Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 11

Recommended Posts

In many previous Masterclasses we have discussed the importance of weapons that move the opposition out of shape, causing imbalance in their structure and allowing us opportunities.

We have naturally also learnt that the opposition are trying to do the same to us, using their own strengths and trying to penetrate and accentuate our weaknesses.

The brutal truth we must now face is that our weapons are not as powerful as others have at the level we find ourselves. Our weaknesses have been repeatedly exposed and there is a pattern - as seen again yesterday - of targeting the space we leave behind and between the right midfield position, then driving into the three quarter position between RCB and right back. We have identified Redmond and this position as a tactical weakness stretching back well into last Champs season, regardless of personnel behind.

Fine. So what can we do?

Firstly we are thin on weapons. Weapons have been identified in previous Masterclasses not in terms of a "good" footballer, we have a very deep squad of those (ideally suited to being the best team over a gruelling Championship season). We have identified Weapons at the top level as something the oppositions cannot ignore, something they have to make adjustments to their own game plan for. As we have discussed, "we just play our own game"''is the exclusive preserve of the superior and even there is mostly disingenuous. It is a phrase for fans, not what is really discussed in coaches pre-match tactics analysis sessions.

Here is my solution for the remainder of our season - based on the above - to give us the best chance of playing to a clear pattern, with our sharpest weapons* in the positions where the opposition would like them least .

(*We do not have true weapons at this level. They are not necessarily long term players, players you like or that fit your vision, but the Premier is unforgiving if you can''t hurt teams. Examples would be: Crouch, Defoe, Robbie Keane, free kick specialists, anybody very fast).

Firstly Redmond must play at 9. He is our only fast, direct runner. He will miss chances, get bullied off the ball, but he will stretch and worry teams in behind. They will be forced to play a few yards deeper.

This in turn will create a pocket of space for Hoolahan at 10. He won''t shoot, will delay and thus miss goals he could have, but he will create chances. In combination with Redmond it is lightweight, but it is a problem other teams will have to change and adapt for.

Naismith is our big investment and must be accommodated and will have to be clever enough to link with both, whilst dropping into wider spaces if we are countered. He is a clever, responsible player and this trust will suit him.

We simply cannot expose our full backs, because our best available players don''t totally suit those roles. Brady and Pinto want to play high and attack, though they both get countered on turnover and it doesn''t hurt Pinto enough when this happens.

Martin, Bennet and Klose can continue in a three, with Klose''s nice left foot to be used more when we''re in possession. Martin is an ideal sweeper and uses the ball soundly and progressively. This affords the full backs the licence we want to see tactically and is basically a necessity as they are neither suited, nor capable in a traditional four.

Ruddy continues in goal, with desperate instructions to assert influence and personality onto the pitch. To contribute to the shape, mood, tone and pace of play of the side. For an ''army man'' he just doesn''t rally, organise or drive on the troops in the way he could - and the way we so desperately need. In the heat of battle, he doesn''t sadly come over the top and make a statement claim on the penalty spot from a late opposition cross when we are under pressure. He plays it safe when that safe ship has long since sailed for us. We are not as good as others, so we must do things differently, offer different angles, take different calculated risks. Otherwise we''ll be just a little bit worse than teams every weak. A little error, a little moment where we just didn''t quite have a sharp enough weapon

The central two will need to be O''Neil - who is a good, experienced structural player who can do a bit of everything (though history will sadly show his seemingly out-of-character horror error as pivotal, momentum-killing one. Momentum is a rare and precious commodity for weaker sides. Its loss can be fatal). He is joined by Howson who is a great all-round player who epitomises what is best about Norwich, but ultimately (through no fault of his own) also characterises our lack of real, hurtful top level weapons. He is good, but not scary for the opposition coaches. A metaphor for the side.

We should look to construct shapes that get Wes on ball, even if he drops really deep and lets the full back get higher or Howson to sometimes go beyond. Redmond must stay high and we should not be afraid to sometimes suck teams in to us and hit unexpected long, flat balls over the top for Redmond to run at. Even when unsuccessful, this concerns teams. Ironically under this system Hoolahan will stay reasonably central - more backwards and a bit forwards, and it will be Naismith with the free role, but responsibility to spot break danger and fill gaps. He is our best-established top level player and will revel personally in the responsibility. If he is fit, leave him on the field. He hates losing. Everybody loves winning, but not everybody hates losing enough...

There is no shame in trying and not being good enough. That may be the case this season. However That Match of the Day continue to highlight a weakness yesterday that we had identified here in the Championship 18 months ago that the opposition have repeatedly exploited and that we have failed to tactically address is disappointing.

