Here is Richard Becker's tactical analysis of the Millwall game from MFW Norwich v Millwall: Richard Becker Anyone agree with me that these match analyses deserve a thread of their own? Or at least to be kept in one place (this thread?) rather than spread about in Match threads?
They certainly provide a much deeper insight as to what went on in each game, but I'm not sure they would be read by as many in their own thread. Could do both though.
Either is good. I thought that was an interesting analysis, thanks for posting it I wonder if the robot machine we got installed in training can help with the decision making, because sometimes we are woeful when it comes to the crunch.
I was trying to work out what the decision making problem is, because you’re right it’s really glaring how bad we are. My speculation just now, when you think of the complex pattern of passes between Sinani, Dowell and Sargent, is whether we spend a lot of time practicing more complicated movement to break down a packed defence on the basis that we will likely be facing determined and structured defending, but that means on the occasions when we get a clear break we overcomplicate and make the wrong decision. Probably over thinking it, but there’s definitely something odd
I've been enjoying them, don't mind if they get their own thread or regularly go into an existing thread. Perhaps we need a "tactics" thread, which maybe won't attract the same moaning as the Stats thread...
On tactics, I thought it was interesting that Smith's Onel/Cantwell switch for tactical reasons required such a different player to come in. Whilst it paid off and the effect on the pitch was obvious, it was also obvious from the team sheet and will be for others to see going forwards. You know what you're getting from that left side whether it's Cantwell or Onel. I wonder if the interest in a winger is to try and find a player who can play the role in both ways equally comfortably, so that we can make that kind of tactical adjustment on the fly and be more dynamic with it.
It might be obvious, but depending which option we use it does forces the opposition to defend differently. Some teams aren't always comfortable defending against certain types of players / tactics. Clearly Smith felt the by playing Argos, Milwall would either need to play their normal defensive game or adapt to deal with Argos, thereby disrupting them and creating space elsewhere. People say that Argos had a poor game, but that was because Milwall adapted to nullify his threat, which created space elsewhere. Smiths tactic worked. Argos was only ever going to have a great game if Milwall didn't adapt to counter his threat.
As I understand it, RB is intending to analyse all our games from now on. City vs. Millwall was the third in the series. You had already put a link to the second -- City vs. Huddersfield -- on here. And for those who haven't yet seen it, here is a link to the first in the series, Hull vs. Norwich.
Exactly and when they work it out you change it. I think that's why Smith likes to have a very varied squad and why he doesn't have much of a particular style he likes to chop and change. It that respect the 5 sub rule suits him.
I disagree that DS "doesn't have much of a particular style". I don't actually think there is all that much "stylistic" difference between Dean Smith and Daniel Farke -- which isn't surprising given that the club style is basically determined by the D of F rather than the head coach. I'd agree, though, that Smith is more flexible when it comes to how the style is realised in particular games, or at different times within games -- "more pragmatic" is how people have been tending to put it.
I was one of those calling DS's tactics 'pragmatic' in the PL, aimed at survival rather than style. In the Championship it's other teams trying to survive against us. That calls for the kind of adjustment detailed in the tactical analysis above, bringing in Hernandez to pressurise Millwall's right flank to free up space and overloads elsewhere, for example. Smith also places less emphasis on fixed formations, preferring say a 4-2-3-1 when we have the ball but dropping back into a 4-3-2-1 or 4-3-3 once the ball is lost. The other style indicator is the type of players we've brought in this window. Hayden is a skillful DM who can cover the wide area described in the tactical analysis (Gibbs is on a steep learning curve to do just that). That gives far more freedom to the other midfielders and Sara and Núñez have been recruited to make the most of that. This is different from the possession based European style midfield Farke favoured, holding on to the ball rather than progressing it quickly into attacks. The players are still adjusting to this, but it's no surprise that Núñez is now our highest ranked player on WhoScored as this is his natural game. Sara is likely to be the same and I'm hoping this will produce a whole new type of sexy football that will have us on the edge of our seats. This is also a part of the transformation in Sargent, Cantwell, and Dowell, as well as the impact of Sinari on the right, as they're attacking unsettled defences rather than trying to pick their way through packed defences. Both goals against Millwall highlighted this.
Daniel Farke was often scathing about the focus on formations, pointing out that he changed our formation several times every game. As I see it, that's one of several similarities between the two; both play attacking football, both seek to dominate possession, etc., etc. Regarding possession, there is, as you point out, a real difference in so far as DS places less value on retaining possession while building from the back; he is happy to trade keeping hold of the ball for having the ball on the opposition's fifteen yard line -- the aim being to win it back quickly high up rather than not lose it in our own half.
This ^. Maybe Milot was signed in the belief he could play both roles? Incidentally, on the subject of similarities between DS and DF, both favour the full-backs for providing width. I don't think DS is looking for out-and-out wing play any more than DF did.
Rashica seems to be capable of playing both roles. He played much more like a winger when he arrived and put some high quality crosses in. That's not really Pukki's game though and gradually Milot has adjusted to cutting in to leave room for the overlapping FB to get in behind. He seems to be struggling a bit of late, perhaps because he wants to return to the Bundesliga. Sinani is a similar type player on the right but he has worked hard to make the starting lineup for the last 3 games, with 1 goal, 3 assists and ratings of 8.82, 7.89 and 7.65. He tends to go under the radar but he has been a big part of our last 3 wins. He has the technical skills, but he also knows where the goal is and how to get there either directly or via assists. That has been less so with Rashica. Danel is also up for the physical battles and winning the ball back in the opposing third.
