Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ron obvious

Match Analysis

Recommended Posts

We changed tactics at half time - that's pretty early in the match I would say.

And in spite of the fact that we changed tactics at half time the outcome remained exactly the same (even if the overall performance was better in the second half).

And as for all the blather in that article about corners - did they actually watch the match? The two best chances of the match (measured by XG) did come from corners - both of which happened to be taken by us!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we knew how they play, so I would say our tactics were wrong from the outset.

We cannot control the outcome. All we can do is give ourselves the best opportunity to win a match, & our tactics second half did that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Couldn't get past the continued use of "was" instead of "were" as in......"Sheffield Utd was happy to let us have the ball".

To be fair, we gave it a go playing the way we want to play - which a team should always do - and if Pukki had scored from his clear chance, then we would have been saying it was working......and then we changed it after the break when we needed to and made a game of it and again nearly forced a goal.  

Small margins.

 

Edited by lake district canary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting and I agree it was disappointing in the first half that Farke didn't set us up in response to Sheff Utds very clear and established style of play and waited until half time to change to reflect this.

 

But in the end it was a game of incredibly fine margins, both sides had few clear cut chances.  What it comes down to is that Sharp took his header well to score, Pukki hit the post, and in the second half we had a massive goalmouth scramble with several of our players involved, the ball ended up being cleared directly upwards when it would have only taken the smallest touch to put it over the line. 

 

Overall the xG stats support the feeling I had coming away from the game that a draw would have been a fair reflection of the performance of the two sides.  It could easily have been a win for either side but a draw the fairest outcome.  However, as with so many games this season, we didn't capitalise on our chances and have come away with nothing.  Story of the season really.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Couldn't get past the continued use of "was" instead of "were" as in......"Sheffield Utd was happy to let us have the ball".

To be fair, we gave it a go playing the way we want to play - which a team should always do - and if Pukki had scored from his clear chance, then we would have been saying it was working......and then we changed it after the break when we needed to and made a game of it and again nearly forced a goal.  

Small margins.

 

Isn't Sheffield Utd. a collective noun though? 

If it is, he's right (even though it sounds wrong).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our tactics are the same every match, which is one of the primary reasons we’re bottom of the league.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ron obvious said:

Isn't Sheffield Utd. a collective noun though? 

If it is, he's right (even though it sounds wrong).

Glad we're getting to the really important debate here !

 

According to my copy of the Economist style guide, for collective nouns it depends whether it's referring to a single entity e.g. a country is singular, or are you referring really to a group of people acting together, which is a plural.  So for sports teams, normally we're talking about them as a group of people and that would be plural.

 

Interestingly before the Civil War, the United States used to be treated as a plural i.e. a group of states, but afterwards people started treating it as singular because it had been established as a single entity.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Glad we're getting to the really important debate here !

 

According to my copy of the Economist style guide, for collective nouns it depends whether it's referring to a single entity e.g. a country is singular, or are you referring really to a group of people acting together, which is a plural.  So for sports teams, normally we're talking about them as a group of people and that would be plural.

 

Interestingly before the Civil War, the United States used to be treated as a plural i.e. a group of states, but afterwards people started treating it as singular because it had been established as a single entity.

It's fascinating that US and South American commentators do use the singular ('it' rather than 'they'). It jars to us here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clint said:

Our tactics are the same every match, which is one of the primary reasons we’re bottom of the league.

It absolutely ISN'T one of the reasons we're bottom of the league! That's nonsense! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

It absolutely ISN'T one of the reasons we're bottom of the league! That's nonsense! 

It clearly is, we do the same thing every week, expecting a different result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ron obvious said:

A lot of sense in this. I saw the spread CBs & Tettey being isolated, but the significance escaped me at the time. It does make you wonder why we didn't change tactics earlier

https://footballbh.net/2020/03/10/premier-league-2019-20-sheffield-united-vs-norwich-city-tactical-analysis-tactics/

 

That move has been purposefully done past few games. When we have possession, Jamal and Arrons bomb forward to overload the midfield, the centre halfs split and move out to the full back position, while the dm, Tettey / Trybull past couple of games, drops back slightly. 

