Coventry first goal

[Davefevs]

Just pics!

 

[UREDS_91]

It was terrible positioning from Kalas, stood like a statue and completely switched off. There's no way he should be letting that man get goal side let alone be that far out of the defensive line. Has been excellent recently, but shows that they all have momentary lapses in concentration that cost us goals. 

[Red-Robbo]

We played a high line and were just caught flat-footed. 

[Lew-T]

Initially I thought the lad was offside. But he’s clearly on there…

[Offside]

What I find infuriating (apart from the way their scorer was allowed to ghost in) is the amount of space their player who plays the pass in has in the third and fourth pics. 

[Red-Robbo]

3 minutes ago, Offside said:

What I find infuriating (apart from the way their scorer was allowed to ghost in) is the amount of space their player who plays the pass in has in the third and fourth pics. 

 

Good point.  If you're given oodles of time on the ball, you don't have to be Iniesta to be able to identify a good passing option. 

[Super]

The problem was last night not one of the midfield was defensive minded.

[Davefevs]

Interesting isn’t it?

Scott gets caught by Hamer dropping short.

Benarous gets caught getting sucked towards the ball for no reason.  From my position, time seemed to stop still with Benarous not picking up Maatsen.

[Lrrr]

12 minutes ago, UREDS_91 said:

It was terrible positioning from Kalas, stood like a statue and completely switched off. There's no way he should be letting that man get goal side let alone be that far out of the defensive line. Has been excellent recently, but shows that they all have momentary lapses in concentration that cost us goals. 

I'd argue Bell should be tighter to Kalas (essentially taking maatsen from Benarous) and allow the switch of play if Coventry want it at which point Bell goes to close, now whether that should be Kalas organising that is another thing given Bell isn't a RB/RWB

Edited February 23, 2022 by Lrrr

[stephenkibby.]

Sat that end high up in the Lansdown, it seemed there was no real danger, even when the lad got the ball under control i never thought he would find the net from the angle.

Great finish mind.

[cider11]

24 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I'd argue Bell should be tighter to Kalas (essentially taking maatsen from Benarous) and allow the switch of play if Coventry want it at which point Bell goes to close, now whether that should be Kalas organising that is another thing given Bell isn't a RB/RWB

I’d agree with that Bell is too wide on photos 4 & 5. He also has visibility of the striker on his own as he’s in front of him. Kalas may not have seen him as he was the other side and would expect his right back to be a bit closer. 
 

Think it does highlight playing a striker at right back has its risks when it comes to defending and positioning. 

[Harry]

32 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I'd argue Bell should be tighter to Kalas (essentially taking maatsen from Benarous) and allow the switch of play if Coventry want it at which point Bell goes to close, now whether that should be Kalas organising that is another thing given Bell isn't a RB/RWB

100% this. 
In my world, I’d want the full backs to be tucked in. Bell is way too wide. If he tucks in and is stationed 10-15 yards from Kalas then the gap for Matson doesn’t exist. If the ball gets switched wide, then you deal with that once it occurs. The full back should never be that far wide when the ball is on the opposite side of the pitch. 
 

Consequently, if Bell is further infield, then Benarous would be free to play higher. With Scott operating the deeper role last night, I’d guess it was HNM and Benarous’s jobs to chase and harry in the central midfield areas. So ultimately, Bell further infield (thus dealing with Matson), Benarous higher (thus pressuring Hamer) with Scott able to hold centrally and screen. 
 

No criticism of Bell though. He’s a novice winger, not an experience full back. Perhaps the more experienced in the backline needed to be calling him in? 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Harry

[Redandproud]

44 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

Initially I thought the lad was offside. But he’s clearly on there…

The linesman on the Williams Stand side was never up with play in the whole game,the ball went out of play several times and never raised his flag,

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Harry said:

100% this. 
In my world, I’d want the full backs to be tucked in. Bell is way too wide. If he tucks in and is stationed 10-15 yards from Kalas then the gap for Matson doesn’t exist. If the ball gets switched wide, then you deal with that once it occurs. The full back should never be that far wide when the ball is on the opposite side of the pitch. 
 

Consequently, if Bell is further infield, then Benarous would be free to play higher. With Scott operating the deeper role last night, I’d guess it was HNM and Benarous’s jobs to chase and harry in the central midfield areas. So ultimately, Bell further infield (thus dealing with Matson), Benarous higher (thus pressuring Hamer) with Scott able to hold centrally and screen. 
 

