Article in The Athletic about us/Ismael

That Ismael is a right name dropper isn’t he?
Great read that, thanks for posting

 

Thanks for sharing il have a read of this tonight!

 

I did.

Noticed it the second time i read it.

 

Maaar-Leeeen (in a cockney accent) lol

 

Oreight Dave

 

We did a huge interview with him on Boxing Day in GROVE STREET.

Here: https://www.ignitionsportsmedia.com/collections/barnsley/products/barnsley-vs-huddersfield-town

 

Is it just me or does anyone have a disturbing mental image of our training session that it is rather difficult to shift?

 

mi names Rodney!

OK, sorry Dave lol

 

Woodrow running round after scoring in training going Shearer, Shearer. Styles dribbling down the wing and curling one into the top corner going goalllllll baggggiioooo

 

Quality journalism that, thanks for sharing it.

 

IT'S OAKWELL - HOW DARE THEY?!

 

Don't start that again

 

I wrote the following piece a few weeks ago, never intending to publish it on the BBS. as a result of The Athletic article, I have updated it.

Why does VI play Hoof-Ball?


I have been consistently critical of 3-4-3. I did not enjoy the system in the hands of others, and I expected to dislike it in the hands of VI. However, there is no reason, that I can see, why the system has to be linked to the long-ball game. The system has been used extensively in the Premier League, and has not been linked inextricably to the long-ball game at that level. So why is it that Barnsley FC is playing that way under VI. I thought that I would search for reasons that might explain the absence of entertaining football since VI took over.


a. It is the way that VI plays. The long ball enables the team to keep its shape better. Defenders do not get as tempted to venture too far forward, exposing us defensively on the counter-attack. The 2 central midfield players do not push too far forward and ahead of the ball in support of an attack, and once again, that means that we are less easy to destabilise on the counter-attack. Players largely stay within their cells of attack/midfield/defence. Because the players hold their shape, they are much more prepared to defend their space. That does not mean that we do not concede, but it does mean that we do not concede many goals from open play. The majority of goals that we concede come from dead ball kicks or long throws, which VI is still working on and has not ironed out just yet.


b. Winter conditions are not conducive to the sort of play that we would all like to see. There is no doubt that it is harder to play the beautiful game when conditions under foot are wet and slippery. The smaller player who relies upon his speed and athleticism suffers more than the big strong defender under such circumstances. Are our players less able to compete under winter conditions?


c. In my opinion, to play 3-4-3 well, the team needs pace. It needs pace at the back, and it needs pace up front. When he inherited the team from Gerhard Struber, the team had lost Jacob Brown, who had pace. Toby Sibbick also has pace, but he had been sent out on loan. Our back 3 in particular had little pace, and that makes it hard to play the high back line that you need for an effective press. Up front, we are still short of real pace, and without forwards with pace, you do not drive the opposition back line deeper, and if you do not do that, you do not create space in front of their back line. Is the use of the long and aimless ball forward simply a reflection of this lack of an effective game plan to enable VI to play in the way that he wants? The problems is that pace is very, very costly, both in terms of acquisition of playing resources, and in keeping those resources satisfied in pay terms. The question is this, can BFC ever acquire a team equipped to play a pure version of 3-4-3 with the finances that are available. Personally, I think not.


d. VI is convinced that there is no need to play the beautiful game. There is no need to draw our opponent forward or play intricate pass and move football through midfield. He actually believes that it is more efficient to get the ball forward quickly, and to try to recover it in the opposition half of the pitch. He would not be the first to have reached such a conclusion. Successive managers of Wimbledon kept the team in the top division for many years with just such a plan. It can work, but it is not the type of football that I personally wish to watch. It is not the beautiful game.


e. He does not think that he has the quality of player to win games consistently playing any other way. It is not the way he would wish to play, but it is the only way to get results with the quality of player he has at his disposal. The fact that he had a reputation for ugly football before he arrived convinces me that it is not a new conclusion on his part.


So I have provided 5 reasons why VI might be playing the way he is. The question is this, is there any chance that he will change the way he plays for something more compatible with the idea of the beautiful game. Let us explore the reasoning.


a. If he wants the team to keep its shape because his bias is heavily slanted towards not conceding, then he is likely to play in this regimented fashion until something happens to convince him that the idea no longer works. I am not sure what that might be, but players who are much better in possession just might be the catalyst for an unlikely rethink.


b. Spring will bring warmer weather and dryer pitches. If others are right, the change in ground conditions could be the catalyst for a change.


c. Pace with quality is very expensive and I do not see a time when we can afford to acquire it.


d. The risk and reward profile for playing prettier football is one that you either see, or you do not see. I do not think VI sees it


e. It will be very hard for the club to increase its quality of player across the board whilst it retains the policy of buy young, improve and sell on for profit. It is not the policy that is wrong. It is an ideal fit for a club like Barnsley FC. However, at some point, the board will have to ask whether the playing policy is developing players who can be sold on for a profit. That is the major question that will affect the future of VI at Oakwell.


Since I finished this piece, Mexbrough Tyke posted a very interesting article from The Athletic about VI, his 3-4-3 system and the press. It turns out that there are a number of different versions of the system, and that the version used can be triggered by the defensive formation used by the opposition as well as the triggers that I have already identified above. However, my piece was not about the press, and nor was it about 3-4-3. It was about the long ball (vertical football), and in particular, it was about why VI inextricably links the long ball with the press and 3-4-3. The Athletic article concentrated on describing how the press worked and in less depth, how the version of press was chosen for specific opponents. However, it offered no explanation of why the press has to be linked to the long ball. So the question that I pose is still a valid one, and it is an important question, in my view, because it goes to the root of whether you belief that football can be purely functional. A way of accumulating enough points to continue playing in the same league for the following season, and doing so without providing any entertainment, other that the odd goal. Or whether football is part of the entertainment business, and whether because the professional game is an entertainment, it should forfeit some of that win at all costs mentality, in favour of a more subtle approach, which insists that teams at least attempt to play the beautiful game. It is a question that will have different answers under different circumstances, and indeed, there is probably no single answer. We all have our scale showing the mix of success versus entertainment that we will tolerate, in slightly different places. The problem is more immediate for the coach, because it is my guess that the majority will tolerate poor entertainment as long as the team is winning, but few will tolerate poor entertainment when the team is losing. I must confess that I do not have a clue where the scale differs for me as compared to Joe Bloggs, I only know that it does, and that I have a lower tolerance than most.

 

Going to say stuck out like a sore thumb to me

 

It's percentages. It's earning the right to play football in the right areas.

 

In what?

 

I have to say that your description is not how it looks to me.

 

Your report was biased anyway. You have a pre conceived idea so asking others for their opinion is most insincere.

 

Thank you for posting this, very interesting full article.