Back From Barnsley - Mcinnes Needs To Answer Some Questions!

[chipdawg]

Don't you think it is at least interesting that the OP and everyone who is agreeing with him were actually at the game though? The idea we were outnumbered/muscled when it was 11 v 11 is one thing, but if we had stretched them when they were down to ten we might have given our forwards more time/ space to put said chances away. The main reason we missed so many chances was because the box was ways to crowded with our players and their markers. If we had taken it wide and tried to get to bylines more we would have pulled their very tight defensive formation about more.

We missed those chances because there was no time and no space, the same reason why we had the ball on the edge of the box many times and didn't shoot, there was simply never a clear view of the goal.

Taking it wide and getting to the byline tires the ten man team and makes defenders twist, turn and fall over, it is also how most own goals are scored

I was at the game too mate and it is entirely possible that if Anderson had come on instead of Davies we might have stormed back and won 3-1. Similarly if Davies had bagged a 20 minute hatrick this thread would never have been authored and this alternative dimension might contain a thread called 'Just Back From Barnsley- McInnes is a master tactician'. Those are the margins in football. But I just can't subscribe to the idea that Del brings on a player who gets on the end of 2 excellent chances then hits the bar with a free kick and this is a mistake. If Anderson had come on instead, who would have got on the end of his crosses from the acres of space? Could have been Stead? Or Taylor? Or no one. We just don't know. The only thing we do know is that our manager brought on a player who *should* have scored at least one goal. I personally think that Anderson should have come on for Adomah and tried to use the space there was out wide a bit better, but you can't argue with the logic of what Del did

[sunningdalered]

We started out ok, first 10-15 minutes Barnsley looked frail and there for the taking. But it changed. Suddenly, they had a bit of possession and had a shot that came back off the post. I don't know why, but it seemed to shake us and inspire them. All of a sudden we couldn't string 2 passes together. Pearson gave the ball away needlessly about 5 times, Skuse likewise. We promptly lost all confidence and the Barnsley midfield started to get the better of us. Jacob Mellis and Thomas Cywka in particular looked very good and were all over us. We were lucky to go in at the break at 0-0.

Appreciate your first-hand comments on the game - thanks for posting them.

Its this part of your post that concerned me listening to the game on the radio. Why, after starting promisingly did we capitulate in midfield allowing Barnsley to gain the initiative and causing Del 'to match them'? Suggests to me that our confidence in midfield is still pretty fragile, and when pressured the passes start to go astray. When we had the lull last season, after Del's initial honeymoon period and before the 'revival', his ability to lift the players confidence wasnt always that apparent, and it seems to me that we might have a way to go yet before we can safely say that the team can come under pressure but wrestle the initiative back fairly quickly before damage is done?

[Tales From The Front]

My view was that there was a bit of "just turn up" about the team yesterday, especially first half. Can't disagree that more than enough chances were created and Davies will be dissipointed to coin a footballing cliche. Barnsley as others have said were there for the taking the crowd were quiet but City let them get into the game, passing was poor movement off the the ball was poor and generally the tempo was sluggish and not sharp as we had seen in the previous two games.

Observations, concerning tactics and substitutions are all valid but generaly it was a game that to many of the players just let pass them by. Reading twitter I think the players have been honest enough post match and that's a good sign but personaly I wouldn't wouldn't see to see many more performances like that as it was definatley an opportunity missed. Hopefully lessons will be learn't as overall it's been a decent start to the season but let's get as many points as quickly as possiable then see where we are. The divsion is to open and tough to be as complacent as many of the players were yesterday, Cunningham, Heton and Woolford aside IMO.

[Tall King Blox]

My view was that there was a bit of "just turn up" about the team yesterday, especially first half. Can't disagree that more than enough chances were created and Davies will be dissipointed to coin a footballing cliche. Barnsley as others have said were there for the taking the crowd were quiet but City let them get into the game, passing was poor movement off the the ball was poor and generally the tempo was sluggish and not sharp as we had seen in the previous two games.

Observations, concerning tactics and substitutions are all valid but generaly it was a game that to many of the players just let pass them by. Reading twitter I think the players have been honest enough post match and that's a good sign but personaly I wouldn't wouldn't see to see many more performances like that as it was definatley an opportunity missed. Hopefully lessons will be learn't as overall it's been a decent start to the season but let's get as many points as quickly as possiable then see where we are. The divsion is to open and tough to be as complacent as many of the players were yesterday, Cunningham, Heton and Woolford aside IMO.

A great post, seems like you were playing...thanks

[Manon]

I'm absolutely amazed by some of the comments on this thread, not just the naivety but also the disrespect shown our manager.

Do people really, really believe that Del boy was unaware of the idea of opening up the 10 men by widening the pitch?? Really?

Cmon, ffs give him some credit. We all think we're managers sat in the stands, but he's done the badges and has a wealth of player experience at a very high level.

