Best Result and Performance of the Season.

[Nik Vawn 136]

I think most fans that were at the game will have enjoyed that, I certainly did, well done lads, really good performance against a decent play off rival.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,294]

6 minutes ago, Nik Vawn said:

I think most fans that were at the game will have enjoyed that, I certainly did, well done lads, really good performance against a decent play off rival.

Agreed.. and seemed less empty seats than recent weeks too.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,171]

4 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I think there wasn't an individual who played badly today and, on the whole, the players did a great job of plugging the gaps left by the questionable system. But I'll reiterate that playing 4-2-4 with overlapping fullbacks is a kamikaze plan. 

Here's a photo I took during the first half. If you zoom in you can see our fullbacks near the halfway line on opposite touchlines while our wingers are either side of the centre circle. Our strikers have dropped slightly deeper but it's pretty much a front 6. The ball is inside our own box. To me that's utterly insane.

 

It may be "utterly insane" to you, but to generations of football coaches it's perfectly natural and understandable. When you've got the ball you try to MAKE THE PITCH AS BIG AS POSSIBLE. Not literally as in make the actual piece of grass longer or wider, but by spreading your players out to make more space in between them, so more space to move the ball around in and to play in. Yes, you have to have confidence in your skill levels on the ball and in the ability of your players to move around and get free in those spaces. We played the ball out from the back any number of times today and regularly got up the pitch by doing so. It never once went wrong and led to an opposition chance did it? 

It's certainly not the only way to play, but it's a universally recognised option as one way to play. Worked pretty well for Daniel Farke in the Championship didn't it? Working pretty damn well for Russell Martin at Southampton isn't it? Works passably well for Pep Guardiola too so I'm led to believe. 

[Petriix 2,847]

There's a difference between making the pitch big and absolutely abandoning the midfield. McLean drops between the back 2 leaving Sara on his own in the middle. The exact same tactical masterstroke that saw Forshaw isolated in the home draw with Bristol Rovers. 

I have no issue with passing out from the back, but I seriously question playing with one in midfield when most teams have three. There were numerous occasions where we lost the ball (mostly through a lack of options because our team was too spread out) and struggled to get bodies back quickly enough (because our starting positions were so high). 

Don't claim that this is how Farke or Russell Martin set their teams up. Farke never sacrificed a midfielder for a second striker or made one of his midfielders drop so deep. Farke's initial system relied on high fullbacks but essentially had two 8s behind a dynamic trio of 10s and a lone striker. Later it became more defensively solid by morphing into a more vertical three of a 6, 8 and (slightly deeper) 10.

Wagner's system regularly leaves us facing overloads in the key central area which allows teams to drive forwards and cut through us with ease. We saw a decent level of individual effort to plug the gaps which regularly appeared today. We looked far more coherent once we put the extra man back in midfield and took the second striker off. That's how we should be setting up from the outset. 

[Nuff Said 5,156]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

No.

Purple, many more of these ultra-terse posts and we’ll have to start calling you the anti-Parma.

[astro 366]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

No.

Yes. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,171]

40 minutes ago, Petriix said:

There's a difference between making the pitch big and absolutely abandoning the midfield. McLean drops between the back 2 leaving Sara on his own in the middle. The exact same tactical masterstroke that saw Forshaw isolated in the home draw with Bristol Rovers. 

I have no issue with passing out from the back, but I seriously question playing with one in midfield when most teams have three. There were numerous occasions where we lost the ball (mostly through a lack of options because our team was too spread out) and struggled to get bodies back quickly enough (because our starting positions were so high). 

Don't claim that this is how Farke or Russell Martin set their teams up. Farke never sacrificed a midfielder for a second striker or made one of his midfielders drop so deep. Farke's initial system relied on high fullbacks but essentially had two 8s behind a dynamic trio of 10s and a lone striker. Later it became more defensively solid by morphing into a more vertical three of a 6, 8 and (slightly deeper) 10.

