Ok, so a 3 man midfield does work

[Petriix 2,834]

I'll hold my hands up. I was convinced that the 3 man midfield, without a dedicated number 10, was flawed. I was wrong.

Our midfield problems seem to have been solved simply by getting the wide AMs to actually track their men and having the central midfielders mainly stay more central.

It seems they're capable of letting one of them get forward without losing positional discipline and still being there to mop up and prevent breaks.

I'm struggling to work out if it's just a motivational thing where the players are simply working harder and more cohesively, or whether the subtle tactical switches with a different style of training are more significant.

Whatever, it's working so far. Dean Smith has transformed the midfield in 1 and a half games in a way that Farke couldn't in 11.

[CardiffCanary 128]

I think it’s a bit of both … as much as I loved DF, it’s clear that Smith ( and Shakey) know this league, tactically and how to get the extra out of the same players. Exciting times 

[Mengo 820]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

I'll hold my hands up. I was convinced that the 3 man midfield, without a dedicated number 10, was flawed. I was wrong.

Our midfield problems seem to have been solved simply by getting the wide AMs to actually track their men and having the central midfielders mainly stay more central.

It seems they're capable of letting one of them get forward without losing positional discipline and still being there to mop up and prevent breaks.

I'm struggling to work out if it's just a motivational thing where the players are simply working harder and more cohesively, or whether the subtle tactical switches with a different style of training are more significant.

Whatever, it's working so far. Dean Smith has transformed the midfield in 1 and a half games in a way that Farke couldn't in 11.

The previous coaching staff were championship level . In this league were completely lost. The difference  in the players attitude and ability that is now clear for everyone to see. Night and day. 

[chicken 2,604]

32 minutes ago, Mengo said:

The previous coaching staff were championship level . In this league were completely lost. The difference  in the players attitude and ability that is now clear for everyone to see. Night and day. 

I disagree. I think this is far too simple a conclusion to draw.

I think there is more to it. I think some of it is to do with the mentality needed to get us out of the Championship and the difficulty of resetting that mentality to survive in the premier league. Both in terms of the coaching and in the players themselves.

The core of the of the squad that brought us up last season were the same players that had brought us here the season before. We lost a lot of them over last summer: Vrancic, Tettey, Leitner, Trybul, Buendia, Stiepermann, Klose... Not all were still involved directly or at all. But the likes of Vrancic, Tettey, Buendia and Stiepermann were still important for the squad if not on the pitch too.

I think what we will see, or should see, last summer as is a moment of change. It was needed, everyone at the club appears to have recognised that. We threw money at the squad, the likes of which has never been seen before. People will point to Buendia being the source of that money - despite there also being the £30m pandemic black hole. Even considering that, we are used to selling and seeing only a portion of that money put back into the squad. Webber, Farke and various players all down on record saying that things needed to be different this time.

Farke changed us to a 4-3-3. Many of us, including myself, after 5-6 games were questioning this. It wasn't working. Something just wasn't adding up. Farke cut a frustrating figure on the touch line. In post match interviews at time he broke away from what we had come to know and started to express some of that frustration - highlighting individual errors or mistakes rather than protecting them.

I want to say it was after the Chelsea result, but it may have been before or a bit later. When I started to support letting Farke go, not because he is a rubbish manager like many claimed at the time or claim now, but because the players could hide behind him to some extent and that what a change in manager could do, was not only give us a slightly different direction, but also leave the players absolutely nowhere to hide.

Sometimes the frustration becomes friction which slows the wheels of progress. With a different man at the helm, change has happened, there is no avoiding it. People have to get with the new regime and can no longer rely upon trading in good credit previously built up. Or in some cases, debt. A clean slate. No excuses. A fresh start.

I'm sure that this will be the view of a number of Villa fans too. They think fondly of Dean Smith but Gerrard has had a similar impact there.

As the old adage goes, "A change is as good as a rest." I'm sure that Farke will return to top level football somewhere in Europe. The same way Dean Smith has come here and hasn't brought any baggage with him that we can see. Sometimes you are fighting too hard when what you need is to step away, let go a bit.

It felt to me, especially towards the end of his time with us, Farke was starting to micro-manage players a bit. With Dean Smith, if his interviews are anything to go by, he's saying the players are intelligent, take on board the information and go out there and do it. For whatever reason, under Farke, it was clear they weren't.

