Minority Report v Stoke City

Long ball team?
Anyone know how many goals have we scored, where the ball has been hoofed forward, knocked on and scored a la Wimbledon etc?

it is without doubt we hoof the ball forward to gain territory, but the plan is to then play football once there.

 

Having trawled through the thread, just wanted to offer what I consider a balanced view(IMO).
Reading through this, there is actually little I disagree with, especially the point about the tired defence.
You correctly highlight Victors sterling work and then highlight how much slower the defence was to respond to Chaplin and his quick play and the guy on the right hand side of the pitch who played Dike onside. It’s unlikely either of this would have happened in a similar regard in the first half.
This in my opinion is a large part of success in the fact the front players are interchangeable without little to no disruption to the team and in fact arguably improves us because the defending team tires.

As for the rest, my reading of the ‘issues’ is that some people clearly want to pick holes in your posts with an ‘agenda’ which looks like is mostly as a result of past interactions more than the actual post itself. That said I think some of your responses feed that reaction and this issue will always continue until one or both sides adapt.

Please continue to post as you do offer a different view to others which can spark debate.

 

This thread reminds me of a bunch of terriers (nowt to do with HTFC) on the loose. One has a nip at its prey, so they all have go in turn and then have seconds.

Undeserved, IMO.

 

It's called being a "community", apparently.

 

I blame lockdown. It's the only answer that makes any sense to me.

Personally I like reading Minority Report and the discussion it stimulates. I suspect that if we were stood with RR in the pub having a post-match pint, his observations would be made with a cheeky twinkle in his eye, and we'd be able to respond in kind without the need for animosity.

 

Re: tiredness
We’re the football version of ‘rope a dope’.
That’s the tactic Ali used against Foreman in 74, and before Ali, and without the the snazzy name, Jonah Barrington used in squash against everyone he played. He wasn’t the most talented player but won by being fitter than his opponent which gave him the advantage of continually returning the ball until the opponent broke down. It’s a tactic, not a coincidence.

 

I’m not sure it’s as bad as that sounds, but I do get your point. I read the thread after the game on Wednesday and I do understand why RR’s thoughts irked some. Because we’d just earned a fourth consecutive win. Against a direct rival. Two quality goals. Another clean sheet. The last time the Reds were this good at this level, you’d have to go back more than 20 years. But RR’s ‘report’ doesn’t refer to any of that. It ignores the emotion of the game. It’s one man’s (very basic) tactical analysis of the match. And despite his assertions that it’s an objective report, with no bias, it clearly isn’t.

So in a sea of posts lauding that fourth consecutive victory, his report is very sobering; it stands out. And of course, he’s got as many people on here who enjoy his stuff as he has detractors. What’s easier to debate/argue? The hundred posts saying it was a great win, or the Minority Report?

I believe RR knows what he’s doing though. He seems a very intelligent bloke. The title of his thread is a huge clue. And each time he attracts a crowd who disagrees, he asks if he should stop contributing.

I personally look forward to his report. I more often than not disagree with some of it. And I’ll sometimes debate his points, show him things that challenge his view. I attack the post, not the poster. It’s the old forum rule isn’t it?

I value various opinions. I like different writing styles. I also like arguing where possible. So I’m a big RR fan. His thread will be the first I look for on Saturday evening.

On this occasion I didn’t respond to his report. There were little bits I could have debated, but in general it seemed a fair enough summary.

I don’t though, see bullying in this thread.

 

I agree that in the first half we were excellent. Our tactics were perfect for beating Stoke and gave them little chance of matching us. It resulted in a well deserved one nil lead at half time

For some reason you constantly talk about how bad we are at playing the ball forward and that it's only because our strikers are excellent that they get to those awful balls. I'm at a loss as to why you can't see that these forward balls into space are actually the game plan, they aren't poor balls at all, they are excellent balls that are put into places giving our strikers the advantage over the defenders.
You have stated previously that you think Callum styles is a poor passer of the long ball and just the other day you commented that our poor balls changed when Jordan Williams came on and we're now great passes. You have also stated that these poor balls stopped the midfield from getting involved which suggests that you do not believe the midfield are responsible for those poor balls. SuperTyke can only conclude that minority report isn't being objective and talking about the system here but is being subjective and is consciously or subconsciously allowing his bias against Callum Styles to dictate how he sees the game. This view is supported by the fact that that you didn't even mention the nature of the goal scored by said player. A real assessment of the game would have mentioned it, and yes it was related to tactics and style of play as they led to him being in that position.

