SC's Tactical Autopsy thread

sloth · Apr 3, 2014

beats1 said:
They weren't fit to start and required an injection to come on, if they start with an injection and play longer than they should they can fuck their careers. Take it from someone who spends alot of time in Physiotherapy and has been working there for past couple of weeks.

As SI said there wasn't anybody else, Winks, Lamieras and etc aren't ready. Though Veljkovic may be

It could be that they were carrying injuries which made TS feel he could risk them as substitutes, but not as starters. It could also have been that in the second half against Southampton a midfield pair of Bentaleb and Gylfi performed well and he was encouraged to continue with a set-up which showed signs of coherence. To support this theory we have the second half away to Benfica where we ended up with the same midfield five and enjoyed a period of superiority. It could of course have been a bit of both.

TS implied however, in his pre-match briefing, that he was not much concerned with Liverpool's strengths, but thought it was sufficient to mainly think about our own. He has said things in a similar vein before, echoing some stuff Harry used to say. He's also criticised AVB for over-focus on the opponents and for complicating what's an essentially simple game. For these reasons, we can say that his team selection was at least also partially informed by his footballing philosophy.

In my opinion he should have thought a bit more about his opponent's strengths, considered the kinds of teams they'd struggled against, and also the fluency and coherence with which we've been playing the attacking game, if he'd done so he would not have picked the side he did, injuries or no injuries. Indeed a moment's thought as to how Liverpool were likely to play would have told him to do something different. He could have known they'd try and overwhelm us with their attacking play, he would know that Rogers was going to set out in one of two ways, attacking, or super attacking, if the former, then playing a disciplined game, being prepared to defend and lot's of concentration off the ball with players suited to that task was the way to go, then, if we kept it tight we may have had a chance to pick them off, playing open against this formation was asking for trouble. If Rogers went for the super-attacking option then it was doubly important to keep it tight, but our chances of picking them off if we succeeded in denying them was increased. Playing open however, against super-attacking was almost suicidal.

This is not a template for how to play Liverpool mind you, if our team had shown signs of being able to match them in midfield and attack, if we'd shown some tooth in previous matches, and shown some creative flair, not to mention fluency then toe-to-toe may have been worthwhile. Next season, if our coach can get the best out of our players then we might go attacking against Liverpool or the like. This season however given all our issues he got it plain wrong.

DEFchenkOE · Apr 3, 2014

Also, if Tim had been paying attention to any of Liverpool's games recently, he would have seen that they're playing a diamond with either Coutinho or Sterling at the tip. Essentially they have 3 narrow midfielders and then one with a bit more of a free role to roam about in between the lines. Bentelab and Siggy were completely overwhelmed by this. So besides neither of them being holding midfielders they was completely out numbered and were basically chasing shadows. Could have drove a few buses through our midfield when Coutinho walked through to score.

WiganSpur · Apr 3, 2014

The lineup was a disaster. It was a major factor, but ultimately no one gives a fuck playing for Tim because they know very well that he isn't a good manager and that Levy will fire him in a few months.

Still, I don't know how any man that wants Spurs do well would prefer Nabil Bentaleb and Gylfi Sigurdsson over Sandro and Dembele in a CM2.

Tim has no clue how to set up a defence. The high line is completely suicidal when it is not coached properly.

He switches things round too much in his lineups as well. One minute Dembele is on the right, next he's on the bench. Soldado in and out. Bentaleb in and out, Sigurdsson playing here there and everywhere. Lamela dead. Yet somehow perhaps one of our worst performers this season starts every game on the right! There's just no way you can encourage fluid football by doing this.

The only thing that he has got going for him is that we've looked very slightly more dangerous in attack. But at what cost? High line with no pressing, absence of game plan and tactical knowledge, no analysis of the opposition, no confidence in the manager, inconsistent team selection and horrific PR it would seem.

TheGreenLily · Apr 3, 2014

I couldn't find a gif of someone doing an autopsy on poo.