[hogesar 9,611]

2 hours ago, Petriix said:

 

I'm struggling to work out if it's just a motivational thing where the players are simply working harder and more cohesively, or whether the subtle tactical switches with a different style of training are more significant.

 

Interesting to hear DS mention about how after 10-15 minutes he changed to a flatter midfield 3, with Kenny and Gilmour sitting a bit deeper first half and pretty much nullifying Wolves' threat. Mclean was probably our best midfielder after Rupp (unbelievable to me still that some on here dictated he was just a Farke favourite and DS wouldn't play him - he's been influential and key to the way we play under DS).

The pressing high, and aggressively with triggers really suits the likes of Kenny, Rupp and Gilmour - and in all honesty it can hide a bit of a lack of quality if it's done organised - winning the ball high up the pitch makes such a big difference when you're a weaker side and unlikely to transition through the entire pitch and create chances vs higher quality sides

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I think there is an element of players finding their feet (Rashica for example was improving before Farke left), an element of players such as Gilmour (who should have been playing) finally getting picked but I think the overriding difference is our work without the ball. I just don’t think Farke focussed on it enough or perhaps knew how to coach it properly. I think he thought packing the midfield and defence was enough but the reality was we were dropping off and still leaving players unmarked even though we had 10 men behind the ball at times. 

[Baracouda 47]

Whilst the performance was very good.

A good slice of luck as well. The mistakes that nearly led to a goal, Hanley backpass and Billy pass to Aarons. Under Farke both or at least one would have led to a goal. However, the commitment of the team to get back and cover for the mistake was much better, so its not all luck.

[Pugin 601]

It's the genius of simplicity. That's what I picked up from the game yesterday. Basically, when out of possession, if the ball is on the other side of the pitch the wide attacking players can remain in reasonable attacking positions PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE STILL BEHIND THE BALL; So simple; so effective. If we regain possession we are in a great position to counter attack. It didn't work in the first half vs Southampton because Rashica didn't know when to get back. They worked on it and it worked yesterday against a side with the maximum possible width. Genius.

Another thing. Gibson has always infuriated me with his willingness to pass back to the keeper. He has clearly been told to be braver and to stop doing it. I counted him doing it just once yesterday. 

I really look forward to Omabamidele getting a run but that's another story. 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,227]

9 hours ago, chicken said:

Sometimes the frustration becomes friction which slows the wheels of progress. With a different man at the helm, change has happened, there is no avoiding it. People have to get with the new regime and can no longer rely upon trading in good credit previously built up. Or in some cases, debt. A clean slate. No excuses. A fresh start.

This whole post is brilliant. I just quoted this bit because quoting the whole thing is annoying, but I think you've summed it up perfectly. DF was brilliant for this club, but it was time for a change. Really hope DS and CS can build on such a promising start 

[TheGunnShow 5,909]

10 hours ago, chicken said:

I disagree. I think this is far too simple a conclusion to draw.

I think there is more to it. I think some of it is to do with the mentality needed to get us out of the Championship and the difficulty of resetting that mentality to survive in the premier league. Both in terms of the coaching and in the players themselves.

The core of the of the squad that brought us up last season were the same players that had brought us here the season before. We lost a lot of them over last summer: Vrancic, Tettey, Leitner, Trybul, Buendia, Stiepermann, Klose... Not all were still involved directly or at all. But the likes of Vrancic, Tettey, Buendia and Stiepermann were still important for the squad if not on the pitch too.

I think what we will see, or should see, last summer as is a moment of change. It was needed, everyone at the club appears to have recognised that. We threw money at the squad, the likes of which has never been seen before. People will point to Buendia being the source of that money - despite there also being the £30m pandemic black hole. Even considering that, we are used to selling and seeing only a portion of that money put back into the squad. Webber, Farke and various players all down on record saying that things needed to be different this time.

Farke changed us to a 4-3-3. Many of us, including myself, after 5-6 games were questioning this. It wasn't working. Something just wasn't adding up. Farke cut a frustrating figure on the touch line. In post match interviews at time he broke away from what we had come to know and started to express some of that frustration - highlighting individual errors or mistakes rather than protecting them.

I want to say it was after the Chelsea result, but it may have been before or a bit later. When I started to support letting Farke go, not because he is a rubbish manager like many claimed at the time or claim now, but because the players could hide behind him to some extent and that what a change in manager could do, was not only give us a slightly different direction, but also leave the players absolutely nowhere to hide.