Wagner's system regularly leaves us facing overloads in the key central area which allows teams to drive forwards and cut through us with ease. We saw a decent level of individual effort to plug the gaps which regularly appeared today. We looked far more coherent once we put the extra man back in midfield and took the second striker off. That's how we should be setting up from the outset. 

But the picture you posted and the point you made related to a specific circumstance didn't it? That is when when we had a goalkick and Gunn started it off by playing it short to Duffy or Gibson. We're actually very good at doing that and it's obvious that it's drilled into them. I repeat - we did it a number of times today - most times we progressed the ball up the pitch well and we never gave the ball away in a dangerous area by so doing.

However, you may have noticed that about 10 minutes into the second half we stopped doing that and Gunn started taking the goalkicks long instead. This was in response to West Brom (who were chasing the game) starting to put more men forward into the press when we had a goalkick. I assume that this instruction came from the sideline, but it may just have been the players recognising the changing situation and adapting accordingly. Either way, it was a welcome piece of pragmatism at the right time and a sign of a well coached team. 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 451]

6 hours ago, Petriix said:

while we scored our only two real openings. 

There was at least one more, when Giannoulis fluffed his lines.

[Well b back 3,259]

5 hours ago, astro said:

They had more decent chances than us. If their finishing had been better, we’d have lost 4-2. 

Is this a serious post or a wind up ?

In fact I have just watched the extended highlights and based on your theory of you should score from every decent opportunity we should have won 8:4

Edited January 21 by Well b back

[Petriix 2,847]

13 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

There was at least one more, when Giannoulis fluffed his lines.

I don't recall how good a chance that was and it didn't even make the extended highlights. As I recall it West Brom missed a couple of really good opportunities while we took ours. The stats back up my recollection suggesting that they had two 'big chances missed' to our zero while they had more possession, 50% more passes, more shots and roughly equal xG. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,171]

1 hour ago, Petriix said:

There's a difference between making the pitch big and absolutely abandoning the midfield. McLean drops between the back 2 leaving Sara on his own in the middle. The exact same tactical masterstroke that saw Forshaw isolated in the home draw with Bristol Rovers. 

I have no issue with passing out from the back, but I seriously question playing with one in midfield when most teams have three. There were numerous occasions where we lost the ball (mostly through a lack of options because our team was too spread out) and struggled to get bodies back quickly enough (because our starting positions were so high). 

Don't claim that this is how Farke or Russell Martin set their teams up. Farke never sacrificed a midfielder for a second striker or made one of his midfielders drop so deep. Farke's initial system relied on high fullbacks but essentially had two 8s behind a dynamic trio of 10s and a lone striker. Later it became more defensively solid by morphing into a more vertical three of a 6, 8 and (slightly deeper) 10.

Wagner's system regularly leaves us facing overloads in the key central area which allows teams to drive forwards and cut through us with ease. We saw a decent level of individual effort to plug the gaps which regularly appeared today. We looked far more coherent once we put the extra man back in midfield and took the second striker off. That's how we should be setting up from the outset. 

We were clearly the better team in the first half and deservedly went into the break ahead. (Gunn literally didn't make a save in the first half). The second half was a more equal affair so that hardly fits with what you've said does it?

And btw what you refer to as "individual effort to plug the gaps" has a technical name: "Defence". 

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

9 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Purple, many more of these ultra-terse posts and we’ll have to start calling you the anti-Parma.

Parma is prolix.

But such a necessity,

When you know so much.

Perhaps haikus are the way to go for me, as a compromise...🤩

Edited January 21 by PurpleCanary

[Petriix 2,847]

7 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

We were clearly the better team in the first half and deservedly went into the break ahead. (Gunn literally didn't make a save in the first half). The second half was a more equal affair so that hardly fits with what you've said does it?

And btw what you refer to as "individual effort to plug the gaps" has a technical name: "Defence". 

