Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Recommended Posts

I completely agree with the part around a minute in where he says don't be outcome based. Where he says you need to avoid reacting to each individual result. That was one of the failures of Johnson, and to a lesser extent Holden. They were reactive not proactive, and it slowly eroded the base plan.

However, there does come a point where the failings run so deep that Plan A is no longer functional. At that point you need to change tack, you need to go to Plan B...more accurately you need a new Plan A.

IMO the Johnson/Holden style reached that nadir some time ago. I hope Pearson is looking at developing a new Plan A, as the one we've used for the past two years is demonstrably failing to get us to where the Club claim to be aiming.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I completely agree with the part around a minute in where he says don't be outcome based. Where he says you need to avoid reacting to each individual result. That was one of the failures of Johnson, and to a lesser extent Holden. They were reactive not proactive, and it slowly eroded the base plan.

However, there does come a point where the failings run so deep that Plan A is no longer functional. At that point you need to change tack, you need to go to Plan B...more accurately you need a new Plan A.

IMO the Johnson/Holden style reached that nadir some time ago. I hope Pearson is looking at developing a new Plan A, as the one we've used for the past two years is demonstrably failing to get us to where the Club claim to be aiming.

Johnson is a strange case. I liked he was inquisitive , that he wanted to learn new style and ideas. But that lead to muddled thinking.
I would question whether we had a Plan A of any sort. 
If someone asked what Cotts plan A was, you could probably have a decent stab at it. With Johnson I reckon we played every formation ever thought of, possibly in the same game.
Great video Dave, someone that has a plan, is confident with it and has the players buying into it. Football is basically a simple game, no need to over complicate it and confuse players. I think Nige may well be doing similar to RM.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1960maaan said:

Johnson is a strange case. I liked he was inquisitive , that he wanted to learn new style and ideas. But that lead to muddled thinking.
I would question whether we had a Plan A of any sort. 
If someone asked what Cotts plan A was, you could probably have a decent stab at it. With Johnson I reckon we played every formation ever thought of, possibly in the same game.
Great video Dave, someone that has a plan, is confident with it and has the players buying into it. Football is basically a simple game, no need to over complicate it and confuse players. I think Nige may well be doing similar to RM.

Johnson may not have had Plan A in so far as "play the same formation every match and pass it to X, Y, or Z".

However, I think what we saw was that he certainly had themes and philosophies (so many philosophies). We noticeably did not shoot from range under Johnson, he liked to have the one flair player, he wanted players to "solve problems". Those are things he didn't change, but as the squad and general situation changed so those themes became less viable.

The broader point that Martin makes is accurate. Changing stuff because you win or lose a few, or because the press or fans get on your back, is stupid. It is better to stick to your guns and improve...to a point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Retweeted this myself, thought it was really impressive & probably explains why he is being linked with other jobs.

2 other points, I know it was League One so a lower standard but so obvious that Cotterill’s record breaking side was absolutely set up like this.

3-5-2, with pace either side of Flint, strong ball carriers in the wing back positions & a midfield (Wade Elliott, Korey & Freeman) who all knew their role.

Second point, someone cleverer than me said a plan is all well & good until you are punched on the nose & Holden & LJ both seemed to vary what the plan was wildly after a defeat or poor performance.

That identity stuff Pearson is alluding to is exactly this, what are we trying to do & how do we intend to do it?

If like it was under Holden it is changing by the week, you’re sunk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read once that at Barca ( probably applies at Man City as well) Pep didn't have a plan B. He just concentrated on making his plan A  as good and strong as possible.

Obviously it helps when you have the best players in the world, but do you see teams like Norwich and Brentford chop and change personnel and formations depending on the opposition, as we have done for a few seasons?

In one of his early interviews I was pleased to hear Pearson say that he was only interested in, and focussed on,  us and what we do. While it might be borne out of necessity, because of injuries, but it makes pleasant change to see him picking unchanged teams and perhaps reflects him playing to our strengths, even if they might be a bit limited at the moment. 

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

A lot more thoughtful and articulate than his predecessor. 

Experienced is the word RR.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I completely agree with the part around a minute in where he says don't be outcome based. Where he says you need to avoid reacting to each individual result. That was one of the failures of Johnson, and to a lesser extent Holden. They were reactive not proactive, and it slowly eroded the base plan.

However, there does come a point where the failings run so deep that Plan A is no longer functional. At that point you need to change tack, you need to go to Plan B...more accurately you need a new Plan A.

IMO the Johnson/Holden style reached that nadir some time ago. I hope Pearson is looking at developing a new Plan A, as the one we've used for the past two years is demonstrably failing to get us to where the Club claim to be aiming.

