Playing v 10 men

[Harry53 209]

We were flowing and in total control,  pressing,  creating,  breaking up play, in simple words we looked real class last night and looking for a comfortable win. 

Until that moment. 

So can anyone on here who has played at a good standard of football please tell me why we suddenly became passive just because we had one less player?

Why couldn't we have continued to press and tackle in a new formation instead of inviting Boro onto us? Is it all in the mind of a team that suddenly thinks they must defend due to the inbalance of numbers?

Couldn't the team just mentally switch that moment off, and just carry on being in control?

For some reason it seemed to have switched the players focus off and we allowed Boro easily into the game,  which was not happening before,  and conceded two simple goals. 

I just don't understand why we crumbled mentally.

[AyrshireBob 10]

One Word Sums it up 

Nous

 Good judgment and practical ability:

Anyone with a bit of nous would have known what to do.

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

Definitely a mentality thing. We went to pieces.

But I do wonder how much Wagner's system has an effect. With 11, we push the full backs on, tuck the wide midfielders in and drop a central midfielder back,  so we're playing a sort of 3 5 2. 

With one of the midfielders off, that ability to switch those positions kind of goes, and I don't think we had a workable alternative,  beyond going 4 4 1 and just trying to hang on for 60 mins. But we didn't feel we could push the full backs on any more so we posed absolutely no threat. 

I'm not sure what the solution should have been. But I think between them, Wagner and the senior players should have found one.

[Keith Scott 244]

1. The players have no backbone. Time and time again they show they can't cope in adversity. No fight or desire.

2. Woeful back four. Not a decent defender amongst them. Gibson and Hanley may be the worst centre back pairing in the league.

3. Tactically clueless manager. Has no idea how to adjust to situations. Zero in game management skills.

Last night proved why top 6 is a pipe dream.

All the best.

Big Keith Scott.

[sonyc 5,526]

20 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Definitely a mentality thing. We went to pieces.

But I do wonder how much Wagner's system has an effect. With 11, we push the full backs on, tuck the wide midfielders in and drop a central midfielder back,  so we're playing a sort of 3 5 2. 

With one of the midfielders off, that ability to switch those positions kind of goes, and I don't think we had a workable alternative,  beyond going 4 4 1 and just trying to hang on for 60 mins. But we didn't feel we could push the full backs on any more so we posed absolutely no threat. 

I'm not sure what the solution should have been. But I think between them, Wagner and the senior players should have found one.

That was my take. I was even expecting us to re-jig midfield (perhaps sub Barnes for Nunez or even Gibbs) and play on. We were comfortable and in total control.

The defending though was very suspect. The leadership from Wagner and captain went missing. @sgncfc made a good point too last night in response to my post about the cost of losing Sainz for the play off push. I posted earlier too in the match thread about our defensive frailty.

I know Hanley and Gibson have given long service but I so want them to not be here or first choices next season. They are a real weakness. Too slow reading a game. Unsure about the RBs too in defending ability though good as wingbacks. That Kenny has been very good as a CB ought to tell us a lot.

The game was spoiled though by Madley with his decision which felt unreasonable - to me anyway. I hate unfairness in matches (whoever is playing probably).

All this said, our capitulation was a sad watch and probably convinced me that we are not going to be one of the 6 in the play offs. Each time we have a gilt edged opportunity we don't take it. The signs seem clear and what is left is pure hope rather than a real positive expectation.

What a strange season it has been. Cannot say it's been without interest. I think that has to be a positive to take from it all. Always good to try and find one.

Edited March 7 by sonyc
Paragraphs!

[daz 70]

We have wagner 😏

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

So I guess the question is, what should Wagner have done?

At 1-0 up I think I would have been tempted to sacrifice Barnes and bring on Gibbs to play in Sainz's position. Think Gibbs' energy would have been very useful with us being a man short. 

At 2-1 down I would have thought about bringing Nunez on for Gibson and dropping Kenny back. Best way to give us maximum creativity with ten players.

Not sure if anyone has a better idea...

