The Folly of Pragmatism

[Silvio Dante]

Been gathering thoughts both on last night and Saturday, because I thought they were essentially pretty similar games. We got away with woodwork being hit on both, seemed to have to soak pressure late and were pedestrian going forward. In a bizarre way, we appear to be playing a more defensive lineup, but also are conceding more chances than earlier games - and the reason for this, irrespective of individual performances, is it’s not “front foot”.

At the back, four centre backs. This means you don’t get natural width or overlaps, and as a result, the attacking play gets compressed to the front six. Four CBS can work - see the Man U season, but there was a key difference there.

Ahead of the CBs in that season, the six were typically Brownhill, Paterson, Reid, Pack, Bryan, Smith. All bar Marlon mobile, all busy - and probably all bar Korey to some degree creative.

Take now as a contrast. Pring has played well, but he’s not a creator. Chris Martin has played well, but he’s not that mobile. Han-Noah and Matty have played well but they’re lower down on the creative level than the above.

So, what’s happened is we are set up currently on a pragmatic basis. We can’t build from the back, so we rely on the front six. And of those, there’s not a natural creative player. All have strengths - but creation isn’t first. So it gets very slow as we come into the final third. And stuff like the throw in delays doesn’t help. And when you’re slow in the final third, the other team can transition quickly at pace - which has happened both games.

I don’t think loads is wrong. But I think Cardiff went so well and the setup worked for that game so we’ve been equally as pragmatic in different games - and on a bizarre basis, that “defensive pragmatism” is making us less stable at the back.

[054123]

Good post.

I was amazed last night how we would have possession for 5 mins or so, be completely ineffectual, lose the ball and in 10 seconds they transitioned to a credible threat resulting in a decent chance.

It was frightening.

Also the amount of times we would concede possession by just running out of ideas and going back to just lump it forward.

[GrahamC]

Good analysis.

Whilst I was of course delighted by the Cardiff win it has sort of set a template that we think will work at home, too & there are few signs it will.

We need width & pace in our forward positions, I’m not averse to persevering with Pring but a Scott or HNM right sided option means we are lacking it there & Martin bless him, is already starting to operate on the law of diminishing returns if expected to play the full 90 on Wednesday, Saturday, Tuesday, etc.

Plenty to ponder for the QPR line up.

[Spike]

A solid post but I think the more I think into this the more a new question is asked... how do we fix it? Do we play Palmer and Wells? Does that break up the option of the long ball out of defence that seems to have been implemented to prevent silly loss of possession by the defence which in all fairness happened a lot last season?

I personally think Pearson is building towards an attacking team, the issue is the players he wants are not there, or at least not at the level of quality he needs. This for me comes down to transition, LJ was given more than enough time to create an identity to how we were going to play and yet season after season he seemed to be changing his focus meaning we never had the players to suit the style of football he was looking to create. Despite so much long ball being played at times I don't think this is what Pearson is trying to create, I don't think he would have brought in a defender like Atkinson to play hoofball, not when his strength is carrying the ball forward which leads me to believe the long ball is a tide over whilst he creates a shape and tests who can do what and where they can do it, all whilst being able to get points. I think the long goal for Pearson is a 4-3-3 with the 3 midfielders having a balance between them and the front three consisting of an all-around striker and two attacking forwards who can play in from wide positions and also track back. I know that isn't what we're seeing right now but I belive that is down to the elusive striker that Pearson wants, he obviously would rather hold on until we can get the correct players than do what LJ and previous managers have done which is buying what was available and trying to push that square peg into a round hole.
At the moment I am hugely frustrated because of what we are currently seeing, but for the first time I think we have a manager with an actual long term goal and the balls to stand up to SL and co and say "Look, what we need isn't there and so I'm not going to get a player that won't benefit us in the long run". I think SL is a very "lets get it done now!" kind of man which is why we heard talks of the Premier League and so on, but Pearson seems a much more patient and realistic man in this way. I still have faith in Pearson to deliver, yes there will be frustrating games, yes we'll lose points, but if he's given time to build a squad that can provide the quality in the areas he wants and implement them into a solid team I think he can do a lot better. We had roughly 4 years of LJ and his constant changing of direction with Ashton just throwing him players and then taking them away before he could finish his latest plan, I think it's about time we had a manager in long enough to really revamp the whole squad with players he knows are of the calibre to take things up a step and compete.

