Jump to content

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:


I saw a study of set piece defending in the Premier League, and basically every team uses zonal to some extent. It is especially beneficial If you are limited to how many players who are good in air. Zonal allows you to put the best headers  of the ball in the locations that are most dangerous. 

Norwich are a particularly small team - when McClean is your third best header of the ball you know you are probably in trouble from set plays. 

Going man to man won’t help - it would probably make things worse - as opposing teams would be able to create some really terrible match ups for Norwich. For example say, you are against Liverpool and put Hanley on Virgil and Zimmermann on Gomez, Liverpool would get those two to run to the far post taking Norwich’s best headers off with them - that would then leave the area that is most dangerous - which is just outside the 6 yard box between the goal posts - defended by Norwich’s least effective headers. By putting Hanley and Zimmermann to mark the danger zone, you are increasing your chances of winning the ball in that area. That’s the theory at least - it does still rely on people doing their jobs of course. 

The issue for Norwich isn’t zonal marking, but the execution of the system (combined with a general lack of physical players). Jamal and Aarons aren’t any worse in the air than the average full back (Aarons is actually very good at winning headers against taller opposition) but they offer suffer by being put in bad match ups due to a general lack of big guys in the Norwich team. 

Thank you for this - hopefully people will now stop banging on about zonal marking. It's also another area where Farke isn't at fault - whilst he has a say in the transfers, he isn't responsible for assembling the squad. He's working with what he's got and being let down by the lack of height/physicality in the side. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have been posted already, apologies if so, but there's an interesting theory - and they emphasise they that it is a theory - on Twitter from SexyBennett.

 

The club have known for some time who would want to go if we were relegated (or even who we would want to sell), so it was us who leaked the story and have now got Jamal in the shop window. Although if we were completely in control of the narrative, I think we would have suggested a fee of something more like £15 million, not 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

Yeah, if its true, it's not even like they tried to unsettle him and get him to hand a transfer request to get their target cheaper. It's worse than that, they got his hopes up only to use him as a pawn for leverage in a different transfer. Again, if true

They did unsettle him. They went public with their interest, causing Lewis to return home from his holiday. 

Players don't often hand in transfer requests, as such. It is more common for a club to ask for one, so that they can turn around to the fans and say 'we had to sell him, he forced a move', making the player look like the bad guy.

Instead, players send various signals to show their intentions: playing poorly on purpose (Robbie Savage), driving to the other team's training ground (Berahino), comments in the media or just being a bit of a pain around the training ground.

Lewis probably returned home on the advice of his agents. I'm glad there is no bad feelings towards player and club. JL seems like a solid pro who will continue to give 100% next season, wherever he is. 

Whilst I understand there are clever ways to negotiate, shame on Liverpool. It really isn't difficult to show a bit of respect to other clubs or their players. Lampard was right: they win one title and they're giving it the big'un.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Yellow and Green said:

Thank you for this - hopefully people will now stop banging on about zonal marking. It's also another area where Farke isn't at fault - whilst he has a say in the transfers, he isn't responsible for assembling the squad. He's working with what he's got and being let down by the lack of height/physicality in the side. 

I accept that but Pep's great Barca side were pretty small, neither Puyol or Mascherano who played at CB were 6 foot but they weren't constantly conceding from ser pieces. They didn't have many 6 footers at all, so clearly zonal marking can work with a smaller team and we could improve without changing players. Not pointing the finger of blame at anyone just saying that it must be something the coaching team are looking to improve and I'm sure they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

As a small addition on the Dawson goal, you will actually see that there is quite a clever, pre-planned ‘trick’ (by Deeney) to take Tettey out of the key area* (where he correctly started) and leave a one-on-one for Dawson to get a run at. 

In effect the mistake was Tettey’s as acting ‘as a lamp-post’ and simply blocking a run / forcing somebody wider (buying a half second) / covering an area is key to zonal. He should have retained his station. The area he vacated got exposed and it looks awful when a goal comes in that way - big guy on the run, small guy static and isolated at back post - scorching an imprint on all watching.

The equation is how many times does that happen per season vs how many times you’d suffer vs poor man-to-man match ups (which we’d have a lot of).

Don’t forget that ‘putting a man on the posts’ is Zonal. That’s been a staple for many decades, so it really isn’t one pure system vs another pure system. Some combination is typically always used. 

A clear danger is when an impression is created, others smell blood and make it an even higher strategic priority, investing ever greater time resources on it.

A further more basic point: if you are worse than the opposition you likely have to defend more. If you defend more you likely give away more fouls in dangerous places and more set pieces generally. If you defend more of them, you may well concede more from them: 

This is why ‘ the mini-League’ typically are very athletic, bigger, very disciplined, tight tactically and focus closely on defending. It can also be observed that this approach condemns then to that very ‘mini-League’ ghetto somewhat ad infinitum. Or until they get relegated or take the risk of becoming more expansive and becoming a more possession-dominant team that creates more active problems for all opposition (including the best), rather than just going for sit-back-deep-and-hope-for-a-break football against the better sides. 

