Ben Lee’s analysis

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 hours ago, king canary said:

I do struggle to see how this gameplan is sustainable to be honest.

According to Whoscored 42% of the Hull game was played in our final third while 19% took place in theirs, while vs Southampton a staggering 47% took part in our final third, 14% in theirs. 

You might get away with it for a game or two but eventually putting your defence under such constant pressure will tell, as will relying on your players to score lots of low % chances.

Agree in essence but we're often creating clearer chances on the counter, we certainly created clearer chances against Hull than they did against us. We're just not consistently accurate enough on the counter to be a more regular threat. 

So I'd say we're more about getting some better-quality chances. Rowe's splendid solo effort is more of an exception. It's clear to me that Wagner's decided "let's play on the counter-attack" with the aim of bringing the opposition out, rather than trying to winkle them out.

[Barham Blitz 653]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Agree in essence but we're often creating clearer chances on the counter, we certainly created clearer chances against Hull than they did against us. We're just not consistently accurate enough on the counter to be a more regular threat. 

So I'd say we're more about getting some better-quality chances. Rowe's splendid solo effort is more of an exception. It's clear to me that Wagner's decided "let's play on the counter-attack" with the aim of bringing the opposition out, rather than trying to winkle them out.

Whilst I'm certainly not a fan of Wagner's approach, I think that this is probably fairly close to the reality.  Given the defensive resources available to him which - with the potential exception of a fit Hanley - are really not suited to a high line but which are perfect for a low block, it could just be a more pragmatic approach.  Almost more of a Mourinho anti-possession approach than the Klopp-lite pressing that we saw earlier in the season but which was rendered pretty much unworkable by centre back pairings that can't condense the midfield space with a high line because they are too vulnerable to pace.

That said, it would still be nice if we could occasionally pass to a yellow shirt on the counter ...

[repman 635]

It feels like everyone on this thread has zeroed in on the last game and chosen to ignore the sentence in the original post. Lee's analysis charts the course from the start of the season - where we had clear processes in how we played - up to now, where I'm not sure there's any area of our play that shows a repeatable pattern. It's the failure to develop those early processes which have led us to this point. 

This was most obvious in our possession play this year. At the start of the season we had our 2 strikers dropping deep to form a box in midfield, and it was working very well. That was until teams started to push up a CB to follow one to ensure we didn't have the numerical superiority. From that point onwards we have essentially devolved into a much worse possession side, shedding the principle at the first sign of failure. 

It may be the case that Lee is putting too much emphasis on possession, but in general I think his point is not that we simply don't have enough of the ball, it's that when we do have the ball we are ineffective with it. Of course that does lead to us having less of the ball in the game so it's a bit of a vicious circle. 

Overall, the way we've played in the last 2 games is not a way that tends to achieve results in this division. In the short term it might get you a result but the end product is often not a side which can win over half its games in this league. I'm not sure you can point to a side that has got promoted playing this way. It's also not like it's only the last 2 games, they're just more extreme variations on a theme we've seen going back 2/3 months. When was the last time we went away from home and looked like we were trying to win the game?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, Barham Blitz said:

Whilst I'm certainly not a fan of Wagner's approach, I think that this is probably fairly close to the reality.  Given the defensive resources available to him which - with the potential exception of a fit Hanley - are really not suited to a high line but which are perfect for a low block, it could just be a more pragmatic approach.  Almost more of a Mourinho anti-possession approach than the Klopp-lite pressing that we saw earlier in the season but which was rendered pretty much unworkable by centre back pairings that can't condense the midfield space with a high line because they are too vulnerable to pace.

That said, it would still be nice if we could occasionally pass to a yellow shirt on the counter ...

As someone whose favourite coaches are Egil Olsen and Helenio Herrera I like dour, low blocks and generally absolutely gunking the works up if I realise I don't have a very functional team at that moment, or if we have plenty of pace and/or power on the counter. Or in Egil Olsen's case, stick a really tall **** on one wing, an even taller **** on the other, and get ready for a fusillade of raking diagonals aimed at said rangy **** and let's try to pile up on the counter off the back of it. Or better still, get a looping flick-on that might set the striker away.