[downendcity]

The conundrum is how can a team with such dire home form and performances over over the last 2-3 years, have one of the best away records in the country over the same period? 

 

[downendcity]

26 minutes ago, 054123 said:

Good post.

I was amazed last night how we would have possession for 5 mins or so, be completely ineffectual, lose the ball and in 10 seconds they transitioned to a credible threat resulting in a decent chance.

It was frightening.

Unfortunately this is not a recent occurrence and has been a trait for 2-3 seasons. 

[Steve Watts]

32 minutes ago, 054123 said:

Good post.

I was amazed last night how we would have possession for 5 mins or so, be completely ineffectual, lose the ball and in 10 seconds they transitioned to a credible threat resulting in a decent chance.

It was frightening.

Also the amount of times we would concede possession by just running out of ideas and going back to just lump it forward.

I think credit has to be given to Luton for a near perfect away performance.  They defended well (admittedly with little threat in the final third) and countered even better.  We did seem to defend far too deep.  There was a massive gap between Martin and the midfield and that was the space they exploited to begin to build their attacks. 

We seem to be more secure with three central midfielders in the team, but unfortunately that does leave us exposed down our right hand side in particular. With the lack of a credible option at right back, which is where the majority of opposition attacks into our box seem to come from, we are going to continue to be put under pressure unless we start defending further up the pitch and prevent it getting that far.  The hope is that Tanner proves in training to be able to make that step up sooner than anticipated.  Vyner is just Moore but at right back.  Still has at least one error in him every game.  And Simpson just doesn't seem to have any legs.  Almost a repeat of the Chris Brunt situation there.

[Major Isewater]

The biggest problem we have is the opposition who mock  all our good intentions.

 

[054123]

17 minutes ago, Major Isewater said:

The biggest problem we have is the opposition who mock  all our good intentions.

 

How cruel.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

A solid post but I think the more I think into this the more a new question is asked... how do we fix it? Do we play Palmer and Wells? Does that break up the option of the long ball out of defence that seems to have been implemented to prevent silly loss of possession by the defence which in all fairness happened a lot last season?

I personally think Pearson is building towards an attacking team, the issue is the players he wants are not there, or at least not at the level of quality he needs. This for me comes down to transition, LJ was given more than enough time to create an identity to how we were going to play and yet season after season he seemed to be changing his focus meaning we never had the players to suit the style of football he was looking to create. Despite so much long ball being played at times I don't think this is what Pearson is trying to create, I don't think he would have brought in a defender like Atkinson to play hoofball, not when his strength is carrying the ball forward which leads me to believe the long ball is a tide over whilst he creates a shape and tests who can do what and where they can do it, all whilst being able to get points. I think the long goal for Pearson is a 4-3-3 with the 3 midfielders having a balance between them and the front three consisting of an all-around striker and two attacking forwards who can play in from wide positions and also track back. I know that isn't what we're seeing right now but I belive that is down to the elusive striker that Pearson wants, he obviously would rather hold on until we can get the correct players than do what LJ and previous managers have done which is buying what was available and trying to push that square peg into a round hole.
At the moment I am hugely frustrated because of what we are currently seeing, but for the first time I think we have a manager with an actual long term goal and the balls to stand up to SL and co and say "Look, what we need isn't there and so I'm not going to get a player that won't benefit us in the long run". I think SL is a very "lets get it done now!" kind of man which is why we heard talks of the Premier League and so on, but Pearson seems a much more patient and realistic man in this way. I still have faith in Pearson to deliver, yes there will be frustrating games, yes we'll lose points, but if he's given time to build a squad that can provide the quality in the areas he wants and implement them into a solid team I think he can do a lot better. We had roughly 4 years of LJ and his constant changing of direction with Ashton just throwing him players and then taking them away before he could finish his latest plan, I think it's about time we had a manager in long enough to really revamp the whole squad with players he knows are of the calibre to take things up a step and compete.

Great post Spike and well started by @Silvio Dante and progressed by @GrahamC.

The one thing I’d add is my observations from last season and progression this season, and the subsequent compromise.

