Minority Report v Bournemouth

Smarter, faster, technically better. As @troff said, our league status and position will not be dictated by how we do against Bournemouth.

I'm satisfied with how we played, I'm not happy with the 4 or 5 howlers we made, most of which were punished.

I think our change in system is interesting. We're still playing slick passing football, but only in the opposition final third. We've moved to a safety first defensive approach (long ball/direct/no risk) and our midfield look to make forward passes quickly, but they're looking to hurt the opposition at every opportunity. The upshot of this change in approach is that our possession stats have fallen off a cliff.

Under previous managers we had 50-60% possession regularly. Unfortunately I'd suggest if we look at where that possession was, a large proportion would be in our defensive third being played across the pitch, effectively harmless.

I think we're much more dynamic with the ball under VI and as a consequence we take more risks higher up the pitch leading to 40-45% possession being standard.

I like passing football, I've not been turned off by our change in style, indeed I'd argue some of our one touch stuff under the current boss has been excellent.

 

I have written down an account of how I believe 3-4-3 is designed to work, both with the ball and without it. I could copy and paste that account, but I think that would be the wrong way to go, because I want to understand how others believe the system is designed to work, both in possession and out of possession. I make lots of statements on here, and those statements imply an understanding on my part of the way that others see the game, and therefore, the way that they see my comments. I am coming to the conclusion that my understanding is wrong, and that others see the game differently to the way that I see it. Perhaps you can help me out by telling me how you see the way that 3-4-3 works.

 

Bournemouths far superior 3 in mid field were out playing our 2.. so Woodrow ether took it to on himself or was told to drop back into the hole..That's why he was never there for the tap ins that came along..and got robbed playing out from the back
This was, for me poor management by VI.. We should have matched Bournemouth by playing James Kane and Mowatt in a three and pulled Victor... Leaving Chaplin and Woodrow up front. Ether from kick off or after 10 mins..
Poor poor coaching..leaving our only prem class mid fielder on the bench..

 

Yep, I was thinking of the Chelsea game when watching yesterday, and the Premier League in general. A mate of mine who supports Forest had told me that the main difference I'd notice would be the quality of the finishing, and so it proved. Plenty of games when we did OK, but came away with a tonking due to the opposition burying their chances ruthlessly. Yesterday was not dissimilar.

 

It was a crash course lesson in clinical finishing. The strikers weren't players, they were students, watching how it's done. If they take on board what the Bournemouth attackers did, and successfully apply it to their own game, we'll have a very healthy Goals For record this season.

 

Is it not possible that they just played much better last night than they did in the other games you mention though?

It isn’t all about setup. And in those games the opposition might be generally at or even below our level - but they probably didn’t make catastrophic individual errors. Those errors weren’t brought on by being under incessant pressure - we weren’t. Woodrow could have laid the ball off three times, could have blasted it clear four or five, but dribbled into two tackles and lost the ball, and suddenly we’re 2-0 down right on half time and the game is killed dead. Andersen made a brain dead shove on Surridge’s head to give away a needless free kick, and then the keeper might have done better, it wasn’t right in the corner and was at a good height, though very well hit. 3-0.

Herbie Kane didn’t have anyone touch tight forcing him to play that ball that put them in for the fourth, again the keeper needs to do better but by that time his head is frazzled and it meant little in terms of the game.

The first goal we were too high - Andersen actually in the oppo half, then Helik was cleverly shoulder barged out of the equation (possibly by Solanke?) for the lad to run through for the first, leaving Sollbauer to have to come right across and a two against one on Brittain, who had no chance really and is in any case not really a natural defender.

Ismael to his credit asked them to drop slightly deeper - on the basic face of it that didn’t work given they scored another three, but each of those were due to individual errors by naive and incompletely developed footballers. Bournemouth didn’t really score their following three goals by great play, nor us being incorrectly setup, we gifted them chances which high quality players gobbled up.

You have made your mind up about the 3-4-3, and in fairness there have been some terrible showings.

My view is that there have also been some good showings, some excellent results, and I’m yet to be convinced our squad would gain better results in any other formation.