You rightly mention that their defenders were tiring which was the reason the manager changed the strikers but fail to give credit to the manager and system for why those defenders were so tired. It's 100% because of the system of pushing them constantly.
You refer to the goal but only mention the bad things Stoke did that led to it, you do not acknowledge that it was because we pushed and pushed that we forced the mistakes. It wasn't a lucky goal, it was a well deserved goal that came about as a direct result of our tactics.

In shorts you are so dead set against our manager, tactics and even a player that you do not see the match objectively at all. You claim a superior ability to do so yet demonstrate either a complete inability or worse still a refusal to do what you claim to be so good at. Your report does not focus on our system at all, it focuses on the people you dislike and you hide behind the minority report title to disguise the fact that your post is nothing but yet another attempt to discredit our manager tactics and players

 

I attack the post, not the poster. It’s the old forum rule isn’t it? Allelujah!

His reports are the first thing I look for also.

However - it may be not bullying but it's certainly unwarranted personal comment which some might consider hurtful. I'm sure all forums up and down the land are not unlike this one. I just (naievely) wish that we could be better. That we could raise our game as posters and lay off the unwarranted personal "attacks". A fine dividing line I know but it really peeves me when its aimed at the players and the club when we go through a bad patch.

I guess I'm hoping for something that will never happen.

 

I agree although like Nudger I think he deserves the stick for his condescending posts. I might be better putting him on ignore like I did with Nudger in the end.

 

If RR stopped for a moment and considered how his posts often come across as belittling fellow BBSers, whether intended or not, perhaps he might receive a better response. The fact that he won't in spite of many pointing this out smacks of arrogance.

I have no problem at all with how he analyses the match, it is what he says to others and he has a lot of form for it. Apparently that should just go unchecked though and let people speak to others however they wish...

 

You've just worded it better than me mate. If he didn't fire witty volley's off himself I'd say it was abuse but he gives as good as he get's no matter how discreetly he does it

 

Titus / Stephen

Understand what you're both saying. As I've said previously in this thread some years ago I got seriously wound up by RR...but not any more because I don't think his comments is as condescending as it was.

The real irony in this thread is that the OP has not a smattering of arrogance nor condescension in it.

Anyway, this has been done to death. We should all be looking forward to tomorrow and watching Val's Superheroes hopefully bag anioher 3 points - which would see us safe!!!

COYR!!

 

Thing I don't understand, and this entirely about the content of these reports, nothing to do with personalities or choice of words, is that the success of this team owes more to the tactics employed by the manager than any other Barnsley team who have strung together a good set of results, and these match reports, we were told, were a place by which tactics were to be analysed. But they're not being, it's changed, it's now about entertainment, and I don't know why.

We don't have a Hignett or a Glavin who, with a bit of magic, will win us the game. We don't have a Redfearn who will roll up his sleeves and win the game through sheer force of character. We don't have a Winnall, who, if you get the ball in the box, will score you 20 goals in a season.

I like our players, but we're a team, not relying on individual talent. And we're a team using tactics I haven't really seen before, who are better drilled than any team I've seen before. As far as tactics go, there's a lorry load to analyse.

Personally, I think the way we play is fascinating, and I enjoy our games a lot, but I can understand if you don't. Our games are not filled with individual skill and a passing game from front to back. I still genuinely find them entertaining though, I like this football. But even if you don't, what our games aren't lacking are opportunities to analyse why what we're doing is working. It's not because Hignett dribbled past three players and dinked one in the bottom corner and we then got 11 men behind the ball for the rest of the game. It's because, well, that's not my speciality, but it was for the OP but apparently no longer is.

 

I really like our current style of play. The head tennis may not be pretty, but we are constantly at the opposition and trying to make things happen.

I know people say perceptions will change if we start losing games, but I think that depends how much credit the coach has built up. What would people have thought about our style of play at the beginning of last season, if Stendel had just took over, rather than off the back of such a great season?

 

I think it's that second part which trips us up a bit at the moment. If we could only hold onto the ball a bit more calmly in the final third and place the final pass rather than lumping it then I think you'd see a lot less complaining. The second goal on Wednesday is a good example - it was a lovely bit of work, but often that kind of thing doesn't quite come off, and at other times it almost seems like we're trying to put it straight out for a goal kick.