Firstly, last season, teams walked into our half, our third, with ease.  All the crap that was spouted about high press, low blocks was meaningless because there was no press. Irrespective of opponents playing back 3 or back 4, they had an absolute ball moving the ball between the lines or even worse, advancing their whole team into our half / third.  It also made it incredibly difficult for us to get out when we did recover the ball.

I can only guess Nige identified this because we now have a “without the ball system”.  It presses appropriately.  Statistically we have won the 4th most balls in the opponents third.  We haven’t made it count yet (think back to opening Exchange, Martin to Pring, chance).  The system requires two players (forwards), because one player just ends up doing doggies, and if that’s Chris Martin (or last season Famara Diedhiou) it breaks down / fails.

That is compromise number 1.  So far I honestly can’t think of many (any?) occasions where our opponents have walked the ball into our half.  Some have played some neat football to do it, that’s something you can accept.

So that leaves you with the other outfield 8.  Nige wants to play a back 4.  Thats compromise number 2.  It means 4 in midfield.

Neither James, King, or Massengo  are true DM screens, all three are really more those that want to do a bit of everything.  Bakinson is a deep playmaker…not a screen.  Our CBs are playing narrow to our full-backs because of the lack of that screen….therefore protecting the more dangerous Centre of our box.  If our full-backs tuck in, we allow easy ball wide (and crosses), if they sit wider, we allow passes down the side. We stop the likes of Daniel Johnson (in the hole) if we stop the supply to him, or get tight.  That’s an area where we need to improve.

Nige is trying to compromise (number 3) by playing his two wide midfielders narrow.  At times this has worked well.  It can leave us with a bit of a flat looking midfield 4, all in a line.  If someone like Lansbury can find space then it drags that shape apart.

So a series of impacts on our system.  I don’t profess to know the answer, but I think at some point we will see someone designated to screen (they might be fluid in the game itself) our CBs, so they can play a bit further apart, which in turn allows the full backs to play a bit wider (naturally) and more advanced.  It might look a bit 4132 on paper but it’s more fluid than that….and I agree that the aim is to get to 433.  Guesswork, but Joe Williams might be the missing link.

we’ll see!

1 hour ago, Steve Watts said:

I think credit has to be given to Luton for a near perfect away performance.  They defended well (admittedly with little threat in the final third) and countered even better.  We did seem to defend far too deep.  There was a massive gap between Martin and the midfield and that was the space they exploited to begin to build their attacks. 

We seem to be more secure with three central midfielders in the team, but unfortunately that does leave us exposed down our right hand side in particular. With the lack of a credible option at right back, which is where the majority of opposition attacks into our box seem to come from, we are going to continue to be put under pressure unless we start defending further up the pitch and prevent it getting that far.  The hope is that Tanner proves in training to be able to make that step up sooner than anticipated.  Vyner is just Moore but at right back.  Still has at least one error in him every game.  And Simpson just doesn't seem to have any legs.  Almost a repeat of the Chris Brunt situation there.

always amazes me how little credit OTIB gives the opposition.

That gap between Martin and the midfield is sometimes the result of that midfield 4 becoming a bit flat.  I thought we played high line first half, but Bentley doesn’t play as a sweeper keeper - why not, I’ve no idea. 

[firstdivision]

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Been gathering thoughts both on last night and Saturday, because I thought they were essentially pretty similar games. We got away with woodwork being hit on both, seemed to have to soak pressure late and were pedestrian going forward. In a bizarre way, we appear to be playing a more defensive lineup, but also are conceding more chances than earlier games - and the reason for this, irrespective of individual performances, is it’s not “front foot”.

At the back, four centre backs. This means you don’t get natural width or overlaps, and as a result, the attacking play gets compressed to the front six. Four CBS can work - see the Man U season, but there was a key difference there.

Ahead of the CBs in that season, the six were typically Brownhill, Paterson, Reid, Pack, Bryan, Smith. All bar Marlon mobile, all busy - and probably all bar Korey to some degree creative.

Take now as a contrast. Pring has played well, but he’s not a creator. Chris Martin has played well, but he’s not that mobile. Han-Noah and Matty have played well but they’re lower down on the creative level than the above.