The ‘Struber’ system, with a few different personnel but broadly the same, brought us no wins this season, a lot of defeats and a few bore draws.

The centre halves, perhaps Sollbauer aside, aren’t good enough to play in a flat back four (and we don’t have any natural pure full backs to play a back four), so for me the back three is the right option.

Two wing backs, then it’s either a two man midfield and three up top, or, and I might suggest this could be the way to go if we keep James (though this is looking doubtful), three in midfield with two up top.

Ismael is yet to be proven wrong to go the way he does with three up top, and he deserves to sign a couple of his own choosing - a lot of Struber’s mates were sent packing before Ismael arrived.

 

‘Walton has to respect the possibility of a direct free-kick, even from that angle.’

He has done precisely that, by setting up a two man wall to protect his near post and allow him to only need to protect three quarters of the goal, which means his starting position is two steps nearer to being able to intercept a potential cross. If the wall then deliberately dives out of the way of the ball, there’s nothing the keeper can do, as he’s deliberately set up a starting position not to protect the near post quarter of the goal.

I don’t understand how so many people can’t get this, it’s basics.

 

You have a point. I wrote my opening piece before I had seen the slow motion replay of the goal. It is only with the help of a replay that you can see Kane, in the wall, duck under the ball.

 

My reasoning for a dislike of 3-4-3 in that our players were brought to the club in order to play a different system. Leicester City won the Premier League playing basically a 3-4-3 system, so clearly, it can be successful if you have the right players. My problem is that we do not have the right players.

If you leave your front 3 high, as Ismael does most of the time, there is bound to be a gap between the front 3 and the other 7 players. The question is, how do you bridge that gap because a long pass is easy to read, intercept or stop an attack developing. Leicester solved the problem with pace. A defense has to respect pace, and it will drop off in response. That creates space short. Leicester utilised that space by advancing 30 or 40 yards and turning with the ball that distance further up the field. If you do not have pace. If you use a target man to get you that 30 or 40 yards further forward, then you do not get the room. There is more pressure upon the ball, and the quick break never happens. That is why I have started calling for more pace. Leicester proved the system could work, if only you have pace.

At the back, the back 3 is weak against a team that plays with width on both sides. In that case, two of the central defenders have to play full back, leaving the centre defender on his own. A central defender is tall, because he defends the high ball against other tall players. He is not well balanced and quick, because that is not what is required from a centre back. Nevertheless, that is exactly what is required when he defends against a wide midfield player. In that case, there is little wonder that there is a mismatch much of the time. Meanwhile, the central player in the back 3 is on his own against a centre forward. That is not a great situation, and in a back 4 the 2 central players usually lean on each other for support, ensuring that there is cover if either makes an error. So who supports the lone central guy, when the other two are drawn wide? Well, the central 2 midfield players play deeper, and thus, the gap between defense and the forward line gets wider.

That is basically how I understand the 3-4-3 system to work, and that is why I insist that our players are not right for that system. If you understand something different, then please tell me where I am wrong. I have not ruled out the possibility that the problem is that I do not understand how 3-4-3 is supposed to work. I do not know enough about the game to be sure of my ground. I just need someone to tell me where and why I am wrong.

 

I felt we lost the game in central midfield. There was absolutely no cover for the backline, with AFCB having an extra man between that space. It looked similar in the last two games as well, for me. But last night's opposition were better than Rovers and Birmingham. It meant defenders were moving up, and/or Woodrow was dropping back to be an extra midfielder at times. And of course, mistakes occurred. Again.

It's risk/reward football. Hence five wins and four defeats. If we have a similar showing against sides not top of the league, I'd start to fret. Big week ahead in terms of learning more about this side/system etc.