It looks really strange, leaves huge gaps at the back. I'm not sure of tactical reasons why Farke gets them to do this.

 

Also Krul has been coming a long way out of his area, playing as a sweeper. 

Anyone offer any ideas?

Edited by Number9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CDMullins said:

It clearly is, we do the same thing every week, expecting a different result.

Sheffield United do the same thing every week don't they? You haven't thought this through have you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Number9 said:

That move has been purposefully done past few games. When we have possession, Jamal and Arrons bomb forward to overload the midfield, the centre halfs split and move out to the full back position, while the dm, Tettey / Trybull past couple of games, drops back slightly. 

It looks really strange, leaves huge gaps at the back. I'm not sure of tactical reasons why Farke gets them to do this.

 

Also Krul has been coming a long way out of his area, playing as a sweeper. 

Anyone offer any ideas?

To put it a bit simplistically - when you've got the ball you try and 'make the pitch as big as possible' (and hence create more space to play in) - when you haven't got the ball you try and 'make the pitch as small as possible' (and deny the opposition space to play in).

(And, yes, I do know that the actual size of the pitch doesn't change - it's just a phrase that footy people use). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Sheffield United do the same thing every week don't they? You haven't thought this through have you? 

Sheff United have been successful, why would they change what they do?

Deary me, You really haven't thought this through have you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

To put it a bit simplistically - when you've got the ball you try and 'make the pitch as big as possible' (and hence create more space to play in) - when you haven't got the ball you try and 'make the pitch as small as possible' (and deny the opposition space to play in).

(And, yes, I do know that the actual size of the pitch doesn't change - it's just a phrase that footy people use). 

I'm not sure that's a proper explanation of Farkes change in tactics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ron obvious said:

Isn't Sheffield Utd. a collective noun though? 

If it is, he's right (even though it sounds wrong).

No, it's a singular, but he's still right. There is only one Sheffield Utd and it is a football club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CDMullins said:

Sheff United have been successful, why would they change what they do?

Deary me, You really haven't thought this through have you? 

Oh for goodness sake. We're not bottom because we generally keep to the same tactics every game!! Anymore than Sheffield United are doing incredibly well because they generally keep to the same tactics every game. 

We're bottom because collectively and individually the players we've got are just the wrong side of being good enough for the Premier League. (With horrendous luck with injuries added in just to make it even more difficult for us). 

People talk a load of guff about tactics. It doesn't matter what tactics you play - if the players aren't skilful enough, strong enough, fast enough, experienced enough, ruthless enough etc, etc you'll end up struggling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

That's a pretty poor piece of analysis. Sheffield Utd dominated approximately a quarter of the game - roughly the second quarter, in which they scored. Ultimately they defended better than us, but we had two chances where you would expect to score and, yet again, failed to do so.

I thought that we mixed up our attacking play nicely. We passed the ball well from the back but also attempted to exploit the high Sheffield Utd line by hitting it longer on occasion. We just lacked a cutting edge in front of goal. We didn't lose any tactical battle and [were] largely the better team with the obvious caveat that we didn't manage to actually gain any points; such is the enigma of Norwich City this season.

Edited by Petriix
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Oh for goodness sake. We're not bottom because we generally keep to the same tactics every game!! Anymore than Sheffield United are doing incredibly well because they generally keep to the same tactics every game. 

We're bottom because collectively and individually the players we've got are just the wrong side of being good enough for the Premier League. (With horrendous luck with injuries added in just to make it even more difficult for us). 

People talk a load of guff about tactics. It doesn't matter what tactics you play - if the players aren't skilful enough, strong enough, fast enough, experienced enough, ruthless enough etc, etc you'll end up struggling. 

Oh for goodness sake, a inability to have a desire or nouse to play more that one way is absolutley one of the reasons we are bottom.

Teams playing us know exactly what we are going to do week in, week out.

Our players are no more "the wrong side of being good enough for the Premier League" than any of Watford, Bournmouth, Villa, Brighton, Southampton or Sheff Utd - but were miles behind them in performance

Edited by CDMullins
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right CD, Thirsty is not talking sense.

It’s clearly not the only reason we’re bottom but it’s clearly one of the main reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, It's Character Forming said:

Glad we're getting to the really important debate here !