Let us try something different to both prevent repeated failings hurting us again and which may inspire renewed belief and opportunity -both on the field and in the stands - at this last, desperate stage.

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on what I saw yesterday I really don''t think Naismith is even nearly fit enough to affect games, I don''t think we should feel obliged to accommodate him at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have just wasted 10 mins of my life I will never get back, reading this utter dribble

Parma why are you telling us something we all know ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Gunthorpe,

In defence of Parma, (we/they) don''t all know! Also, if you didn''t want to waste any of your life, why come on here in the first place, considering much of it is a waste of time, not sure blaming Parma is fair, but then again I read it and I''m replying to you, so who am I to talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naismith does not look interested, let alone fit. Tough for the manager, need numbers back to defend as the back 4 or 5 lack quality. This means we lack numbers pushing forward. Playing one up front means you need goals from midfield - and we haven''t got a prolific midfielder. (Johnson was probably our best).

I thought Naismith would play behind the striker - an option to Wes but more prolific. He looks like he could be on loan at St Etienne in a few weeks, before a season in Spain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for another great thread Parma.

It''s interesting that after Hughton Neil Adams identified the advantages of playing Redmond as a ''9''. It didn''t really work for him. Maybe we have players better suited to that now. And if our back three push up as Martin was getting them to do against Chelsea we could see players like Wes and Naismith getting the ball in areas they can more hurt the opposition. But the down side is we''d have nobody with a real aerial presence up front in open play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]We simply cannot expose our full backs, because our best available players don''t totally suit those roles. Brady and Pinto want to play high and attack, though they both get countered on turnover and it doesn''t hurt Pinto enough when this happens.

Martin, Bennet and Klose can continue in a three, with Klose''s nice left foot to be used more when we''re in possession. Martin is an ideal sweeper and uses the ball soundly and progressively. This affords the full backs the licence we want to see tactically and is basically a necessity as they are neither suited, nor capable in a traditional four.[/quote]93vintage suggested using a sweeper a week or so back, although his choice was Klose when I said Martin was the much more obvious candidate. The job is better suited to someone who can cover all the way across the back line, such as a converted fullback, rather than a tall centre-half. It does seem as if that system is probably the best option, given our defensive frailties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would echo Martin as logical choice for sweeper, and it would give us a number of attacking options:
                  Ruddy
                 Martin
          Klose        B/B     
Pinto                             Brady
                 Tettey
  Redmond  No 10  Bamford
                 Striker
Wouldn''t fancy us defending counter-attacks though.  Mind you, to win you have to score goals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can''t work out why we abandoned the 5 man defence yesterday. We have seen that this formation allows Pinto to get forward and still allows for some cover at the back. It also gives Redmond more unshackled freedom.

The goal yesterday came from Pintos technique of "jogging back" after he has lost the ball, something which frankly there is no excuse for, but with a different formation there would have been more cover there.

Why did Alex abandon a formation that the players were begining to look comfortable with and which suited them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr Jenkins"]I can''t work out why we abandoned the 5 man defence yesterday. We have seen that this formation allows Pinto to get forward and still allows for some cover at the back. It also gives Redmond more unshackled freedom.

The goal yesterday came from Pintos technique of "jogging back" after he has lost the ball, something which frankly there is no excuse for, but with a different formation there would have been more cover there.

Why did Alex abandon a formation that the players were begining to look comfortable with and which suited them.[/quote]Not sure but do Swansea just play with one up front?I mostly agree though, the time for fannying with things is over.Whole thing went to shart though as soon as Brady went off and Russ had to stand in at LB. Which I think he did pretty well at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morty

Yes they did start with one up front, Paloshci, but with Alan Curtis back at the helm for a couple of games its a bit more difficult to predict what they were going to do, they had six changes from the team that beat Arsenal mid week, amazing really.

Also amazing what Curtis taking over for a few games has done for them, saved their season by the looks of it.

I know there would have been a risk of us being over run in midfield with a back five, my view though is we have found the small glimmer of light that something seems to be working, then it''s a bit daft to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr J,

As I said in another post, if it ain''t broke don''t fix it, got castigated by some though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the back three. The third defender can help cover the wing back when he''s caught upfield. With Brady and Pinto this suits us. But yesterday after Bradys injury we would have reverted to the back four.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty,

Had we played a back 5, Olsson or Whitts may have been on the bench, so not necessarily a back 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said to my wife at the start of the match that our right side worried me. Neither Redmond nor Pinto looked to have the beating of Routledge for pace and neither got back when Sigurdsson scored.