Russell Martin is talking about fundamental beliefs and identity. That is principle based. If failings run so deep .. If the identity is ingrained they cannot. Tack can be altering  formation, one up, one down, one across where 4-3-3 becomes 4-2-3-1. An improvement is sought but the principles of the identity remain, and what occurs is a sub principle alters e.g. more security (4-2-3-1 holding midfielders) to the possession based football (fundamental principle) or more width with possession (4-3-3 wingers).

MK Dons play backwards a lot to maintain possession. Its not working well. Its not a reason to abandon possession, its a challenge to improve. Identity here applies also to mindset.

Off at a tangent the Man City team he refers to pass the ball backwards (40%+) more than any team in Europe. Man City have altered how they play a little since last season. They go sideways less and don't play centrally as much - They still demand on the team keeping the ball more than the opposition.  

Edited by Cowshed
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Flames 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Russell Martin is talking about fundamental beliefs and identity. That is principle based. If failings run so deep .. If the identity is ingrained they cannot. Tack can be altering  formation, one up, one down, one across where 4-3-3 becomes 4-2-3-1. An improvement is sought but the principles of the identity remain, and what occurs is a sub principle alters e.g. more security (4-2-3-1 holding midfielders) to the possession based football (fundamental principle) or more width with possession (4-3-3 wingers).

MK Dons play backwards a lot to maintain possession. Its not working well. Its not a reason to abandon possession, its a challenge to improve. Identity here applies also to mindset.

Off at a tangent the Man City team he refers to pass the ball backwards (40%+) more than any team in Europe. Man City have altered how they play a little since last season. They go sideways less and don't play centrally as much - They still demand on the team keeping the ball more than the opposition.  

Thank you! 

A post above which talked about LJ not having a plan A because he played every formation under the sun annoyed me, the big thing under him in attacking opportunities was upgrading shot location in chances created and often at away games being a counter attacking based team. Doesn't matter if you play 352, 442, 4231 etc the basis behind the play style can stay the same.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Russell Martin is talking about fundamental beliefs and identity. That is principle based. If failings run so deep .. If the identity is ingrained they cannot. Tack can be altering  formation, one up, one down, one across where 4-3-3 becomes 4-2-3-1. An improvement is sought but the principles of the identity remain, and what occurs is a sub principle alters e.g. more security (4-2-3-1 holding midfielders) to the possession based football (fundamental principle) or more width with possession (4-3-3 wingers).

MK Dons play backwards a lot to maintain possession. Its not working well. Its not a reason to abandon possession, its a challenge to improve. Identity here applies also to mindset.

Off at a tangent the Man City team he refers to pass the ball backwards (40%+) more than any team in Europe. Man City have altered how they play a little since last season. They go sideways less and don't play centrally as much - They still demand on the team keeping the ball more than the opposition.  

I think we agree?

I said in my next post that I don't think Johnson had a "Plan A" that was as simple as a fixed/preferred formation and personnel. To quote myself "I think what we saw was that he [Johnson] certainly had themes and philosophies (so many philosophies). We noticeably did not shoot from range under Johnson, he liked to have the one flair player, he wanted players to "solve problems". Those are things he didn't change, but as the squad and general situation changed so those themes became less viable."

My broader point is that the Johnson/Holden philosophies, those principles that became ingrained under those two tenures, they failed. We haven't been promoted, we haven't even finished in the top 6. So, in my opinion, that "Plan A", which was used for the best part of 5 seasons under first Johnson and then his heir Holden, needs to be seriously looked at, and possibly replaced wholesale. That does not mean I am advocating for Pearson to dig out his old Watford 4231 playbook and fix us into a single formation. It means I want a reassessment of every fundamental principle that the players have learned from the past two managers.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

I completely agree with the part around a minute in where he says don't be outcome based. Where he says you need to avoid reacting to each individual result. That was one of the failures of Johnson, and to a lesser extent Holden. They were reactive not proactive, and it slowly eroded the base plan.

However, there does come a point where the failings run so deep that Plan A is no longer functional. At that point you need to change tack, you need to go to Plan B...more accurately you need a new Plan A.

IMO the Johnson/Holden style reached that nadir some time ago. I hope Pearson is looking at developing a new Plan A, as the one we've used for the past two years is demonstrably failing to get us to where the Club claim to be aiming.

Nicely summed up. 👍🏻

43 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I read once that at Barca ( probably applies at Man City as well) Pep didn't have a plan B. He just concentrated on making his plan A  as good and strong as possible.

Obviously it helps when you have the best players in the world, but do you see teams like Norwich and Brentford chop and change personnel and formations depending on the opposition, as we have done for a few seasons?

In one of his early interviews I was pleased to hear Pearson say that he was only interested in, and focussed on,  us and what we do. While it might be borne out of necessity, because of injuries, but it makes pleasant change to see him picking unchanged teams and perhaps reflects him playing to our strengths, even if they might be a bit limited at the moment. 