I'm a bit confused by it to be honest, because I really can't work out whether we're playing in the way that VI wants when doing that (the team under him seem to really like the opposition having throw-ins around the level of their own goal/penalty area, for example) or if perhaps we're just lacking that bit of quality or togetherness to make the quick passes and runs which are required to take it to the next level.

I'd echo what I think is the majority view, which is that I might think that our play tends towards the infuriatingly aimless at times, but I'm endlessly fascinated by the whole system. I hope VI sticks around for a few seasons, because I'm really looking forward to seeing how it evolves as time goes on and the squad changes.

 

The last thing I will say on this thread...
1. Minority Report is worth reading as it gives a perspective of a game which is well argued whether one agrees with the perspective or not.
2. Minority Report is OFTEN (not always) worthy of criticism because the tone of it is sometimes patronising and condescending and therefore disrespectful to other posters
3. Criticism of RR's analysis of games is healthy debate when done politely.
4. Calling out RR's condescension should be done politely when it occurs.

 

Irrespective of who the coach was, my feelings for the current style of football would be the same.

I've nothing but respect for Ismael for being so ruthless on a system and implementing it so swiftly and so effectively. In terms of results, we're completely overachieving by a mile from what I expected and the contrast in so many ways from the first part of the season with Struber just doesn't get any more stark does it?

But despite us winning 4 in a row, i'm just really struggling with the style. I want us to win, obviously, but I've always been more about style and manner than the pure outcome. I've no issue with us trying to play football and coming up short. I do like direct football. I think many Barnsley fans do. But thats more drive and aggressive than lumping it up the pitch and into touch.

We might be a bit of brilliance here and there (Styles goal on Wednesday for instance) that gives a moment of enjoyment, but that often feels masked by 80-90% of the game seemingly trying to hurt the ball for some sins in a previous game. And if I'm completely honest, I felt like a Stoke defender when Dike scored. I'd had the life drained out of me so much for 90 minutes that I was beyond the point of enjoying it, which is a shame, because there was a lot to admire about the goal and for the young lad who got his first goal for us.

Out of possession, I've not seen a team like this. Anywhere to be honest. It's nuts. My analogy of Orcas worrying a whale calf is properly more accurate than I envisaged. So I can appreciate the huge physical effort and the constant drilling to get the varying forms of press and structure into effect.

But with the ball. And I know others feel differently and others love it, but it's just not Barnsley to me. I don't think i've seen such aimless hoofing in my time. Even when there is no need and so much time to make a different choice. And we've had periods with some dreadful players and teams, but for the most part, they tried to play football. By which I mean, they tried to pass to a player when in possession with time.

We just don't for large parts though. It's akin to rugby and kicking territory back and forth, and I hate that as a tactic in rugby too. It feels for large parts that its more important to us that their keeper has a goal kick, rather than we have possession to feet in the middle of the park.

And I know we have pockets of possession and there are times when we have a little spell of first touch passing and whipping in crosses (often first 5 minutes and last 5 minutes). But even that can feel more speculative than by design. It feels just hit rather than looking up or timing a run, or instructed movement and patterns of fluid play.

I don't see every game, so there may well be more fluid footballing examples than the ones I've seen, and I've just been unlucky to see the worst ones.

But taking that into account, our style of play in possession is something I'm not enjoying for very long periods of games.

 

That's all fair enough. Enjoyment is entirely subjective. Some styles will be more popular than others, but nothing is unanimous. I've heard people describe Guardiola's Barca as boring "tippy tappy".

I do think there is a mixture of a few things that cause frustration. VI's tactic is definitely to get it forward early, and not dwell on the ball, leads to a lot of players hooking the ball over their shoulder, or other aimless balls that are probably designed to play into a channel to effectively start the press again. But I think there is also an element of players not seeing a pass, or seeing it and not being able to execute it. It is mainly a group of players that stayed up by the skin of their teeth after all. What we're seeing now is a team whose whole is greater than the sum of its parts. I mentioned on another thread about our second goal, we've probably had the ball in the position Vic found himself in quite often, and choose to float a ball into the box, mainly because they've not seen the pass, such as the one to Chaplin.