 

This....
The centre halves, perhaps Sollbauer aside, aren’t good enough to play in a flat back four (and we don’t have any natural pure full backs to play a back four), so for me the back three is the right option.
I stated (imho) a few weeks ago that although our back 3 are fairly solid, they are uncompromising but lack pace. It pleases me if teams try to go long against us rather than eork through us.
As quoted i believe our coach just believes our defence is no where good enough to play a four. So picks that as a starter and fits the team around it. Could he play 5..3..2 maybe but i think he fancies our pressing ability as our squad is again up against better quality most weeks. There was a stat i found interesting last night, which was... we had won more possesion off the opposition in their first 3rd than any club in league one.
I believe like it or not, this formation has probably achieved more points wise than we could expect.
I do believe the coach will be allowed to bring in more players for his liking in jan but i fear woody may be leaving, to make way.
I still believe a "lyle taylor" type would be perfect but we need more not less quality.

 

But, the thing that cost us in this game in attack, was a lack of strikers' instinct, rather than a lack of pace. I would personally like to see an extra midfielder on for one of the front three, and go 3-5-2, I also think that Mowatt or Styles could do a job on the left side of the front three if we want to switch back, so would give us some flexibility. But ultimately, I think the issues we had last night would've happened in any system.

In defence, aside from the obvious individual errors, Ismael needs to address the fact that Helik seems to be dragged out to the left far more often than he is to the right. Their first goal was similar to Birmingham's goal and Blackburn's first goal, where we had players taken out of the game on the left, and used a rugby style sliding defence to cover. Unfortunately, once players drifted across to cover, they then lost their men anyway. I'd say James or even Palmer would've offered more additional protection tracking back than Kane as well.

 

but in January, the club will be forced into a decision. Does it change the players in order to acquire players who can be more successful playing 3-4-3 (players with pace), or does the coach compromise and play a different way, using the majority of the players he has got.

Or does the club sack the manager who wants to spend a few quid?

 

Yep.. thats what I saw ..

 

3-4-3 isn't a system it's a formation. There are many different ways to play a given formation and I feel you are too stuck in your preconceptions of what the words three four three mean to you that you are unable to see that the formation 3-4-3 that Leicester played doesnt necessarily have the exact same tactics involved as the 3-4-3 that we play.

 

@Red Rain the way I understand 343 to work is you need the wide midfield players to be full backs when we defend and wingers when we attack. They need high fitness levels to be succesful.

A level of cover is given by the left and right centre backs when the wide midfielders push up. If the ball is on the left then the right midfielder should occupy the space more commonly associated with a right back and vice versa. Central midfielders will generally be moderately deep when compared to say a 442.

Forwards have a number of ways to operate with the central striker either acting as a fulcrum or be a little deeper (false 9) and the wide forwards can play as out and out wingers, behind the central forward or (less common) as a flat 3. Their contribution to the press is critical. I think that you'd tweak the forwards depending on your players and the opposition's strengths.

But what do I know?

 

Not true. Leicester played with more width than we do, and their wide players dropped back to assist in midfield when they did not have the ball. I was illustrating how 3-4-3 can be used successfully, rather say making the point that we are playing in exactly the same fashion.

I was trying to illustrate how the problem of the gap between the front line and the rest of the team can be overcome, but I accept your point that it is not exactly the same way of playing.

 

We do not play the version of 3-4-3 that turns into 5-4-1 when out of possession. Our front 3 stay high, and when they do drop back into our half, they drop back together. To be honest, I would understand the one that you describe better.

Our coach has said that he wants us to break quickly. I interpret that to mean no fulcrum/target man. I think that he is looking for a more fluid/pacey system, but we will have to wait and see how the team changes in January to be sure.

 

I don’t think we’ve ever bought players to fit a system under the current ownership. It always seems to be the aim to try & sign good players & find a way to fit them in later. Struber only signed 2 players in the summer I think & Helik fits any system & I don’t think Frieser suits either of Struber’s preferred formations. He was pretty unhappy with our recruitment as well so I doubt he’d agree we bought players to fit his system & style of play.

You say we only need 2 players to fit Struber’s way of playing but I’d say we only need 2 forwards to suit Ismael’s system when Jordan Williams is back fit.

Granted a forward costs more than a defensive player but there wouldn’t be much difference. Just need more quality in the final third in either system

 

might start my own Minority report for people with less attention span

"we was tired from only having 2 days off, plus it was cold and they was bigger than us,we needed to be 2 foot closer to goal in the 6 yard box and Walton had an off day"