Experienced is the word RR.

Yes, and although there should be focus on what we can do, it’s got to acknowledge that there is an opposition looking to stop us doing what we want and trying to impose themselves on us.  I think this is where LJ’s inexperience came in.  A pattern of play on the training ground, where you get to place your opponents where you want them to make your pattern effective.  Unfortunately that comes unstuck when the opposition do something else in a match, which inevitably they did.

I get a bit frustrated when I read / hear people saying they want us to play from the back, through the thirds, etc....what if the opposition don’t allow you too?

In LJ’s case it became “just lump it long”....but with no plan attached to it.  It resembled SOD’s, pass it around the back, until Flint gets it, gets pressed and pings it up the pitch to the opposition.

Now, contradicting that, there are times when a short, passing, progressive approach isn’t appropriate, and therefore imho the plan has to encompass many variants / dimensions, but importantly the players have got to recognise which variant at that moment of the game.  When Bents has the ball and there is no short option, we’ve already started to see under NP a part-plan to get Kalas and Mariappa up the pitch quickly, to squeeze the gaps, which makes the midfield push-up too.  In the past under both LJ and DH, they’d (the CBs) not done that, and we’d left huge spaces for our opponents.

The plan has to be more than one-dimension with the ball.

39 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Russell Martin is talking about fundamental beliefs and identity. That is principle based. If failings run so deep .. If the identity is ingrained they cannot. Tack can be altering  formation, one up, one down, one across where 4-3-3 becomes 4-2-3-1. An improvement is sought but the principles of the identity remain, and what occurs is a sub principle alters e.g. more security (4-2-3-1 holding midfielders) to the possession based football (fundamental principle) or more width with possession (4-3-3 wingers).

MK Dons play backwards a lot to maintain possession. Its not working well. Its not a reason to abandon possession, its a challenge to improve. Identity here applies also to mindset.

Off at a tangent the Man City team he refers to pass the ball backwards (40%+) more than any team in Europe. Man City have altered how they play a little since last season. They go sideways less and don't play centrally as much - They still demand on the team keeping the ball more than the opposition.  

Re backwards to keep possession, a big criticism of mine is our over eagerness to play the killer ball and ultimately we turn over possession cheaply.  We aren’t patient, because imho we don’t want to put the effort in to keep making runs, even if you didn’t get the pass the first time.  It’s being able to recognise the need to reset, build again, try to work the opening you couldn’t create in the last phase.  In rugby (I’m no expert) you see the continual reset of the tactic in a maul near the try line.  Keep probing and probing, until they find the weakness.  They don’t think, Ah bollocks, we didn’t score first attempt, we’ll settle for a drop goal, they keep resetting and trying again, hoping the opposition don’t maintain their resistance.  I know Rugby isn’t as fluid but it’s still a similar concept.  We never go side to side, back, try again.  Ultimately we lose it cheaply and have to chase it to get it back.  Surely it’s better to maje the other side chase it?

Worth watching Failand Uncut 015 today....your little training pic routine is played out....and Bakinson gets told “not to force it” which kinda sums us up.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We never go side to side, back, try again.  Ultimately we lose it cheaply and have to chase it to get it back.  Surely it’s better to maje the other side chase it?

Ultimately this, and much of the rest of your post, points to one overarching theme: control.

The point @CodeRed makes earlier in the thread about a plan only lasting until you encounter an opponent is of course true. We've all had plans, be they grand or small, that have fallen apart - when the train is late, when the supplier brings the wrong bricks, when the client changes the brief - but by controlling our reaction we can adapt to that, change the approach if not the overall plan, and get to our destination, build the house, or deliver the project.

On the pitch, if our players can take control of themselves, then we better control of the ball, we therefore better control the game, and so hopefully control the opposition. It's what I hear when people say things like "I want us to impose ourselves on the opposition" or "We need to play our own game". If our players can learn (or perhaps re-learn) how to control their own actions and reactions on the pitch, then my hope would be that we can begin to control the game, play it on our terms, and craft performances that consistently result in points on the board.

That's Pearson's challenge, to break us down and build us back up into a team that can exert control over the game - including over our own game. It's what all the great teams have in common and once achieved, more exciting things like counter-attacking, crossing, fluid final third passing, can be built onto it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I think we agree?

 

Er? You are applying more faith to Mr Johnsons football than I had. I think he made it up as he went along season to season. 

44 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I said in my next post that I don't think Johnson had a "Plan A" that was as simple as a fixed/preferred formation and personnel. To quote myself "I think what we saw was that he [Johnson] certainly had themes and philosophies (so many philosophies). We noticeably did not shoot from range under Johnson, he liked to have the one flair player, he wanted players to "solve problems". Those are things he didn't change, but as the squad and general situation changed so those themes became less viable."

