, I didn't see much mileage in pumping the ball up against a centre back of the experience and quality of Dawson. Fast passing (even if the wind caused many passes to go astray) and quicker movement might eventually have brought dividends. I put these up as points for discussion, which I have always taken as the point of the Minority Report, rather than "in order to try to explain his [i.e. Hecky's] decision-making". I do concede though that there were probably many factors at play.

Let me throw you a further question: assuming it happens, do you see the takeover as a positive or a negative thing?

 

Let me throw you a further question: assuming it happens, do you see the takeover as a positive or a negative thing?

I have been a supporter of Barnsley Football Club for most of my life, and during the whole of that time, it has been a struggle against the odds. We have never had much money, and any success that we have had has been against the odds. We have always been owned by folk from the town and those owners have always known, and been of, our history and our background. To have new owners from outside town, with no links to it and no emotional reason for supporting the football club seems to be fundamentally against its traditions. Make no mistake, these people, whose origins are from the other side of the world cannot be interested in the club for the same reasons as I am. They are in business, and the only reason that business people invest is because they see a return on their investment. Given that their reasons for being interested in the club are to make money, I can only see their interest as a short term one. I believe that they will sell on once they can see a reasonable return on their investment. There is a danger that we might be passed from owner to owner, until the principles that guide our current owner in his selection of future custodian are left far behind. A possible investment in new and better players drives the desire of many who post on here. They have done their calculations and have concluded that more money equals better players equals more success equals happy fans. I respect their judgement and their calculations, but I like to think that I am not as shallow as that. I like to think that with patience and hard work we might get there again, and that our fleeting success would be all the sweeter because of the hard work and suffering that went before. I will be there every other week for as long as I am able, come what may.

How about you?

 

I used to think like that until our fantastic side was destroyed last January. Our best player left a team on the edge of the playoffs for one on the edge of the relegation zone. In footballing terms it was a backwards move. That alone told me all that I needed to know. It was about then that I finally stopped being an idealist, and became a realist.

 

Well I think I covered it in the opening post, really. The players are all mercenaries, I'm afraid. And the identity of the owner doesn't really enter into it when I'm watching the games. So, given that I'm not getting any younger I think I'd be prepared to ride the roller coaster with the money men for a while. There's always Shaw Lane if it all goes pear-shaped!

 

Yesterday watching 2 decent players in mcgheehan and Williams I realised how good Hourihane was, people around me used to slag off Conor but the difference that one player made is unbelievable even a classic act like matty James couldn't replace him. I too am feeling slightly different about us being able to compete at this level and we let that once in every 20 years team split with out a fight.