He obviously had his own ideas on how to solve the conundrum, and probably partly due to the unforeseeable problem of having already substituted Adomah before ever sending off, opted for something different.

As others have said, it nearly paid off.

Now, I don't propose Mcinnes should be allowed to exist within an untouchable bubble of infallibility, but cmon.

[Harry]

I was at the game too mate and it is entirely possible that if Anderson had come on instead of Davies we might have stormed back and won 3-1. Similarly if Davies had bagged a 20 minute hatrick this thread would never have been authored and this alternative dimension might contain a thread called 'Just Back From Barnsley- McInnes is a master tactician'. Those are the margins in football. But I just can't subscribe to the idea that Del brings on a player who gets on the end of 2 excellent chances then hits the bar with a free kick and this is a mistake. If Anderson had come on instead, who would have got on the end of his crosses from the acres of space? Could have been Stead? Or Taylor? Or no one. We just don't know. The only thing we do know is that our manager brought on a player who *should* have scored at least one goal. I personally think that Anderson should have come on for Adomah and tried to use the space there was out wide a bit better, but you can't argue with the logic of what Del did

Hey dawg.

I appreciate that you were at the game too and it's funny how people see things differently. That's fair enough.

I'm not suggesting that Davies shouldn't have come on, and indeed you are correct he could have scored 3 goals, and it would all be very different. However, chances are created and missed in every game. If we put away all of the chances we create we'd be scoring 5-10 goals per game.

For me, the two chances Davies had were both created by a Cunningham cross. These two crosses came from quite deep (at least 10-15 yards beyond the 18 yard line).

What I am arguing is that if we had tried this route / tactic more often, perhaps we may have created more chances and scored at least one.

Not sure what your Barnsley mates in the opposite stand were seeing, but for me we DID NOT create enough chances to win the game. Davies had the two headers from crosses - one of them was a very good chance which he should have finished, the 2nd one was more difficult. The free kick which hit the bar and Woolford header cleared off the line were the only other 2 real opportunities we had in the 2nd half.

For me, 4 chances (one from a set piece) in 45 minutes is not enough creativity to win the game when playing against 10 men. If we had played with 2 wingers along with the 2 full backs, in my mind, we'd have pulled their team around more and would have opened up gaps, thus creating more opportunities.

Just because we had these 4 chances it doesn't mean we created enough to win the game. If this is anyone's argument, then Barnsley still should have won the game as they created 4 or 5 better chances than we did.

If you create 4 chances and score none, then you need to create more chances. If you create 12 chances and score none, then you can consider yourself unlucky.

As I've said, I am not being negative and I am not knocking Del, I am 100% behind him and always have been. But I remain convinced that against 10 men, width is the most important factor. Failure to make the pitch as large as possible plays into your opponents hands and allows them to defend a smaller area.

Del is quoted today with this :

"We had enough players physically strong in the air and I still wanted more crosses to go in because we were a bit reluctant at times,"

If he wanted more crosses to go in, then he should have ensured the ball was in wide area's to get crosses in. The fact we didn't get enough crosses in was because of his tactic to play with Zero wingers.

[Harry]

I'm absolutely amazed by some of the comments on this thread, not just the naivety but also the disrespect shown our manager.

Do people really, really believe that Del boy was unaware of the idea of opening up the 10 men by widening the pitch?? Really?

Cmon, ffs give him some credit. We all think we're managers sat in the stands, but he's done the badges and has a wealth of player experience at a very high level.

He obviously had his own ideas on how to solve the conundrum, and probably partly due to the unforeseeable problem of having already substituted Adomah before ever sending off, opted for something different.

As others have said, it nearly paid off.

Now, I don't propose Mcinnes should be allowed to exist within an untouchable bubble of infallibility, but cmon.

Dude - I appreciate what you're saying here and I opened up with this very comment in my opening post.

As I said, I am totally behind Del, but that doesn't mean he is beyond criticism.

Your comments are vindicating the whole point. Del knows full well, as everyone does, that playing against 10 means you have to use the full pitch. He didn't opt for this tactic yesterday, which, in my humble opinion, is why he got it wrong yesterday.

I refute your comment of "we all think we're managers sat in the stands". Well, quite frankly mate, no we don't, but that's not to say we can't have an opinion! In my opinion we should have used the full pitch, Del chose not to do this and in my wholly unqualified opinion it was the wrong tactics.

No-one is showing any disrespect to Del, but he isn't beyond criticism.

[Kid in the Riot]

Having just watched the highlights we had 4 decent chances but Barnsley must have had double that including two chances late on for Harewood.

Looks like we deserved to lose to me, worrying that Barnsley seemed to cut us open a few times maybe more than even Forest did.

[chipdawg]

Dude - I appreciate what you're saying here and I opened up with this very comment in my opening post.

As I said, I am totally behind Del, but that doesn't mean he is beyond criticism.