I think it would be a brave manager to play Redmond as a nine, though I agree he is our most dangerous weapon. He really shouldn''t be encumbered with any defensive duties! It''s just not in his DNA.

And I agree with Morty earlier, Naismith was terrible and easily our poorest performer - he would have to significantly improve to justify a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Ray :)

Having seen Pinto a few times now it looks to me like he''s a signing specifically to suit wing back. I also think wing back is Brady''s best position. So like you and others I''m mystified that we ditched that on Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Points noted re Naismith. He should be a step up in class, personality and nous at this level, though again he may not be a hurtful weapon tactically.

As for diverting from the three v Swansea, the opposition playing one or two up front wouldn''t cause an Italian manager to change to a flat four. One of the three must step regularly into midfield to track the 10, or when a high 3 press is played - as Swansea sort of sometimes do - then the three becomes a five or a rocking four.

The Italian trick is not to waste spare defensive players. One over is plenty when flexible, drilled and tactically aware. My mind does drift back to England losing a WC QF against a 10-man Brazil, when the flat defensive four was occupied by one striker (a tactical deficit of -3 elsewhere on the pitch, more than amortising the 10 V 11).

Tactics pre and during matches is the way we avoid this negative playing equity. The converse is true of our attacking play, we are trying to create 3v2 or 2v1 scenarios in areas of the field. For those of you obsessed with old-fashioned space, there isn''t a lot anymore so the top teams (a la Barcelona) swarm in what might be understood as "constructive bunching". The opposite of what many English players are taught - or have the tight-space technique to achieve.

When players are nervous, stressed, fearful of making the error the manager will highlight afterwards, they don''t leave their station to create these tight-knit constructive-bunching 3v2 scenarios as we did to a greater degree earlier in the season. Players are more careful with their technique, stick to strictly performing their own roles and are overwhelmed by opponents ''cheating'' via a confidence that they no longer possess.

The only recourse is a return to more naturally-instinctive, suitable roles based not on classic shapes, but totally on where and how our players move at their core, their base-level tendencies.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always enjoy your posts Parma, it''s like slipping into a different world on here at the mo!

I''m intrigued by the possibilities of the wing back/ 3 CB formation. If - & I accept it''s a big if - we could be coached into allowing Martin a free role, where he could act as a sweeper & also support the attack (he links up well with Hoolahan, & is capable of scoring himself) if circumstances permit. This might give an element of surprise to our play.

It would mean Pinto or Brady would have to be aware enough to drop back & cover if Martin drove forward; Pinto in particular might have trouble with the discipline involved.

With O''Neil & Howson to hold the MF we have 3 players to carry the attack, i.e. 3 from Mbokani, Jerome, Bamford, Wes, Naismith, Redmond. I think Nathan has to play as you suggest - central & well advanced - in order to hurt the opposition. We need Wes'' creativity, although Bamford may be clever enough to link up play, Jerome is quick & powerful, Mbokani a good pivot & still I feel our best finisher, Naismith showed how deadly he can be against Liverpool ( though sadly nothing much since ). So we do have options for different attacking styles & - please God - we can find a combination to provide that ''edge'' we''re so horribly lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Purple and Parma said about Martin is fine if Martin''s role includes covering both wing backs. I suggested Klose because he seemed to me to be the most comfortable of our centre backs on the ball, ie good all round passing, heading and tackling.I saw Klose as being someone who would play mainly as a central sweeper against Leicester, with the two centre backs moving laterally to cover the wings backs as they moved forwards (one of the wing backs would be told to hang back if the other broke forward). Klose could step forward to make it a back four, and could do the same should one of the centre backs make a forward run.Originally I thought a sweeper was a good tactic to deal with Leicester''s long balls to their two frontmen, but also as a way to press our defence higher up the pitch against a team which liked to sit back and hit on the break.We would have had plenty of defenders, an advantage in midfield and a safety net in defence to cover Leicester''s unusually fast breaks (despite this I don''t think we''d have needed an ultra fast defender playing the sweeper role).I envisioned a 1-4-4-1, with fast wide men feeding crosses into Mbokani. Maybe this could be played against teams which defend deep in numbers, and Parma''s system against teams which come forward more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5-3-2 with Redmond as one of the 2 up front? Jerome is quick and if you play balls over the top intelligently it will stretch defences like against Chelsea. However, random hoof''s won''t work like against Swansea. We can set up however we like - we can play all the attacking players in the world but our midfield have to be more comfortable on the ball than they are, for some reason, particularly against the poorer teams. My view is teams like Chelsea believe they have the quality to sit off us and soak up pressure. Poorer teams press us and we are incapable of coping with it.
Hoolahan is our most creative and in my opinion one of our top players - but he was as ineffective as anyone against Swansea because whilst he''s one of probably only two (Redmond being the other) who has enough skill to break the first press - there was no one running beyond him and Jerome was horribly isolated.
Naismith hasn''t done enough for me to suggest he''s worth a place in the starting 11 ahead of the likes of Jarvis on the left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today we saw the benefit of round pegs in round holes. Strategically on the pitch we didn''t necessarily play the best xi players, but we had players comfortable in their position and carrying out duties natural to their base tendencies.