No criticism of Bell though. He’s a novice winger, not an experience full back. Perhaps the more experienced in the backline needed to be calling him in? 

Ordinarily I'd agree with that theory Harry... however...it's been our weakness for a long time in allowing the cross field ball wide, then not being able to deal with it.

I'm guessing they are aware of this and looking to get tighter quicker on the wide man.

For me in this instant Benarous got sucked in needlessly.

[The Bard]

12 minutes ago, Harry said:

100% this. 
In my world, I’d want the full backs to be tucked in. Bell is way too wide. If he tucks in and is stationed 10-15 yards from Kalas then the gap for Matson doesn’t exist. If the ball gets switched wide, then you deal with that once it occurs. The full back should never be that far wide when the ball is on the opposite side of the pitch. 
 

Consequently, if Bell is further infield, then Benarous would be free to play higher. With Scott operating the deeper role last night, I’d guess it was HNM and Benarous’s jobs to chase and harry in the central midfield areas. So ultimately, Bell further infield (thus dealing with Matson), Benarous higher (thus pressuring Hamer) with Scott able to hold centrally and screen. 
 

No criticism of Bell though. He’s a novice winger, not an experience full back. Perhaps the more experienced in the backline needed to be calling him in? 

It wouldn't surprise me if we sold Kalas in the summer and brought in a centre half who is a better organiser.  We'd probably save money overall and resolve our biggest problem in defence.

[Northern Red]

11 minutes ago, Redandproud said:

The linesman on the Williams Stand side was never up with play in the whole game,the ball went out of play several times and never raised his flag,

I was watching on the red button and there was a bit towards the end of the first half where he got a decision right and in good time and you could clearly see several people in the seats directly behind him who stood up and gave him an ironic round of applause.

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, spudski said:

Ordinarily I'd agree with that theory Harry... however...it's been our weakness for a long time in allowing the cross field ball wide, then not being able to deal with it.

I'm guessing they are aware of this and looking to get tighter quicker on the wide man.

For me in this instant Benarous got sucked in needlessly.

I think what you, @Harryand @Lrrrare pointing out is that with a bit better organisation / communication between a few players the goal could be avoided.

Letting Hamer get his head up in that position is a danger in itself.

A poor goal from our point of view, a well executed one from theirs.

Shows how good (not brilliant movement) coupled with no pressure on the passer can lead to a goal.

 

(on an aside, I thought I’d add the little “eyeball” pic and direction to show how that can make a difference)

 

I’ll create a separate thread for their winner….not all Massengo’s fault either.

 

[Cowshed]

18 minutes ago, Harry said:

100% this. 
In my world, I’d want the full backs to be tucked in. Bell is way too wide. If he tucks in and is stationed 10-15 yards from Kalas then the gap for Matson doesn’t exist. If the ball gets switched wide, then you deal with that once it occurs. The full back should never be that far wide when the ball is on the opposite side of the pitch. 
 

Consequently, if Bell is further infield, then Benarous would be free to play higher. With Scott operating the deeper role last night, I’d guess it was HNM and Benarous’s jobs to chase and harry in the central midfield areas. So ultimately, Bell further infield (thus dealing with Matson), Benarous higher (thus pressuring Hamer) with Scott able to hold centrally and screen. 
 

No criticism of Bell though. He’s a novice winger, not an experience full back. Perhaps the more experienced in the backline needed to be calling him in? 

The full back occupies a zone none of his team mates are in. They look like they intend to get compact but the defensive shape starts lopsided.  After the first pass its still lopsided and Coventry  have an extra player in a third of the pitch. After two passes its not apparent what the defensive lines (four and?) are and whether they are attempting to deny space, delay passes or dictate where the next pass goes via screening as a unit defending two zonal lanes. 

The underlined is a major ask if the teams shape doesnt slow the oppositions possession down.  

[Harry]

47 minutes ago, spudski said:

Ordinarily I'd agree with that theory Harry... however...it's been our weakness for a long time in allowing the cross field ball wide, then not being able to deal with it.

I'm guessing they are aware of this and looking to get tighter quicker on the wide man.

For me in this instant Benarous got sucked in needlessly.

Thing is, you can deal with the switch once it occurs. 
If Bell is further infield, if the switch occurs and Hamer sprays a 60 yard ball to the opposite flank, then Bell can react again that point, and in fact, the time the ball is in flight, he can easily have closed their wide man down. 
I’d much prefer us to be tight through the middle and then react when the ball goes wide, rather than stay wide in fear of a switch pass, and leave ourselves more open down the middle. 
In the scenario of this goal, the immediate danger is central, so we must deal with that, and then react to a wide pass of it comes. 