Edit: see that @sonyc said something similar while I was typing this

 

Edited March 7 by Robert N. LiM

[Bomber 48]

Cannot understand it - I have seen teams win with 10 men especially when winning or at least condense the team to make them harder to break through hence the saying that 10 men are harder to beat than 11 - we struggle to beat 10 men and totally capitulate when we have 10 men - totally baffled but then we are talking about Norwich 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

We have lost games where we were in front on so many occasions. For me this is clear evidence that the manager doesn’t actually manage games very well. If cruising it’s fine - but you and I could manage those games- but the minute we need a plan B or C there is nothing…just erratic subs and crazy calls. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

5 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

So I guess the question is, what should Wagner have done?

At 1-0 up I think I would have been tempted to sacrifice Barnes and bring on Gibbs to play in Sainz's position. Think Gibbs' energy would have been very useful with us being a man short. 

I'm not sure how Sargent, Barnes and Fassnacht all work together with ten men. 

I would've taken off Fassnacht, brought on a centre back, let Stacey and Giannoulis provide the width in a 3-4-1-1. It's similar to what Wagner did away at West Brom and it nearly worked.

Edited March 7 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

Think Wagner definitely has some questions to answer.

But also, we had one job straight after the red, which was to regroup and get to half time. But we just fell apart. Players have to take some of the responsibility 

[lake district canary 4,533]

The lapse, which after the sending off was so clear, must come from the collective mentality. We all know people that do well when the stars are in alignment, but who when the slightest thing goes wrong, it upsets their whole world - and this is what happened as a team yesterday.  The situation demanded that they react positively - and they did the opposite. 

That is when character comes in, or rather the collective character. To me it suggests we don't have the right mix of players - too many of them not up for whatever challenge is put in front of them. Too many older players maybe, or too many not at full confidence? 

You need leaders on the pitch - like under Lambert when at one stage I think we had 10 or even 11 players on the pitch who had been captains of a team at some stage, or under Farke, when we had so many really strong characters. 

Mental strength is what it boils down to - the ability to not be affected by adversity or injustice. Its not always easy, I know, there are so many variables when it comes to getting a high functioning team/squad mentality  - but that is where you need the right mix of players. Injuries don't help, for sure, but the players must learn from last night - they should have done better in that situation. 

 

 

[lake district canary 4,533]

Just to add, maybe Wagner could have reacted better, straight away getting a sub on to re-jig the team. It would have sent out a signal to the players. 

Edited March 7 by lake district canary

[Capt. Pants 4,245]

That was probably one of the worst displays I've seen from 10 men, a blueprint for how not to do it.

I'm more disappointed at the lack of desire, nous, leadership, defending and tactical awareness than I am about the sending off itself.

Sorry if we're reopening old wounds here but I'm also convinced Wagner didn't help the situation at all.

Adversity unfortunately has shown our capability up bigtime.

Edited March 7 by Capt. Pants

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Too many older players maybe

As you'll see from my other comments, I agree with what you say in your post generally about character (though I think there are tactical questions too).

But I'd have thought that in a situation like that, having older experienced heads should be an advantage. We had an international keeper in goal, a very experienced back four, a very experienced CM in Kenny and a jurassically experienced striker in Barnes on the field when Sainz went off. Surely between them there should be enough character, leadership and similar experience of adversity to call upon.

There's a lot of people with questions to answer this morning. Howson and Madley, sure. Sainz, sure. But I hope Knapper is absolutely grilling Wagner, and I hope Wagner is absolutely grilling his senior players. It just wasn't good enough.

Edited March 7 by Robert N. LiM
clarity

[mannings bandy legs 389]

21 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Think Wagner definitely has some questions to answer.

But also, we had one job straight after the red, which was to regroup and get to half time. But we just fell apart. Players have to take some of the responsibility 

Perhaps Knapper will ask them......then again perhaps not.

[Mason 47 1,381]

43 minutes ago, Harry53 said:

We were flowing and in total control,  pressing,  creating,  breaking up play, in simple words we looked real class last night and looking for a comfortable win. 

Until that moment. 

So can anyone on here who has played at a good standard of football please tell me why we suddenly became passive just because we had one less player?