So, what’s happened is we are set up currently on a pragmatic basis. We can’t build from the back, so we rely on the front six. And of those, there’s not a natural creative player. All have strengths - but creation isn’t first. So it gets very slow as we come into the final third. And stuff like the throw in delays doesn’t help. And when you’re slow in the final third, the other team can transition quickly at pace - which has happened both games.

I don’t think loads is wrong. But I think Cardiff went so well and the setup worked for that game so we’ve been equally as pragmatic in different games - and on a bizarre basis, that “defensive pragmatism” is making us less stable at the back.

This is what happens when you have a manager who says ‘play well, keep the same team’. He makes it sound like he’s spouting Plato or Hegel or Thomas Aquinas but most games are different.
 

Home and away are different. Cardiff away is different from Preston at home. By all means have a basic template but be prepared to adapt. I’m sure the players understand that, especially if they’ve all bought into the project as he claims they have.

I found his team selection and changes puzzling last night. Kalas at right back for the second half? A bloke who plays CD for Czech Republic. NP has just brought in two right backs. 

 

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, firstdivision said:

I found his team selection and changes puzzling last night. Kalas at right back for the second half? A bloke who plays CD for Czech Republic. NP has just brought in two right backs

I completely understood his starting eleven.

Sub 1 Scott I thought he might’ve taken a whack, but seems that it was tactical, Scott not doing what he needed him to do.

Sub 2 agree….I seem to be in minority that thought Vyner had a good first half, and I can only assume that to get Dasilva on he wanted to keep Kalas on in case Luton resorted to bringing on Adebayo and bombard us aerially….which is what they did to an extent.

With 7 subs there are decisions as to who to name.  Having two full-backs on the bench seems excessive imho.

In an ideal world, Nige would explain every sub, and we could vote for it in the ground

[Silvio Dante]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I completely understood his starting eleven.

Sub 1 Scott I thought he might’ve taken a whack, but seems that it was tactical, Scott not doing what he needed him to do.

Sub 2 agree….I seem to be in minority that thought Vyner had a good first half, and I can only assume that to get Dasilva on he wanted to keep Kalas on in case Luton resorted to bringing on Adebayo and bombard us aerially….which is what they did to an extent.

With 7 subs there are decisions as to who to name.  Having two full-backs on the bench seems excessive imho.

In an ideal world, Nige would explain every sub, and we could vote for it in the ground

My thought on the first sub (although I know Scott was ineffective) is that I’d have liked him to swap Scott and Weimann for that period prior to HT to see if that did the trick, as opposed to bringing Wells straight on. We’d have been set up as we did against Blackpool, and Scott would have been more likely to play as the “10” than Wells who is a genuine front man. Putting Wells on seemed to me to push us straight into a position where we had a genuine 4-4-2 - and I think your press comes better from a forward and a wide man (a la your Pring example) than the top two, with the 10 dropping in to stop the angle 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

My thought on the first sub (although I know Scott was ineffective) is that I’d have liked him to swap Scott and Weimann for that period prior to HT to see if that did the trick, as opposed to bringing Wells straight on. We’d have been set up as we did against Blackpool, and Scott would have been more likely to play as the “10” than Wells who is a genuine front man. Putting Wells on seemed to me to push us straight into a position where we had a genuine 4-4-2 - and I think your press comes better from a forward and a wide man (a la your Pring example) than the top two, with the 10 dropping in to stop the angle 

Definitely an option.  I wanted Weimann and Martin to swap.  I know that sounds stupid, but Martin played predominantly left and Weimann right of each other.  I wanted to see Weimann against Lockyer for a period of the game.  I think Lockyer despite no being big is happy against a physical player, I wanted to see Weimann stretch him.

[tin]

24 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I completely understood his starting eleven.

Sub 1 Scott I thought he might’ve taken a whack, but seems that it was tactical, Scott not doing what he needed him to do.

Sub 2 agree….I seem to be in minority that thought Vyner had a good first half, and I can only assume that to get Dasilva on he wanted to keep Kalas on in case Luton resorted to bringing on Adebayo and bombard us aerially….which is what they did to an extent.

With 7 subs there are decisions as to who to name.  Having two full-backs on the bench seems excessive imho.