On the whole I was really happy with the performance. Out of possession we were well organised and worked hard. Our attacking play was great at times and our offensive transitions were especially incisive. But we struggled at times with our defensive transitions because we were so top heavy and often found it hard to string the passes together because there was too much distance between our players. 

I've watched a lot of football and I've never seen a team set up with six players so far forward before. The West Brom coach even commented on how we were playing a 4-2-4 formation. It's highly unusual and causes obvious structural issues.

At the end of the day it worked out ok but the balance of chances in the game was very even; we took ours while they missed theirs. It's worth noting, however, that our best move of the game came once we'd ditched the extra striker and brought on another midfielder. 

[Mason 47 1,391]

A good but unusual performance, we could have won 4-0 just as easily as it finishing 2-2. But, it was probably the most effective deployment of Wagnerball we've seen since those early games. That isn't to say it was perfect.

I'll back up what Petriix is saying in that we still transition into the 3-1-6 too early. This leaves us needing incredibly precise passes to get out and leads to dangerous turnovers quite often. Whilst we have tweaked it slightly, it feels like we could exert much more control on games if we were even just slightly less 'ambitious' without losing much if any in attack.

All that being said, I wouldn't have predicted 7 points from Southampton, Hull and WBA. Unbeaten in 5; 6 wins, 4 draws and 2 losses since the start of December in all comps. Wagner is grinding out results regardless of control.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 451]

8 hours ago, Petriix said:

I don't recall how good a chance that was and it didn't even make the extended highlights. 

Not surprised that the club have spared him the embarrassment 

[Barham Blitz 654]

12 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

It may be "utterly insane" to you, but to generations of football coaches it's perfectly natural and understandable. When you've got the ball you try to MAKE THE PITCH AS BIG AS POSSIBLE.

I don't think many - or indeed @Petriix - would disagree with this.  There are however many ways of achieving this aim beyond simply throwing players as far forward and as wide as possible.  The Ajax team of the 60s and 70s that really used this idea as the bedrock of it's tactical approach were very aware of the importance of depth as well as width in their set up for example.

Generations of football coaches will also tell you that when you don't have the ball you try to MAKE THE PITCH AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE.  This is manifestly not the case, at least beyond the initial press in transition with the current tactical set up.

When Wagner's system works it creates overloads, both offensively in terms of attacking players outnumbering opposition defenders but also in terms of almost swamping the opposition with the same overload of players immediately in a defensive transition.

When it doesn't work - either because we don't score, or because the opposition are able to play through or past our press, those same overloads created by the same gung-ho and rather two-dimensional (which is what I think @Petriixwas referring to) attacking shape combined with a deep defensive line end up making the pitch really big for the opposition precisely when we should be making it small.

If we get enough time to get back into defensive shape - which seems to be a very low block at the moment - then again the pitch metaphorically shrinks and we look tolerably solid at present.  But if the opposition can transition quickly enough there is a fundamental issue with the lack of depth in our tactical set up in that it creates for them exactly what it is intended to create for us - overloads and the proverbial big pitch.  I think this is what @Petriix was pointing out.

Edited January 21 by Barham Blitz

[PurpleCanary 5,578]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Parma is prolix.

But such a necessity,

When you know so much.

Perhaps haikus are the way to go for me, as a compromise...🤩

PS. Having watched the highlights again it certainly is true that if you rule out, for example, the two saves their goalie had to make from Rowe, plus one at the near post I remember that wasn't included, and Sara's effort late on that went wide, and a Sargent on-target effort that was blocked then...

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

1 minute ago, Barham Blitz said:

I don't think many - or indeed @Petriix - would disagree with this.  There are however many ways of achieving this aim beyond simply throwing players as far forward and as wide as possible.  The Ajax team of the 60s and 70s that really used this idea as the bedrock of it's tactical approach were very aware of the importance of depth as well as width in their set up for example.

