Poor First Halves

[Red-Robbo]

It's become something of a trend for us, and even Radio Bris and LJ in his post match analysis mention it occasionally.

We're treated to a first half that is either dire or frustrating, followed by a second where our dominance begins to show. (There are exceptions, like at Norwich, but generally that's the trend)

What one factor has made all those second periods more fruitful for City?  A: The introduction of a second striker.

Last night shows that savvy managers like Monk can work out exactly how to stop us: A slow, isolated front man (who can be tightly marked) and interplaying full-backs & wingers bombing down the line to deliver a cross in for the big fella, assuming he's kept up and is in the box. Brum simply boxed in all that flank movement. There is a third element to the Johnson method usually - a "link man" playing behind the striker but in an advanced MF position. However, more often than not, this one player does not "link" and Fam has to do all the hard work alone.

So, starting the same way, we're easy to work out. Easy to set up against. 

"But it's got us results!" I hear some cry.

True, but let's examine when the goals came, tracking our games back to the start of our winning run.

Games we scored after the second striker was introduced:

Birmingham; QPR (both goals); Blackburn ; Bolton (both goals); Huddersfield; Rotherham 

Games we won with a solo striker

Swansea; Bolton (cup); Forest; Stoke

Games we lost with a solo striker

Norwich

Games we lost with two strikers but were much better when both were on the pitch

Wolves

You can only come to the conclusion that we are much more likely to score when we have two front men and leaving that formation until the second half can - as proved the case last night - be too late.  We are not a free-scoring club. We haven't scored more than 2 goals in the last 18 games.

Let's change that. Let's start two up front. Let's have a decent 90 minutes. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Birmingham away we were better first half,  Nottingham Forest away the same and Blackburn away we were better first half- just so happened that we got the goals in the 2nd half, but if you look at the actual performance in isolation of result, the picture has been IMO more mixed- but definitely now becoming a theme, I agree. Brentford at home though an ultimately disappointing draw, weren't we better first half or fairly evenly split?

[Slippin cider]

If we’re better second half I’ll get to the gate at 1555 and 2040 respectively then in future....bound to work a treat ...that way I’ll only ever watch quality football ..........I’ll get me coat  

[Marlborough Red]

Do we sell a half season ticket. If possible will buy one for the second half only.

 

Obvious we need 2 up front to make an early impact in home games. So many wasted first halves followed by changes (2 up front) and a stirring recovery in the second 45. Cant remember the last time we were 2 up at half time.

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Birmingham away we were better first half,  Nottingham Forest away the same and Blackburn away we were better first half- just so happened that we got the goals in the 2nd half, but if you look at the actual performance in isolation of result, the picture has been IMO more mixed- but definitely now becoming a theme, I agree. Brentford at home though an ultimately disappointing draw, weren't we better first half or fairly evenly split?

I did say it is not true every single match. However, it's no brain scrambler to realise that two out-and-out attackers cause opponents defences more problems than one, slow, easily marked front man. 

As a defender, you don't only have to worry about the big Senegalese guy, but the little, terrier-like fellow with his darting off-the-ball runs. Suddenly the defence can looked stretched and gaps can open that others exploit.

Diédhiou and Taylor don't get all the goals in this situation, but analysing the games shows we are more likely to score when both of them are on the pitch than when one of them is on the pitch.

[Mr Popodopolous]

44 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I did say it is not true every single match. However, it's no brain scrambler to realise that two out-and-out attackers cause opponents defences more problems than one, slow, easily marked front man. 

As a defender, you don't only have to worry about the big Senegalese guy, but the little, terrier-like fellow with his darting off-the-ball runs. Suddenly the defence can looked stretched and gaps can open that others exploit.

Diédhiou and Taylor don't get all the goals in this situation, but analysing the games shows we are more likely to score when both of them are on the pitch than when one of them is on the pitch.

I think it has been a mixed bag, though definitely and predominantly at home 2nd half good, first half slow. Anyway we'll agree to disagree on distribution? Increasing trend too.

