So, what I have worked out about the high 3 man press supported by the 4 in midfield is that it is designed to destroy the accuracy of the long ball forward to the opposition forward(s). Because the long pass forward is inaccurate, that makes our back 3 favourites to win the first ball most of the time, in spite of their lack of pace. However, if the opposition keep their nerve, if they refuse the long ball, if they are brave and they pass their way through the press, with all the attendant risk that they may lose the ball at some point in the transition from their defensive shape to their attacking shape, then they are favourite. They are favourite because in that case their attacking numbers will exceed our defensive ones when they break though the midfield line. However if they do lose the ball in transition, then they have too many players out of position, and we have a chance on the counter. That is what makes it the brave option, an option that a coach will only dare to take if he thinks that his players are technically superior. These observations lead me to the conclusion that games against teams in the top six will be a clash of styles, and therefore more interesting than games against teams outside the top six where the long ball will dominate the tactics of both teams, often leading to a dull stalemate. Let us see how my theory lives up to the test of a game against Swansea, a team that is 2nd in the table at the start of play. Let us analyse how the press works in practice. I have spent most of the time since our last game in expectation that Swansea would try to play football from the back, and that Barnsley would counter that with a high press. Whether it was the weather that changed their modus operandi, or whether they simply did not want to take the risk is immaterial. That is not what has happened. In the first half, Barnsley hit the long ball forward from back to front and they have scrapped for the second ball. Adeboyejo has been the most effective of our front 3, or rather a 1-2 with Woodrow ahead of the other 2 players most of the time. However, if the press is to include the midfield 4, it needs the opposition to try to play from the back, and Swansea have not done that. Frankly, neither side played too much football, but Barnsley were the better team in the first half because they are more used to the tactics that both teams used. So why were we losing at half time? Well Swansea scored with a well-rehearsed move from a long throw-in. The scorer’s marker (Sollbauer) was blocked off by another Swansea player, freeing the scorer to head into the far corner. Is it a foul? Probably not, but it is tempting to try and call for one from a non-existent VAR. The fact is that the set-up was rehearsed, and the delivery was accurate. More accurate than any Barnsley delivery under the same circumstances. If the game is about getting an edge, well Swansea got theirs with good planning, and good execution. I am not going to dwell upon the mix up between Helik and Andersen that led to the second goal. I am more interested in our tactics in that second half, which did not change in spite of the score line. There will be those who point to the 30 yard effort by Brittain, but frankly, it was a half that Swansea dominated. They did so, in my view, because our tactics did not change. We kept hitting the ball long, even though Swansea had the lead and were defending much deeper and with more players. Our front 3 simply knocked their heads again a brick wall. We failed to give them any ball that they would be favourites to retain. We simply continued with the same failed tactic. It is a tactic that works by asking the same questions over and over again. Against the teams with less defensive quality, that question occasionally meets the inadequate reply. Against a team with less quality, a mistake will come, and we need to take the chance when it comes. Against the better teams, the mistake does not come and when our defense offers them the chance, it is decisive. My complaint is a little different though. I would love to see a bit of skill as well as a lot of effort, but our players are never going to show any skill if the ball is always in the air. Grass is there because it is the ideal surface to play football on. Why ignore it.
Ironically, that’s what happened to us when Swansea scored their second. So, we DID change our approach in the second half, and we were promptly punished. The issue I have with your analysis is that it assumes that 0-1 with five minutes to go is necessary a bad thing. I would have been happy with that score line today. Certainly, I would have been happy with that score line against Bournemouth as well. Against the top teams, we need learn to stay in the game. That has been our downfall rather than any inadequacy in the way we set up the team.
I thought we were losing at half-time because we scored one less goal than Swansea. I thought we lost the game because we scored two less goals. I thought Brittain was our best player tonigt and carried the team forward. I'm gutted because although it wasn't a classic we weren't beaten by Swansea. I felt we beat ourselves. I think my overriding emotions might be more positive tomorrow.
