Minority Report V Nottingham Forest

You are absolutely right. 3-4-3 is here for as long as Ismael is. I could have missed something though. The 3-4-3 system may have hidden depths that I am just not seeing. That is why I write what I think, in the hope that someone is ahead of me, someone understands the system far better than I do and is able to put me right. I am quite happy to rethink the system, if only someone would provide me with a logical argument. As it is, it looks to me like it is the first goal is the winner. I really think that if we did not score the first goal, it would force us into a system that suited the players less well, and that the change would mean that we would concede more goals than just the first. I did not see the Cardiff game, but I assume that is what happened.

 

Cardiff game was a poor system for the opposition compounded by poor player choices within that system.

One thing I would say about this system, it allows Brittain to play a major role, and he's a gem.

 

Hmm, I must have missed that part. I must admit that I click on your inputs each week hoping to find some insight into how the match went, as opposed to your usual overly-long technical analysis of the way the team might have played, or the way you believed they should have played. Unfortunately I find myself speed-scanning your pieces because there is, inevitably, nothing of interest for me. I will read anyone's postings that suggest a "match report". Where yours are concerned I should know better .

As you say it's not for me. I've looked at my last Minority Report.

 

A load of bumf bigging yourself and your superior outlook up, belittling the rest of the fan base, and very little actual game analysis. Not so much a minority report than a justification for writing it.

The bit you did do puts a lot of focus on Forest’s chances and Walton’s saves, and skirts over the three times we hit the crossbar quite dismissively.

Focus on the possession stats all you like. Then ask some Man City and Tottenham fans which are happier tonight. And we hardly played like Spurs did today. We had less of the ball than Forest did - but it was less than 60/40 in their favour, and we had more shots than they did. Our only two on target went in to be fair, but we also hit the woodwork three times. We created more chances and better chances. The first half attempts that hit the bar were unlucky. I’d argue the second half Woodrow attempt that hit the bar was actually a poor finish - he had to hit the target from there.

As for the analysis of the tactics and shape - you’re not being objective about what you’re watching I fear.

You decided a long time ago that we couldn’t be effective in this shape - and four wins in five games later, with numerous clean sheets, are still banging the same drum.

The players we have lend themselves to a shape with three centre backs, in terms of both strengths and weaknesses, I’d say. We now have players in Brittain and Styles who can play in the wing back positions who are calm and controlled on the ball, happy to take it in tight areas and more suited to playing with the ball going forward than defending - to play a back four we would need better defensive full backs. Jordan Williams fits the bill, but neither of those two nor Clarke Oduor do in my eyes. I’m also not convinced that anyone, other than Sollbauer perhaps, would prosper in a central two. The back three and wing backs is an obvious solution and is proving to be very effective.

Whether you then play three in midfield and two up top, or two and three as we do now, is up for debate.

You could argue that with another pair of legs in midfield today, say a Palmer in there, with Frieser or Chaplin not in the side, we could have competed more in midfield and had more of the ball. But the three up top gives fluidity and mobility, and allows a decent pace in transition of play as well as numbers out wide on either flank and still allowing numbers in the box.

We sacrifice possession stats in the name of being more effective when we do have the ball, and solid in defence. Forest had three attempts on target today. The first came from a poor header from Helik - the shape doesn’t contribute to individual errors. Of the other two, you’d only argue one was a good (as opposed to run of the mill) save from Walton. Nottingham Forest are a different and very organised, professionally coached and well drilled side under Hughton. He has improved them a lot, and they have some proven and expensive players, particularly in attack, but they didn’t come close to winning the game today.

We managed the game sufficiently well to restrict them to relatively few chances, in what was an open game, whilst creating the better and more numerous openings.

Mowatt has been much improved playing in this system, and in Matty James we have a very calm and experienced head, with the quality to pick a pass anywhere, but with the awareness to cover the ground and drop back when required. He may not be here for long if we can’t get him again in January, but Kane and Palmer have shown themselves to be capable in that area, as has Styles if we played someone else on the left, be that Oduor or Jordan Williams.

The front three have more to give, all have flattered to deceive so far. Now Woodrow has got one from open play, hopefully he’ll kick on. Frieser is limited but tireless, he contributes a lot physically. Chaplin as well has form to find but has looked to be improving and getting more effective, big Victor looks a changed player in his cameos but we’ve still not looked great up top.

Even with these drawbacks we’ve won four in five, relatively comfortably in most cases. When (and if) all hit their straps, we could turn a lot of sides over at this level.

There will also be days like Cardiff, where we are ineffective, play poorly and readily concede. We have young players, they won’t be brilliant every game.

But I have seen nothing since Ismael came in to suggest that his chosen 3-4-3 isn’t a suitable setup for the team. It makes good use of the assets we have in the squad now - and I’m sure there will be some players brought in during January at Ismael’s request and choosing (hopefully not having to replace too many of the current starting team).