Sometimes the frustration becomes friction which slows the wheels of progress. With a different man at the helm, change has happened, there is no avoiding it. People have to get with the new regime and can no longer rely upon trading in good credit previously built up. Or in some cases, debt. A clean slate. No excuses. A fresh start.

I'm sure that this will be the view of a number of Villa fans too. They think fondly of Dean Smith but Gerrard has had a similar impact there.

As the old adage goes, "A change is as good as a rest." I'm sure that Farke will return to top level football somewhere in Europe. The same way Dean Smith has come here and hasn't brought any baggage with him that we can see. Sometimes you are fighting too hard when what you need is to step away, let go a bit.

It felt to me, especially towards the end of his time with us, Farke was starting to micro-manage players a bit. With Dean Smith, if his interviews are anything to go by, he's saying the players are intelligent, take on board the information and go out there and do it. For whatever reason, under Farke, it was clear they weren't.

Exactly. By definition, a manager who bossed the Championship twice is better than Championship level.

[Move Klose 303]

14 hours ago, Petriix said:

I'll hold my hands up. I was convinced that the 3 man midfield, without a dedicated number 10, was flawed. I was wrong.

Our midfield problems seem to have been solved simply by getting the wide AMs to actually track their men and having the central midfielders mainly stay more central.

It seems they're capable of letting one of them get forward without losing positional discipline and still being there to mop up and prevent breaks.

I'm struggling to work out if it's just a motivational thing where the players are simply working harder and more cohesively, or whether the subtle tactical switches with a different style of training are more significant.

Whatever, it's working so far. Dean Smith has transformed the midfield in 1 and a half games in a way that Farke couldn't in 11.

That's what you get when you have a coaching team who know how to actually coach and are tactically aware. Being able to act on what they see in games instead of leaving it too late.

Players looked lost under Farke and almost as if they didn't know what their job was on the pitch.

There's something to build on, whether we will be good enough to stay up is a different matter but at least there's some hope now. 

 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

12 hours ago, chicken said:

I disagree. I think this is far too simple a conclusion to draw.

I think there is more to it. I think some of it is to do with the mentality needed to get us out of the Championship and the difficulty of resetting that mentality to survive in the premier league. Both in terms of the coaching and in the players themselves.

The core of the of the squad that brought us up last season were the same players that had brought us here the season before. We lost a lot of them over last summer: Vrancic, Tettey, Leitner, Trybul, Buendia, Stiepermann, Klose... Not all were still involved directly or at all. But the likes of Vrancic, Tettey, Buendia and Stiepermann were still important for the squad if not on the pitch too.

I think what we will see, or should see, last summer as is a moment of change. It was needed, everyone at the club appears to have recognised that. We threw money at the squad, the likes of which has never been seen before. People will point to Buendia being the source of that money - despite there also being the £30m pandemic black hole. Even considering that, we are used to selling and seeing only a portion of that money put back into the squad. Webber, Farke and various players all down on record saying that things needed to be different this time.

Farke changed us to a 4-3-3. Many of us, including myself, after 5-6 games were questioning this. It wasn't working. Something just wasn't adding up. Farke cut a frustrating figure on the touch line. In post match interviews at time he broke away from what we had come to know and started to express some of that frustration - highlighting individual errors or mistakes rather than protecting them.

I want to say it was after the Chelsea result, but it may have been before or a bit later. When I started to support letting Farke go, not because he is a rubbish manager like many claimed at the time or claim now, but because the players could hide behind him to some extent and that what a change in manager could do, was not only give us a slightly different direction, but also leave the players absolutely nowhere to hide.

Sometimes the frustration becomes friction which slows the wheels of progress. With a different man at the helm, change has happened, there is no avoiding it. People have to get with the new regime and can no longer rely upon trading in good credit previously built up. Or in some cases, debt. A clean slate. No excuses. A fresh start.

I'm sure that this will be the view of a number of Villa fans too. They think fondly of Dean Smith but Gerrard has had a similar impact there.

As the old adage goes, "A change is as good as a rest." I'm sure that Farke will return to top level football somewhere in Europe. The same way Dean Smith has come here and hasn't brought any baggage with him that we can see. Sometimes you are fighting too hard when what you need is to step away, let go a bit.

It felt to me, especially towards the end of his time with us, Farke was starting to micro-manage players a bit. With Dean Smith, if his interviews are anything to go by, he's saying the players are intelligent, take on board the information and go out there and do it. For whatever reason, under Farke, it was clear they weren't.