Generations of football coaches will also tell you that when you don't have the ball you try to MAKE THE PITCH AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE.  This is manifestly not the case, at least beyond the initial press in transition with the current tactical set up.

When Wagner's system works it creates overloads, both offensively in terms of attacking players outnumbering opposition defenders but also in terms of almost swamping the opposition with the same overload of players immediately in a defensive transition.

When it doesn't work - either because we don't score, or because the opposition are able to play through or past our press, those same overloads created by the same gung-ho and rather two-dimensional (which is what I think @Petriixwas referring to) attacking shape combined with a deep defensive line end up making the pitch really big for the opposition precisely when we should be making it small.

If we get enough time to get back into defensive shape - which seems to be a very low block at the moment - then again the pitch metaphorically shrinks and we look tolerably solid at present.  But if the opposition can transition quickly enough there is a fundamental issue with the lack of depth in our tactical set up in that it creates for them exactly what it is intended to create for us - overloads and the proverbial big pitch.  I think this is what @Petriix was pointing out.

 

Exactly this. In possession make the pitch big. Out of possession, make it small.

I vaguely remember reading something saying that Johan Cruyff said that Total Football could never have taken hold in a country that didn't play hockey as off-the-ball movement is particularly important in that game, and the Dutch have been powerhouses at hockey for as long as I can remember.

At the same time, people tend to make the mistake of thinking possession is the key battle. It isn't, the key battle is determining where the game is played. If, as a defending side, you can keep the opposition in front of you, you've got them where you want them. Conversely, if the opposition can get behind the defending team and get them facing their own goal, they've got the defence where they want them.

[hogesar 9,717]

9 hours ago, Petriix said:

I don't recall how good a chance that was and it didn't even make the extended highlights. As I recall it West Brom missed a couple of really good opportunities while we took ours. The stats back up my recollection suggesting that they had two 'big chances missed' to our zero while they had more possession, 50% more passes, more shots and roughly equal xG. 

Hmmm..a little selective here.

The two best chances of the game based on xG were our two goals. The next best two chances were West Brom attempts, a saved header and an off-target shot by Swift. Then it was us again. 

Gianoullis chance does make the highlights on Norwich YT by the way.

Edited January 21 by hogesar

[Barham Blitz 654]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Exactly this. In possession make the pitch big. Out of possession, make it small.

I vaguely remember reading something saying that Johan Cruyff said that Total Football could never have taken hold in a country that didn't play hockey as off-the-ball movement is particularly important in that game, and the Dutch have been powerhouses at hockey for as long as I can remember.

At the same time, people tend to make the mistake of thinking possession is the key battle. It isn't, the key battle is determining where the game is played. If, as a defending side, you can keep the opposition in front of you, you've got them where you want them. Conversely, if the opposition can get behind the defending team and get them facing their own goal, they've got the defence where they want them.

Indeed.  There is an interesting book called The Clockwork Orange (as opposed to 'A' Clockwork Orange, which has very little to do with Total Football ...) which talks a lot about the fact that the Dutch have needed to conceptualise space more creatively than the rest of us for various reasons and how this influenced their rather unique approach to many ball sports.

People use possession as a synonym for control when it is really just one component of the concept.  Don't get me wrong - I like possession and wish we currently valued it slightly more highly - but somewhat ironically we currently look to exercise control by getting teams to do exactly what we have been guilty of doing when it doesn't work for us.  Which is to over-commit against our low block and then transition quickly with numbers.   

[kingsway 94]

17 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

It would appear that the reports of our demise may have been exaggerated. 😅🙃

100%!

 

While the team obviously has their flaws on their day they are a match for anyone in this League!

[Thirsty Lizard 3,171]

1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said:

I don't think many - or indeed @Petriix - would disagree with this.  There are however many ways of achieving this aim beyond simply throwing players as far forward and as wide as possible.  The Ajax team of the 60s and 70s that really used this idea as the bedrock of it's tactical approach were very aware of the importance of depth as well as width in their set up for example.