I think now is the time to back the manager and trust his system. We will lose games, we will look poor, but I think we’ve looked much better than at any point under Struber, and he got some fantastic results, especially post lockdown himself.

 

It always disappoints me when fans criticise players. Lest we forget, the
aim of any football team is to stop their opposition from playing. At the highest
level, the skills on shown can be impressive and a player has only a limited amount of time
to control the ball and use it as effectively as they can whilst being pressurised
by a member of the other team.

There never has been and never will be a player who doesn't at some stage of their
career make a mistake. You can include the incomparable Bobby Moore and Virgil Van
Dijk in that category as during their careers, one was and one is probably the best player
in the world in their respective positions, but without doubt during a game they have made mistakes.

Callum Styles is twenty years old. He was released from the Burnley academy at the tender age
of sixteen and in the intervening time with Bury and Barnsley he's made a mere seventy two
appearances in the EFL. In essence, he's still a work in progress re- a young professional still learning the game.

Given encouragement, the right kind of coaching and advice I'm confident, that if he can avoid serious
injury, he's going to develop into a player of some note. He will at times inevitably make the wrong decisions,
he will misplace some of his passes and like others before him, he will miss what appear to be easy chances.

We should however be prepared to put all that aside and celebrate the fact that as he matures, he hopefully will become an integral squad member at Oakwell for many seasons to come.

 

"I have not seen anything more than highlights from the last 2 games, "

Really? How on earth can you expect us to take what you write seriously without having seen the games? Never mind the tactics. Feel the passion the fire the elation of winning! Write a song about it.

 

Forest had 58% possession. 32% of that possession was shared between their back four and 'keeper. It was very similar against Watford and Derby recently. All three of those sides spent an inordinate amount of time shuffling the ball across the backline. It's one of our key tactics - force them wide. Make them play wide. Give them the room on the flanks. And back ourselves to either win the ball, or defend a potential cross. We play narrow and hold the centre ground from front to back. We also play a very high line in possession. And as others have pointed out, we play forward nine times out of ten. It's very rare we shuffle the ball around side to side now. More often, we're aiming to switch the play or hit diagonal balls. Our passing is very brave, very direct. But it's not the mess it's been painted as by the OP. Because both of our great goals (for different reasons) came about after a good passage of passing play.

Cardiff was a mess. Again, others have exampled why that happened. But to give up an early goal by not stopping the cross from a quick throw was suicidal. And Cardiff aren't a possession team. They let us have it. And that's our downfall. It was under Gerhard and Daniel at times last season too. We didn't know how to break sides down who let us have the ball.

Our running stats píss all over the division. As do our tackling and interception stats. We are all about energy, about graft, spirit and being - as the gaffer says - 'unpleasant' to play against.

 

Ismael playing 343 backs up your theory so maybe it's time to look at the formation differently I.e. positively? 4 wins out of 5 and 4 clean sheets. Your theory of 343 means 'the team who score the first goal win the game to zero' is on the money, and it favours us at the moment. Obviously we will have some dinks along the way.

 

Did you miss the bit (in every post you write every week) where you belittle the knowledge and intelligence of other posters?

You want to debate only a system yet single individuals out for criticism. You moan about people character assassinating you but make sweeping generalisations about the rest of this board with an inflated sense of superiority. You claim to be the voice of the fans with a need for more detailed and thought out analysis, and haven’t watched the games.

I’m all for playing the ball, not the man. But you go in two footed, high and feet first with every post - then whine when anyone reacts. You’d get on well with Young Nudger. At least he knows what he’s doing when he’s on a wind up though; I genuinely think you are completely oblivious as to how conceited you come across. You honestly think you’re completely in the right and we are all having a go at you in response.

 

Just for balance. He doesn't come across like that for me. He has an opinion and he makes it I never feel belittled

 

Thanks for the heads up, I'll check those out. As a chess player, I'll probably find them quite interesting!

 

That sums up exactly what I was thinking last night when he made the sarcastic comment “did you miss the bit...” and I almost replied in a similar way to your post, but reigned myself in.
I thought it best to withdraw myself from the table. I don’t much care for being lectured about football. I’d rather just enjoy beating a club like Forest and then look forward to the next one.

 

It happened very quickly so I could be wrong, but I thought the defender sliding in nicked it with his toe end which was enough to deflect the ball onto the bar when previously it was on target. As I said, could be wrong, but I think it's worth another watch to make your own mind up.

 

Energy, graft and spirit should be prerequisites for any Barnsley side. And it’s great to see them in abundance at the moment.

The modern game does seem obsessed by statistics. Percentage possession being a favourite. Our 29% possession at Derby would probably have been cause for much comment, to the detriment of the one stat that mattered: the 2-0 scoreline.

In fairness, data analysis does have its uses - even if it can’t tell me if a player can trap a ball.

Don't remember Clarkie or Norman talking about anything other than winning the game - regardless of who the opposition was - and the scoreline.