Really good well reasoned post and I can't argue with any of it, I think in terms of mentality and how he was managing the players you've got it spot on. But another huge factor for me is that tactically Farke's system is just so wrong for a club in our position in this particular league and that was what was causing the poor results that lead to players and staff's heads all metaphorically dropping. The players always looked frustrated playing within the system. I think if we changed managers and brought in someone else who tries to play possession football we would have seen a similar jump in freshness and energy levels but we'd still be losing because we'd still be too easy to play against and it would still be so difficult for us to create clear chances.

 

This is why he had to go for me. I think he's a brilliant manager and would do really well at any top 6 ish club in a European league but for us if we want to stay up he was not the right man, it's not that he's not good enough for this league, just that it doesn't suit him and how he sets up his sides. 

 

I like to think of it as like an amateur boxer who in that level absolutely dominates his opponents on points with their skill, technique, footwork and fast hands and makes their opposition look a bit silly, then when they move up to the pro ranks they still look a good fighter but often gets knocked out at some point by a more powerful pro who doesn't look as skilled or flashy but just waits for an inevitable mistake or a bit of over exuberance and then bang, the fights over with one good punch. That's what it often felt like watching us play more established mid table PL clubs .

Edited November 28, 2021 by Christoph Stiepermann

[pete 318]

Its early days but looking good.  Need to see if this works without the defensive minded Normann, assume he won't make Newcastle.  Disciplined yesterday Rupp was good but certainly not a defensive minded player.  Need some cover at the back with Hanley trying hard enough to embarrass Tim K with defensive blunders.

[chicken 2,604]

23 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I like to think of it as like an amateur boxer who in that level absolutely dominates his opponents on points with their skill, technique, footwork and fast hands and makes their opposition look a bit silly, then when they move up to the pro ranks they still look a good fighter but often gets knocked out at some point by a more powerful pro who doesn't look as skilled or flashy but just waits for an inevitable mistake or a bit of over exuberance and then bang, the fights over with one good punch. That's what it often felt like watching us play more established mid table PL clubs .

The difference is that Farke's role is in the corner, our chaps are out there boxing. I believe Farke has helped to transform the club. He has been part of the huge amounts of change we have seen and no doubt will continue to benefit from going forward.

What is more complicated is that this is a team sport. You need the entire squad to step it up and adapt. And sometimes, that is just easier to do with a new person coming in to do it, especially if it is a drastic change to the approach previously in place for the previous 4 seasons.

Like I said, if anything, Dean Smith has shown the 4-3-3 can, and does, work. He has done it with the same personnel more or less. It tends to show that what Farke was trying to do wasn't wrong. But for a myriad of reasons, both on and off the matchday pitch, it just wasn't clicking.
 

[Mason 47 1,373]

For those of us that play Football Manager, I believe Smith has done the equivalent of switching us from 'Very Attacking' to 'Balanced'. That's all.

We're a more cohesive unit because we aren't trying to play like a u16 team piling forward at every opportunity. 

It's refreshing to come out of a home game in the PL feeling that excitable disappointment that we only got a point. Long may it continue

[king canary 7,562]

42 minutes ago, Mason 47 said:

For those of us that play Football Manager, I believe Smith has done the equivalent of switching us from 'Very Attacking' to 'Balanced'. That's all.

We're a more cohesive unit because we aren't trying to play like a u16 team piling forward at every opportunity. 

It's refreshing to come out of a home game in the PL feeling that excitable disappointment that we only got a point. Long may it continue

I don't think its quite that simple.

For me, the main difference is we're trying to win the ball back higher up the pitch. Under Farke the front 3 barely engaged the opposition defenders until they were at the halfway line so the midfield was often left totally exposed. Under Smith we're pressing teams and not letting them stroll forward 30 yards unopposed.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

17 hours ago, Mason 47 said:

For those of us that play Football Manager, I believe Smith has done the equivalent of switching us from 'Very Attacking' to 'Balanced'. That's all.

We're a more cohesive unit because we aren't trying to play like a u16 team piling forward at every opportunity. 

It's refreshing to come out of a home game in the PL feeling that excitable disappointment that we only got a point. Long may it continue

It’s not just that. It’s that the players when the opposition have the ball are doing more of the right things as well. Under Farke we would often drop 10 or 11 men behind the ball to defend but they weren’t actually marking their men or pressing at the right time. It was notable that often when teams would slice through us or find unmarked men in the box, numerically we often had more players there than them. 