Why couldn't we have continued to press and tackle in a new formation instead of inviting Boro onto us? Is it all in the mind of a team that suddenly thinks they must defend due to the inbalance of numbers?

Couldn't the team just mentally switch that moment off, and just carry on being in control?

For some reason it seemed to have switched the players focus off and we allowed Boro easily into the game,  which was not happening before,  and conceded two simple goals. 

I just don't understand why we crumbled mentally.

I don't necessarily know what I'm talking about, but to my eye we reacted to the sending off by dropping into a 4-4-1 with Sargent wide and Barnes up front. We also played very narrow to reduce the spaces in front of goal (nothing necessarily wrong with that).

What this did is A: allow Boro to push their defenders higher as our potent threat in behind + press was neutralised; and B: allowed them space down the sides, whilst we defended crosses very passively.

In theory I don't think it was a terrible move. But in practice it removed us from the game as an attacking force- losing one winger should not equal losing the game

[hogesar 9,676]

58 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

We have lost games where we were in front on so many occasions. For me this is clear evidence that the manager doesn’t actually manage games very well. If cruising it’s fine - but you and I could manage those games- but the minute we need a plan B or C there is nothing…just erratic subs and crazy calls. 

I've seen this said a lot.

There's a legitimate conversation to be had on how we managed the game, but...

1) I don't think picking a game where you're down to 10 men away from home for 60 minutes is relevant to the overall point. It's an exception.

2) We are one of the best at winning points from losing positions, too. So that would show the opposite of what you just said.

 

AS FOR Tactically when down to 10 men:

- We were 1-0 up and had 15 minutes of the first half to play.

- We had completely dominated the ball and not given them a kick.

- We wanted Nunez, but only just back from injury didn't want to play him for 70 mins inc injury time.

- We reverted to a 4-4-1 and went very narrow, giving Boro space out wide

- ^ This is not massively different to West Brom in terms of approach, the view being crosses are the easiest type of attack to defend, and we have two CB's who should be good at this - and have a physical advantage over Boro in this regard.

- Both goals were awful defending in first half. With what we tried to do above, in all honesty we should have gone in at 0-0 had players done their individual jobs. I don't think this is a huge Wagner issue at this point, but that 15 minute period has cost us.

For those who like visuals, the attacking momentum graph is a pretty hideous sight:

 

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

It was totally a mental thing,  and something I text my mate at the time saying we'd lose as we'd have to drop deep and we simply can't do it.

We have some technically good players in this squad, but my word it's the weakest mentally we've ever had, and it stems from having no leaders on the pitch, Hanley as captain is a joke.

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

1) I don't think picking a game where you're down to 10 men away from home for 60 minutes is relevant to the overall point. It's an exception.

Sure, but it's not like we manfully held out for an hour and lost to two late goals when we were knackered. We threw away the lead in 13 minutes, against a team visibly bereft of confidence at that point. Those last fifteen minutes of the first half were pathetic.

 

11 minutes ago, hogesar said:

AS FOR Tactically when down to 10 men:

- We were 1-0 up and had 15 minutes of the first half to play.

- We had completely dominated the ball and not given them a kick.

- We wanted Nunez, but only just back from injury didn't want to play him for 70 mins inc injury time.

- We reverted to a 4-4-1 and went very narrow, giving Boro space out wide

- ^ This is not massively different to West Brom in terms of approach, the view being crosses are the easiest type of attack to defend, and we have two CB's who should be good at this - and have a physical advantage over Boro in this regard.

- Both goals were awful defending in first half. With what we tried to do above, in all honesty we should have gone in at 0-0 had players done their individual jobs. I don't think this is a huge Wagner issue at this point, but that 15 minute period has cost us.

You mean 1-0, but yes, largely agree. I still think that the 4-4-1 with Gibbs in Sainz's position, Sarge on his own up front and Barnes taken off would have given us the best possible mobility to counter being a man down. Putting Sargent on the left seemed madness to me. But against that, I can see how you'd hope the players on the pitch should be able to get to half time and then you sort it from there. As I said above, I think both Wagner and the senior players have some serious questions to answer.

