I kinda get where rabbitspectrum is coming from with this post. Whilst its true that all the time that you have possession, the other team haven't, but I would prefer if Saints to be a little more direct as I find this style of play not only frustrating, but somewhat predictable, especially to opposition that sit deep? I also think the slow passing game was performed better last year with Jack Cork and Morgan in the side, as the current combination of Victor and Morgan have thus far tended to cancel each other out.
Given that the complaint seems to be that we're doing something different from last year (when pretty much the same people were complaining about our tactics then) surely this IS plan B. I demand plan C. And plans D,E,F and G to be readied in case our results don't pick up immediately. Vin
I've been supporting Saints for more years than I care to mention, probably before you were born. I've even been to Newcastle on the back of a scooter to watch them lose 4-0. Guess this makes me a 'poor supporter' as well as I tend to agree with him on this point?
Congratz on the achievement. But if you look at his post history you'll see how negative he's been over the past few months.
Saints supporter being negative? surely not? Having said that they've made me a nervous wreck and reduced me to drink.
I've made this point at the last 3 games. It is not simply a case of playing a possession passing game - we need a good tempo in our game. Playing with purpose, speed and at a high tempo does help us to create chances, by creating space beyond the opposition. It is a fair point, I think, that is being raised here.
I think maybe "chance" is being defined too narrowly. We tend to think of Osvaldo's miss as the "chance" as he had the keeper 1v1 on a pretty play and it seemed our best shot at scoring. But IMO, we had plenty of chances in the second half. We put a lot of pressure on the defense, and everyone was involved and we created lots of different types of scoring opportunities. Osvaldo was creating big-time, Lambert got in a dangerous header that hit the post, both defensive midfielders got in good shots on goal (with Schneiderlin denied on a fantastic save), Rodriguez had a couple awful first touches that if he'd done better on could have easily led to goals. I would say our issues are down to one or more of the following: 1) Lack of finishing on good opportunities 2) Lack of consistency from the attackers in general 3) Disorganization (some of Norwich and first half of last game). I see those as execution issues, not tactics. Last season, I felt like Saints were sometimes guilty of passing it around without really attacking. I don't think it's been as much of a problem this year. And the second half of the West Ham game as far as I'm concerned was tactically spot-on. That's exactly how we should play, we just need to play like that more consistently and be a little sharper when it comes to the end product.
The second half against west ham was probably the best half of attacking football we have played and as I pointed out was through more direct higher tempo football. The team will surely improve its execution but I'm not at all convinced we have the tactical nous to break down defensive teams. We failed to get the fullbacks involved and weren't generating any width. It was only on fast counters that our attackers got into space. When there were men behind the ball and no space in midfield we couldn't penetrate at all and that is what needs to be drastically improved. I would suggest a higher tempo and more direct passing to bypass the midfield or at least move it quicker through that area. However we didn't have the options to move it quickly through midfield, particularly in the first half and this was a failure of the way we were set up.
I saw it completely differently.y relies on taking the ball from defense and quickly transitioning into attack. There's absolutely nothing slow tempo about it. We control possession not because we dither on the ball but because we take it away from other teams quickly. The problem we had in the first half was that we were disorganized. West Ham was able to play long balls up or equally as often across the pitch to beat the press. This did not result in many goal scoring chances as our defense was able to shut down the initial attack. But what it did do was pull our formation out of shape because we had overloaded an area to try and shut down the initial passer. If anything, our problems result from trying to transition too quickly, not too slowly. If you watch Wanyama play, when he tackles a player he almost always immediately looks to go forward into space until challenged and then he dumps it off. It's really effective and smart play for a holding mid, but sometimes you can't play that way. Because West Ham was playing on the counter, they had a bunch of players behind the ball quickly rushing forward in support to join the attack. Wanyama kept dribbling right into those players before our attackers had time to get back. He would have been better off immediately passing decisively to a fullback on the opposite side of the attack (which I think was mostly the right side of the pitch). But also, the attackers have to do a better job of immediately shifting into a the defensive posture once the press is beaten. I think that is why we have trouble scoring as well. Lambert and Osvaldo are quick players. Not fast, but quick and a lot of that is mental. They are able to switch from defense to offense immediately. Rodriguez isn't. He likes space. He wants to either run onto the ball or to get the ball early and run with it. I think that is partly the reason behind the heavy touches. Osvaldo had already mentally and physically transitioned into attack, Rodriguez was not quite ready to receive the pass yet. Lallana has a similar problem where I think he favors controlling the ball, getting his man to stop, and then beating him off the dribble. He likes bringing the ball up himself, not being one in a chain of quick passing. Rodriguez is still a pretty lousy defender. Lallana has gotten to be pretty decent (for an attacker). But both of them put in an effort so it's not like they are just lazy on the pitch and not willing to run or play defense or in support. They're just not quick/fluid enough. All these quick movements and one-touch passing and beating your man quickly in short spaces is something Lallana and Rodriguez have to get used to. I believe that Rodriguez and Lallana both have the ability to be more fluid but simply lack experience. A slower build might suit both of those players, but then it somewhat takes away from Osvaldo and Lambert. I think we have 9 outfield players out of the starting XI who can play MP's style. It's just the pesky winger/outside forward position that's been haunting us this whole time, and I'm still reasonably optimistic Lallana and Rodriguez will get the hang of it, but if not then maybe JWP will or we bring someone in. This is how MP plays, and it's not like it's been a disaster. So for now I think the solution is still to get work at getting better at Plan A, rather than go to Plan B. But maybe it's a silly debate. You and I both agree that the second half of the West Ham game is what we need to see. Maybe we read it differently or call it something different but it doesn't matter. That's why I'm still not too worried about things. It seemed everyone finally got on the same page with a tactic that was working great, so the blueprint for success is now out there. I'm sure MP saw it and all the players did as well so it's just a matter of the squad gelling and reaching a fuller understanding/buy-in. Whatever it was we were doing in that second half, we just need to do more of that.