I would suggest it is also why we had some good results against the better sides with our style and also why Burnley (for example) found it relatively hard to dominate us when we were very poor and they had the opportunity to dominate the game (as a top team would). They are simply not set up or drilled that way. 

Parma

*as I recall the footage Deeney physically moves Tettey away from the key area (off the ball). Purists look away now: Tettey should have had more than enough experience to collapse in a heap / shout / flail / scream for help from the ref. This might well have engaged VAR in our favour. We were generally very passive at this kind of thing. In stark contrast to everyone else. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

I accept that but Pep's great Barca side were pretty small, neither Puyol or Mascherano who played at CB were 6 foot but they weren't constantly conceding from ser pieces. They didn't have many 6 footers at all, so clearly zonal marking can work with a smaller team and we could improve without changing players. Not pointing the finger of blame at anyone just saying that it must be something the coaching team are looking to improve and I'm sure they are. 

When you have 95% possession, you tend not to give away too many corners!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

Munure must spend at least half their training time practising the dark arts - getting penalties, fouling off the ball, subtle fouls etc.

I particularly remember one game where on the counter attack Wes passed forward from the centre circle he was taken out by a Manure midfielder so he could not join the attack. Luckily we scored anyway, but that kind of thing makes my blood boil. It's all part of the game, you might say, but for me it rankles when it is good players doing it.

On a different topic, what is the difference between "hoofball" as practised by some lowly teams, and how Arsenal played in the FA Cup Final? For me the only difference is that the Arsenal strikers are quick and skilful in bringing the ball down, so the pundits wax lyrical about the quality of the ball forward, rather than how basic it is as a tactic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

I accept that but Pep's great Barca side were pretty small, neither Puyol or Mascherano who played at CB were 6 foot but they weren't constantly conceding from ser pieces. They didn't have many 6 footers at all, so clearly zonal marking can work with a smaller team and we could improve without changing players. Not pointing the finger of blame at anyone just saying that it must be something the coaching team are looking to improve and I'm sure they are. 

I agree with you latter point by the way. If you look at a lot of the goals that we conceded from set pieces this season, we can pick out numerous occasions where player x, y and z could (and should) have done better. The regularity of these situations raises a lot of questions - do the players collectively lack the defensive attributes to do the job? Would we improve if we had a settled back four? Would it have made a difference if Hanley/Klose/Zimmermann had been fit? Are they spending enough time on the training field? Do we need a set piece specialist? Is Farke using the wrong approach? Would we immediately improve with an Allerdyce/Pulis type manager?

The coaching staff know the statistics and it seems like they are addressing the problem by buying bigger, stronger players.

Questions will continue to be raised (and frustrations will grow) if this problem continues next season. Chris Reeve (TNC) made a decent point in that, if we don't sort this issue out, we will suffer from teams sitting back, enjoying 25% possession and winning 1-0 from a headed goal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, seanthecanary said:

I accept that but Pep's great Barca side were pretty small, neither Puyol or Mascherano who played at CB were 6 foot but they weren't constantly conceding from ser pieces. They didn't have many 6 footers at all, so clearly zonal marking can work with a smaller team and we could improve without changing players. Not pointing the finger of blame at anyone just saying that it must be something the coaching team are looking to improve and I'm sure they are. 

It's actually a bit of a myth that you have be 6' plus to be any good at heading the ball. In our case the worst culprits at set pieces were probably Godfrey and Klose, in terms of either not winning their duels or getting lost. The point about zonal marking is surely that if these two were our best headers they should been in the most dangerous zones - but teams were too good at putting the ball into the zones occupied by our full backs, and once one or two worked that out everyone else copied it.

We missed Zimmermann, Byram and Hanley - all good in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/08/2020 at 23:56, Mullet said:

Ive just checked what other championship players are valued at and it appears most decent players receiving interest from premier league clubs are being valued at 20-25 million and the buying club values them at around 15 million therefore 10 million does seem low. Jamal's only going to warm the bench though and he wants to go which Liverpool are probably weighing up. Will be interesting to see how it ends i'm guessing 15 million

-Well you are wrong on the club, and I suspect you will be wrong on the figure as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

Munure must spend at least half their training time practising the dark arts - getting penalties, fouling off the ball, subtle fouls etc.

HALF of their ENTIRE training time on getting penalties and how to foul??

Come on now. Make your point but don't get silly.

Edited by South Sider

Share this post


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

HALF of their ENTIRE training time on getting penalties and how to foul??

Come on now. Make your point but don't get silly.

I doubt he was being literal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't followed this thread too closely but has he gone yet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Ben White at Brighton who has not played a game in the premier is being valued at £30m which rather puts Liverpool’s bid into context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now Byram will need further surgery and miss the start of the season. 

Who would have guessed it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ricardo said:

So now Byram will need further surgery and miss the start of the season. 

Who would have guessed it.