I feel sad now

Bus-Conductor · Apr 12, 2014

Listening to some stuff about Atletico today, Simeone was talking about there tactics they used against Barca. How their pressing was two phased. They realised their defence was vulnerable so initially they would press them hard and high, if they didn't win the ball quickly then they would drop deep and regroup and press lower.

That team work so fucking hard.

Also heard one of the Chelsea players was saying how Mourinho had them practising for all eventualities. Should they go 1-0 up, 2-0 up, 0-1, 1-1 etc etc. They were drilled in how to tactically adjust to all outcomes throughout the game.

Can you imagine our fans putting up with all that work ethic at the expense of entertaining Robbie Savage ?

sloth · Apr 16, 2014

Thought I'd expand on a post I made in the ratings thread.

The observation I made there was that "while there's no doubt that individual errors made a big contribution to each of their goals, one of the glaring issues was the lack of a CM to patrol the space in front of our defence.

It seemed to me that depending on which side of the pitch the ball was on, the opposite midfielder (Lennon or Eriksen) had been asked to tuck in to make it a kind of midfield three, the problem with that was you can't have your cake and eat it, and when the ball was shifted quickly from one flank to the other via one of their CM (who sucked in Lennon or Eriksen) they continuously got their wide men in unmarked positions in and around our box."

I feel like this was compounded by a change of tactics by Tim, inasmuch as he went with a flat four with no designated holding player, whereas the previous week Chadli had clearly been told to sit and Paulinho played his natural box-to-box/attacking game. Playing a flat four with no one designated to patrol the area in front of the defence was asking for trouble, and unnecessarily kamakaze. Time and again both Paulinho and Chadli got caught up the field, making West Brom's long-ball tactics look like a work of genius.

West Brom clearly had a game plan to exploit our weakness at full-back and in the air at CB, by playing two up and telling Brunt and Reid to get forward in support they managed to create situations where Chiriches, Rose or Naughton were isolated one on one. As Mel knew, none of them are any good in the air, and so invariably in the first thirty it was a West Brom player picking up the knock-down. Our lack of a DM or even a holding CM meant that our CBs were constantly getting pulled wide and West Brom were exploiting the holes both left in CM, or as pertinently, on the opposite flank. It was a shambles.

While I and others have had some sympathy with Sherwood's switch to 442 type formations in an attempt to loosen the attacking bowels of our constipated side (sorry, that's a horrible metaphor; perhaps something to do with me writing this from India!), one undoubted negative effect is in the way we play off the ball, and in this I'm not merely talking about the lack of a CM making leaving us exposed in that area, but also the fact that many of our players have been drilled during their career's in what to do off the ball when there's a CM3 but clearly not so much when there's only two of them (442 is certainly more of a British affectation than it is a foreign one). As an example, at one point, about 30 minutes in, Paulinho was shuffling across to deal with an attacking throw which may have gone down the line, by doing so he made it a three on two situation, with Lennon and Naughton the other two, a fine and no doubt rehearsed move if you're playing a CM3, in the event though only Erikesen was left covering the centre, West Brom of course didn't throw it down the line, but to Sessignon who was shepherded with back to goal by Chiriches, but who nevertheless had no difficulty playing a ball to Mulumbu in acres of space in the centre, a couple of feints by him had Erikesen twisting and turning and had drawn Rose across to cover and suddenly it was simplicity itself for Mulumbo to release Amalfitano into the left-side of our box where Lloris did well to palm away a stinging, clear shot on goal. Basically the whole farrago came about because Paulinho got drawn into defending the right-hand side in a way which made sense if there were a CM3, but was completely wrong if there was a CM2.

In summary then, individual errors cost us (but they are more likely when the system is placed under strain), Sherwood's change of tactics compounded the errors, West Brom's simple exploitation of our structural weakness made things even worse, and the meta-observation is that changing a system mid-season to deal with a problem can create a wack-a-mole type situation - something which should inform the level of change you try to introduce.