 

According to my copy of the Economist style guide, for collective nouns it depends whether it's referring to a single entity e.g. a country is singular, or are you referring really to a group of people acting together, which is a plural.  So for sports teams, normally we're talking about them as a group of people and that would be plural.

 

Interestingly before the Civil War, the United States used to be treated as a plural i.e. a group of states, but afterwards people started treating it as singular because it had been established as a single entity.

That sounds right to me. “Norwich City is a well run family club” (single entity) but “Norwich City aren’t very good at defending corners” (the eleven Norwich players on the pitch). The USA point also makes sense - a number of states (known as America when bunched together) vs America (made up of a number of states). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Clint said:

Our tactics are the same every match, which is one of the primary reasons we’re bottom of the league.

Ah well , there’s the rub . It’s exactly the reason why we won the Championship in such brilliant style last season . That’s the way the team and squad and whole club ethos has been designed to play . Bravo !! Unashamedly from me all day long !! I just don’t buy the idea we could start fiddling with that with our squad and get better results in the Premier League . Tempting I grant you , but I think it would just be another way of not getting enough points . Then we’d be all over the place and in an even bigger mess , with no direction moving forward . Spending big on hopefully better players ? Yes of course , but Christ we’ve been through all that infinitum . 
 

Edited by Pockthorpe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pockthorpe, I’m not sure how changing the tactics periodically would change the ethos of how we play? You can play the same way but with different tactics. Liverpool and Man City don’t set-up exactly the same every week, they set up to get the best possible result but their style and footballing  ethos throughout the whole club doesn’t change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


Clint , I do get what you’re saying . However I think Liverpool and Man.City have the luxury of players who can do that ! Also , I don’t think we do set up exactly the same every week . Yes defensively , with two very attacking fullbacks . Can’t see how we could change that with players available even if we wanted to . Midfield personnel does vary . Having Onel fit would bloody help ! Guess you’re really talking mainly up top ? And of course losing makes us want to cry out for changes . I’m as frustrated as anyone believe me ! Is the way we play not working or are we just not taking our chances like we have done in the past ? I honestly believe our best shot is to keep on doing what we’re doing and hope  to god Pukki finds his scoring boots again ! I could be wrong ! Having said that would be happy to see Idah or Drmic appear earlier if we need goals ! 
 

Edited by Pockthorpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Petriix said:

That's a pretty poor piece of analysis. Sheffield Utd dominated approximately a quarter of the game - roughly the second quarter, in which they scored. Ultimately they defended better than us, but we had two chances where you would expect to score and, yet again, failed to do so.

I thought that we mixed up our attacking play nicely. We passed the ball well from the back but also attempted to exploit the high Sheffield Utd line by hitting it longer on occasion. We just lacked a cutting edge in front of goal. We didn't lose any tactical battle and [were] largely the better team with the obvious caveat that we didn't manage to actually gain any points; such is the enigma of Norwich City this season.

I agree with this except I thought their very high line was very exposed to balls played for Pukki to run onto and last season we’d have taken much more advantage, this game we only did this a few times. Even though, it created some of our best openings in the first half.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CDMullins said:

It clearly is, we do the same thing every week, expecting a different result.

Did you read the article? It clearly says we changed tactics second half. I only saw the second half and couldn’t understand the moaning on the match thread, but things clearly changed first half to second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

I agree with this except I thought their very high line was very exposed to balls played for Pukki to run onto and last season we’d have taken much more advantage, this game we only did this a few times. Even though, it created some of our best openings in the first half.

The high line is assisted by the high press, denying time and space to play that killer ball. You cant play a high line without pressure on the ball,  it's an invitation to the opposition.  That's how Sheffield utd get away with playing so high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Did you read the article? It clearly says we changed tactics second half. I only saw the second half and couldn’t understand the moaning on the match thread, but things clearly changed first half to second. 

Couple of points;

If we did 'Change tactics in the second half' then its the first time we've done it in circa 30 games.

I'd also argue, we didnt change tactics at all, just shape - our play didnt get any faster, we didnt play more direct, nothing really changed other than Drmic stood next to Teemu.

If that was Plan B then I assume throwing Idah on was another tactic and Plan C?

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...