Your comments are vindicating the whole point. Del knows full well, as everyone does, that playing against 10 means you have to use the full pitch. He didn't opt for this tactic yesterday, which, in my humble opinion, is why he got it wrong yesterday.

I refute your comment of "we all think we're managers sat in the stands". Well, quite frankly mate, no we don't, but that's not to say we can't have an opinion! In my opinion we should have used the full pitch, Del chose not to do this and in my wholly unqualified opinion it was the wrong tactics.

No-one is showing any disrespect to Del, but he isn't beyond criticism.

I think what myself and Manon are trying to say is that the tactical decisions Del made were just as valid as the ones you suggest and you can use the match stats to prove either argument. I just don't agree that what transpired proves Del made a mistake in any way. I would also add that my Barnsley spies in the Ponte Rd end also mentioned two occasions where first Stead and then Woolford elected to pass when they had clear shooting opportunities, though again that's pie in the sky really. I think we all agree that the performance on the day wasn't good enough

[Manon]

Dude - I appreciate what you're saying here and I opened up with this very comment in my opening post.

I liked your first post(although as has been mentioned, the title was a tad over cooked) in which you spoke a lot of sense and value your input since you were there.

My post was aimed more at some of the other poster's comments.

As I said, I am totally behind Del, but that doesn't mean he is beyond criticism.

Your comments are vindicating the whole point. Del knows full well, as everyone does, that playing against 10 means you have to use the full pitch. He didn't opt for this tactic yesterday, which, in my humble opinion, is why he got it wrong yesterday.

I refute your comment of "we all think we're managers sat in the stands". Well, quite frankly mate, no we don't, but that's not to say we can't have an opinion! In my opinion we should have used the full pitch, Del chose not to do this and in my wholly unqualified opinion it was the wrong tactics.

The first paragraph is at odds with the second one here. I appreciate you have stated it is your own opinion on why we lost, but you earlier said 'Del knows full well, as everyone does' as if using the full pitch tacticis a fact. Things are not always so black and white. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

It depends on the personnel, and formation used by the opposing ten men as well as tour own. It is by NO MEANS a dead cert that we would have taken any more from the game had we stretched out. We may not have even had more chances - perhaps less. We might have exposed ourselves badly and conceded again. There is no set rule book or tactics manual to refer to, only guidelines.. There are far too many unique factors in every set specific circumstance to be able to apply a generic template to it. Football is far more complex than that, which is why it is so interesting!

[Port Said Red]

I must have missed Harry's ten paragraph critiques of how much DMC got it right against Palace and the Red Dragons. I am sure they were both equally fascinating. Are we going to have one for every defeat this season?

[Rob k]

I must have missed Harry's ten paragraph critiques of how much DMC got it right against Palace and the Red Dragons. I am sure they were both equally fascinating. Are we going to have one for every defeat this season?

The poster has put his thoughts down for us to read and openly says he's a massive fan of Dels but on this occasion thought he got it wrong, nothing wrong with that and for once it's sparked a decent debate.

He was there and has called it as he sees it, what's your thoughts on the game?

[Know the Score]

Oh nooooooo, we lost a game! I was up there and I was more focused on the positive than what might of been, DMC clearly knows what he is doing, saying that he needs to justify his decisions to us is utter rubbish.

Bottom line is, he's a good manager, assembled a strong squad for the championship, and isn't afraid to upset the bigger egos in our team totes something different on the pitch. He got bottle. All good managers have this...

Just so board of people commenting on tactics when clearly the closest they've got to management, is championship manager or FIFA!

[Port Said Red]

The poster has put his thoughts down for us to read and openly says he's a massive fan of Dels but on this occasion thought he got it wrong, nothing wrong with that and for once it's sparked a decent debate.

He was there and has called it as he sees it, what's your thoughts on the game?

As stated on other threads family commitments prevented me from attending. I have made no comments on the performance for this very reason, I am just making the point that these sort of posts only appear after a defeat, rarely if ever do people feel the need to vent their positive feelings to this extent when we win.

[monkeygoblin]

Finally, a great debate, one which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading.

The ubiquitous use of the web seems to result in many a football forum being laced with useless tripe nowadays. So it warms the heart to know that there remains a large contingent on OTIB with opinions of value, rather than snide comments which contribute nothing other than a form of online intimidation, approaching the behaviour of the average classroom wally.

So thanks to OP and the others willing to coherently and respectfully share their opinions. A complete consensus will never be reached, that is the beauty and the purpose of a fans forum.

I wasn’t at the game but am of the school of thought that playing against ten is all about dragging opposition players out of position, making them work, making them scamper, thus exposing the extra spaces left in behind. You need to use the whole pitch to do this.

Someone mentioned that there are more ways in which to skin a cat, quite right. Unfortunately (based on the result) on this occasion Del selected the wrong way. I think that is essentially what OP is pointing towards.

Now let's all keep our Gary Johnsons in our panties and not get too carried away when we win a couple of home games. The prospect of mid-table mediocrity appeals to me greatly. I have every faith that Del will take us there.

