Three issues that worry me about Farke and his tactics

[hampton canary 24]

I thought we played well today and deserved to get at least a point in a typical derby game, however, there are three issues that worry me about Farke and his tactics.

Firstly, we still persist with passing the ball around at the back and were lucky not to be punished today. This is fine if the opposition don''t close you down, but Ipswich did.

Secondly, we still have 10 men back in our box for most corners, including the one they scored from. Why can''t we at least leave one man up front.

Thirdly, we left the substitutions until too late in the game for them to have any impact. I know our players still looked fresh, but I would have liked to have seen the introduction of Srbeny, Hernandez, and Vrancic with at least 15 mins left.

I still think Farke is doing a good job but changing any of the three issues I have raised might just turn draws into wins.

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

We have all our players back so we don''t concede a goal from a corner.......

[king canary 7,606]

The substitution thing did confuse me- I feel like chucking two players on in injury time is not giving them enough time to have any influence on the game.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

i dont think much of late subs unless its to waste or break up play, not enough time for players to hit the ground running, but maybe in the new guys defense he''s trying to gradually get them up to speed without it adversely affecting us.

Where i worry more than anything is we do all our play infront of the opposition centrally, there is almost never a ball in behind to get their defense turning. I think at home we really need to be able to mix it up alittle bit more, not sure we are good enough to be saying to all opposition "this is the way we play 100% of the time no matter what".

[percy varco 198]

Every player back to defend a corner at 0-0. Leave at least one up to give the opposition something to cover and not invite them all up.

[SwindonCanary 455]

It always gets me, when passing the ball around the back why do players always wait until they are closed down before passing ?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Or alternatively, if Gunn catches the ball he can launch it forward as Murphy is already on his way, catching the opposition out as they have only got one at the back because all their players have gone forward......

[hampton canary 24]

My biggest issue has always been the 10 men in the box. Leave 2 quick men up front and they would probably leave 3 back. Not only would this give us an outlet, but with less players in the box it has to be easier for defenders to mark players or pick up runners.

It will be interesting to see if either Hernandez or Srbeny get a start on Wed against Wolves as they both look quite quick. I didn''t think Murphy and Oliveira offered a great deal today.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="hampton canary"]My biggest issue has always been the 10 men in the box. Leave 2 quick men up front and they would probably leave 3 back. Not only would this give us an outlet, but with less players in the box it has to be easier for defenders to mark players or pick up runners.

It will be interesting to see if either Hernandez or Srbeny get a start on Wed against Wolves as they both look quite quick. I didn''t think Murphy and Oliveira offered a great deal today.[/quote]Murphy is looking ''less'' by the game and Oliveira seems intent on him scoring... only.We need to get back to scoring inside the 18 yard box.The goal came from things that we don''t normally see. A fast break and a header in the box.Farke needs to adapt to the play, not stick rigidly to a training ground format

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="king canary"]The substitution thing did confuse me- I feel like chucking two players on in injury time is not giving them enough time to have any influence on the game.[/quote] Not enough time to have any influence on the game? Fact is that, in the three minutes of play following the substitutions, Ipswich''s defensive concentration slipped for pretty much the only time in the game. Making the substitutions caused the ref to add on a little more time, requiring the Ipswich players to concentrate for that mush longer with the additional uncertainty of what Vrancic and Hernandez might bring. I''d say the subs certainly cranked up the pressure and the Ipswich dam finally burst. Bialkowski chasing the ball was a clear case of a player being undone by the pressure of the so-very-near-but-not-yet-quite-there situation. The subs were genius. 

[Van wink 2,994]

Interesting point wc, my thoughts were why did we leave it so late but I see what you’re saying.

[king canary 7,606]

@Westcoast

Bloody hell thats a stretch isn''t it?

We made substitutions and then scored so the substitutes changed the game?

By that logic, the introduction of Luke Hyam changed the game for Ipswich. Or bringing Srebney on led to Ipswich scoring.

Bizarre.

[Woodman 92]

Subs aside, the goal came from a deep long ball from Maddison to Klose''s head, who was now playing alongside Hanley, Oliveira and Srbeny as emergency centre forwards. The confusion disrupted their central defence, so that the defender chose not to follow Hanley out to the wing, meaning the keeper had to. He then realised that he wouldn''t get there or would concede a pen and retreated, and being out of position was nowhere near Klose''s header.

At the time, I thought it was a free head, but having seen it since, he''s made a great leap to get it.

Personally, I don''t think we really needed to change the players, the team was doing ok - we were on the front foot, winning free kicks and corners but not really threatening to score. If anything, I''d have liked to see Hernandez on a bit earlier, but as we don''t play wingers, getting to the byline crossing into players in the box, I can see why he didn''t do it until he had to, once they''d scored.

[Grando 260]

The thing that worries me most about Farke is the team''s non-existent movement off the ball. I can''t help thinking that it stems from the players having been coached into a too-rigid adherence to Farke''s strict tactical game plan. It might work ok away, but clearly at home it doesn''t.