 

So many themes and philosophies meaning the football had no principles, no keystones, no definition. Russell Martin is referring to something beyond formation and personnel his view of identity is it is what they are, it is not negotiable.

Mr Johnson lost identity, got it back .. A nonsense.

44 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

My broader point is that the Johnson/Holden philosophies, those principles that became ingrained under those two tenures,  

They were not ingrained. There were no principles. Meaning the philosophy underpinning non existent principles could be a nonsense as well. - Philosophy can be how you teach and the whys - Episodic and that is what Mr Johnson was goes against normal coaching philosophy - Behaviours are ingrained by repetition and focus - That was not BCFC under Mr Johnson.

44 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

they failed. We haven't been promoted, we haven't even finished in the top 6. So, in my opinion, that "Plan A", which was used for the best part of 5 seasons under first Johnson and then his heir Holden, needs to be seriously looked at, and possibly replaced wholesale.

There was no big plan. There was no identity. There was no model of play. Nigel Pearson will improve on the mess he was left I am certain of that. 

 

44 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

That does not mean I am advocating for Pearson to dig out his old Watford 4231 playbook and fix us into a single formation. It means I want a reassessment of every fundamental principle that the players have learned from the past two managers.

Mr Pearson digging out his Watford drills and putting in place his principles would be an improvement. Structure to the football can be improvement. It may not be Ajax (!) like but its still improvement.

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Re backwards to keep possession, a big criticism of mine is our over eagerness to play the killer ball and ultimately we turn over possession cheaply.  We aren’t patient, because imho we don’t want to put the effort in to keep making runs, even if you didn’t get the pass the first time.  It’s being able to recognise the need to reset, build again, try to work the opening you couldn’t create in the last phase.  In rugby (I’m no expert) you see the continual reset of the tactic in a maul near the try line.  Keep probing and probing, until they find the weakness.  They don’t think, Ah bollocks, we didn’t score first attempt, we’ll settle for a drop goal, they keep resetting and trying again, hoping the opposition don’t maintain their resistance.  I know Rugby isn’t as fluid but it’s still a similar concept.  We never go side to side, back, try again.  Ultimately we lose it cheaply and have to chase it to get it back.  Surely it’s better to maje the other side chase it?

 

I am not sure it was over eagerness formerly. To me it was more stress related, uncomfortable in possession, and lacking guidance leading to it just goes longer with ill defined purpose. Pass and move is rehearsed and was not being done consistently enough to flow.

I think now they are attempting to penetrate more quickly. A progression, alteration but lead to turning it over more frequently. Next progression is the above. Maybe the base of possession is higher up now and they are attempting to go quicker when entering the last third. Few games in it is different. Ten games in a real pattern may be very evident.

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

Worth watching Failand Uncut 015 today....your little training pic routine is played out....and Bakinson gets told “not to force it” which kinda sums us up.

Yes .. I hope the screen are all in a line and occupying the same post code.

Edited by Cowshed
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CodeRed said:

They have a saying in the army

"no plan survives first contact with the enemy"   ( or opposition in this instance)

 

Mike Tyson used a variant of this. 
 

(On being told an opponent had a plan to beat him) “Everyone has a plan until they get a punch in the mouth”. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But, if you lose 4/5 you will not want to be judged on results would you? 😜 And if you're consistently losing with high possession numbers, perhaps the style is slightly wrong.

It's hard to talk without watching them or really knowing exactly what the fans/media are saying. It's very possible he's using extremes (punt it in the box) to undermine the genuine criticism because he's very committed/invested to his style. He wants to improve plan A, ok, but I bet that's what the majority of fans are saying that rather than PUNT IT IN THE BOX!

I wonder if the local journos have actually asked what is plan A? remember when ours wouldn't ask what the identity of the team was for seemingly months with LJ? The next question is what do you do if you're losing withwhat the manager says is the initial "Plan A" however he defines it.

LJ has 17 different plans and we ended up with a squad to match, the thing I liked about Holden is that he had one, then was recruiting to it, but obv he massively messed up the planning and implementation of it by not being able to judge talent effectively, panicked, and then suddenly had two other systems which he didn't have the personnel for. 

I think it's easier to have 1 plan, with small variations from a recruiting and availability point of view especially with the level of players available to us.

My preferred squad building concept to succeed in the championship as a non parachute payment club is low numbers of high value players where you give yourself the best chance to compete with the better teams in the league on the football pitch. That strategy risks injuries massively affecting you including relegation possibility at the extreme. Higher numbers, lower quality means no matter who you put out you're likely to lose vs the better teams all being equal no matter who is available because they have higher quality equal numbers And this way of doing things means your high value signings have to be right. Can't sign 20 players and point to 2-3 of them being great!