[Corsham Alf]

I flew in from Germany just for this game (my first outing of the season) and I agree with most of Harry's comments. I'm a big fan of Del's but I to thought he got his tactics wrong on Sat.

City's midfield was def too congested right from the start. To me City were completely lacking down the right side. Albert had a massive off day and made Golbourne (never that great) look like a world beater. Barnsleys threat eminated from the left flank with Golbourne having acres of space.

City could def. have scored an equaliser but too often in the box our forwards were looking to play a killer pass, instead of a turn, swivel and shot.

I guess the issue for Del was having dragged Albert off at half time (for playing so badly) this then reduced his width when they went down to 10 men.

Barnsley def. bossed the first half in the centre of the park with Nellis their best player, and Skuse and Pearson not imposing. I must admit I haven't seen alot of Pearson but I struggle to see where the guy fits in to the side.

Cunningham 2nd half was excellent and gets his head up well and uses the ball expertly. A top signing by Dell. Stead had a bad day at the office but I can forgive as he has been playing well from what I have read. Next time I fly back I shall be demanding 3 points!

[Port Said Red]

Finally, a great debate, one which I have thoroughly enjoyed reading.

The ubiquitous use of the web seems to result in many a football forum being laced with useless tripe nowadays. So it warms the heart to know that there remains a large contingent on OTIB with opinions of value, rather than snide comments which contribute nothing other than a form of online intimidation, approaching the behaviour of the average classroom wally.

So thanks to OP and the others willing to coherently and respectfully share their opinions. A complete consensus will never be reached, that is the beauty and the purpose of a fans forum.

I wasn’t at the game but am of the school of thought that playing against ten is all about dragging opposition players out of position, making them work, making them scamper, thus exposing the extra spaces left in behind. You need to use the whole pitch to do this.

Someone mentioned that there are more ways in which to skin a cat, quite right. Unfortunately (based on the result) on this occasion Del selected the wrong way. I think that is essentially what OP is pointing towards.

Now let's all keep our Gary Johnsons in our panties and not get too carried away when we win a couple of home games. The prospect of mid-table mediocrity appeals to me greatly. I have every faith that Del will take us there.

I am not convinced by this, as said before, I wasn't there but listening to the radio it did sound like we created enough chances to score but didn't put them away. The unanswerable question is whether we would have created better or more chances using a different formation or tactics. I would still like to know if the OP would feel that DMC should be brought to book if at least 2 of those chances had been taken.

[downendcity]

I must have missed Harry's ten paragraph critiques of how much DMC got it right against Palace and the Red Dragons. I am sure they were both equally fascinating. Are we going to have one for every defeat this season?

Are we going to have one after every defeat?

Yes, that was it!

Well,I can be optimistic if If want

[CrackercornerPhil]

It looked to me that both Woodford and Adomah were tucked in as neither went to their respective lines rarely. Skuse seemed to be holding himself in the middle in front of the central defenders. This system relies on the full backs getting forward or the otherside will dominate the wings.

Easy said that Ryan Taylor should have started but when you've paid a 1m + for a player and mindful of his impact on the Cardiff game. Davies made a similar impact at Barnsley so perhaps both players should play in that role for the time being.

[Harry]

In response to the posts from Manon and Chipdawg - as others have mentioned, it's good to have some good debate for once with both sides making valid points, rather than the usual forum sniping - so thanks for being involved.

You make some good points, in particular that there is indeed more than one way to skin a cat, dependent on the given set of circumstances. In this case though, I do genuinely feel that we would've had more success deploying a wider formation. I'll try to prove this theory in a moment.

Firstly though, I will concede one point, raised by a couple of you. Yes, I will concede that the thread title is somewhat sensationalist. I am in no way demanding answers from Del, nor am I suggesting I or anyone else knows better. I admit that I was very angry when I began this thread on Saturday night when I returned from oop north. However, I do still feel my points are valid and I will now attempt to prove this theory.

As I have mentioned, the best way I believe to break down a 10 man team is to use the full width of the pitch. You need to play the ball around, stretch the opposition, use both flanks from deep right up to the byline, switch play, left-to-right and back again, tire the opposition and make them lose their shape. If I break down the chances which we did create on Saturday, you will see that these were as a result of doing exactly this. In my opinion, we did not do it enough and thus didn't take full advantage.

So - after the sending off, (i.e. from minute 52 to minute 95) here are some facts and figures to digest :

Touches of the ball in the final third of the pitch wide of the box :

Woolford : 1

Davies : 1

Wilson : 2

Stead : 2

Cunningham : 11

Forward passes from a full back into the channels :

Cunningham : 1 (which was blocked)

Wilson : 2 (1 of which was blocked)

Crosses from the final 3rd of the pitch :

Wilson : 1 (blocked and forced corner)

Cunningham : 7

Crosses from deeper positions :

Wilson : 3

Cunningham : 6

So, what we can see from this is that on the occasions when we got the ball wide in the final 3rd, Wilson attempted 1 cross from 2 occasions, and Cunningham attempted 7 crosses from 11 occasions.

