Finding myself confused by Smiths tactical schizophrenia

[Jim Smith 2,339]

I like Dean Smith, think he generally speaks a lot of sense and his post match comments often reflect how I’ve seen a game. In fairness to him, he’s often had his hands tied in terms of options available to him.

But tonight joins a couple of other games (and sadly mainly winnable games) where I just can’t work out tactically what he was thinking or certainly why he didn’t change it early when things were clearly going wrong.

Now Southampton we’re faster, fitter and stronger than us all over the pitch in a way that showed up Webber big time once again. But even so, why go to a team who we know press intensively, high up the pitch and just repeatedly allow them to pin you in the corner by playing short goal kicks to Gibson then giving the ball away in your own half. We must have done it 25 times tonight. And we haven’t done it in other games recently so it was a deliberate tactic. Just don’t understand. 

[shefcanary 2,444]

The playing out from the back was an issue, but in the end didn't contribute directly to the goals conceded.  That was down to Hanley and Dowell going run about rather than considering properly where the danger lay! 

However it maybe lead to the fact we didn't score?  But think that was more down to Rashica being asked to do too much defensively that he was never free to attack, and because Sargent (God bless him, ruffle his ginger curls, squeeze his dimpled cheeks) is just not up to it.  As for Gilmour, world class my ****!

Edited February 26, 2022 by shefcanary

[hogesar 9,720]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

The playing out from the back was an issue, but in the end didn't contribute directly to the goals conceded.  That was down to Hanley and Dowell going run about rather than considering properly where the danger lay! 

However it maybe lead to the fact we didn't score?  But think that was more down to Rashica being asked to do too much defensively that he was never free to attack, and because Sargent (God bless him, ruffle his ginger curls, squeeze his dimpled cheeks) is just not up to it.  As for Gilmour, world class my ****!

Didnt help they could overload defensively on Rashicas wing because they knew Sargent offered little to no threat beyond winning the first header.

[canarybubbles 1,936]

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I like Dean Smith, think he generally speaks a lot of sense and his post match comments often reflect how I’ve seen a game. In fairness to him, he’s often had his hands tied in terms of options available to him.

But tonight joins a couple of other games (and sadly mainly winnable games) where I just can’t work out tactically what he was thinking or certainly why he didn’t change it early when things were clearly going wrong.

Now Southampton we’re faster, fitter and stronger than us all over the pitch in a way that showed up Webber big time once again. But even so, why go to a team who we know press intensively, high up the pitch and just repeatedly allow them to pin you in the corner by playing short goal kicks to Gibson then giving the ball away in your own half. We must have done it 25 times tonight. And we haven’t done it in other games recently so it was a deliberate tactic. Just don’t understand. 

 

I agree totally. The farting around at the back was clearly a deliberate tactic which reminded me of the worst aspects of 'Farkeball'. Except with Farke, the players were at least trying to beat the press and play through it. But last night all that happened was the press got tighter, so eventually we hoofed the ball upfield. If we're going to do that, we may as well just hoof it in the first place, especially as Gunn's kicking is actually very good on the whole.

Tactically, Smith was completely out-thought by Hasenhuttl and had no idea how to counteract his strategy.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

 

I agree totally. The farting around at the back was clearly a deliberate tactic which reminded me of the worst aspects of 'Farkeball'. Except with Farke, the players were at least trying to beat the press and play through it. But last night all that happened was the press got tighter, so eventually we hoofed the ball upfield. If we're going to do that, we may as well just hoof it in the first place, especially as Gunn's kicking is actually very good on the whole.

Tactically, Smith was completely out-thought by Hasenhuttl and had no idea how to counteract his strategy.

But what I don’t understand is why he was out thought when Southampton did exactly what we know they do. They didn’t change how they play at all. It was not a clever bit of tactical adjustment by Hassenhuttl. They are fast, they are strong and they press you aggressively all over the pitch but particularly high up the pitch.

We haven’t been doing this ludicrous tactic where Hanley and Gibson line up behind or level with the keeper for goal kicks recently so it must have been deliberately implemented for this game and indeed we still kept doing it after it had resulted in us losing possession in dangerous areas multiple times, like at Man City away. At best it often ended up with us defending a throw in.

I can only presume the idea was to try and beat that press and then break at pace but it failed, embarrassingly. 

[Ken Hairy 3,779]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

 

I agree totally. The farting around at the back was clearly a deliberate tactic which reminded me of the worst aspects of 'Farkeball'. Except with Farke, the players were at least trying to beat the press and play through it. But last night all that happened was the press got tighter, so eventually we hoofed the ball upfield. If we're going to do that, we may as well just hoof it in the first place, especially as Gunn's kicking is actually very good on the whole.

Tactically, Smith was completely out-thought by Hasenhuttl and had no idea how to counteract his strategy.

Totally agreed, I thought for one minute that Farke was back in the dugout. Terrible tactics last night that I simply didn't get. 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,058]

We have these tactical analysis on this board regularly. I think the answer is much simpler... with a midfield in which McLean plays week in week out you will lose the vast majority of Premier League games. 

