Although I think people are being unduly critical of the performance yesterday I do believe with a little more ambition we would've won. The fact is Bournmouth came for a point and packed the defence meaning there was very little space for us to get in behind them. Our attacking play is largely based on exploiting the space behind the full backs allowing the wingers to get in behind and put in crosses and attack the space. Bournmouth clearly did there homework since they defended deep and gave no space for Shuker and Devaney to attack. The one exception was in the first half when we caught their left back in a 2 on 1 situation, Howard released Shuker who got to the by-line and was able to cut back for Richards who forced an fantastic save. The concern is that we didn't seem to have a plan B. Howard and McPhail saw plenty of the ball and kept looking for gaps in the defence but in the end we just produced long passing moves which went nowhere. I think maybe the best way of combating this would've been a change of formation. With Bournmouth showing so little ambition in throwing men forward we could've afforded to go three at the back. We could've replaced one of the full backs with Nardiello and dropped Hayes into the hole in behind the strikers. This would've provided a link between the midfield and the strikers and allowed Howard and McPhail extra freedom to get forward and look for one two's around the area. This would also give the Bournmouth the defensive dilema of whether to pick up the extra man in the hole and risk leaving space in behind for the attackers or remain as they were and risk Hayes being able to link up with the midfield and possibly being able to play round them. In the end we stuck with our tactics for the full 90 minutes and it didn't pay off where as if we'd maybe shown a little more ambition we could be talking about a well earned 3 points.
I've been saying that all season We have one tactic. One tactic from throw-ins, one from all set pieces, one when defending and one when attacking.</p> Our manager is naive and doesnt have the tactical ability to change things when plan A isn't working.</p>
RE: I've been saying that all season We are fairly tactically naive at times but in fairness to Ritchie he has developed a system which in the most part has been successful for us this season and has brought in players who are capable of playing through teams. The problem comes when things arn't going our way like yesterday and we don't seem able to change things. I think what we really need is an experienced assistant manager to help Ritchie with things like this. Eric Wynstanley anyone?
RE: Would work for me We just need someone with a bit of experience on the bench to be able to say 'Andy this isn't work we should change things.' Mick McCarthy would be excellent for that but whether he'd be interesed in such a role is unlikely.
Simon, when you accuse the manager of being tactically naive, you imply that you know more about tactics than he does. It is vital for your credibility that in these circumstances you know not only the tactics employed by your own team, but also those being employed by the opposition. You imply that Bournemouth were dull and defensive for the whole game, whereas they actually held their own until the final 20 minutes when they ran out of steam. Actually, Bournemouth employed exactly the tactics that you are arguing Barnsley ought to have employed. Ritchie's tactics are based upon solid defense with narrow full backs and deep wingers. These tactics will not produce a glut of goals, but equally, they will produce clean sheets. In his analysis of the team and the players available to him, he has decided that he cannot afford to risk a more attacking style at the possible expense of more goals against. I guess that your opinion of Ritchie is driven by whether you agree with this assessment of the talent available to him. His job is to get results.