Or you can just cheat FFP. That works too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Prinny said:

But, if you lose 4/5 you will not want to be judged on results would you? 😜 And if you're consistently losing with high possession numbers, perhaps the style is slightly wrong.

It's hard to talk without watching them or really knowing exactly what the fans/media are saying. It's very possible he's using extremes (punt it in the box) to undermine the genuine criticism because he's very committed/invested to his style. He wants to improve plan A, ok, but I bet that's what the majority of fans are saying that rather than PUNT IT IN THE BOX!

I reckon the average fan thinks plan B - PUNT IT IN THE BOX is exactly what teams should do!  The average fan thinks 2 up top is by default more attacking than 1 up top, so the expectancy of getting the ball into a more dangerous area in one pass seems to be pretty likely. 🤣🤣🤣

I wonder if the local journos have actually asked what is plan A? remember when ours wouldn't ask what the identity of the team was for seemingly months with LJ? The next question is what do you do if you're losing withwhat the manager says is the initial "Plan A" however he defines it.

isn’t the answer to just say “we go again”! 🤣🤣🤣

Seriously though, as you’ll know too it’s about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of that plan, are certain bits being poorly executed, and understanding why.

LJ has 17 different plans and we ended up with a squad to match, the thing I liked about Holden is that he had one, then was recruiting to it, but obv he massively messed up the planning and implementation of it by not being able to judge talent effectively, panicked, and then suddenly had two other systems which he didn't have the personnel for.

yep, Holden saw a crap 2-1 win at Huddersfield where we switched the 433 and thought he’d solved the problem.

I think it's easier to have 1 plan, with small variations from a recruiting and availability point of view especially with the level of players available to us.

Amen, brother.

My preferred squad building concept to succeed in the championship as a non parachute payment club is low numbers of high value players where you give yourself the best chance to compete with the better teams in the league on the football pitch. That strategy risks injuries massively affecting you including relegation possibility at the extreme. Higher numbers, lower quality means no matter who you put out you're likely to lose vs the better teams all being equal no matter who is available because they have higher quality equal numbers And this way of doing things means your high value signings have to be right. Can't sign 20 players and point to 2-3 of them being great!

I so agree with this.  If you have a squad that can only feasibility compete in say 75% of matches, you’re lessening your chances big-time.  Coupled with this is making your existing averagely perceived players better, by playing and drilling a system that makes them better than they are in a system that is less suitable.

Or you can just cheat FFP. That works too.

⬆️⬆️⬆️

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Er? You are applying more faith to Mr Johnsons football than I had. I think he made it up as he went along season to season. 

Agree on the opinion that a "Plan" is not the same as a formation or tactic. That a "Plan" is a set of fundamental beliefs and principles onto which any number of formations or tactics can be built depending on the problem which needs to be solved.

So many themes and philosophies meaning the football had no principles, no keystones, no definition. Russell Martin is referring to something beyond formation and personnel his view of identity is it is what they are, it is not negotiable.

Mr Johnson lost identity, got it back .. A nonsense.

Ok.

They were not ingrained. There were no principles. Meaning the philosophy underpinning non existent principles could be a nonsense as well. - Philosophy can be how you teach and the whys - Episodic and that is what Mr Johnson was goes against normal coaching philosophy - Behaviours are ingrained by repetition and focus - That was not BCFC under Mr Johnson.

I saw things that were ingrained, that were common across all phases of Johnson's tenure. The most obvious was the distance shooting one, but there's no doubt there were others. I witnessed Johnson in a training session drilling the players to shoot after three passes - he verbatim quoted the heavily criticised long ball principles of Reep/Hughes - broadly that three pass moves are the most effective and lead to the most goals. I literally watched him drill that into players through repetition and focus. There were philosophies and principles, they may have been wrong, basic, nonsense or whatever, but they existed.

There was no big plan. There was no identity. There was no model of play. Nigel Pearson will improve on the mess he was left I am certain of that. 

I hope Pearson does this.

Mr Pearson digging out his Watford drills and putting in place his principles would be an improvement. Structure to the football can be improvement. It may not be Ajax (!) like but its still improvement.

Agree, structure would be very welcome.

My forum name has nothing to do with the Dutch football team.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

Johnson is a strange case. I liked he was inquisitive , that he wanted to learn new style and ideas. But that lead to muddled thinking.
I would question whether we had a Plan A of any sort. 
If someone asked what Cotts plan A was, you could probably have a decent stab at it. With Johnson I reckon we played every formation ever thought of, possibly in the same game.
Great video Dave, someone that has a plan, is confident with it and has the players buying into it. Football is basically a simple game, no need to over complicate it and confuse players. I think Nige may well be doing similar to RM.