[ridgeman 131]

Wagner must take much of the responsibility for our demise after the sending off for not being able to implement a plan but he can’t be held responsible for Gibson missing a header which led to one goal and Stacey missing a header which led to another goal. Our defence was all over the place Batth can’t even get on when Hanley goes off what was the point of signing him. I think Knapper has one hell of a job come the end of the season.

[hogesar 9,676]

17 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Sure, but it's not like we manfully held out for an hour and lost to two late goals when we were knackered. We threw away the lead in 13 minutes, against a team visibly bereft of confidence at that point. Those last fifteen minutes of the first half were pathetic.

 

You mean 1-0, but yes, largely agree. I still think that the 4-4-1 with Gibbs in Sainz's position, Sarge on his own up front and Barnes taken off would have given us the best possible mobility to counter being a man down. Putting Sargent on the left seemed madness to me. But against that, I can see how you'd hope the players on the pitch should be able to get to half time and then you sort it from there. As I said above, I think both Wagner and the senior players have some serious questions to answer.

I think how narrow we went and our intention to defend for 15 minutes was a logical move that most managers would do. I also understand not wanting to sacrifice one of our strikers immediately because you can't get them back, and our only bench option thanks to Knapper is SVH, who is unfit, slow and doesn't threaten or penetrate opposition defence (I know I keep mentioning this, but it has become a huge limitation in our ability to change games - we have been one of the best at getting results from losing positions and Idahs sub appearances were a big part of that)

[Robert N. LiM 4,378]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think how narrow we went and our intention to defend for 15 minutes was a logical move that most managers would do. I also understand not wanting to sacrifice one of our strikers immediately because you can't get them back, and our only bench option thanks to Knapper is SVH, who is unfit, slow and doesn't threaten or penetrate opposition defence (I know I keep mentioning this, but it has become a huge limitation in our ability to change games - we have been one of the best at getting results from losing positions and Idahs sub appearances were a big part of that)

Yeah, all that's fair enough. Obviously there's no perfect solution - they all are going to come with drawbacks. Maybe you're right that it's more down to the players than the coach. At the very least I hope these conversations are being had at Colney today. Surely one of the roles of the SD is to hold the coach accountable for his decisions. If Wagner can justify them, and you make a decent case on his behalf here, that's fair enough.

 

[shefcanary 2,410]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

You need leaders on the pitch

I know I've been hammered on here several times in the past for what I am about to say, but last night in my view totally justifies my previous criticism of two of our senior players.

First, Hanley was absolutely bloody awful last - lost pretty much at all points in the match even before the sending off. You will see my comments on Connor's live blog that I was fearful with him being on the pitch; Boro targeted him and he had nothing to respond with. And as a senior player he should have played a part in rallying the troops. But nada, nothing. Total capitulation. No excuses.

Secondly, Kenny as team captain really should have been rallying the troops more. But after the sending off he totally disappeared. Where did he go? This is exactly what I have been saying for nigh on four years now. He totally loses the plot and does his own thing, rather than ensure the rest of the team buckles down and plays sensibly. He was not good enough in the EPL and why four years later he is still first name on the team sheet still totally bemuses me. If he is to play, unfortunately it has to be at Gibson's expense, but he needs the game in front of him if only to allow his brain to engage. 

Yes, you can accuse me of over-reacting to a poor performance, but objectively last night saw all the usual failures and traits of those two players, who we have supposedly built a team round, exposed for all to see. 

Time to move on with them. 

[Mello Yello 2,296]

I put our post sending off and resulting pathetic performance down to Jet lag....Oh and possibly uncomfortable hotel beds.....coupled with the Boro delicacy of each player consuming a large 'Parmo' with a double helping of chips an' all washed down with five pints of Cameron's Strongarm ale for their pre-match meal....sluggish....

The boys were obviously fatigued....obviously fatigued an' bloated.... ;-)

"Paaaarrrrp!"...... 