Bus-Conductor · Apr 16, 2014

sloth said:
Thought I'd expand on a post I made in the ratings thread.

The observation I made there was that "while there's no doubt that individual errors made a big contribution to each of their goals, one of the glaring issues was the lack of a CM to patrol the space in front of our defence.

It seemed to me that depending on which side of the pitch the ball was on, the opposite midfielder (Lennon or Eriksen) had been asked to tuck in to make it a kind of midfield three, the problem with that was you can't have your cake and eat it, and when the ball was shifted quickly from one flank to the other via one of their CM (who sucked in Lennon or Eriksen) they continuously got their wide men in unmarked positions in and around our box."

I feel like this was compounded by a change of tactics by Tim, inasmuch as he went with a flat four with no designated holding player, whereas the previous week Chadli had clearly been told to sit and Paulinho played his natural box-to-box/attacking game. Playing a flat four with no one designated to patrol the area in front of the defence was asking for trouble, and unnecessarily kamakaze. Time and again both Paulinho and Chadli got caught up the field, making West Brom's long-ball tactics look like a work of genius.

West Brom clearly had a game plan to exploit our weakness at full-back and in the air at CB, by playing two up and telling Brunt and Reid to get forward in support they managed to create situations where Chiriches, Rose or Naughton were isolated one on one. As Mel knew, none of them are any good in the air, and so invariably in the first thirty it was a West Brom player picking up the knock-down. Our lack of a DM or even a holding CM meant that our CBs were constantly getting pulled wide and West Brom were exploiting the holes both left in CM, or as pertinently, on the opposite flank. It was a shambles.

While I and others have had some sympathy with Sherwood's switch to 442 type formations in an attempt to loosen the attacking bowels of our constipated side (sorry, that's a horrible metaphor; perhaps something to do with me writing this from India!), one undoubted negative effect is in the way we play off the ball, and in this I'm not merely talking about the lack of a CM making leaving us exposed in that area, but also the fact that many of our players have been drilled during their career's in what to do off the ball when there's a CM3 but clearly not so much when there's only two of them (442 is certainly more of a British affectation than it is a foreign one). As an example, at one point, about 30 minutes in, Paulinho was shuffling across to deal with an attacking throw which may have gone down the line, by doing so he made it a three on two situation, with Lennon and Naughton the other two, a fine and no doubt rehearsed move if you're playing a CM3, in the event though only Erikesen was left covering the centre, West Brom of course didn't throw it down the line, but to Sessignon who was shepherded with back to goal by Chiriches, but who nevertheless had no difficulty playing a ball to Mulumbu in acres of space in the centre, a couple of feints by him had Erikesen twisting and turning and had drawn Rose across to cover and suddenly it was simplicity itself for Mulumbo to release Amalfitano into the left-side of our box where Lloris did well to palm away a stinging, clear shot on goal. Basically the whole farrago came about because Paulinho got drawn into defending the right-hand side in a way which made sense if there were a CM3, but was completely wrong if there was a CM2.

In summary then, individual errors cost us (but they are more likely when the system is placed under strain), Sherwood's change of tactics compounded the errors, West Brom's simple exploitation of our structural weakness made things even worse, and the meta-observation is that changing a system mid-season to deal with a problem can create a wack-a-mole type situation - something which should inform the level of change you try to introduce.

Part 1

Over and above team selection and formation, which I believe has been a naive compromise from the get go by Sherwood in an attempt to be perceived as more "attacking" we aren't really seeing any real tactical implementation and in many cases barely even any tactical competence.

I clearly remember his first pre match interview when he picked Eriksen and Dembele in a CM2 of a 442 with Sigurdsson as an orthodox LM and Lamela as an orthodox RM, when asked if this wasn't a slightly adventurous formation away at a team renowned for keeping the ball he said something like "they can't keep it if we keep it". We had something like 40% of the ball in that game (amongst our lowest of the season).

That theme has continued throughout his tenure. His tactical application )or lack of) bares very little resemblance or is often counter intuitive to his rhetoric. Suggesting he doesn't really have a fucking clue tactically.

