Playing a high line was perhaps a bit naive but I always felt the players should take the brunt of blame for the result. If you'd seen us against Everton in our previous away game, you'd have seen the plan and it was to win the ball back early and keep them under pressure. If anything we did that too well in the first half and won the ball back before their players even had a chance to make runs and get caught out of position. AVB clearly didn't have the tactics right in attack but the excecution of a lot of his principles were sound. No matter what the plan the manager comes up with, if you concede in 14 seconds against the team with the best home record in the league then you're in trouble and unless the manager's plan was for half the team to be looking down at the floor counting blades of grass then it's hard to see it as his fault. Then there was an improvement, we weren't exactly tearing you apart but we saw a lot of the ball and Lamela missed pretty much an open goal. Part of the problem with keeping the ball like we did is that you need the otherside to want to get the ball too but when you're up against a defensive side or a team that are already winning then it's far easier for them to keep bodies back and break up field on the counter, which is what happened throughout the game and to be honest, we looked like we'd given up by half time anyway. Anyway, our team's certainly a bit more savvy now. There's not grand plans other than "get the ball up their end of the pitch and score" but a few traits from AVB remain in how we press for the ball and pass the ball to keep the ball at times. It's all optional though these days, if the defence feel like they need to drop back from a highline they do, same with our midfield pressing and we're far more likely to play direct passes to switch the pace of an attack. Spurcat will hate me for saying this but I agree with Dembele when he says our smaller pitch makes it more difficult for us at home. This is a game where I think it will actually benefit us if anything. Maybe I'm being optimistic but I'm pretty confident that we can give you a good game and I'd be surprised if we lose by more than a goal and I think we can win if we play well.
I have often pondered this issue with certain formations AVB opted for. Anyone know how much smaller our pitch is compared to the likes of the newer stadiums in the PL?
Apparently we have the second smallest pitch in the PL. ManC have the biggest. http://www.openplay.co.uk/blog/premiership-football-pitch-sizes-2013-2014/
Makes little difference tbh, just another excuse, we're talkin about a yard or two either side on width, length wise most are 110yards. If pitch size is so relevant, you'd think Hull City might do better with the 2nd biggest pitch, yep, bigger than Old Trafford! its all here mate... www.openplay.co.uk/blog/premiership-football-pitch-sizes-2013-2014/ EDIT - Ah, during my research and *** break, someone else beat me too it!
I already saw the link in some SOBs comment. Surely it depends where you put the touch lines. I know Stoke used to move the lines depending on whether Rory Delap was playing.
It might only be a couple of yards in each direction, but City's pitch is a full 11% bigger than ours, and 16% bigger than the Spammers. Might make a difference
I believe the figures are the maximum the rectangle of turf will take, you are right about Stoke moving in to the minimum FA rule rquirement, so not breaking any rules in doing so. that my understanding. The figure as a mathmatical figure may appear to be sizeable, the actual difference is a one yard stripe the length of the pitch, I don't see that as a restricting factor. How much further apart does a back4 need to be to cover an extra 2yds, not much really and as a player i was only interested where the net was not the touchline....I think the difference is marginal! please log in to view this image
They are doing well but I'm not saying the team with the biggest pitch has the best home record(although it's true for City). Certain styles of football are better on bigger pitches though.
I'm not disagreeing with the theory YV, all i'm saying is that the tangible difference in the majority is negligible. the opposite ends of the spectrum, the Etiihad and ours, yeah you probably would. From the link... "So if you think that Tottenham’s pitch at White Hart Lane appears to be small and must need a trip to Specsavers, in actual fact your eyes are propbably fine. Sizes of Premiership football pitches do differ, but not by as much as you might think. Is there are a correlation between the success of the team and the pitch size? We’ll let you decide…" ...If you look at the top ten in that list you'd have to say not really, that was my reference to Hull, I wasn't rubbishing their season.
Well if you look at Hull having the second biggest pitch and expect a direct correlation to their home form then you're looking at it wrong. I know you know this but there is quite a big difference in the quality of Hull's line up compared to ours, yet we stand level on points for home form this season. Pitch size isn't the only factor but it makes an interesting case for the importance of getting conditions right for home games when you compare the home and away forms of us and Hull.
I wish you'd just stick to the article and what I said. If you want to look at home form for one season be my guest, . The authors correlation is to success, success being the general term for winning things, and that is all I commented on. If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, at least be right! There are a lot of teams in the top ten who've won naff all. Bigger pitch doesn't equal success, its an actual observation not an opinion.
I am sticking to what you said. You said this: Makes little difference tbh, just another excuse, we're talkin about a yard or two either side on width, length wise most are 110yards. If pitch size is so relevant, you'd think Hull City might do better with the 2nd biggest pitch. Now when you accept that pitch size isn't the only factor in performance then you don't expect a direct correlation, ie 2nd biggest pitch doesn't equal 2nd best team. It's impossible to prove that bigger pitches help certain styles of play more but what you can say without doubt is that something is going very right for Hull at home this season and something is going very wrong for us. Hull have gained 18 points at home this season but only 5 away from home, whilst we've picked up 18 at home and 25 away. I find it astonishing that we can pick up 5 times the amount of points as a team on the road, where you play under the same conditions(essentially), yet we pick up the same number of points at home, where certain conditions are different and constant. Whether the pitch size plays a part and to what extent is impossible to prove, as I've said, but I wouldn't dismiss it in Hull and our cases as there's such a huge disparity. PS I see you're getting a bit annoyed with me as you think I'm putting words into your mouth but I'm not trying to do that. All I've done is pick up something you said and try to add on to it some stuff that I've found out and that I think is interesting and relevant.
YV, sorry mate perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I see where you're going with half a seasons home form now, ok, but I think your on the wrong path.....we had 2 different managers, one playing a stifling brand of football that didn't suit any pitch!....there's you're difference, nothing to do with any pitch. Like I said all these square footage differences amount to in the main is a one yard stripe of turf down each side, some are a yard longer across the full width. Lots of mathmatical area, but is it useful area, the corner flag a yard further away...not really. Our poorer home record is down to certain players confidence in front of home fans imo, I think the team are or were, playing less freely at home for some reason, particularly Soldado under avb. Once the season home stats developed as the season progressed, I think the team have felt extra pressure to improve at home. However, that said, I'll wager now Tims home form will be better than avb's. You don't ever annoy me by the way!
The Etihad's pitch is 10% bigger than our pitch. I think that's a significant difference. Not enough blame everything on but enough to influence games. We'll see, regarding Sherwood. But again that sort of misses the point, I've said throughout that certain styles are better suited to bigger pitches and I don't think anyone would argue that under Sherwood we don't stick to any one particular style.
Pitch size has an effect as the game goes on. The old Wembley during domestic finals was a classic example. Even for a pitch that size, the MF melees at the beginning of games used to make it look like a 20x20 yd pitch. But come the final 20-25, the spaces between players over the pitch get big enough to drive 747s thru them.