Generations of football coaches will also tell you that when you don't have the ball you try to MAKE THE PITCH AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE.  This is manifestly not the case, at least beyond the initial press in transition with the current tactical set up.

When Wagner's system works it creates overloads, both offensively in terms of attacking players outnumbering opposition defenders but also in terms of almost swamping the opposition with the same overload of players immediately in a defensive transition.

When it doesn't work - either because we don't score, or because the opposition are able to play through or past our press, those same overloads created by the same gung-ho and rather two-dimensional (which is what I think @Petriixwas referring to) attacking shape combined with a deep defensive line end up making the pitch really big for the opposition precisely when we should be making it small.

If we get enough time to get back into defensive shape - which seems to be a very low block at the moment - then again the pitch metaphorically shrinks and we look tolerably solid at present.  But if the opposition can transition quickly enough there is a fundamental issue with the lack of depth in our tactical set up in that it creates for them exactly what it is intended to create for us - overloads and the proverbial big pitch.  I think this is what @Petriix was pointing out.

Agree with a lot of what you say - and indeed I almost put "when you're defending make the pitch as small as possible" in my reply to Petrix. The part of your post which I have highlighted is a little ironic to say the least. The team which had big issues with giving away chances from quick transitions yesterday was West Brom! Both our goals came in exactly this manner!

[Jim Smith 2,339]

12 hours ago, Petriix said:

There's a difference between making the pitch big and absolutely abandoning the midfield. McLean drops between the back 2 leaving Sara on his own in the middle. The exact same tactical masterstroke that saw Forshaw isolated in the home draw with Bristol Rovers. 

I have no issue with passing out from the back, but I seriously question playing with one in midfield when most teams have three. There were numerous occasions where we lost the ball (mostly through a lack of options because our team was too spread out) and struggled to get bodies back quickly enough (because our starting positions were so high). 

Don't claim that this is how Farke or Russell Martin set their teams up. Farke never sacrificed a midfielder for a second striker or made one of his midfielders drop so deep. Farke's initial system relied on high fullbacks but essentially had two 8s behind a dynamic trio of 10s and a lone striker. Later it became more defensively solid by morphing into a more vertical three of a 6, 8 and (slightly deeper) 10.

Wagner's system regularly leaves us facing overloads in the key central area which allows teams to drive forwards and cut through us with ease. We saw a decent level of individual effort to plug the gaps which regularly appeared today. We looked far more coherent once we put the extra man back in midfield and took the second striker off. That's how we should be setting up from the outset. 

I agree with this point re Kenny dropping into the back line. Sometimes it works but at Bristol Rovers away, for example, it left Sorensen on his own against three midfielders for a lot of the first half and very limited passing options out from the back so, more often than not, we ended up lumping it up the line into the channels and lost the ball. I actually thought we played it out from the back a bit better for much of yesterday but during our iffy spell after half time this was happening. 
 

Fundamentally, for me, the formation is still not right. He changed it to the right formation mid second half and it stemmed the WBA tide and we scored shortly afterwards. That was also the set up that worked well second half at Bristol. I do not understand why he persists with Barnes and Sargent at the expense of the extra midfielder and Sara playing further forward.

[Petriix 2,847]

1 hour ago, Barham Blitz said:

I like possession and wish we currently valued it slightly more highly - but somewhat ironically we currently look to exercise control by getting teams to do exactly what we have been guilty of doing when it doesn't work for us.

I'm surprisingly comfortable with ceding possession in relatively harmless areas. I think our low block is highly effective and entirely pragmatic, leaving it to our opponents to lose their shape trying to break us down and leaving acres of space for us to break into.

 

12 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Both our goals came in exactly this manner!