This is very reminiscent of life under Redknapp, where we saw Modric and Kranjcar selected in a cm2 against ManC once for example.

The naive assumption that attacking football isn't something that's coached in tandem with the responsibility that goes with it, the work off the ball to recover the ball, it just means putting as many attacking players on the pitch you can and hoping you our shoot the opposition.

It's a strategy that generally sees you doing OK against inferior teams, with inferior players and, as is usually the case, inferior managers who also aren't tactical geniuses, but doing badly against better teams with better players and more tactically astute managers.

The most disappointing thing about all this is the seeming lack of input of Chris Ramsey, who was incredibly highly thought of as a coach and has played a part in the success of our younger teams, who all play a very decent brand of football that features a cohesive, high tempo, press and pass game.

Part 2

I genuinely believed that under AVB we had found a good formula, even though I didn't agree with some of the tactical decisions (mostly formation and team selection - including development squad integration) he made. I thought the philosophy was to build a system/ethos/methodology that wasn't dependent on the individual, that would better facilitate youth integration and make that our identity.

Then even if AVB goes, the DOF brings in another coach to fit that system, not constantly changing the system, ergo the players (as we are now hearing with "I want my players" Sherwood).

I could live with the anomalies and vagaries of this system, baron spells in front of goal, a lack of thrills and spills for the fucking neutral, as long as we were developing a sustainable system that would stand us in good stead when combined with our/Levy's ability to maximise small financial gains.

From the outside looking in, without intrinsic knowledge of who said what to who etc, it just seems to me that there were several failures, primarily by Levy to get everyone involved to buy into the concept. To get everyone on board. AVB, Sherwood, Baldini all in harmony.

We appoint Freund over AVB's head as his assistant. We put Sherwood above AVB in the hierarchy, who clearly has an agenda but no real coaching experience and very little tactical nous or qualifications. We appoint a DOF who I would hope has a remit to source young talent before it becomes expensive and then we sign Paulinho, Soldado and Lamela for 60m.

Where is the harmony in all of that ?

Maybe there was no concept. Just Levy appointing what he thought was a good young coach, and that coach with lots of ambition but not the budget to finance it, with people like Sherwood agitating in different directions.

The Redknapp/Sherwood approach is a purely short term approach. It has it's place in what is after all a very short term business. But I am extremely disillusioned by this approach.

Bus-Conductor · Apr 20, 2014

We've often discussed the part stats and data play in football, with people like @ShelfSide18 confirming that for many clubs the monitoring of stats and data plays a significant role. Some have poo poo'd this as new fangled bunkum.

I came across this small section of a larger article about Simeone's Atletico in todays Times:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/football/Champions_League/article1401492.ece

In the paper it was an image type feature so I can't cut and paste in here but it was basically saying that Simeone's assistant German Burgos has taken to wearing a set of Google Glasses, giving him access through internet streaming etc of real time match stats and performance data of their players as they are playing matches.

Mr Pink · Apr 20, 2014

Totally agree with Carragher's comments there on sky.

United absolutely dominated possession today yet offered very little with it.

Carragher saying its about the pace of the passing, something I always maintained was the problem under AVB.

danielneeds · Apr 20, 2014

Mr Pink said:
Totally agree with Carragher's comments there on sky.

United absolutely dominated possession today yet offered very little with it.

Carragher saying its about the pace of the passing, something I always maintained was the problem under AVB.

The difference in quality in wide areas the key too. United's midfielder all looking to play central, and the fullbacks, Smalling and Buttner lacking quality. Compare that to Everton, with Baines and Coleman dominating out wide, and it was crucia a factor.

Mr Pink · Apr 20, 2014

danielneeds said:
The difference in quality in wide areas the key too. United's midfielder all looking to play central, and the fullbacks, Smalling and Buttner lacking quality. Compare that to Everton, with Baines and Coleman dominating out wide, and it was crucia a factor.

