Thomas' Match Analysis (part one)

Well! The bubble burst and, because it was a big bubble, it burst in some style at Ashton Gate.

Some changes needed to the all-conquering team for this one and I admit to some alarm-bells on hearing the selection, but, given Flicker’s ability to get the best out of everyone, I reckoned he would know what he was doing. The following team started the game:

Steele

Foster Cranie McNulty

Delap O’Brien Tunnicliffe Perkins Kennedy

Dagnall Harewood

I am not doing this as a match report, as you can read an excellent one on the official site and the ‘highlights’ (?????) were on tv. So, just a match and player analysis.

Match analysis:

I had some concerns about the formation of the defence just from hearing the team-changes and these fears were being confirmed within the first twenty minutes. On the one hand, we were playing with the confidence of a team which had been undefeated in seven and creating chances, two of which forced Tom Heaton, who had an excellent game, into outstanding saves early on. On the other hand, we were too ‘gung-ho’ and the cost was the formation of the defence, as well as the positioning of the players. My main concerns were: 1) the positioning of the wing-backs, Kennedy and Delap and 2) the combination of the central three defenders, Foster, Cranie and McNulty.

The wing backs: the problem for me was that they were playing too far up the field, which was especially noticeable in the first half. They were more like wide midfielders and did not seem to come back enough behind the ball to protect the wide areas. If you are going to play wing-backs, they need an excellent ‘engine’ on them to cover back behind the ball on the one hand and to break forwards to set up attacks on the other. Because both Delap and Kennedy were defending too high in this way, it left us skint to quick breaks by City, nor were they in a position to get forwards into space to support the attack when needed. Nicky Eaden and Neil Thompson used to play this role to perfection in the glory days. Both Delap and Kennedy are excellent and committed players, so the fault seemed to be in their positioning and, maybe, in their understanding of the role, or it might just have been down to the roles in which they were being played. It took me the first twenty minutes to work out whether or not Delap was being deployed as a wing-back at all, as he was almost always in a wide midfield position and only chased back when needed and then sometimes too late and chasing a shadow.

The three centre backs: if you take it that, because of the deployment of the wing-backs in midfield, we actually only had a three-man back-line, you will begin to understand where some of the defensive problems lay. The three were stretched this way and that, especially by Jon Stead, who looked a class above anything on the pitch and who repeatedly tore us apart from the first ten minutes onwards. The gaps between the three were simply too wide, especially as they were having to pop across to become make-shift full-backs when City counter-attacked. At times, this mis-shape became alarming and I can recall seeing both McNulty and Cranie over towards the left touch-line, leaving only Foster back in the middle. It always looked like a disaster waiting to happen, especially with Stead looking so strong. The other problem with the back-three is that they were constantly too flat, meaning that they could be breached too easily by quick balls forwards, or by breaks from midfield, or even from the wide City players, as we had effectively no full-backs. You can see how and why we leaked so badly. In the good old days of a back-three of Davis, Appleby/Moses and De Zeeuw (boy could we do with another Arjan), the central player was detailed as ‘sweeper’ behind the others, giving depth to the defence and picking off attackers when they broke behind. That was missing on Saturday. The final issue with the back five (and better include anyone who came back to defend at set-pieces) was marking, which, as you can see from the tv replays, was just plain poor. We have struggled with this all season and yet defending set-pieces should be a routine training-ground exercise. Yesterday it wasn’t and the old failings returned. You have to add to that the fact that, even given some lax marking, the defence failed to clear when given opportunities to do so and that also cost us in the final account.

To his credit, Flicker was quick to realise the problems and substituted Foster for O’Grady straight after we went 2-0 down. I thought this an odd move at the time, even though you could argue that the move to 4-4-2 was right, as long as it gave us two full-backs. Even after this, it was still not clear that we had a right-back, although Kennedy was more in place on the left. So the change did not solve the problem.