Except, ironically one that might have suited us more than many he did try- a genuine 4-3-3 with 3 real CMs. Was quite rare in his final few years- Fulham away in 2017 early injury, we had Brownhill-Pack-Smith and we had something close to that when we had the excellent 4-4-1-1, again easy to morph into a genuine 3.

However 2 in CM, or '3' in CM- with the 3rd being e.g. O'Dowda, Palmer or even though a bit more suited Paterson just isn't it.

5 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Russell Martin is talking about fundamental beliefs and identity. That is principle based. If failings run so deep .. If the identity is ingrained they cannot. Tack can be altering  formation, one up, one down, one across where 4-3-3 becomes 4-2-3-1. An improvement is sought but the principles of the identity remain, and what occurs is a sub principle alters e.g. more security (4-2-3-1 holding midfielders) to the possession based football (fundamental principle) or more width with possession (4-3-3 wingers).

MK Dons play backwards a lot to maintain possession. Its not working well. Its not a reason to abandon possession, its a challenge to improve. Identity here applies also to mindset.

Off at a tangent the Man City team he refers to pass the ball backwards (40%+) more than any team in Europe. Man City have altered how they play a little since last season. They go sideways less and don't play centrally as much - They still demand on the team keeping the ball more than the opposition.  

With say a Johansen- or looking elsewhere a Marcondes that's fine- with Palmer, O'Dowda or some extent a Paterson- not so much. To pick another side Leeds could switch between it (and 4-1-4-1) last season when they had Forshaw available- when they didn't, playing Roberts or Hernandez- can't be done! Still don't have Forshaw available and suspect it'd be their best shape tbh.

I wonder if...

Nagy Williams

      Walsh

That hypothetical shape, can surely morph between a 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 relatively comfortably with those personnel. Thinking back a bit further:

         Pack

 Brownhill Paterson

That's okay and has something to recommend but...

          Pack

   Brownhill Smith/Walsh

Smith first choice, Walsh next in line due to the former's injuries. Or even...

  Pack Hegeler

     Brownhill

Of those two, one can sit a bit and Pack can be freed up a bit more- and vice versa. This in turn frees up Brownhill a bit more to bring energy and goals that bit higher up.  However they can quite readily form a barrier of 3 out of possession- you'd need to drop Diedhiou though, Weimann getting a run as the central striker leading the press, with perhaps O'Dowda wide right and Paterson wide left. Morrell too, comes into the reckoning for this 3 genuine CMs, almost forgot him!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Russell Martin is talking about fundamental beliefs and identity. That is principle based. If failings run so deep .. If the identity is ingrained they cannot. Tack can be altering  formation, one up, one down, one across where 4-3-3 becomes 4-2-3-1. An improvement is sought but the principles of the identity remain, and what occurs is a sub principle alters e.g. more security (4-2-3-1 holding midfielders) to the possession based football (fundamental principle) or more width with possession (4-3-3 wingers).

MK Dons play backwards a lot to maintain possession. Its not working well. Its not a reason to abandon possession, its a challenge to improve. Identity here applies also to mindset.

Off at a tangent the Man City team he refers to pass the ball backwards (40%+) more than any team in Europe. Man City have altered how they play a little since last season. They go sideways less and don't play centrally as much - They still demand on the team keeping the ball more than the opposition.  

 

Its philosophies, every manager has one. I’ve been lucky enough to be in some amazing seminars with managers and players who talk about this sort of thing. 

Every manager has one and sticks too it as much as they can. 

The fundamental principles of football are basically, to go from one end to the other and score. Don’t concede. They are that simple. 

These philosophies and identities that each manager has and teams in fairness are so so much more in depth than possession based.

Had a great chat with my lecturer once regarding football as a science as how X makes a movement which means Y makes another etc. 

Pep teams are prolific for this. You see it a lot on throw ins with a split unless you’re city where hunt just throws the ball as far as he can 

Edited by Bs4Red
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bs4Red said:

 

Its philosophies, every manager has one. I’ve been lucky enough to be in some amazing seminars with managers and players who talk about this sort of thing. 

Every manager has one and sticks too it as much as they can. 

 

Lee Johnson didn't have one. He could not stick to it. When you play seven formations in a season, when passing lengths increase dramatically, when the team goes from build through the thirds to long ball and playing into pomos off platforms, when passing accuracy collapses there is no meaningful long term vision in place. 

 

9 hours ago, Bs4Red said:

 

he fundamental principles of football are basically, to go from one end to the other and score. Don’t concede. They are that simple. 

 

The FA description is that football is an invasion game, a game where you invade the opponents territory and attempt to outscore them.

The principles are the coaches own vision.