Let us break down how we created our chances and how this related to the dangerous wide positions we carved out :

1) Cross from byline : Pearson played in Cunningham, crossed and cleared.

2) Cross from byline : Pearson played in Cunningham, crossed, half cleared, chance for Baldock scuffed straight to keeper.

3) Touches wide : Interplay wide on the left sees midfielder dragged wider, ball inside opens up space for Skuse to shoot from distance.

4) Cross from byline : Wilson gets to byline and puts in a cross which is blocked for a corner. From the resulting corner, Woolford has a snapshot which is blazed over.

5) Wide Movement : Woolford has ball on half-way line and plays it inside where it goes across the backline. Woolford continues with a run forward with Cunningham overlapping him on the outside offering movement and drawing 2 players from Barnsley to the flank. Carey lofts a ball forward where Woolford has continued his run, now unmarked as his defender was drawn wide. Woolford lobs keeper and has header cleared off the line.

6) Cross from byline : Pearson plays in Cunningham, cross blocked for a corner.

7) Cross from byline : Taylor holds up ball and plays in Cunningham, crossed to back post where Elliot nearly gets on the end of it.

8) Cross from deep : Cunningham puts in a cross which Davies should score with from his first touch.

9) Cross from byline : Cunningham puts in cross which is poor and is cleared from the edge of the box.

10) Cross from deep : Cunningham plays ball across midfield to Skuse, who passes it into a channel for Davies. Davies' attempted cross is blocked, drops to Skuse who switches back again to the opposite flank (i.e. stretching the opposition from one flank to the other). Cunningham now in space to deliver a cross which Davies should again score from.

11) Cross from deep : Cunningham crosses from deep, Davies holds it up and nearly plays in Stead on the turn.

12) Cross from deep and byline : Cross from Wilson evades everyone and is picked up in the opposite corner by Cunningham, his cross finds Elliot at far post whose header find Davies for a blocked shot.

13) Wide play : Cunningham and Skuse exchange passes on the flank, pulling the midfield wide, pass inside draws a foul on the edge of the box, from which Davies hits the bar with the free kick.

14) Switching play : Cunningham plays ball across to Wilson, Wilson switched play back to Cunningham, cross creates a near chance but ricochets back to Cunningham, who then crosses straight to keeper.

15) Long ball : Long ball from Carey finds Stead, who has a yard of space but doesn't turn and shoot, instead tries to lay the ball off.

Now - sorry for the length of this post, but what I am attempting to prove here is that the 14 instances mentioned above were the ONLY times we got the ball wide. From these 14 occasions, we created our best chances (the Woolford shot, the Davies headers and the free-kick). It was width which created these openings.

The only chance we created which didn't come from wide play was the Stead chance at the end.

In my opinion, had we got into wider positions more often, played with 2 wingers + 2 attacking full backs, and pulled their defence and midfield around more often, then I 100% believe we would have created many more opportunities.

Width is not a myth, it creates space and creates chances. When we played like this, we created, when we didn't we were slow and predictable. I believe we should have played more like this and in fairness to Del, he did say in his post-match interview that he "wanted more crosses to go in".

He's clearly no fool and knows this was our best chance of winning the game, so I don't understand why he didn't ensure more players operated in a wide area to allow more crossing opportunities to be created. I think it is a valid point.

Anyway - sorry for going on, back over to you.......

[Harry]

I would still like to know if the OP would feel that DMC should be brought to book if at least 2 of those chances had been taken.

No of course not. I would have been very relieved. I still wouldn't have been happy with the style of play though, but no, I wouldn't feel the need to rant on here as I would have been content with the 3 points..

You'll note from my history that I am not someone who posts negative stuff, but in this one instance I felt it was justified as I thought the tactics employed were wrong.

You didn't find me starting threads about how we got things right in previous games because I don't like to get carried away with the euphoria of 2 wins. I support my team vocally when I am at the ground, I don't necessarily feel the need to start a thread saying "Well done". I've already shown the players and manager my thoughts by singing and praising them in the ground. However, this is my only outlet for expressing my concerns, which I felt were justified.

[Harry]

Just so board of people commenting on tactics when clearly the closest they've got to management, is championship manager or FIFA!

Oh my days - my pet hate on this forum this is! Just because I have an opinion it must mean I play computer games.

For your info, I have played football to a pretty decent standard, I have managed 2 teams to promotion at a pretty decent local standard, and I have watched City for 25 years. By no means do I think I know-it-all, but I like to think I know a little, enough to form my own opinion of a game. And I don't get it from a computer game.

[CiderHider]

In response to the posts from Manon and Chipdawg - as others have mentioned, it's good to have some good debate for once with both sides making valid points, rather than the usual forum sniping - so thanks for being involved.