What would you have done, given the benefit of hindsight? I think it was as simple as having two wing-backs who were, effectively, full-backs at least at the start of the match; who’s primary role was defensive early on in order to frustrate City and get their supporters on their backs. They could have then been encouraged to break forwards if needs be later in the game. This would also have helped the central three – it would certainly have stopped them being dragged around all over the place. If fit, I would have Wiseman in as wing-back for the next game, as I am convinced that five at the back is the right way to set up. I would have the central three of Foster, Cranie and Kennedy, which has served us so well during the revival – why change a winning formation? I know this has been disrupted by Golbourne’s injury and he has just the motor a good wing-back needs, but we need to replace him without disturbing the central combination. I thought Tunnicliffe might have been brought in for this purpose, but he is a holding midfielder, it seems (did ok on debut). The rest of the team does not need to be tinkered with, as it has done so well in the previous seven/ eight games.

We always carried a threat going forwards and the front-line often looked as though it might score, although Heaton was immense in the City goal.

So there you have it. For the next game, I would have Wiseman at right wing-back, as he has the motor to get up and down. I would restore Kennedy to the left-central position in which he has performed so well. I would have A.N. Other at left wing-back (pity Lee Collins is at Northampton!) It would serve our purposes well to have Etuhu and Dawson available for the central midfield, as it didn’t give enough protection to our back-line at times. The rest of midfield and forwards pretty much pick themselves and look likely to perform as an attacking force – that it not the problem.

 

Are you dropping Delap for Wiseman?

 

I would play Delap in midfield. Wiseman is the best we have for me for the right wing-back role - viz his set-up against MKD.

 

Agree to a certain extent but defensively he is poor.

Need to stick with the three of Foster, Cranie and Kennedy with someone in for LWB

Having said that, we've had the issue for ages where a centre forrad can bully our centre backs. Posh did it to great effect at Oakwell...

 

Another problem was that O Driscoll is a good coach. He knew how we played and set up wide down flanks to expose our weaknesses of our Half/backs. All their attacks were mostly out wide into oceans of space. They also packed up on Perkins to stop his jinks forward. At least Flicker was up to what was happening and altered the formation. In football you sometimes do not get the rub of the green. We could play Bristol again today and beat them. I thought yesterday every thing went right with goals for Bristol, but not right for us. We deserved another couple of goals but their Keeper , like Stead could do no wrong. Need Dawson Ethu back and approach Everton for Stonesy back on 24 hour call. We are still a good team and are as good as most of the teams in the Championship We will survive

 

To be fair though if you watch the match again on player,the only centre back bullied by Posh was Scott,who just couldn't cope with Barnett,Cranie won his headers all night long.

 

listen thomas tupp Wiseman the biggest liabiliuty at Barnsley if we lose our championship status it will be be because 0f the points he as cost us . this is my opinion others may vary or disagree

 

I agree with you about the wing backs. They were too far forward for my liking and left the back 3 too exposed. Away from home I'd start with them as out and out full backs and take it from there. Flicker said in his post match interview that he expected Bristol City to be a bit more cautious early on so I can only think he wanted to get at them early and put them on the back foot, unfortunately the risk didn't pay off.

We've got two strikers who are at the top of their game now and are creating chances for each other. We also play a CAM so I don't think it's that necessary that the wing backs get forward at every possible opportunity. Keep it solid at the back as we will score goals.

That being said, we didn't concede from open play yesterday so you can't really fault the system/tactics. It was poor defending from set plays that cost us, not the wing backs pushing forwards.

 

Your analysis suggests you want to see wing backs who are primarily full backs, who will defend in the first instance.

But then go on to say Wiseman needs recalling...?

He's an offensive wing back/full back, at best. He's certainly not a defender.

We have the ideal man to play as you suggested - his name's Bobby Hassell, but we're not allowed to see him in that position as apparently he's too old, not got the legs, too slow etc etc.

Yet we play a bloke 5 years his senior, who's about as quick as Miles Addison.

Bizarre.