COYR

 

Defensively, we play very similarly to the way that we played under Struber. It is the 3 up front that I fail to understand. It makes more sense when the opposition try to play the ball out from the keeper. Then you can put pressure on the man with the ball, the other two in the front three cover the other defenders and the rest of the side push up to limit the options passing forward. However, Forest did not play like that. Their keeper kicked the ball long at almost every opportunity. We obviously knew how they were going to play because we never attempted a forward press. So if the front 3 are not there to press, what are the advantages of the front 3 system. I do not know, because I see only the problems, and that is partly the reason why I ask the question. When we win back possession, our wing backs are in the full back position, therefore, we have only 2 midfield players ahead of the ball. They are very unlikely to be in space, given the fact that they are outnumbered. Therefore, we hit the ball long. But the front 3 are not players who will thrive on that sort of ball, so most of the time, the ball is lost. It is why we lose the ball so easily having won back possession. We work really hard, we run and run and run, we win back possession, and we give it away. It does not make any sense to me, and I have not seen any explanation that makes any sense either.

 

I do not have any statistics that contradict yours, but to my eyes, Forest played the game differently to Watford. I did not see the Derby game. The Forest goalkeeper hit almost every dead ball kick long, missing out defense and midfield. If you say that those are the statistics, I have to accept what you say, but to my eyes, Forest played an old fashioned 4-4-2 and hit the ball from back to front.

You say that we play very narrow, and I agree, but the space is out wide and we cannot retain possession partly because we do not take advantage of that space out wide. We do not pass the ball around at the back because we do not have a numerical advantage there, and we hit the ball long to players who are very unsuited to the task of retaining possession of that sort of ball. Our running stats are better than any other side in the division, but most of that running is done when the other side has the ball. There is only so much running a team can do when the recovery periods are as short as the are going to be this season. I thought that Ismael was very wise to rest 5 of our players yesterday, but all that running is going to tell eventually.

 

I spent the first paragraph of Minority Report telling readers that it was about tactics and would not be for everyone. You wrote several pieces telling readers how you were un-interested in discussions about tactics. I'm sorry, but if you are not interested in tactics, then you will not be interested in Minority Report. It is not a comment on you. It is a comment upon whether it is wise for you to be wasting your time on something that does not interest you.

 

As I mentioned, numbers in wide areas, speed of transition of play, numbers in the box when one pulls out wide, all assisted by the three up top.

Forest did go long quite a bit today - probably as they knew if they didn’t they’d be under a lot of pressure. Due to their setup, and Ismael’s wishes, we went long quite a bit - but we still regained possession at times much higher up the field.

As, I think it was Jay, said earlier in the thread, I don’t think we were going to lose yesterday. Even if we’d gone one down (and I know your theory about winning or losing to nil), Forest, even though improved, looked quite fragile and I agree with him when he says we’d have come back to win (unless they’d scored perhaps very late in the game).

So that said, I don’t think we’d have suffered had the formation been a 3-5-2 with an additional pair of legs in the middle, say Kane or Palmer.

The manager doesn’t go that way and I’m not sure I would now either - the two up top would invariably pull wide with no one left in the middle on a lot of occasions, the width still coming from the wing backs but with little support if they are doubled up on out on the wings unless the centre forwards support.

There are pluses and minuses to both. I certainly wouldn’t advocate changing the defensive setup, I don’t believe you are suggesting this either - and as I said in the first post, whether in front of the back five is a three man midfield and two up top, or the two and three Ismael employs, we can debate. I can’t conclusively say one is much better - but to be fair to Ismael, his method is not only getting the results, but we also look more effective and competent generally. We actually look like a semi decent championship team now, who will win about as many as it loses. That is more than progress.

 

The reason that Forest did not score was because they wasted their chances & the superb form of Jack Walton , the match could & should have been a 5 v 3 scoreline with only the woodwork preventing more goals for us . If you had watched the game you would have seen a very attacking game from both sides, with both teams piling players forward, so although your theory of the formation might hold some merit ,it certainly did not marry up with yesterdays very entertaining encounter

 

As you say, Ismael is getting results, and that means that my argument is currently very weak. Nevertheless, I believe that I have the right to make that argument on the basis that short term results are not a good indicator of longer term success. The ruler that I use for judging the team is not the same as the one that everyone else uses. For me, it is more than short term results. It is more about controlling the way that the opposition plays. When I think of the teams that I have watched down the years, the better teams have always imposed their style of play on the opposition, and to do that, they all had the majority of possession. Obviously, it is important what you do with that possession, but possession of the ball was always key. There are those who argue that we are now in a different world, a world where possession is not important, but frankly I would rather be a supporter of a Guardiola team than a Mourinho team for a whole season, yesterdays result excepted. It is likely that Minority Report will continue to go in the same direction, because it is essentially a reflection of my beliefs in the way the game should be played, but I hope that I am open minded enough to accept a logical argument that one of my basic beliefs about how the game should be played is wrong. I encourage logical discussion, and I will try to reply in kind when challenged. I will not reply when comments become personal.