Oh yeah for sure, was more relating his point to how we played under AVB though. For me, we always moved the ball too slowly and there was not enough change of pace to our passing.

Basically its a lot easier to defend against as our lack of goals/goal threat supports.

danielneeds · Apr 20, 2014

Mr Pink said:
Oh yeah for sure, was more relating his point to how we played under AVB though. For me, we always moved the ball too slowly and there was not enough change of pace to our passing.

Basically its a lot easier to defend against as our lack of goals/goal threat supports.

I think the wide thing applied to us too, you can say the passing was slow under AVB, but when the ball did get worked wide to our fullbacks, because the wide players were inverted, invariably Walker and Rose have no final ball either.

Mr Pink · Apr 20, 2014

danielneeds said:
I think the wide thing applied to us too, you can say the passing was slow under AVB, but when the ball did get worked wide to our fullbacks, because the wide players were inverted, invariably Walker and Rose have no final ball either.

That is true, it probably compounded it.

stevespurs · Apr 21, 2014

danielneeds said:
I think the wide thing applied to us too, you can say the passing was slow under AVB, but when the ball did get worked wide to our fullbacks, because the wide players were inverted, invariably Walker and Rose have no final ball either.

It seemed like we really tried for Coentroa (SP?) in the summer transfer window. He would have slotted in nicely to the LB. I don't think BAE was any better going forward than Rose, both are awful crossers.

I actually think Naughton has a reasonable touch pass and cross, maybe just not the pace to get round the back.

Poor Bobby!!

ItsBoris · Apr 21, 2014

danielneeds said:
The difference in quality in wide areas the key too. United's midfielder all looking to play central, and the fullbacks, Smalling and Buttner lacking quality. Compare that to Everton, with Baines and Coleman dominating out wide, and it was crucia a factor.

And the pace of Lukaku, Mirallas, and Barkley making the runs. United playing with Kagawa and Mata reminds me of Arsenal playing with Ozil and Cazorla.

Imo you have to play with just one of them, or else it gets too congested. You need the quicker players making smart runs to get the best out of the creative players imo. That's why I'm not sure why some people want us to sign Lallana. We need more pace in our attack, and Lallana would be too inclined to sit further back and act as the creator imo, so unless LVG can convert him to a CM Schweinsteiger-style, then he's not a player we should go for imo. Konoplyanka is more of what we need I think.

Bus-Conductor · May 1, 2014

I thought I'd move this conversation we (@Mr Pink) were having in another thread over to here as it actually is just a continuation of discussions we have had previously relating to Spurs under AVB etc:

Mr Pink said:
Bayern two thirds possession tonight - and spanked.

Possession stats are bloody meaningless unless you're seriously breaking them down and looking at what's being done with the possession.

No wonder Rodgers adapted his style.

Here's the thing Mr P. Possession stats aren't meaningless or meaningful, they are just a neutral measurement.

I think the only thing you could have meant is Possession is meaningless unless you do something with it. And I think in your case you mean "score".

But do you think that any manager sets out with the ambition of having possession purely for possession's sake ? He thinks, I'm not trying to score and I'm not prevent the opposition from scoring by having the ball, I'm just hoping to keep the ball for it's own enjoyment ?

I'm going to take it as a given that you don't think that, or that anyone, including fans of a "Possession" biased approach - or game that includes trying to control the ball - think that either.

The problem/soloution isn't possession/lack of possession. It is always about what teams do with and without the possession. Whether they are having 70% or 30% or not having it for 70% or 30%.

You went on to say things like teams have figured it out and they now need to adapt etc. But Bayern have just won the league at a canter. And Pep's Barca did too, and two CL's. You are using a knockout game in a cup competition against one of the worlds best teams, featuring the two most expensive players on the world as an indicator of a seed change, and I think that is perhaps flawed logic. The evidence of Pep's reign as a coach suggests that what he achieves, he achieves through not compromising.