[CardiffCanary 131]

The goal kicks last night we’re ridiculous… I can’t even remember Southampton having a goal kick, so they must’ve done something with them.  All we did was invite more pressure like the worst days of Daniel as someone has pointed out.

[SwearyCanary 1,179]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

But what I don’t understand is why he was out thought when Southampton did exactly what we know they do. They didn’t change how they play at all. It was not a clever bit of tactical adjustment by Hassenhuttl. They are fast, they are strong and they press you aggressively all over the pitch but particularly high up the pitch.

We haven’t been doing this ludicrous tactic where Hanley and Gibson line up behind or level with the keeper for goal kicks recently so it must have been deliberately implemented for this game and indeed we still kept doing it after it had resulted in us losing possession in dangerous areas multiple times, like at Man City away. At best it often ended up with us defending a throw in.

I can only presume the idea was to try and beat that press and then break at pace but it failed, embarrassingly. 

To be honest the first half v Southampton at home was exactly the same when arguably they should’ve been away by half time. Same as Crystal Palace where the draw flattered us to say the least. Won’t suggest it’s necessarily awful tactics, but perhaps what Smith feels gives us a vague hope of getting them with a hopeful long ball or a set piece. I must confess I don’t know how he set up Brentford and Villa in the past, I’m hoping it’s not like he sets us up and that with us he is doing a patch up job of sorts. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

We never do anything different either. Its just plod on with the same and hope it comes right.

It was obvious last night that we were overloaded on both flanks with their two outstanding attacking full backs. Neither Rashica or Sargent have what it takes to cover. So our midfield got stretched time after time. And when we cleared it, poor old Teemu was on his own.

Why he didn't put Rupp on after 20 minutes was bewildering. Then go 4-4-2 and push further up the pitch. But we laboured away with the same formation for way too long and too late.

[Captain Holt 522]

I honestly think Smith will leave in the summer. I don't think he's taken to us and I certainly don't think we've taken to him.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

40 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

I honestly think Smith will leave in the summer. I don't think he's taken to us and I certainly don't think we've taken to him.

 

40 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

I honestly think Smith will leave in the summer. I don't think he's taken to us and I certainly don't think we've taken to him.

Overall I like him and think he’s good. What o don’t get is why we changed our tactics yesterday to something that so obviously wasn’t working and played into their hands. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

The thing that baffled me was that we kept doing it. Seemed fair enough as a tactic, try and beat their press then break at pace. But given it wasn't working, why we kept doing it, especially after half time, was beyond me.

On a broader level, I guess it's what happens as a coach when you know you almost always have the weaker team. You have to try to be clever to win games against better opposition and can end up being too clever by half. I would have been tempted to go 424, have two midfielders just sitting in front of the back four, then go long at every opportunity to Milot, Teemu, Josh and PP. Couldn't have been worse.

 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

One other gripe from last night. They had 3 or 4 players completely unmarked just outside the box at every set piece or cross. To be honest it was a miracle that they only scored from that scenario at the end as they had about 15 situations where a decent shot from the edge of the area would most likely have seen them score. 

[Bovril 219]

I agree with the main point being made here by everyone re: passing out at the back against a high-press team. It continues to be bizarre how we don't aim all our goal-kicks out wide to Sargent. 

Whilst Sargent was generally poor last night, the one thing he can do on a consistent basis is win his headers/flick-ons, especially against fullbacks rather than the bigger centre-backs. This would then give Pukki something meaningful to chase, knowing that Sargent would win at least 70/30 of those headers. It would also prevent the ridiculous situation of putting us under immediate pressure from trying to pass out of the back. It seems such an obvious, quick, easy adaption to make which would immediately help us offensively and defensively.

[Bovril 219]

13 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

One other gripe from last night. They had 3 or 4 players completely unmarked just outside the box at every set piece or cross. To be honest it was a miracle that they only scored from that scenario at the end as they had about 15 situations where a decent shot from the edge of the area would most likely have seen them score. 

You weren't the only one to notice that...

Southamptong goalscorer Oriol Romeu to Sky Sports: "Norwich didn’t have any player on the edge of the box so I knew we’d have chances.

[Robert N. LiM 4,464]

21 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

One other gripe from last night. They had 3 or 4 players completely unmarked just outside the box at every set piece or cross. To be honest it was a miracle that they only scored from that scenario at the end as they had about 15 situations where a decent shot from the edge of the area would most likely have seen them score. 

This is particularly bizarre because it's hard to imagine what Pukki or Gilmour add to our defence in the six-yard box against set pieces. Surely one of them would be better off on the edge of the box to at least make a nuisance of themselves if the ball comes out there. As you say, a goal from the edge of the box following a set piece was almost inevitable last night.

[(Hoola)Han Solo 324]

To be fair to DS we did look half threatening , early in the first half and late in the second. But it all comes down to a compete lack of quality in the final third. We lack a player to get hold of the ball and make a forward thinking move. As soon as we get anywhere dangerous we’ve run out of ideas. I think this is the least creative NCFC squad I’ve seen for about 10 or 11 years.