That was pretty much what he did in his first stint as Norway manager. It worked bloody well really considering he didn't exactly have loads of top-tier talent at his disposal (yet with Henning Berg and Ronny Johnsen, he had two excellent centre-halves and in Rune Bratseth, the best damn player Norway ever had, was also in the heart of defence). 

[Google Bot 3,278]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

it was a huge theme in the games leading up to our slump earlier in the season that teams were having circa 20 shots against us per match. We have not addressed that and until we do, good results will not be sustainable.

Well, we're 2 points from top six despite a woeful injury problem to key players first half of the season, of which that slump was a part of.  So no results are not always sustainable when you have a slim squad and you get injuries, but we were all very much aware of that during pre-season.

But how do you define 'good results' and sustainability, are you saying that we can't sustain our current 1.4 pts/game average this season, or simply looking at the past two results and saying we can't maintain a 2 pts/game average?   It's all very well people using the term, but there needs to be a sense of objectivity behind what they actually mean by it.

If it's whether we can sustain a rate of 2 pts/game then it's clear that improvements are needed, but I think we should see that purely on the basis of players returning and us able to get back to the original plan.

There's one part of me that believes that we could be in the top 4 performing teams this second half of the season, and there's another part that just thinks there's a cloud over the club and we're unable to snap out of it.  I'm really torn between my head and my heart on the subject.

Edited January 16 by Google Bot

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Being 'sustainable' is this season's buzz word. Earlier in the season having to score "at least three goals to win a game" wasn't sustainable. Now it's conceding less than a goal a game isn't sustainable.

What are we searching for?

[Jim Smith 2,322]

19 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Being 'sustainable' is this season's buzz word. Earlier in the season having to score "at least three goals to win a game" wasn't sustainable. Now it's conceding less than a goal a game isn't sustainable.

What are we searching for?

What we are searching for Nutty is to see our team play well and not have to set up and play like a league 1 team playing against Man City in order to take points off  (or not at the case may be) some pretty average sides in the championship. 

[hogesar 9,676]

56 minutes ago, repman said:

It feels like everyone on this thread has zeroed in on the last game and chosen to ignore the sentence in the original post. Lee's analysis charts the course from the start of the season - where we had clear processes in how we played - up to now, where I'm not sure there's any area of our play that shows a repeatable pattern. It's the failure to develop those early processes which have led us to this point. 

This was most obvious in our possession play this year. At the start of the season we had our 2 strikers dropping deep to form a box in midfield, and it was working very well. That was until teams started to push up a CB to follow one to ensure we didn't have the numerical superiority. From that point onwards we have essentially devolved into a much worse possession side, shedding the principle at the first sign of failure. 

It may be the case that Lee is putting too much emphasis on possession, but in general I think his point is not that we simply don't have enough of the ball, it's that when we do have the ball we are ineffective with it. Of course that does lead to us having less of the ball in the game so it's a bit of a vicious circle. 

Overall, the way we've played in the last 2 games is not a way that tends to achieve results in this division. In the short term it might get you a result but the end product is often not a side which can win over half its games in this league. I'm not sure you can point to a side that has got promoted playing this way. It's also not like it's only the last 2 games, they're just more extreme variations on a theme we've seen going back 2/3 months. When was the last time we went away from home and looked like we were trying to win the game?

I agree with the bit in bold but I do think Ben regularly falls into the trap of possession = control of a game. 

There's no doubt on the ball we're really careless and struggle to keep it, if anything our quick-counterattacks are almost forced upon us because we have no repeatable shapes in transition to build up patiently.

One thing I disagree with is the notion from some (not necessarily Ben) that Wagner set's us up not wanting to be better on the ball. That's obviously not true, because he's criticised our play on the ball and our players have too. Also, you wouldn't play Nunez over the likes of Gibbs unless you were wanting to play a bit more football.

