Would be interested in hearing everyone's opinion on what we got wrong against Barnsley.
It's a strange one because we dominated possession and Barnsley were obviously giving us a lot of respect initially, based on how we've been this season. Therefore, it was a game we really could have stamped our authority on if we got things right. I actually don't think we played badly. But there were a few things we weren't doing effectively.
I think we can all agree that Warburton really doesn't deserve much criticism for what he's done with a shoestring budget and a bunch of misfits. But he's not a perfect manager and, occasionally, seems to get some things wrong.
Of course, he didn't have Willock, arguably his most effective player. But we cannot depend on one player and there has to be other solutions, whether it be changing the formation, tactics or asking another player to step up.
Here are my issues with our most recent game:
1) At times, it feels like the team are under specific instructions to be overly careful with the ball in the final third, not to lose possession anywhere on the park. To me, this is unrealistic. In football, you will lose possession. And it's better to lose possession trying something in the final third, rather than tarting about with it at the back or somewhere in midfield.
I say we're under specific instructions because the team do seem to have been told that they should go backwards if there isn't a nailed on, guaranteed chance of finding someone's feet. Or we still have a big lacking in confidence. It's very seldom that we send through or over a ball that is a 50/50 for one of the attacking players.
Of course, I don't want endless balls to be sent through/over all game long. But we've got to take a chance here and there, to trust attacking players when they look like they'll make a run. Doing so would make the opposition have to work and sweat. It can force them into mistakes and it keeps things focussed on their side of the pitch.
One big point about this lack of chance taking is that we end up being really slow and allow opposition teams to get back into shape all game long.
Ironically, all of the attacking through/over passes come from our back three, who are not so great with those!
2) Why two strikers against a team like Barnsley who are happy to be behind the ball and put a lot of numbers in defence to mark out our attackers? To me, this game was a game that could have been won based on how we operated the midfield. A setup with 1 striker (definitely should be Dykes in this type of match) and a middle three like Amos or Hendrick with Johansen and Field would have allowed us to put more pressure on their defence or split them up. We might have been able to create more movement and free up Chair and Dykes to harass in and around the box. There would also have been a bit more cover in midfield, so that Wallace or Adomah could feel a bit more confident pushing forward.