[Declan 24]

22 hours ago, Pugin said:

It's the genius of simplicity. That's what I picked up from the game yesterday. Basically, when out of possession, if the ball is on the other side of the pitch the wide attacking players can remain in reasonable attacking positions PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE STILL BEHIND THE BALL; So simple; so effective. If we regain possession we are in a great position to counter attack. It didn't work in the first half vs Southampton because Rashica didn't know when to get back. They worked on it and it worked yesterday against a side with the maximum possible width. Genius.

Yes, totally agree - definitely tactical too and puts the trust back into the players.

Here he is explaining it in his very first session with the squad (should start at the right spot, if not it's 12min 56secs):

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Declan

[Grumpy 122]

Under Farke style of play we relied heavily on the ability and style of Skipp to protect our back four and when he left our desire to find another like him was to a point all consuming.

Getting Normann was hopefully the answer but it seems that the general opinion was that he didn't quite fit the mold and in the event of him getting injured we would have a problem especially as his natural replacement,Sorenson, didn't seem to fit into Farkes way of thinking.

However Normann did get injured and we spent the majority of the game with three players in midfield who would hardly be described as 'Skipp clones'.But the way Smith had them set up with the high energy pressing style worked a treat.

McLean and Rupp were excellent at regaining possession and along with Gilmour their quality when in possession gave Wolves lots of problems.

Much as I admired Farke for what he has done for us it seems to me that it was his tactics that were going to fail us not the players.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Its how you play your system that counts most surely. If you set out to defend with a 4-3-3 then you are not getting full value. If you set out to attack that way then you are getting at bit of VAT as well.

I am sure we crossed the ball more time in one game Saturday then in all the games under DF this season put together. And that gave us the opportunity to push the midfield three into positions to get the ball back after clearances. So off we went again and the second half was all pressure from us in their half of the pitch.

Of course the magical formula requires no mistakes at the back and more chances turned into goals.

[Robert N. LiM 4,227]

23 hours ago, chicken said:

I believe Farke has helped to transform the club. He has been part of the huge amounts of change we have seen and no doubt will continue to benefit from going forward.

Strongly agree with this. Smith has made such clear improvements in such a short space of time that it's easy to focus on DF's weaknesses. But I was struck how impressed Smith has been with the quality of the squad and with their fitness levels. Add to that DF's amazing work with our young players and it's clear that he left a very strong foundation for Smith to build on. I wouldn't be surprised if those foundations are a big reason of why he took the job.

[BigFish 1,986]

On 27/11/2021 at 22:12, Petriix said:

I'll hold my hands up. I was convinced that the 3 man midfield, without a dedicated number 10, was flawed. I was wrong.

Our midfield problems seem to have been solved simply by getting the wide AMs to actually track their men and having the central midfielders mainly stay more central.

It seems they're capable of letting one of them get forward without losing positional discipline and still being there to mop up and prevent breaks.

I'm struggling to work out if it's just a motivational thing where the players are simply working harder and more cohesively, or whether the subtle tactical switches with a different style of training are more significant.

Whatever, it's working so far. Dean Smith has transformed the midfield in 1 and a half games in a way that Farke couldn't in 11.

Shows what you know @Petriix 😉. Like you I didn't think we could make 433 work here with the players we had. I was different from you in that I didn't think playing without a 10 was an issue, I thought that without either two central midfielders or a third CB we were too soft centrally.  Seems like we don't need the dual unicorns of a 10 or a CDM afterall, just a coach who knows what he is doing.

[Petriix 2,834]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

Shows what you know @Petriix 😉. Like you I didn't think we could make 433 work here with the players we had. I was different from you in that I didn't think playing without a 10 was an issue, I thought that without either two central midfielders or a third CB we were too soft centrally.  Seems like we don't need the dual unicorns of a 10 or a CDM afterall, just a coach who knows what he is doing.

I suppose my point was that we needed the two other CMs (who weren't the number 10) to really know that they weren't the number 10 so that they definitely did remain defensively disciplined. It turns out that two out of the three seem to be able to maintain the positional discipline without having such specific roles. The way we got it so wrong in those opening games (particularly Leicester, Arsenal and Watford) made it seem impossible to me. I was wrong, blinded by my love for Farke and his 'topics'.

I guess ultimately we weren't concentrated enough.