Obviously, a fair argument from that is if Wagner does want us to have more of the ball and be better on it then he's failing more than if it was him intending to not play much.

Edited January 16 by hogesar

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I agree with the bit in bold but I do think Ben regularly falls into the trap of possession = control of a game. 

There's no doubt on the ball we're really careless and struggle to keep it, if anything our quick-counterattacks are almost forced upon us because we have no repeatable shapes in transition to build up patiently.

One thing I disagree with is the notion from some (not necessarily Ben) that Wagner set's us up not wanting to be better on the ball. That's obviously not true, because he's criticised our play on the ball and our players have too. Also, you wouldn't play Nunez over the likes of Gibbs unless you were wanting to play a bit more football.

Obviously, a fair argument from that is if Wagner does want us to have more of the ball and be better on it then he's failing more than if it was him intending to not play much.

That said, that Hull pitch was a veritable bobble bath. I'd argue that sort of potato patch is the kind of game where your game should be as anti-football as possible, and especially for a team that's lacking in confidence or not in great form. Pretty passing always looks easy on the eye and possession does aid control of games, but there are games where it's far harder to pull off.

That sort of playing surface is a prime example as there's even less margin for error to get things right.

There's plenty to criticise Wagner in terms of our performance on the ball, but I hope most can now finally see that we do have a semblance of a Plan B now, at least.

[nutty nigel 7,537]

11 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

What we are searching for Nutty is to see our team play well and not have to set up and play like a league 1 team playing against Man City in order to take points off  (or not at the case may be) some pretty average sides in the championship. 

I'd believe you if you'd said 'to see our team win and play well'. I'd believe you if you'd said 'to see our team win'. I don't believe you just want to 'see our team play well'.

 

[Move Klose 303]

4 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Wow. That’s clever.

 

 

Sorry but your view is like something from 80s/90s football, the games moved on from chucking 11 men on the pitch 4-4-2 and hope your striker/star player delivers.

If you are genuinely watching our games and think this style is sustainable then I'm not sure what you're watching.

Read the article and there's Alot of good points raised about how there things we were doing that if Hull would've picked up on would've punished us, which better sides will.

[Move Klose 303]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

That said, that Hull pitch was a veritable bobble bath. I'd argue that sort of potato patch is the kind of game where your game should be as anti-football as possible, and especially for a team that's lacking in confidence or not in great form. Pretty passing always looks easy on the eye and possession does aid control of games, but there are games where it's far harder to pull off.

That sort of playing surface is a prime example as there's even less margin for error to get things right.

There's plenty to criticise Wagner in terms of our performance on the ball, but I hope most can now finally see that we do have a semblance of a Plan B now, at least.

Tbf the point was raised in the commentary on radio Norfolk that the pitch wasn't as bad as it looked on TV, a bit bare in patches but flat.

[Move Klose 303]

2 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Well, we're 2 points from top six despite a woeful injury problem to key players first half of the season, of which that slump was a part of.  So no results are not always sustainable when you have a slim squad and you get injuries, but we were all very much aware of that during pre-season.

But how do you define 'good results' and sustainability, are you saying that we can't sustain our current 1.4 pts/game average this season, or simply looking at the past two results and saying we can't maintain a 2 pts/game average?   It's all very well people using the term, but there needs to be a sense of objectivity behind what they actually mean by it.

If it's whether we can sustain a rate of 2 pts/game then it's clear that improvements are needed, but I think we should see that purely on the basis of players returning and us able to get back to the original plan.

There's one part of me that believes that we could be in the top 4 performing teams this second half of the season, and there's another part that just thinks there's a cloud over the club and we're unable to snap out of it.  I'm really torn between my head and my heart on the subject.

Averaging 1.4 points a game gets you a league finish of around 11th/12th. Wagner throughout his managerial career has been a streaky manager. Can put together a run of good results and then follow that up with a run of bad results. That all ends in midtable mediocrity unfortunately.

[Google Bot 3,278]

49 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

Wagner throughout his managerial career has been a streaky manager. Can put together a run of good results and then follow that up with a run of bad results. That all ends in midtable mediocrity unfortunately.