9 hours ago, Bs4Red said:

These philosophies and identities that each manager has and teams in fairness are so so much more in depth than possession based.

 

Yes and a no. A philosophy could/will work across the four corners (physical, psychological, tactical ..) and go in to intricate depth to neuroplasticity in its psychological corner. Another coach could pass his project (coaching philosophy is a section) off as part of his coaching licence assessment and never write one again, or refer to such. 

Identity is divergent. It can refer to playing identity, playing and club, it can be mission, purpose, direction .. Identity can be club led and the Manager follows the expectations. 

9 hours ago, Bs4Red said:

 

Had a great chat with my lecturer once regarding football as a science as how X makes a movement which means Y makes another etc. 

Pep teams are prolific for this. You see it a lot on throw ins with a split unless you’re city where hunt just throws the ball as far as he can 

Guardiola uses a methodology where the game is ultra simplified to elements of play. In possession, transition, set plays (throw ins) are governed by principles and sub principles. One of the sub principles is immediate support of the football using relational distances and angles (diamonds and triangles) which are trained in by constant repetition .. I can bore for ever on this one.

Yep Bristol City just chuck it up the line .. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of LJ, his best period here was when the “plan” was forced on him by injuries and departures. The Reid/Pato/Taylor up front era meant we had to stick to the plan, and solve problems as there was no plan b. Diedhou then gets fit and gives LJ the option to experiment- and ultimately it failed. If he had have recruited to that system, or had an experienced coach guiding him, I think the Martin approach here would’ve yielded promotion. 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ciderwithtommy said:

In the case of LJ, his best period here was when the “plan” was forced on him by injuries and departures. The Reid/Pato/Taylor up front era meant we had to stick to the plan, and solve problems as there was no plan b. Diedhou then gets fit and gives LJ the option to experiment- and ultimately it failed. If he had have recruited to that system, or had an experienced coach guiding him, I think the Martin approach here would’ve yielded promotion. 
 

 

I still wonder if we could have got an equivalent in 2018/19...granted some areas in which we would have been worse off but some in which we would have been better off.

Don't forget in 2018/19 though, Korey was injured for months which weakens it but I'll give it a go...Fielding was also injured.

The 2017/18 where we had our golden spell was:

                 Fielding

Wright Flint Baker Magnússon

Brownhill Pack Smith Bryan

               Paterson

                  Reid

4-4-1-1, which can easily become a 4-3-3, a 4-2-3-1- perhaps even a 4-2-4-0/4-4-2-0/4-6-0. Incredibly flexible, can maybe morph into a back 3 in game in certain phases as well.

As we know, Fielding was injured for months, as was Smith- and of course Flint, Bryan and Reid sold- so too was Magnússon who although not a key player, was useful for the system IMO. Could also have done okay in a back 3 I think. Wright again was not a natural RB but good in that particular system.

The rejigged- after sales and injuries:

              Maenpaaa

Wright Kalas Webster Kelly

Brownhill Pack Walsh DaSilva

               Paterson

               Weimann

On the downside less goals from CB. On the plus side, Maenpaa's distribution is a bit better than that of Fielding and Kalas and especially Webster- but talking as a pair, certainly technically superior to Flint and Baker. Kelly at LB is in some respects an upgrade on Magnússon- DaSilva has less end product than Bryan- Walsh in for Smith due to injuries, but could even consider Hegeler for some games and Weimann would have the Reid role of energy and leading the press- albeit less prolific. Morrell might also come into consideration later in the season.

However there was definitely a starting point to be had with a view to regaining that particular setup- and the above feels like the closest as of say September 2018 once the window has slammed shut but with existing injuries in mind.

One more downside is that Reid was like 2 players in one, a CM by trade yet leading the line- Weimann central would have been interesting though in that particular shape- with the added bonus that he can pull wider in some phases to allow Brownhill inside a bit more. Brownhill inside in a 3, may provide a bigger goal threat, while Weimann central is more prolific than Weimann out side.

That's the closest we had as of September 2018 to that 2017/18 Autumn shape.            

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2021 at 14:04, Davefevs said:

Nicely summed up. 👍🏻

Yes, and although there should be focus on what we can do, it’s got to acknowledge that there is an opposition looking to stop us doing what we want and trying to impose themselves on us.  I think this is where LJ’s inexperience came in.  A pattern of play on the training ground, where you get to place your opponents where you want them to make your pattern effective.  Unfortunately that comes unstuck when the opposition do something else in a match, which inevitably they did.

I get a bit frustrated when I read / hear people saying they want us to play from the back, through the thirds, etc....what if the opposition don’t allow you too?

In LJ’s case it became “just lump it long”....but with no plan attached to it.  It resembled SOD’s, pass it around the back, until Flint gets it, gets pressed and pings it up the pitch to the opposition.