Yes, which supports my position that maybe starting with so many players so high up the pitch isn't particularly a factor in the things we got right yesterday. Our goals came from rapid transitions from a low block. Both involved an incisive run with the ball from deep. The second was a perfect example of how effective Sara is when playing a more advanced role. I stand by my claim that setting up in a 4-2-4 with overlapping fullbacks morphing into a 3-1-6 is a bit too Kamikaze; I don't think we gained anything from doing it and it left us exposed on numerous occasions.  

[littleyellowbirdie 2,571]

18 hours ago, Petriix said:

Your thread title is pure hyperbole. The result was great but it wasn't a complete performance by any means. West Brom had a lot of decent chances which they missed while we scored our only two real openings. 

There are plenty of positives, but it needs to be a cautious optimism rather than high fives all round. The system was verging on kamikaze at times with what essentially worked as a front 4 with the fullbacks pushing on as well. I don't know if that's a great recipe for long term success. 

 

 You killjoys really are getting very boring. Why can't you just enjoy it?

[......and Smith must score. 1,355]

18 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Which do you think was our best performance of the season? Huddersfield away and Millwall at home at the beginning of the season were both pretty good, but bearing in mind the quality of the opposition I do think today's was the best. 

Soton away must be in with a shout.

[Monty13 2,241]

17 hours ago, hogesar said:

We did.

Yea that’s an odd criticism, we may have surrendered possession, but we played out from the back much quicker (at times) and generally more effectively than previous games.

[Mason 47 1,391]

Our first goal is a strange slice of things both right and wrong. In the first instance we retain the ball at the back, most of the team pushes up leaving a lack of options so Kenny has no choice but to punt aimlessly into their defence. Bad counter-play.

We then instantly win the ball back as it comes forward, pouncing with intent on a slightly loose pass and breaking with incisive pace. Goal- good counter-play.

This is what I am questioning. The overloads in both goals were not in our favour- 3v6 for the first and 5v8 for the second. The way we set up seems at odds with this, trying to urgently set up numerical overloads at the cost of structural integrity. I'm no possession-purist but I'd like to see us dictating the game more.

3 points always helps though.

[Barham Blitz 654]

2 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Agree with a lot of what you say - and indeed I almost put "when you're defending make the pitch as small as possible" in my reply to Petrix. The part of your post which I have highlighted is a little ironic to say the least. The team which had big issues with giving away chances from quick transitions yesterday was West Brom! Both our goals came in exactly this manner!

Agreed - i did actually make the same point in my next post -

4 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

but somewhat ironically we currently look to exercise control by getting teams to do exactly what we have been guilty of doing when it doesn't work for us.  Which is to over-commit against our low block and then transition quickly with numbers.   

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,294]

1 hour ago, Mason 47 said:

Our first goal is a strange slice of things both right and wrong. In the first instance we retain the ball at the back, most of the team pushes up leaving a lack of options so Kenny has no choice but to punt aimlessly into their defence. Bad counter-play.

We then instantly win the ball back as it comes forward, pouncing with intent on a slightly loose pass and breaking with incisive pace. Goal- good counter-play.

This is what I am questioning. The overloads in both goals were not in our favour- 3v6 for the first and 5v8 for the second. The way we set up seems at odds with this, trying to urgently set up numerical overloads at the cost of structural integrity. I'm no possession-purist but I'd like to see us dictating the game more.

3 points always helps though.

Both goals broke the press, but the first was fortunate to do so. Too often, we couldn’t break the press we invited, and snookered ourselves on numerous occasions. 

I made the point before, I’m generally just a bit confused as to what we’re trying to do. Is the invitation of the press, concession of possession and territory a deliberate tactic, or is it the opposition are just better on the ball? If it is deliberate, we concede far too many dangerous situations - and I’m not sure we have the players to make it work often enough to make it a viable and sustainable way forward?  Of course yesterday can be used as evidence to suggest we do… but if WBA had a Josh Sargent we’d have been punished too often and lost, IMO.