Minority Report v Huddersfield Town

Many on the BBS did not like my review of the Preston game. Exceptionally, it was a review that was written from the heart, and not from the head. It contained very little analysis, and much more unsubstantiated opinion than usual. It was a review that I took from my past history of support. A review that drew upon the team managers of the past that I liked, and those that I disliked. I discovered that a common factor over the years has been the quality of football played by the team under each of our managers. Of course, results are important, but results delivered with a certain style are infinitely preferable to result delivered with no style whatsoever. Mark Robins has a decent record if you just looked at his results, but I hated his time at the club because we were such a poor watch. I am at least consistent.


Many will like this review even less, because it ignores the elation and emotion of a very late win against decent opposition, and tries to think about the game without any emotion at all. It tries to explain why the game was such a frustrating watch for 93 of the 94 minutes. I will totally understand if everyone chooses not to read it.


So, it is back to analysis for the visit of Huddersfield Town. Today, I want to focus more on players than I have previously, but there is still room for some comment on systems. The system that a coach uses should always be a compromise. Every coach will have a way of playing which he prefers. Whether he can play that way will always be dependent upon the qualities of the individual players at his disposal. Sometimes a coach will suspend his favoured method of play because he does not have the ideal players to make it work. Sometimes, he will inherit a player with extraordinary talent, and the need to play that player in his best position will determine the system he uses. In my time watching Barnsley, I have never seen a coach adopt an attitude, or a system of play (3-4-3) as inflexibly as our current coach does so. In my view, the personal form of a number of our players has suffered as a result of this inflexibility, and I hope to be able to illustrate that with reference to the game against Huddersfield Town.


I want to start with the press. The building blocks for an effective press are

The team must have quick, athletic and tireless forward players.​

It must have a defence with pace so that it can play a high line, which it must do in order to compress the space in front of the line to give the pressing players ahead of them less ground to cover with their press.​

It must have a sweeper keeper who reads the game well, and who can police the space behind the defensive line effectively.​

The opposition must want to play ball. They must want to play the ball from the back on the floor.​

I will leave readers to analyse our team in order to determine which of those criteria our players do not meet. I believe we are weak in them all.​

The second thing I want to look at is whether the chosen method of play is right for the available players. I would point to Mads Andersen and Michael Sollbauer, who are very good players at the centre of a back 4, but who look exposed sometimes when covering the full back positions in a back 3. Callum Styles is going to be a very good player, but he does not have the right defensive instincts, or the pace to play wing back. He has the attacking instincts and the game to play in the hole behind a front 2, but that position does not exist in 3-4-3. Cauley Woodrow has the game to play with a target man, arriving late in the penalty box, and picking up the pieces. He has scored just twice in open play this season (after today Helik has scored more), and he never seems to be in the box when the ball is crossed. He is still a good No10, but 3-4-3 does not have those. It requires players with pace, who can work hard and get into position to finish when the chances come. That is not Woodrow’s game.


So on to the game, with me looking for evidence in support of the points I have made above.


Even before Huddersfield scored, there was plenty of evidence. Town got a good cross in from both flanks that they might have scored from. But why were they able to cross the ball. Huddersfield played 4-3-3 with 2 of the front 3 in wide positions. When our wing backs are caught too high on the break, a quick Huddersfield wide player is up against a central defender. It is no contest, and the crosses only needed to be of better quality for us to have been 2 down even earlier. Town had broken our press on 2 occasions.


Immediately after the goal, Campbell got through on a long clearance from the back, using only pace, and found Walton in no-mans land. Campbell missed, but Walton is not a sweeper-keeper. He just does not read the game well enough, and that is bad news if you want to play a high back 3 with very little pace.


As the first half wore on, it was clear that the flight of the ball was being affected by the wind. The wind changed the way that the 2 teams played in the second half. It made the Town tactic of passing the ball up the field much more difficult, and they started hitting the ball longer (inaccurately), and avoiding our press. It played into our hands because our defenders might be slow, but they can all head a ball, especially when they are unchallenged. Our tactics were unaffected. They were always focussed on winning the second ball, and the wind made the ball stand up, and become a fairer contest for poor quality passing. I felt the first half was shaded by Town, but that we shaded a very poor second half. I did not expect to win the game, but then again, who did?

 

Agree with most of that RR.
My minimalist MR is.....poor game of hoofball. We won.
Thank the lord.