Now, contradicting that, there are times when a short, passing, progressive approach isn’t appropriate, and therefore imho the plan has to encompass many variants / dimensions, but importantly the players have got to recognise which variant at that moment of the game.  When Bents has the ball and there is no short option, we’ve already started to see under NP a part-plan to get Kalas and Mariappa up the pitch quickly, to squeeze the gaps, which makes the midfield push-up too.  In the past under both LJ and DH, they’d (the CBs) not done that, and we’d left huge spaces for our opponents.

The plan has to be more than one-dimension with the ball.

Re backwards to keep possession, a big criticism of mine is our over eagerness to play the killer ball and ultimately we turn over possession cheaply.  We aren’t patient, because imho we don’t want to put the effort in to keep making runs, even if you didn’t get the pass the first time.  It’s being able to recognise the need to reset, build again, try to work the opening you couldn’t create in the last phase.  In rugby (I’m no expert) you see the continual reset of the tactic in a maul near the try line.  Keep probing and probing, until they find the weakness.  They don’t think, Ah bollocks, we didn’t score first attempt, we’ll settle for a drop goal, they keep resetting and trying again, hoping the opposition don’t maintain their resistance.  I know Rugby isn’t as fluid but it’s still a similar concept.  We never go side to side, back, try again.  Ultimately we lose it cheaply and have to chase it to get it back.  Surely it’s better to maje the other side chase it?

Worth watching Failand Uncut 015 today....your little training pic routine is played out....and Bakinson gets told “not to force it” which kinda sums us up.

The point about backwards to keep possession.

Very well said @Davefevs. However I rarely see anyone mention a pet "City" hate for me. That the speed of passing across and backwards is so slow that it easily allows all opponent's to put on a press this forces us to go even deeper for a Bentley hoof or we lose the ball near our goal.

We must speed up all our passing to keep possession to firstly negate the scenario of the previous paragraph and secondly to get the ball to front men earlier before other side sets it's defence.

If I can see this without any coaching since I was fifteen, why could LJ and DH not see this and put it right?

Edited by cidered abroad
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

The point about backwards to keep possession.

Very well said @Davefevs. However I rarely see anyone mention a pet "City" hate for me. That the speed of passing across and backwards is so slow that it easily allows all opponent's to put on a press this forces us to go even deeper for a Bentley hoof or we lose the ball near our goal.

We must speed up all our passing to keep possession to firstly negate the scenario of the previous paragraph and secondly to get the ball to front men earlier before other side sets it's defence.

If I can see this without any coaching since I was fifteen, why could LJ and DH not see this and put it right?

I mention tempo of passing all the time!

It was one of the things Mawson brought to the team early season.  Not just tempo, but passing it in front of Vyner (missing out Moore) for him to move onto the ball....another let hate.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Lee Johnson didn't have one. He could not stick to it. When you play seven formations in a season, when passing lengths increase dramatically, when the team goes from build through the thirds to long ball and playing into pomos off platforms, when passing accuracy collapses there is no meaningful long term vision in place. 

 

The FA description is that football is an invasion game, a game where you invade the opponents territory and attempt to outscore them.

The principles are the coaches own vision.

Yes and a no. A philosophy could/will work across the four corners (physical, psychological, tactical ..) and go in to intricate depth to neuroplasticity in its psychological corner. Another coach could pass his project (coaching philosophy is a section) off as part of his coaching licence assessment and never write one again, or refer to such. 

Identity is divergent. It can refer to playing identity, playing and club, it can be mission, purpose, direction .. Identity can be club led and the Manager follows the expectations. 

Guardiola uses a methodology where the game is ultra simplified to elements of play. In possession, transition, set plays (throw ins) are governed by principles and sub principles. One of the sub principles is immediate support of the football using relational distances and angles (diamonds and triangles) which are trained in by constant repetition .. I can bore for ever on this one.

Yep Bristol City just chuck it up the line .. 

 

Pep is great for this sort of thing, I’ve watched countless things he’s shown and find it fascinating. 

He is on another level coaching wise. 

Invasion game always makes me laugh, on my B licence assessment the bloke made a mockery of that term.

If you like the stuff you’re talking about David Adams (Swansea City academy) was absolutely fascinating on this sort of thing. He was one of my lecturers and opened my eyes. 

I agree on the philosophy regarding writing a piece but I think most managers have one and try to stick by it everywhere they go. 

It is very interesting though, kind of thing I love talking about

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I mention tempo of passing all the time!

It was one of the the things Mawson brought to the team early season.  Not just tempo, but passing it in front of Vyner (missing out Moore) for him to move onto the ball....another let hate.

You are one of the rarities on tempo. @Davefevs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...