http://eplindex.com/37849/marcelo-bielsas-tactical-influence-mauricio-pochettino-tactics.html That's an absolute joke of an article. If you look at the pass maps on squawka you will see that we completed about 5 long vertical passes against west brom and sunderland combined, we completed a lot of long diagonal passes and long horizontal passes, few of which were effective in opening up space as the vast majority of them were passes in our own half to players in our own half. Against norwich and to a greater degree west ham the amount of long balls was drastically less despite playing 2 strikers and having more men forward of the man in possession. The statement: "These aren’t long balls pumped up field, they’re Bielsa inspired vertical passes, or “fast transitional passes” which statistically have been recognised as long passes." Is fundamentally wrong and very misleading. Its probably worth pointing out the difference between direct high tempo football and a hoof. Against West Brom and Sunderland we were unsucessfully hitting long balls to isolated players and were stretching our attack more than their defence, against west ham we had good men forward of the man in possession and so a vertical long pass was sometimes very effective. Im not just advocating hitting more long balls although they might have been used to more effect against West Ham. We play the ball too slowly in midfield against a packed defence and so can't break them down, when we play at a higher tempo we at least stand a chance of creating a chance that isn't a cross into Lambert. Under pochettino the vast majority of goals we have scored from open play have been from crosses or from a defender/goalkeeper's failed clearance. Only 2 have been the result of a forward pass. Quite clearly the passing and movement under pochettino has been abject for much of his time as manager. Far too many times we knocked it around the back five without generating any space, perhaps the front 4 had transitioned into attack too quickly and left the back 5 too isolated, clearly it wasn't working. I think we would be better served paying 4-3-1-2 where we would be able to control midfield and we would generate actual width from the fullbacks. Lallana and Rodriguez don't really cut it playing as the widemen and would both be better centrally as would all our attacking players. We used that formation against norwich but it wasn't effective due to having defensive fullbacks, with clyne and shaw as our fullbacks I feel the tactic will be effective.
I think there's a difference between poor play and tactics. It's definitely not the plan for the back five to just dork around and pass it back and forth to each other. I don't think that's a plan for any tactic in existence other than time-wasting. The width thing, I just think we all need to stop moaning about it. NC wants to play a modern game, 4-2-3-1 is probably the most prevalent formation used today. There are very few teams that use traditional wingers, and very few players who even can play that role anymore. We're a high-tempo, pretty-pass, triangles-all-over-the-field, predominantly ball-on-the-floor system. That's not just a formation, that's the philosophy/system and it goes from the top at Cortese all the way down to the U18. There IS width on offense. It comes from the fullbacks. The 4-2-3-1 means the two DM/MC's are in the middle which gives room for the fullbacks to bomb up the sideline. And the two winger/forward/outer MC's then pinch in behind the striker so the fullbacks have a clear space to run all the way to the flag stick if they want. The two DM's is quite intentional. Three MC's playing a line or near to it means the two of them sometimes get pushed out and then they are in the way of the fullbacks. That's the old school way where the fullback played in an outside MC who was the one who ran it up the sideline. There is no width on defense and that could possibly be exploited with a wide midfielder by no one else has any wide midfielders either so it's not a big deal. But anyway, the point is that I think MP is somewhat flexible about formation, but in the end the team is going to play the same. It would be a drastic move to change the high press/modern system we've spent a lot of money and time to develop. And it's not going to happen after just four games. If what we have isn't working-- and I do understand the criticism that maybe it isn't-- then we'll stick with it and see if players can learn it, and if they can't then we'll bring in players and/or a new manager who can. Give it some time. We are in eleventh place. Did anyone really expect better? At worst, given the schedule we are two points off where we'd hoped to be. Which is nowhere near worrisome enough to make wholesale changes as opposed to just trying to iron out the kinks in practice. Give it at least five more games and then maybe it's time to take a hard look in the mirror.
I can only comment on what I have seen and I don't feel the tactics are working against defensive teams. I don't think there was much width on saturday certainly very little from the fullbacks. Its only been 4 games and I fully expect to see some improvement not only in the players but also in the tactics. I don't particularly want to speculate on whether we will cope better with defensive teams but I do think we have an excellent team and an excellent manager. However we have been playing quite poorly as a team apart from the first 25 against west brom and the second half against west ham.
Finally got round to watching the MOTD2 highlights. I'm not sure where some of the panic has come from. Jaaskelainen produced a number of good saves. Arguably 80% of the shots he saved could have been better placed but overall we created plenty of chances and did enough to win the game. Have patience and keep the faith!