*Sigh*
So Jamal will be first choice if he stays after all, despite some people on here putting him behind Byram in the pecking order. He was cheap at least, but this whole approach of buying cheap players with injury histories does seem to have bitten us repeatedly in the past 12 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

*Sigh*
So Jamal will be first choice if he stays after all, despite some people on here putting him behind Byram in the pecking order. He was cheap at least, but this whole approach of buying cheap players with injury histories does seem to have bitten us repeatedly in the past 12 months.

Not to downplay Byram's injury, which is a real shame, but nice to know our backup option is of the sort of quality the PL champions might have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

*Sigh*
So Jamal will be first choice if he stays after all, despite some people on here putting him behind Byram in the pecking order. He was cheap at least, but this whole approach of buying cheap players with injury histories does seem to have bitten us repeatedly in the past 12 months.

Other than Byram and Drmic, which other cheap players with injury histories have we bought in the last 12 months?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

*Sigh*
So Jamal will be first choice if he stays after all, despite some people on here putting him behind Byram in the pecking order. He was cheap at least, but this whole approach of buying cheap players with injury histories does seem to have bitten us repeatedly in the past 12 months.

Yes, there is a contradiction between us running a “small” squad by premier league standards and relying on players with poor injury records who we may pick up cheaply as a consequence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

What does Byram's injury have to do with Lewis? I know Byram did cover at left-back last season, but he's a right-back, and I'd be amazed if Farke was actually planning on using him on the left this season barring an emergency.

I accept some people's argument that Byram did well at LB and him keeping his place when Lewis became fit was warranted but I think the idea that the club see him as a viable long term option in that position is fanciful.  City don't spend money freely and that they reportedly spent £3.5m on McCallum in January suggests that Byram isn't seen as a long term solution in that area.  City would not spend that kind money on a player just to have them as 3rd choice or even 2nd if Lewis leaves.  I also can't think that the player himself would have signed if that was the case either.

Edited by seanthecanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, seanthecanary said:

I accept some people's argument that Byram did well at LB and him keeping his place when Lewis became fit was warranted but I think the idea that the club see him as a viable long term option in that position is fanciful.  City don't spend money freely and that they reportedly spent £3.5m on McCallum in January suggests that Byram isn't seen as a long term solution in that area.  City would not spend that kind money on a player just to have them as 3rd choice or even 2nd if Lewis leaves.  I also can't think that the player himself would have signed if that was the case either.

Exactly.

I think Byram is probably going to be the starting right-back if/when Aarons leaves, but with Byram's injury record and Mumba having played next to no senior football, I think we'd need to bring in someone more reliable.

Share this post


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

Other than Byram and Drmic, which other cheap players with injury histories have we bought in the last 12 months?

What I mean is over the last 12 months we've had multiple long injury layoffs affecting players who don't have the best injury records in the first place. Players like Hanley, Klose, Byram and Drmic have been out for long periods, these are all players we acquired who had injuries before we bought them. It does allow us to pick up these players relatively cheaply, but last season injuries really affected our chances of staying up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

What I mean is over the last 12 months we've had multiple long injury layoffs affecting players who don't have the best injury records in the first place. Players like Hanley, Klose, Byram and Drmic have been out for long periods, these are all players we acquired who had injuries before we bought them. It does allow us to pick up these players relatively cheaply, but last season injuries really affected our chances of staying up.

Players are not cheap if they can't play most of the time.

Byram is a decent class player but getting half a dozen straight games out of him is always going to be a problem. Much the same can be said of several others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

What I mean is over the last 12 months we've had multiple long injury layoffs affecting players who don't have the best injury records in the first place. Players like Hanley, Klose, Byram and Drmic have been out for long periods, these are all players we acquired who had injuries before we bought them. It does allow us to pick up these players relatively cheaply, but last season injuries really affected our chances of staying up.

I honestly can't recall what Klose and Hanley's injury record were like before they came here.  Looking at Hanley's appearances at Blackburn though, he played 190 league games over 5 seasons after becoming first choice, so that's an average of 38 games a year which doesn't indicate he is any more injury prone than average.  Not sure if he just fell out of favour at Newcastle or was injured though.

Edited by seanthecanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

What I mean is over the last 12 months we've had multiple long injury layoffs affecting players who don't have the best injury records in the first place. Players like Hanley, Klose, Byram and Drmic have been out for long periods, these are all players we acquired who had injuries before we bought them. It does allow us to pick up these players relatively cheaply, but last season injuries really affected our chances of staying up.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hanley or Klose ever had any major injuries before we signed them.

Other players have, such as Trybull, Rupp and Krul, but they've all been relatively injury-free since we've had them, although Trybull did miss a chunk of the 2017/18 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s a bit like the welsh sheep sh*gger joke. You buy one Matt Jarvis and people never let you forget it!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hanley or Klose ever had any major injuries before we signed them.

Other players have, such as Trybull, Rupp and Krul, but they've all been relatively injury-free since we've had them, although Trybull did miss a chunk of the 2017/18 season.

Like I said, Hanley's playing stats don't suggest he's overly injury prone and as for Klose, I can't say I knew much about him until we actually bought him

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

×
×
  • Create New...