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

Smith has had to go with pragmatic tactics.

For example, Saints are renowned for their dead ball ability so we loaded the 6-yard box to get It clear - they actually created very little from their corners or the clearances.

Their first goal was bad luck on our part, the second would not have happened had we been drawing; in between they did have chances but very few real goal scoring ones. Gunn made only one ‘real’ save, the rest were regulation.  We were far from at our best, but to pin it on bad tactics misses the point of where we are.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Jim Smith 2,339]

2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Smith has had to go with pragmatic tactics.

For example, Saints are renowned for their dead ball ability so we loaded the 6-yard box to get It clear - they actually created very little from their corners or the clearances.

Their first goal was bad luck on our part, the second would not have happened had we been drawing; in between they did have chances but very few real goal scoring ones. Gunn made only one ‘real’ save, the rest were regulation.  We were far from at our best, but to pin it on bad tactics misses the point of where we are.

If their shooting from distance was better and/or a few shots had not gone straight at Gunn it could have been a rout. They had 27 shots at goal. Yes we had a couple of chances but our continued attempts to play slowly through their intense press bent we had very little decent possession or territory. 

[Don’t be Krul 399]

For all the tactical analysis last night and in most other games we've been beaten (although this is not the only reason) by opponents who can easily bypass our weak and unathletic midfield.4-3-3 / 4-5-1 does not work with the personnel we have

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

22 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

If their shooting from distance was better and/or a few shots had not gone straight at Gunn it could have been a rout. They had 27 shots at goal. Yes we had a couple of chances but our continued attempts to play slowly through their intense press bent we had very little decent possession or territory. 

Precisely - long range shots rarely go in, and limiting sides to those is usually considered a measure of relative success. 

[HertsCanary93 222]

He found a system that worked for us in a 442 but the club refused to sign the personnel to give us the depth to play it.

One injury to Idah and suddenly we're forced to play a 451 that we have never looked good playing at this level.

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by HertsCanary93

[Jim Smith 2,339]

59 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Precisely - long range shots rarely go in, and limiting sides to those is usually considered a measure of relative success. 

These werent “long range” though. 

[City Stand Ultra 41]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Precisely - long range shots rarely go in, and limiting sides to those is usually considered a measure of relative success. 

their expected goals was 3.09 so the tactics we employed resulted in a team creating enough chances that they should have scored at least 3 goals.  That should not be considered a success by any measure.

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

27 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

their expected goals was 3.09 so the tactics we employed resulted in a team creating enough chances that they should have scored at least 3 goals.  That should not be considered a success by any measure.

That expected goals measure is utter ****, though,as every supporter knows.  It’s one that is constantly proven to be ridiculous given the actual goals scored are there for all to see.

Edited February 26, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[Monty13 2,241]

4 hours ago, Bovril said:

I agree with the main point being made here by everyone re: passing out at the back against a high-press team. It continues to be bizarre how we don't aim all our goal-kicks out wide to Sargent. 

Whilst Sargent was generally poor last night, the one thing he can do on a consistent basis is win his headers/flick-ons, especially against fullbacks rather than the bigger centre-backs. This would then give Pukki something meaningful to chase, knowing that Sargent would win at least 70/30 of those headers. It would also prevent the ridiculous situation of putting us under immediate pressure from trying to pass out of the back. It seems such an obvious, quick, easy adaption to make which would immediately help us offensively and defensively.

Sargent and McClean are both good in the air, I agree we were better going long and should have been trying to hit one of those two.

[Capt. Pants 4,273]

Meanwhile Knutsen takes Bodo Glimt from strength to strength. 

Webber didn't want to wait until January but I just wonder if we've made the wrong appointment here.

Lose next week and we're pretty much down in the first week of March. Each time I start to gain confidence in Smith, we take a massive backwards step.

[canarybubbles 1,936]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

Meanwhile Knutsen takes Bodo Glimt from strength to strength. 

Webber didn't want to wait until January but I just wonder if we've made the wrong appointment here.

Lose next week and we're pretty much down in the first week of March. Each time I start to gain confidence in Smith, we take a massive backwards step.

 

Yes, we've missed that boat now. He'll go to a far bigger club than Norwich when he finally leaves Bodo Glimt.

More success from Webber.

[paddycanary 539]

5 hours ago, Bovril said:

You weren't the only one to notice that...

Southamptong goalscorer Oriol Romeu to Sky Sports: "Norwich didn’t have any player on the edge of the box so I knew we’d have chances.

I don't think you would need coaching badges to see over the course of that game that leaving no one on the edge of the box repeatedly was very risky. You have to mix it up and keep the opposition guessing. I called it last night and sadly was proven correct. Cracking finish, but for the majority of the match, the space they seemed to have in front of & around our box was criminal. I remember wondering how we were still in the game when we had a bit of a bright spell in the second half.