 

ps... the most outstanding thing about the game was Mads. It was worth watching for his performance.

 

Wouldn’t disagree with much of that. What is quite telling is the kick off routine which aims to put the ball in touch near the opposition’s goal line.

Not a great spectacle but the entertainment index will never capture the joy of a late winner against a local rival, even if the game was scrappy.

Special mention for Mads who is growing in confidence and turning in quality performances.

 

The final paragraph of your epistle is in my opinion wind howlingly wrong. The rest of it I often largely agree with, but not today.

From the kick off it was obvious there was a gale blowing. Watch the replay and the first corner.

If Huddersfield played a long ball despite this, be it in the first or second half, then that's down to their crap tactics. If their coach can't adapt according to variables such as the wind, then he needs sacking.

However there was more going on at pitch level. Thankfully we have a crafty set of players crying out for a hold up forward or two who might take us somewhere special. For now we can play under the wind. Even if we need a big un to come up and stick it in the net.

 

Personally, I think Styles looked brilliant in the tackle today. Especially the one he made in our box in the first half. Thought today he was having one of his more poorer games going forward, with atleast 3/4 stray passes, or holding on to the ball to long.

I'm not really sure about the negativity despite how brilliantly we're doing in the league. If we don't have the players to play in this system with these tactics, but we're still averaging 2 ppg, imagine how good we'd be when we do make additions with who Ismael wants.

Our CB's arent particularly quick, but they're not slow either, but I do agree with what you say about Walton - but on occasions he can play that role. Let's not forget how young and inexperienced he still is. He will learn when to come out more often, when to stay back, and eventually command his area better, but overall I'm very happy with him, he's a fantastic shot stopper and has saved us some crucial points this season. We're more likely to concede playing this formation, that looks obvious from what we've seen so far, with these players - But if we keep out scoring our opponents, it keeps me happy!

 

Simple way of looking at it is, as long as it keeps reaping the wins people will be happy.

If we have a losing spell whilst playing direct football, people will quickly turn.

Will say this about today though. We went a goal down AGAIN. Had Woodrow scored the early chance, then Huddersfield would have had to come at us - we could have seen a different game as they pushed on.

 

I thought so too, but you can hardly give MotM to Mads when Helik has scored 2.

 

Very true, especially the first goal winner bit.

 

What do you mean by inflexible red rain?

He doesn’t flex from the 3-4-3 basic formation, but the intricate tactics and style of play are tweaked and specified for each opposition, and there are visible differences in each game.

Set plays are different for each team, but there tends to be a specific thing that happens for each game. Putting the ball out of play from the kick off down near their right corner flag was a very strange one today, but it was noticeable that over and above those two (thankfully we only had to kick off twice...) we also chose to go to our left, their right, to challenge for second balls etc on many occasions. Both goals came from set pieces won on that side of the field, albeit the second a long throw in rather than corner. But it was noticeable that we went down that channel a lot today, and had success from that side. Callum Brittain had a quiet game by his standards I thought.

Huddersfield did create in the first half from wide areas. I would argue neither of our wing backs are at their best defending - Brittain came from MK as second choice as he isn’t the most natural full back defensively, and Styles isn’t a defender. That said, he blocked and tackled excellently today. He’s not the quickest, but he is doing a good job. But rather than criticise our side, I would like to acknowledge the performance of their full backs who I thought played well, and tested us.

I also have to pick you up on the observation of the centre backs. Both Sollbauer and Andersen are very good in the centre of a back four? Not for me. Sollbauer possibly - but Andersen time and time again was found out in a back four. Andersen had a great game at left centre back today, and Sollbauer can and has played right back. We have been defensively much more solid since going to a back three under Struber when the 19/20 season restarted after lockdown. It was that which contributed most to keeping us up, as well as playing Jack Walton, I’d say. It would be absolutely foolish to go to a back four now, who would play full back? You’d take too much away from Brittain and Styles going forward and I don’t think they’re defensively aware enough to play in a back four anyway.

Also - Walton in no mans land? I actually thought his starting position was decent and his presence forced Campbell to take it early and go wide. Opinions I guess.

Your Minority Reports are always in depth but I genuinely fear you are being blinkered in a desire to prove yourself right.

You have consistently maintained that we can’t play a 3-4-3, and yet we are one of the form sides in the whole division playing it. Ranging from second in the form table to fifth depending on the number of games the site bases it on.