Madrid didn't beat Bayern because they didn't have the ball for 70% of the time, they beat Bayern because of what they did without it for that 70% and with it for that 30%. Bayern didn't lose because they had 70% of the ball, they lost because of what they didn't do during the 30% they didn't have it.

Ironically, After Real went from a near 60% average possession team to pragmatic bus parkers to win, Atletico won the next night by reversing their trend of having significantly less possession away from from home, by having more and forcing the game. But the bottom line, I think anyway, is that ultimately both won because of what the did when they were and weren't in possession of the ball.

For the record, I have never said the team with the most ball automatically deserves to win games no matter what. But just being tactically defensively superb, and actively ceding it doesn't either. Chelsea didn't deserve to beat Liverpool, but I can appreciate how they did tactically. Because it was deliberate. (What I don't buy is faux tactical pragmatism. People hijacking a bus parking victory that isn't deliberate, isn'tt a by-product of a clearly well structured defensive plan, they were just outplayed).

But why should Pep change his style ? It keeps winning trophies. And knockout cups will always be vulnerable to random and deliberate events ?

only1waddle · May 1, 2014

But why should Pep change his style ? It keeps winning trophies. And knockout cups will always be vulnerable to random and deliberate events ?[/quote]

I think most people respect, and indeed admire Peps ability as a coach, the thinking seems to be that him at Bayern is a bit of a mismatch, Heynckes style of football was more suited to the players they have currently.

Bus-Conductor · May 1, 2014

only1waddle said:
I think most people respect, and indeed admire Peps ability as a coach, the thinking seems to be that him at Bayern is a bit of a mismatch, Heynckes style of football was more suited to the players they have currently.

That maybe true, I certainly preferred Heynckes Bayern to Pep's, but they have just won the league with a few games to spare. Hardly a sign that they are a team/style completely at odds ?

only1waddle · May 1, 2014

Bus-Conductor said:
That maybe true, I certainly preferred Heynckes Bayern to Pep's, but they have just won the league with a few games to spare. Hardly a sign that they are a team/style completely at odds ?

Man for man there isn't a squad to touch them in the Bundesliga so transitioning from style to style shouldn't be too much trouble with a top class coach, there wasn't a great deal of competition with Dortmund falling short and i expect the same again with Lewandowski swapping in the summer.
To me they don't look comfortable and i expected a better match up with Real, the best they have looked for me was the first City game where they had intensity and moved the ball quickly and with purpose, i enjoyed that game but like you i much preferred Heynckes Bayern.

Bus-Conductor · May 1, 2014

only1waddle said:
Man for man there isn't a squad to touch them in the Bundesliga so transitioning from style to style shouldn't be too much trouble with a top class coach, there wasn't a great deal of competition with Dortmund falling short and i expect the same again with Lewandowski swapping in the summer.
To me they don't look comfortable and i expected a better match up with Real, the best they have looked for me was the first City game where they had intensity and moved the ball quickly and with purpose, i enjoyed that game but like you i much preferred Heynckes Bayern.

I think it's fallible to draw too many conclusions from a cup game against the most expensively assembled attack in football.

The current Barca beat Real a couple of weeks ago playing a very similar style to Bayern (ie. aren't the sparkling slick Barca of a couple of years back but still played the Barca way and had shitloads of ball 68%) no-one was saying how Real were tactical geniuses that night or that the Barca style was moribund.

My argument re Pep is that he is successful. he keeps winning titles. It's a bit premature to be writing his method off just yet.

I think the problem is more one of tedium. People tire of watching it, it becomes monotonous watching one team dominate the ball so completely, in such a risk averse way.

Sure, Roben isn't Messi, Kroos isn't Iniesta etc etc. And Heynckes Bayern were second in Europe only to Barca in terms of how much ball they had in games, but there was just a tad more risk and speed in transition.

But on another day Bayern could have come out on top just as Barca did a few weeks back.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

SC's Tactical Autopsy thread

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"I am Shodan"

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

SC Supporter

SC Supporter

Kick-Ass

SC Supporter

Kick-Ass

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Similar threads