It''s exemplified by poor old Maddison heroically creating space out of nothing only to invariably have to keep going himself because none of his teammates are offering him anything...

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="king canary"]@Westcoast

Bloody hell thats a stretch isn''t it?

We made substitutions and then scored so the substitutes changed the game?

By that logic, the introduction of Luke Hyam changed the game for Ipswich. Or bringing Srebney on led to Ipswich scoring.

Bizarre.[/quote] No, I''m not as simple minded about cause and effect as you suggest kc. Your first post said you couldn''t see any rationale for making those very late subs, so I was suggesting a perfectly reasonable rationale, namely extending the time over which Ipswich''s players -- who thought they had the game won -- were required to maintain defensive concentration, and by doing so cranking up the pressure on them. Posters can criticise Farke all they want for his substitutions, but they might at least have the courtesy not to start by assuming he''s a complete fool!

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="king canary"]The substitution thing did confuse me- I feel like chucking two players on in injury time is not giving them enough time to have any influence on the game.[/quote]Referees add extra time for substitutes so I did see the logic in this as any extra seconds were a bonus. 

[king canary 7,606]

Well in that case, why not make them at separate points to further drag out the time?

Sorry, but he chucked on two subs as we suddenly desperately needed a goal. To try and claim it was ''genius'' is fairly laughable.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="SwindonCanary"]It always gets me, when passing the ball around the back why do players always wait until they are closed down before passing ?[/quote]... because it creates extra space behind those players and they also have further distance to cover if we break quickly.  .

[Rogue Baboon 0]

We scored at something like 94:52. The ref added on 5 minutes added time. Both subs were made during the 5 minutes, so therefore we didnt score in the extra time added on for subs.

To try and claim its genius is frankly idiotic.

[Matt Juler 151]

The subs were ready to come on at the start of added time, so I''m sure the standard 30 seconds per sub was already factored into the 5 minutes. By making the substitutions very quickly (Reed for example was already waiting by the 4th official before the board went up for the second substitution), we probably gained 30 seconds of playing time. Much better to make a double substitution if trailing than two separate ones.

[rock bus 851]

On the whole, I''d tend to agree that Farke can be a bit slow in making changes (been same for last few managers).

But in terms of yesterday, as even the sky commentators mentioned we were playing well and looked like the only team likely to win it. McCarthy was desperately making changes to get back in to the game, simple fact is Farke didnt need to do it. We were in total control so understandable why he stuck with it.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="king canary"]......... Sorry, but he chucked on two subs as we suddenly desperately needed a goal. To try and claim it was ''genius'' is fairly laughable.[/quote]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]We scored at something like 94:52. The ref added on 5 minutes added time. Both subs were made during the 5 minutes, so therefore we didnt score in the extra time added on for subs. To try and claim its genius is frankly idiotic.[/quote]

Neither more nor less idiotic or laughable than taking DF to be a complete idiot when it comes to substitutions. 

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Actually, it is.

Nobody is making Farke out to be an idiot, but the consensus at the game, after the game, from ex pros etc were that subs were far too late.

Trying to claim it was some form of time saving genius is much more ridiculous...

[king canary 7,606]

@Westcoast

Nobody claimed he was an idiot though, just questioned the timing of substitutions?

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]Actually, it is.

Nobody is making Farke out to be an idiot, but the consensus at the game, after the game, from ex pros etc were that subs were far too late.

Trying to claim it was some form of time saving genius is much more ridiculous...[/quote]To repeat, no more ridiculous than the critical comments. The level of debate on here would be much improved if people just started by assuming that DF is an intelligent, knowledgeable professional whose actions are guided by reason. So instead of firing off about what he should have done.in their opinion, posters should always start by asking themselves what his reasons might be for not having done what they think he should have done. Good heavens, it might even turn out that he knows more about it than all those opinionated "ex-pros" and consensus forming fans!

[hogesar 9,671]

Well put westcoast.

Im agreeing with you far too often recently.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

So we aren''t allowed to be critical of anything?

I mean, I''m sure you see how ridiculous that is? You have never criticized anything?

[king canary 7,606]

@Westcoast

I''ve considered why he did what he did- it was a reactive double change to conceding an unexpected late goal (in my opinion). Based on that I still think a change or two earlier to give Ipswich something different to think about and some fresh legs may have allowed us to have taken the lead and not needed a 95 minute equalizer. Farke does have a habit of leaving his substitutions late and it isn''t something I personally agree with. I like managers to be dynamic and proactive in trying to change a game from the bench.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Exactly this.

I get we may have been in control of the game, dominating possession and Ipswich were looking happy with a 0-0. We still didnt look like scoring though.

That doesn''t mean I don''t think earlier changes may have shook things up a bit and given. For example, Reed was playing OK but doesn''t offer the same attacking width as Pinto.

[king canary 7,606]

One thing I will stress is that I think Farke has been very good and proactive in trying to change a game by shifting tactics and formation during games.