You previously insisted that the 3-4-3 meant the scorer of the first goal won. We have come from behind to win on four occasions now, often after conceding quite early.

We are far from the finished article. The goal we conceded today was poor - unusual for Solly to be caught on his heels but the ball should have been won in the air on the way through too.

We were poor on the ball today, Mowatt I thought was noticeably quiet. Though in fairness it was blowing a gale all second half and for a lot of the first as well.

1-1 would have been a pretty fair result - but that said, Huddersfield had one attempt on target all game to our seven. We shaded it in terms of chances and take the points. It was a poor spectacle - some of our games have been. But it takes two to tango, our opposition have often looked to play head tennis and spoil the game. We have come out on top of many of these scrappy and close games, something very un-Barnsley like, in recent seasons at least; I for one find that very encouraging.

I look forward to seeing how the team develops tactically under Ismael after we do whatever business is planned in January. We are heavily linked (and rumoured to have placed bids) for a left sided centre back and a strong centre forward.

 

...we'll have to agree to disagree Red Rain. Mads made at least two incisive interventions when they were breaking forward; which, had he not made, could have resulted in a goal for the opposition. he also provided (I think) the flick on for the second goal.
In addition, he has a beautiful winning smile and an infectious positivity which also goes a long way to us collecting three more valuable points on the road to safety.

 

I am very conscious about your negativity point. In my opinion VI is getting better results than he should be with these players and this formation. He deserves credit for that, but there is a down side. I am very much looking forward to January, because I think VI's shopping list will be a long one. The quest is though, how much of that list are the owners prepared to finance. That is the point that I am making. I am sure that VI could get the team to win games and play better football if his shopping list included all the players he needs to do so. The questions are, how many will he get and will he get enough to make a difference.

 

Great analysis Troff. Great to see the different opinions expressed on here. Football!! Opinions. Jumpers for goalposts. Eh. Eh.

 

Sorry mate. I enjoy reading your reports because they offer a different perspective but you are, as usual, way off the mark.

very negative - you tend to focus way too much on the opposition near misses - ie their break after they scored. We were much the better team. What about our near misses, clear cut pen and so on. They far outweighed theirs. The statistics evidence that, more shots on goal, more dangerous attacks and so on.

We are not far away from being in with a shout of promotion, we have some brilliant young players who have visibly developed over the last 12 months. Enjoy it.

 

The question for me is, if the Board do agree to his shopping list, will that mean a change in tactics?
Personally, I don't think so.
If we accept that Val wants to play 433 I believe his shopping list should consist of the need to get one tall, rangy striker, good in the air, good at holding the ball up and can score goals.
Toshack? Astle? Hurst? Aylott? Ferguson? Van Basten? K.Moore?
I'd love that....if we could get Keiffer back at half the sale price. That would be comedy gold.

 

I don't entirely agree RR. I thought it was quite an entertaining game today, despite the very windy conditions. I was just thinking half way through the first half today that this side reminds me of the one under Wilson mid 90s - i.e. very entertaining games, could beat anybody but not quite promotion material.

We were getting out muscled 2nd half and due to the wind our usual tactics weren't working as well as Valerien wanted. So he tried to change the system by playing out more from the back late in the 2nd half. That said I didn't think it was working - anyway we've got more than one way to beat teams now. That said I thought a draw was a fair result today

You do seem a very hard man to please RR.

 

That's such an interesting summary of today and completely reflects how people can watch the same game and form totally different opinions.
I don't think we were out muscled at all and I don't think Val tried to change our tactics by playing out from the back. Val plays hoof ball. Route 1. I'm not complaining. I'm not complaining cos we're winning. If we start losing regularly whilst playing "vertical", then I would be unhappy.
A draw would have been a fair result but I'm v pleased it wasn't a fair result.

 

An interesting dissection some of which I agree with and some I don’t but a well constructed argument nevertheless.

One area I would disagree with is saying Mads and Solbauer play more naturally in a back 4. Mads especially struggles in a 4 and his performances have improved markedly since we have moved away from it. It’s doubtful that either Mads or Solbauer have played very often in a back 4 before coming to Barnsley.

 

Out muscled probably not the right phrase, but for about 20-25 minutes 2nd half we couldn't seem to get anything going at all. It looked destined for a draw......