You make some good points, in particular that there is indeed more than one way to skin a cat, dependent on the given set of circumstances. In this case though, I do genuinely feel that we would've had more success deploying a wider formation. I'll try to prove this theory in a moment.

Firstly though, I will concede one point, raised by a couple of you. Yes, I will concede that the thread title is somewhat sensationalist. I am in no way demanding answers from Del, nor am I suggesting I or anyone else knows better. I admit that I was very angry when I began this thread on Saturday night when I returned from oop north. However, I do still feel my points are valid and I will now attempt to prove this theory.

As I have mentioned, the best way I believe to break down a 10 man team is to use the full width of the pitch. You need to play the ball around, stretch the opposition, use both flanks from deep right up to the byline, switch play, left-to-right and back again, tire the opposition and make them lose their shape. If I break down the chances which we did create on Saturday, you will see that these were as a result of doing exactly this. In my opinion, we did not so it enough and thus didn't take full advantage.

So - after the sending off, (i.e. from minute 52 to minute 95) here are some facts and figures to digest :

Touches of the ball in the final third of the pitch wide of the box :

Woolford : 1

Davies : 1

Wilson : 2

Stead : 2

Cunningham : 11

Forward passes from a full back into the channels :

Cunningham : 1 (which was blocked)

Wilson : 2 (1 of which was blocked)

Crosses from the final 3rd of the pitch :

Wilson : 1 (blocked and forced corner)

Cunningham : 7

Crosses from deeper positions :

Wilson : 3

Cunningham : 6

So, what we can see from this is that on the occasions when we got the ball wide in the final 3rd, Wilson attempted 1 cross from 2 occasions, and Cunningham attempted 7 crosses from 11 occasions.

Let us break down how we created our chances and how this related to the dangerous wide positions we carved out :

1) Cross from byline : Pearson played in Cunningham, crossed and cleared.

2) Cross from byline : Pearson played in Cunningham, crossed, half cleared, chance for Baldock scuffed straight to keeper.

3) Touches wide : Interplay wide on the left sees midfielder dragged wider, ball inside opens up space for Skuse to shoot from distance.

4) Cross from byline : Wilson gets to byline and puts in a cross which is blocked for a corner. From the resulting corner, Woolford has a snapshot which is blazed over.

5) Wide Movement : Woolford has ball on half-way line and plays it inside where it goes across the backline. Woolford continues with a run forward with Cunningham overlapping him on the outside offering movement and drawing 2 players from Barnsley to the flank. Carey lofts a ball forward where Woolford has continued his run, now unmarked as his defender was drawn wide. Woolford lobs keeper and has header cleared off the line.

6) Cross from byline : Pearson plays in Cunningham, cross blocked for a corner.

7) Cross from byline : Taylor holds up ball and plays in Cunningham, crossed to back post where Elliot nearly gets on the end of it.

8) Cross from deep : Cunningham puts in a cross which Davies should score with from his first touch.

9) Cross from byline : Cunningham puts in cross which is poor and is cleared from the edge of the box.

10) Cross from deep : Cunningham plays ball across midfield to Skuse, who passes it into a channel for Davies. Davies' attempted cross is blocked, drops to Skuse who switches back again to the opposite flank (i.e. stretching the opposition from one flank to the other). Cunningham now in space to deliver a cross which Davies should again score from.

11) Cross from deep : Cunningham crosses from deep, Davies holds it up and nearly plays in Stead on the turn.

12) Cross from deep and byline : Cross from Wilson evades everyone and is picked up in the opposite corner by Cunningham, his cross finds Elliot at far post whose header find Davies for a blocked shot.

13) Wide play : Cunningham and Skuse exchange passes on the flank, pulling the midfield wide, pass inside draws a foul on the edge of the box, from which Davies hits the bar with the free kick.

14) Switching play : Cunningham plays ball across to Wilson, Wilson switched play back to Cunningham, cross creates a near chance but ricochets back to Cunningham, who then crosses straight to keeper.

15) Long ball : Long ball from Carey finds Stead, who has a yard of space but doesn't turn and shoot, instead tries to lay the ball off.

Now - sorry for the length of this post, but what I am attempting to prove here is that the 14 instances mentioned above were the ONLY times we got the ball wide. From these 14 occasions, we created our best chances (the Woolford shot, the Davies headers and the free-kick). It was width which created these openings.

The only chance we created which didn't come from wide play was the Stead chance at the end.

In my opinion, had we got into wider positions more often, played with 2 wingers + 2 attacking full backs, and pulled their defence and midfield around more often, then I 100% believe we would have created many more opportunities.

Width is not a myth, it creates space and creates chances. When we played like this, we created, when we didn't we were slow and predictable. I believe we should have played more like this and in fairness to Del, he did say in his post-match interview that he "wanted more crosses to go in".

He's clearly no fool and knows this was our best chance of winning the game, so I don't understand why he didn't ensure more players operated in a wide area to allow more crossing opportunities to be created. I think it is a valid point.