In an ideal world, Nige would explain every sub, and we could vote for it in the ground

I thought Semenyo should've replaced Scott on the right. I quite like the idea right now -- at home when teams sit back and invite us onto them -- of playing Pring, Weimann, Semenyo in behind Wells, or put Weimann as the sole striker and bring in Palmer in the hole.

There are many permutations to consider but while the system we saw last night can be effective away from home, it's not the answer at home unless we're playing a Fulham, WBA etc. We need to be more adventurous at the Gate, but the problem is we don't have the players to strike that balance between being solid but threatening IMO.

[Grey Fox]

6 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Been gathering thoughts both on last night and Saturday, because I thought they were essentially pretty similar games. We got away with woodwork being hit on both, seemed to have to soak pressure late and were pedestrian going forward. In a bizarre way, we appear to be playing a more defensive lineup, but also are conceding more chances than earlier games - and the reason for this, irrespective of individual performances, is it’s not “front foot”.

At the back, four centre backs. This means you don’t get natural width or overlaps, and as a result, the attacking play gets compressed to the front six. Four CBS can work - see the Man U season, but there was a key difference there.

Ahead of the CBs in that season, the six were typically Brownhill, Paterson, Reid, Pack, Bryan, Smith. All bar Marlon mobile, all busy - and probably all bar Korey to some degree creative.

Take now as a contrast. Pring has played well, but he’s not a creator. Chris Martin has played well, but he’s not that mobile. Han-Noah and Matty have played well but they’re lower down on the creative level than the above.

So, what’s happened is we are set up currently on a pragmatic basis. We can’t build from the back, so we rely on the front six. And of those, there’s not a natural creative player. All have strengths - but creation isn’t first. So it gets very slow as we come into the final third. And stuff like the throw in delays doesn’t help. And when you’re slow in the final third, the other team can transition quickly at pace - which has happened both games.

I don’t think loads is wrong. But I think Cardiff went so well and the setup worked for that game so we’ve been equally as pragmatic in different games - and on a bizarre basis, that “defensive pragmatism” is making us less stable at the back.

Or to sum up, we were complete crap

[firstdivision]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I completely understood his starting eleven.

Sub 1 Scott I thought he might’ve taken a whack, but seems that it was tactical, Scott not doing what he needed him to do.

Sub 2 agree….I seem to be in minority that thought Vyner had a good first half, and I can only assume that to get Dasilva on he wanted to keep Kalas on in case Luton resorted to bringing on Adebayo and bombard us aerially….which is what they did to an extent.

With 7 subs there are decisions as to who to name.  Having two full-backs on the bench seems excessive imho.

In an ideal world, Nige would explain every sub, and we could vote for it in the ground

I’m not saying he should have had two right-backs on the bench, I’m saying it’s odd that he ended up with Kalas at right-back when he has three other right-backs, two of whom he brought in himself. 

The Scott substitution was bold. And not the daftest decision because Scott did look out of his depth. But, again, Scott was playing out of position. As was Baker. As was Pring to some extent. And who quite knows with Vyner…

And then King comes on for Pring who can’t last a game. It was crying out for something like Semenyo for Martin to stretch Luton a bit and restrict the bombardment.

Well, it was actually crying out for Semenyo for Scott but I understand he hasn’t had a pre-season. Could he not play for an hour now though? 

Starting line-up was Dullsville but I suppose we’d better get used to it. NP is not here to entertain (or, it seems, to win home matches ).

[REDOXO]

1 hour ago, tin said:

I thought Semenyo should've replaced Scott on the right. I quite like the idea right now -- at home when teams sit back and invite us onto them -- of playing Pring, Weimann, Semenyo in behind Wells, or put Weimann as the sole striker and bring in Palmer in the hole.

There are many permutations to consider but while the system we saw last night can be effective away from home, it's not the answer at home unless we're playing a Fulham, WBA etc. We need to be more adventurous at the Gate, but the problem is we don't have the players to strike that balance between being solid but threatening IMO.

Scott was not at the races. The obvious move was Semenyo as you say. 
 

Wells coming on in that scenario made us look even more vulnerable. A bit more solid second half, but really was all a bit pony. Upside is that was far less awful than the end of last season and we got a point from a game that could have been out of sight by HT. 

Pearson quipped about three un beaten, post match, but personally I think that was less of a quip than many might think.