Other than his last full Championship season which ended in promotion, of course?

I still maintain that injuries have gone against him, both in the first half of this season, and second half of last.

Edited January 16 by Google Bot

[hogesar 9,676]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

That said, that Hull pitch was a veritable bobble bath. I'd argue that sort of potato patch is the kind of game where your game should be as anti-football as possible, and especially for a team that's lacking in confidence or not in great form. Pretty passing always looks easy on the eye and possession does aid control of games, but there are games where it's far harder to pull off.

That sort of playing surface is a prime example as there's even less margin for error to get things right.

There's plenty to criticise Wagner in terms of our performance on the ball, but I hope most can now finally see that we do have a semblance of a Plan B now, at least.

It was, and in isolation I think the Hull result was a good one and the performance better than being made out. Its because the lack of control in possession has been a repeatable thing. 

We arent under Farke so we're not going to have 58% away from home most games. I think some are really struggling with that.

But our 36% vs Hull should have been more like 45% if we can take a bit more care with the ball and create transitions where the person on the ball has more than a single option. Suddenly the perception from fans would be greater control. 

In reality we created the three best chances vs Hull and one of our goals didn't even come from those. If we can defend and force teams into longer range efforts and crossing onto Duffys head all game, particularly away from home then I have no problem with that. But then we need to deliver more dominating home performances for fans to start to see something.

Worth noting that Farkes first season, there were clear improvements after January but a lot of posters refused to accept it and claimed we were just happy clapping. Of course the second season happened and...

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

3 hours ago, Move Klose said:

Sorry but your view is like something from 80s/90s football, the games moved on from chucking 11 men on the pitch 4-4-2 and hope your striker/star player delivers.

If you are genuinely watching our games and think this style is sustainable then I'm not sure what you're watching.

Read the article and there's Alot of good points raised about how there things we were doing that if Hull would've picked up on would've punished us, which better sides will.

Interesting you seem to think you know  ‘what my view is’ just because I don’t agree with some of the points made.  

Any other insights you want to assume?

Edited January 16 by Branston Pickle

[repman 635]

6 hours ago, hogesar said:

I agree with the bit in bold but I do think Ben regularly falls into the trap of possession = control of a game. 

There's no doubt on the ball we're really careless and struggle to keep it, if anything our quick-counterattacks are almost forced upon us because we have no repeatable shapes in transition to build up patiently.

One thing I disagree with is the notion from some (not necessarily Ben) that Wagner set's us up not wanting to be better on the ball. That's obviously not true, because he's criticised our play on the ball and our players have too. Also, you wouldn't play Nunez over the likes of Gibbs unless you were wanting to play a bit more football.

Obviously, a fair argument from that is if Wagner does want us to have more of the ball and be better on it then he's failing more than if it was him intending to not play much.

I think you can control a game with less possession than your opponent but I'm not sure we've really controlled the game in a sustainable manner. That's the key point for me, there might be a positive outcome in isolation but it's not a way to be successful over a longer period. 

As to your point about Wagner wanting us to be better on the ball I think you answered it yourself. He says he wants us to be (he says a lot of things) but I think everyone on this forum does. Saying what you want and coaching it are two different things, and Wagner appears to struggle with the latter.

[Mason 47 1,381]

Can't be denied that we are still picking up points, however I think the issues with control/sustainability are what makes Wagner 'streaky'. With the exception of Southampton, which was very obviously deployed to stop the opposition, I don't ever come away feeling like we were the driving force behind a result. It rather comes down to how effective the other team are and if one of our attackers has a moment of magic to pop out or not. Hull weren't very effective in the final third and we had 4 big moments go our way.

I'd like to see a change in the way we play that finds Sara, Sainz, Rowe etc clocking more of their running miles in possession in the final third. Being as we don't have the centre mid assets to cover such an idea I'd suggest not positioning both fullbacks as wide attackers constantly might be prudent. 

 

Edited January 17 by Mason 47