[OTBC06 43]

the worst thing was that it was immediate. Not a gradual, let them back in the back game as we were being a bit reserved in our play. From the resulting free kick, it was like we were back in the Prem, playing Liverpool with a snarly Luis Suarez!

[hogesar 9,676]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I know I've been hammered on here several times in the past for what I am about to say, but last night in my view totally justifies my previous criticism of two of our senior players.

First, Hanley was absolutely bloody awful last - lost pretty much at all points in the match even before the sending off. You will see my comments on Connor's live blog that I was fearful with him being on the pitch; Boro targeted him and he had nothing to respond with. And as a senior player he should have played a part in rallying the troops. But nada, nothing. Total capitulation. No excuses.

Secondly, Kenny as team captain really should have been rallying the troops more. But after the sending off he totally disappeared. Where did he go? This is exactly what I have been saying for nigh on four years now. He totally loses the plot and does his own thing, rather than ensure the rest of the team buckles down and plays sensibly. He was not good enough in the EPL and why four years later he is still first name on the team sheet still totally bemuses me. If he is to play, unfortunately it has to be at Gibson's expense, but he needs the game in front of him if only to allow his brain to engage. 

Yes, you can accuse me of over-reacting to a poor performance, but objectively last night saw all the usual failures and traits of those two players, who we have supposedly built a team round, exposed for all to see. 

Time to move on with them. 

Yeah, last night was definitely McLeans fault.

Jesus 😅😅😅

[lake district canary 4,533]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

Yeah, last night was definitely McLeans fault.

Jesus 😅😅😅

Well he is the captain. I think it is a collevtive thing and starts with the manager. Team needed leadership off the pitch - an immediate substitution to reshape the team to add more in midfield. We were 1-0 up and could have taken Barnes off and brought in some mobility into midfield. 

As it was the ten men just capitulated. No reaction, just nothing from anyone. Talk about rising to the occasion in the face of adversity, there was nothing - and it psychologically gifted Middsbro the match. 

[Yobocop 1,099]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

I've seen this said a lot.

There's a legitimate conversation to be had on how we managed the game, but...

1) I don't think picking a game where you're down to 10 men away from home for 60 minutes is relevant to the overall point. It's an exception.

2) We are one of the best at winning points from losing positions, too. So that would show the opposite of what you just said.

 

AS FOR Tactically when down to 10 men:

- We were 1-0 up and had 15 minutes of the first half to play.

- We had completely dominated the ball and not given them a kick.

- We wanted Nunez, but only just back from injury didn't want to play him for 70 mins inc injury time.

- We reverted to a 4-4-1 and went very narrow, giving Boro space out wide

- ^ This is not massively different to West Brom in terms of approach, the view being crosses are the easiest type of attack to defend, and we have two CB's who should be good at this - and have a physical advantage over Boro in this regard.

- Both goals were awful defending in first half. With what we tried to do above, in all honesty we should have gone in at 0-0 had players done their individual jobs. I don't think this is a huge Wagner issue at this point, but that 15 minute period has cost us.

For those who like visuals, the attacking momentum graph is a pretty hideous sight:

 

One of the best posts on here in a long time and pìssès on Big Keith Scott’s bonfire somewhat 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,280]

10 hours ago, Harry53 said:

We were flowing and in total control,  pressing,  creating,  breaking up play, in simple words we looked real class last night and looking for a comfortable win. 

Until that moment. 

So can anyone on here who has played at a good standard of football please tell me why we suddenly became passive just because we had one less player?

Why couldn't we have continued to press and tackle in a new formation instead of inviting Boro onto us? Is it all in the mind of a team that suddenly thinks they must defend due to the inbalance of numbers?

Couldn't the team just mentally switch that moment off, and just carry on being in control?

For some reason it seemed to have switched the players focus off and we allowed Boro easily into the game,  which was not happening before,  and conceded two simple goals. 

I just don't understand why we crumbled mentally.

Sainz was a huge loss and integral to our tactics. Potentially, any other player and we don’t crumble. We lost our pace going forward and became toothless.

I think mentality is being thrown around in a lazy manner. I think the answer is not as complex as that.

Edited March 7 by Creedence Clearwater Couto