Anyway - sorry for going on, back over to you.......

Wow.. that's what a call a broken down analysis, not read this thread yet so I'm none the wiser to this post, but fair play, if you were trying to make a point, i think you made it.

[Know the Score]

Oh my days - my pet hate on this forum this is! Just because I have an opinion it must mean I play computer games.

For your info, I have played football to a pretty decent standard, I have managed 2 teams to promotion at a pretty decent local standard, and I have watched City for 25 years. By no means do I think I know-it-all, but I like to think I know a little, enough to form my own opinion of a game. And I don't get it from a computer game.

Congratulations on your promotions and your playing career very nice work;) clearly everyone can have an opinion I'm not saying you can't, just stating that when we lose it's almost like everyone forgets that we're only 4 games into the season and we have a newish side? 10-15 games into the season id understand this thread if we were near the fringes of the bottom relegation places and Barnsley were becoming a "relagation rival" but were not, DMC knows what he's doing, you don't need answers....yet!

[Know the Score]

Wow.. that's what a call a broken down analysis, not read this thread yet so I'm none the wiser to this post, but fair play, if you were trying to make a point, i think you made it.

Quite easily most of this thread could be put on a match report from the NBC or skysports? How do they find the time to do this?

[chipdawg]

In response to the posts from Manon and Chipdawg - as others have mentioned, it's good to have some good debate for once with both sides making valid points, rather than the usual forum sniping - so thanks for being involved.

You make some good points, in particular that there is indeed more than one way to skin a cat, dependent on the given set of circumstances. In this case though, I do genuinely feel that we would've had more success deploying a wider formation. I'll try to prove this theory in a moment.

Firstly though, I will concede one point, raised by a couple of you. Yes, I will concede that the thread title is somewhat sensationalist. I am in no way demanding answers from Del, nor am I suggesting I or anyone else knows better. I admit that I was very angry when I began this thread on Saturday night when I returned from oop north. However, I do still feel my points are valid and I will now attempt to prove this theory.

As I have mentioned, the best way I believe to break down a 10 man team is to use the full width of the pitch. You need to play the ball around, stretch the opposition, use both flanks from deep right up to the byline, switch play, left-to-right and back again, tire the opposition and make them lose their shape. If I break down the chances which we did create on Saturday, you will see that these were as a result of doing exactly this. In my opinion, we did not do it enough and thus didn't take full advantage.

So - after the sending off, (i.e. from minute 52 to minute 95) here are some facts and figures to digest :

Touches of the ball in the final third of the pitch wide of the box :

Woolford : 1

Davies : 1

Wilson : 2

Stead : 2

Cunningham : 11

Forward passes from a full back into the channels :

Cunningham : 1 (which was blocked)

Wilson : 2 (1 of which was blocked)

Crosses from the final 3rd of the pitch :

Wilson : 1 (blocked and forced corner)

Cunningham : 7

Crosses from deeper positions :

Wilson : 3

Cunningham : 6

So, what we can see from this is that on the occasions when we got the ball wide in the final 3rd, Wilson attempted 1 cross from 2 occasions, and Cunningham attempted 7 crosses from 11 occasions.

Let us break down how we created our chances and how this related to the dangerous wide positions we carved out :

1) Cross from byline : Pearson played in Cunningham, crossed and cleared.

2) Cross from byline : Pearson played in Cunningham, crossed, half cleared, chance for Baldock scuffed straight to keeper.

3) Touches wide : Interplay wide on the left sees midfielder dragged wider, ball inside opens up space for Skuse to shoot from distance.

4) Cross from byline : Wilson gets to byline and puts in a cross which is blocked for a corner. From the resulting corner, Woolford has a snapshot which is blazed over.

5) Wide Movement : Woolford has ball on half-way line and plays it inside where it goes across the backline. Woolford continues with a run forward with Cunningham overlapping him on the outside offering movement and drawing 2 players from Barnsley to the flank. Carey lofts a ball forward where Woolford has continued his run, now unmarked as his defender was drawn wide. Woolford lobs keeper and has header cleared off the line.

6) Cross from byline : Pearson plays in Cunningham, cross blocked for a corner.

7) Cross from byline : Taylor holds up ball and plays in Cunningham, crossed to back post where Elliot nearly gets on the end of it.

8) Cross from deep : Cunningham puts in a cross which Davies should score with from his first touch.

9) Cross from byline : Cunningham puts in cross which is poor and is cleared from the edge of the box.

10) Cross from deep : Cunningham plays ball across midfield to Skuse, who passes it into a channel for Davies. Davies' attempted cross is blocked, drops to Skuse who switches back again to the opposite flank (i.e. stretching the opposition from one flank to the other). Cunningham now in space to deliver a cross which Davies should again score from.

11) Cross from deep : Cunningham crosses from deep, Davies holds it up and nearly plays in Stead on the turn.