I'm on the fence about 2 up front. It can work and perhaps Diedhiou and Taylor would be the best- good example Stoke 2017- even yesterday Diedhiou goal, Taylor assist. However, we risk stretching the game- good and bad thing, but more importantly losing control and structure with 2 up front unless we are very careful about how we set up.

I know it worked for Birmingham, but they play a counter attacking but not necessarily defensive shape- yet they aren't so bothered about possession, flair or creativity a lot of the time. 

Way I see it, we could go 4-4-2 and play in a Birmingham type manner. Or 3-5-2 with those 2 so we don't lose the midfield- O'Dowda and Da Silva wing backs perhaps? If we try to play an attacking, possession 4-4-2 with Diedhiou and Taylor up front yes we may well score, but we will lose the midfield vs better sides.

[cidered abroad]

First half last night was typical of Johnson (*) tactics. Don't be very adventuresome. No shots/headers on target.

Second half, despite around 65% possession, we had 9 goal attempts of which only 2 on target. The goal and a mishit Taylor shot with only keeper to beat.

Brum managed a match total of 11 shots with 5 on target.

So for all the possession and the second half's huffing and puffing, which some thought was a very good performance, the outplayed opponents won comfortably.

So how much longer do we have to watch poor first halves and gung ho playing catch up in second half?

(*) father and son. It's a family trait.

[Red-Robbo]

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think it has been a mixed bag, though definitely and predominantly at home 2nd half good, first half slow. Anyway we'll agree to disagree on distribution? Increasing trend too.

I'm on the fence about 2 up front. It can work and perhaps Diedhiou and Taylor would be the best- good example Stoke 2017- even yesterday Diedhiou goal, Taylor assist. However, we risk stretching the game- good and bad thing, but more importantly losing control and structure with 2 up front unless we are very careful about how we set up.

I know it worked for Birmingham, but they play a counter attacking but not necessarily defensive shape- yet they aren't so bothered about possession, flair or creativity a lot of the time. 

Way I see it, we could go 4-4-2 and play in a Birmingham type manner. Or 3-5-2 with those 2 so we don't lose the midfield- O'Dowda and Da Silva wing backs perhaps? If we try to play an attacking, possession 4-4-2 with Diedhiou and Taylor up front yes we may well score, but we will lose the midfield vs better sides.

I fancy it for home games. Taylor and Fammy only. For some reason, it never worked with Weimann and Diedhiou, which is why Lee abandoned the two-man attack in the first place.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

I fancy it for home games. Taylor and Fammy only. For some reason, it never worked with Weimann and Diedhiou, which is why Lee abandoned the two-man attack in the first place.

We'll lose the mdifield- we've seen it with 2 up front before last season in some home games. 

In what tactical blueprint would you lay out the 4-4-2 or 2 up front to safeguard against this a bit?

[NcnsBcfc]

The thing that annoyed me last night was the subs bench. 4 defenders including the gk. 

As Mr P said we are predictable, and teams have sussed us out consistently at home over the course of the season.

Why oh why is either Eisa or Semenyeo not on the bench at the very least.

[Red-Robbo]

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We'll lose the mdifield- we've seen it with 2 up front before last season in some home games. 

In what tactical blueprint would you lay out the 4-4-2 or 2 up front to safeguard against this a bit?

We lost the midfield in the first half yesterday - with a supposed 5-man midfield.

I quite like a reverse triangle sort of approach. Patto or even O'Dowda behind the two. A sort of flexible 4-2-1-1-2 if you like, with free midfielders like Patto given the option to go wide at any stage. Let's face it, that's what he will do wherever he is positioned. Ideally a returned Korey will allow Brownhill to push up a bit. When Walsh is back he gives options as well.

Ultimately, our best defence is attack. Had Taylor not been on the pitch from h/t we wouldn't have scored last night. 

[mozo]

Wigan away must have been a 90 minute first half...

[Davefevs]

Good thought provoking post @Red-Robbo 

FWIW I think we can also look more threatening when Weimann roams inside and plays more as a right-sided “forward”.  Opens up space for Jack Hunt iwhen he was fit) to get down the pitch.