We saw regular, deliberate tactical fouls, breaking up play when countered and Norwich being far less honest, which I like and is necessary.. This may look cynical, but it shows players tactically tuned in, both to opposition danger and the shape of their own team around them. Very good.

A flat back four was augmented by a shifting three that filled the spaces between the lines, rather than a simple, flat two banks of four. This is good tactics against fluid, top level players. A chaser in front, with Hoolahan dropping and looking to link with a fluid 9 which suits Bamford well.

O''Neil has often shown himself to be the most responsible, tactically-aware player with a well-balanced defensive diligence and a progressive eye when in possession. He was excellent today.

Ruddy tried to come and be more dominant around his box today, despite not overly succeeding, the message was a good one and inspired defenders around him. Better intention.

Tactically the introduction of the front two failed. Those clamouring for such an approach should note the lack of subsequent quality possession and increased space available to the opposition in the midfield. The under pressure midfield dropped deeper into the defence, who retreated nearer to their own box. Some free kicks were won, plus a few flick ons, but truthfully Norwich gained a point despite this, not because of it. Mbokani showed his lack of mobility (and to some degree effort and passion) when it was really needed. Jerome dropped into deeper places, but didn''t take up the right positions on counter, Hoolahan did this better until he tired.

Bamford showed the value of clever movement and constantly being on the half turn and drifting off defenders into space pockets. Man city had to keep watching him. His moment of true quality inspired and showed how a single act can generate drive and belief in teammates.

Hard work and professional decision-making from Jarvus offered the counterpoint to Redmond. Jarvis may not thrill as often as Redmond, but he is not a defensive liability either. He can be relied upon to take good positions defensively and offensively and he shut between-the-lines spaces in a way that Redmond never does. He gave nothing away. He showed the true value of the right decisions, shapes and positioning. Much more tactically disciplined. We gain more by not losing so much in overall pattern of play terms.

The round pegs in round holes, rather than best xi players,theme continued with Olsson looking clearly like a full back and performing it safely in low-risk fashion. Coupled with the presence of the best defensive passers in Martin klose Bennett, Norwich had spells where they retained possession reasonable well. Howson and Dorrans were diligent .

Combining this -on another day - with Hoolahan taking up good positions and perhaps having a more influential game and Bamford making clever runs and his threat of the unexpected, there is a natural shape to the 4321 that we advocated from the start of the season and which looked effective today.

Our original 4321 was designed to free Redmond and create a shape that filled the spaces we have so often left open this season (most obviously in three-quarter positions on our right side). He can only play when he has no defensive responsibilities. He cannot be trusted to carry them out and we risk more than we gain. Don''t ask him to do what he can''t,encourage him to what he can. His number 10 role for England u21s is fine. I would like to see him in a false 9 role. It is just possible that Bamford is a clever enough footballer to find a way to incorporate a Hoolahan-Bamford-Redmond axis.

This cannot work with high attacking full backs Pinto and Brady, though it might work with three diligent, hard-running capable passers who are clever enough to fill between-the-line defensive spaces Dorrans-O''Neil-Howson. Tettey''s tight-space passing may be too weak for it to work with him.

The game today was much more in line with the principles we gave laid out previously. It is important not to think of them as de-facto defensive, just because it worked today defensively.

The shape and patterns were right and there is no reason for them not to succeed as well or better when more offensive play is desirable and possible.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was nice to see Russ Martin where he should be; at right back, Bennett in the starting 11 again finally next to Klose. The biggest thing for me though was having Olsson back in at left back. I do hope he retain his place and then plays Brady at left mid. Jarvis was the only one who I thought was poor for us today; runs around a lot but doesn''t have any impact.

Klose my MOTM followed by O''Neil. Thought Bamford had a decent half but should not be played as our lone striker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...