12) Cross from deep and byline : Cross from Wilson evades everyone and is picked up in the opposite corner by Cunningham, his cross finds Elliot at far post whose header find Davies for a blocked shot.

13) Wide play : Cunningham and Skuse exchange passes on the flank, pulling the midfield wide, pass inside draws a foul on the edge of the box, from which Davies hits the bar with the free kick.

14) Switching play : Cunningham plays ball across to Wilson, Wilson switched play back to Cunningham, cross creates a near chance but ricochets back to Cunningham, who then crosses straight to keeper.

15) Long ball : Long ball from Carey finds Stead, who has a yard of space but doesn't turn and shoot, instead tries to lay the ball off.

Now - sorry for the length of this post, but what I am attempting to prove here is that the 14 instances mentioned above were the ONLY times we got the ball wide. From these 14 occasions, we created our best chances (the Woolford shot, the Davies headers and the free-kick). It was width which created these openings.

The only chance we created which didn't come from wide play was the Stead chance at the end.

In my opinion, had we got into wider positions more often, played with 2 wingers + 2 attacking full backs, and pulled their defence and midfield around more often, then I 100% believe we would have created many more opportunities.

Width is not a myth, it creates space and creates chances. When we played like this, we created, when we didn't we were slow and predictable. I believe we should have played more like this and in fairness to Del, he did say in his post-match interview that he "wanted more crosses to go in".

He's clearly no fool and knows this was our best chance of winning the game, so I don't understand why he didn't ensure more players operated in a wide area to allow more crossing opportunities to be created. I think it is a valid point.

Anyway - sorry for going on, back over to you.......

Wow, that's some detailed posting! Where did you get the data from to produce all that? My rough mathematics suggests that we created those 14 chances from wide positions over a period of 38 minutes plus 5 min of injury time so that's just over one chance every 3 minutes. Now add to that the fact that chances will have been created through the middle as well and I actually think thats a pretty good 'chance creation rate'- perhaps a chance every two minutes? I also don't think it's as simple as saying that more width = more space. Barnsley left one striker up against our 2 centre halves, meaning they were man for man at the back. As they defended very deep I would argue that even with extra bodies out wide, Barnsley would have either doubled up on the big men in the box and allowed our wingers to cross or continued to not allow us the space. They weren't having to run very far and as professional sportsmen, I'm sure they could have managed it. Perhaps the argument for width would be more compelling if they'd had to play an hour with 10 men as there's more chance to wear them out?

Something else that hasn't been considered are the relative merits of the players we're discussing. Anderson is a right footer who prefers the left wing. This indicates to me that perhaps crossing is not his strong point. Cunningham however, was singled out by Davies is post match interviews as being the 'go to guy' for getting balls in the box. We should remember of course, that space out wide is pointless if you can't use it effectively. Perhaps Andersons talents are not best utilised against a mass defence?

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that added width wasn't a valid tactical option and it may well of born fruit, I just think that the stats (including yours above which seem to suggest that we created quite a few opportunities from wide areas) at the very least justify Del's substitutions

[Port Said Red]

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that added width wasn't a valid tactical option and it may well of born fruit, I just think that the stats (including yours above which seem to suggest that we created quite a few opportunities from wide areas) at the very least justify Del's substitutions

Thanks CD, you have saved me making very much the same point. We did all this playing the wrong tactics?

[Harry]

My rough mathematics suggests that we created those 14 chances from wide positions over a period of 38 minutes plus 5 min of injury time so that's just over one chance every 3 minutes. Now add to that the fact that chances will have been created through the middle as well and I actually think thats a pretty good 'chance creation rate'- perhaps a chance every two minutes?

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that added width wasn't a valid tactical option and it may well of born fruit, I just think that the stats (including yours above which seem to suggest that we created quite a few opportunities from wide areas) at the very least justify Del's substitutions

Thanks CD, you have saved me making very much the same point. We did all this playing the wrong tactics?

Thanks for the replies chaps, sorry for the delayed response, busy day at work and then just got back from the u-21 game.

I think you are misunderstanding what I have outlined above. The 15 pieces of play which I have detailed were THE SUM TOTAL of our attacking play after the sending off. We did not create anything down the middle aside from point 15 which I have indicated. Those 15 were the only times we had the ball in the opposition final third, and 14 of them came from when we got the ball into wide positions.

Neither were all 15 of these incidents full blown chances. I'd say only the Woolford chance and the 2 Davies headers were the only 'good' chances we created. The rest were just passages of play where we used the width of the pitch.

Considering all of the possession we had in the 2nd half I expected us to create more than we did, and judging by the 15 times we got the ball in the final third of the pitch, 14 of them came from wide play. The above incidents probably make up about 2 to 3 minutes of actual play. For the other 40 minutes or so we were nowhere near creating anything and DID NOT use the width of the pitch to our advantage.

All I am suggesting is that I believe we would have created more 'actual' chances if we tried to get the ball wide in the final third more often.