Edited February 23, 2022 by Harry

[Fpcity]

1 hour ago, The Bard said:

It wouldn't surprise me if we sold Kalas in the summer and brought in a centre half who is a better organiser.  We'd probably save money overall and resolve our biggest problem in defence.

Bell having Kalas next to him probably didn't help, Klose next to him would've have helped to give instructions and advice. As I've said before on here I'm not the biggest fan of Kalas and I'm sure we'd get some just as good, better at organising and maybe a bit more street wise if you know what I mean. It's a shame about Baker as him and Klose would be a good pairing I think. 

[sh1t_ref_again]

1 hour ago, Northern Red said:

I was watching on the red button and there was a bit towards the end of the first half where he got a decision right and in good time and you could clearly see several people in the seats directly behind him who stood up and gave him an ironic round of applause.

Ohh I might have been on tele

[italian dave]

Cracking pass, great control and finish. 

There’s probably always going to be something in the build up to a goal that the defending side could have done differently. But sometimes I think you just have to hold your hand up and say that it was more about the quality of the scoring side than about failings of the defending side. 

[Red-Robbo]

39 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Cracking pass, great control and finish. 

There’s probably always going to be something in the build up to a goal that the defending side could have done differently. But sometimes I think you just have to hold your hand up and say that it was more about the quality of the scoring side than about failings of the defending side. 

 

Yup.

Maatsen looks some player. I wonder if Pearson will ponder the quality and reflect on the wisdom of not considering PL loanees?

[1960maaan]

20 minutes ago, Harry said:

Thing is, you can deal with the switch once it occurs. 
If Bell is further infield, if the switch occurs and Hamer sprays a 60 yard ball to the opposite flank, then Bell can react again that point, and in fact, the time the ball is in flight, he can easily have closed their wide man down. 
I’d much prefer us to be tight through the middle and then react when the ball goes wide, rather than stay wide in fear of a switch pass, and leave ourselves more open down the middle. 
In the scenario of this goal, the immediate danger is central, so we must deal with that, and then react to a wide pass of it comes. 

I agree with most of what you say, but it's a trade off.
Johnson used to keep his FB's very narrow, which does lead to the wingers having space. Last night with a "forward sweeper' it allows the FB's or WB's to stay wider . The old Arsenal training thing comes to mind. As one FB goes wide to cover threat the back 4 act as though they are tied together and move over as one. The thing is I'm not sure if we are playing as a back 4 with a shield, or a sort of 3 with WB's and the set up is slightly different. 
I don't like Benarous not going with the runner, and I don't like that Kalas is totally unaware of the runner. But I do agree, as Bell can see how the play is shaping up, he could take a chance and take Maatsen's run. 

 

11 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Yup.

Maatsen looks some player. I wonder if Pearson will ponder the quality and reflect on the wisdom of not considering PL loanees?

I'm guessing it's not just he doesn't like loans, which I get, but just the extra costs which we could do without. Being fairly safe meant it wasn't so desperate a situation.

[RedM]

1 minute ago, TomF said:

I noticed a few times last night that Bell gets drawn to the ball sometimes.   He lost the player he was marking a few times as a result.  Can't be too harsh on a lad playing out of position at his age.

I agree. Many players with a hell of a lot more experience than him look like fish out of water when they have to play out of position. I thought he had a great couple of games and looks like another decent prospect we have got on our books.

[TomThumb84]

The last pic tells the tale for me.

As an ex right full-back my view is that Bell should be looking across the line but ready to get round and sweep should it drop over his centre-backs. Being aware of the guy outside him is irrelevant in this phase of play based on where the ball is coming from and he can see the whole line and game when play is on the opposite side.

This is how I was always coached but this is not a criticism of Bell as this is clearly not a specialist role for him. Looked awful in real time to be honest and was so telegraphed.

Edited February 23, 2022 by TomThumb84

[Three Lions]

3 hours ago, Cowshed said:

The full back occupies a zone none of his team mates are in. They look like they intend to get compact but the defensive shape starts lopsided.  After the first pass its still lopsided and Coventry  have an extra player in a third of the pitch. After two passes its not apparent what the defensive lines (four and?) are and whether they are attempting to deny space, delay passes or dictate where the next pass goes via screening as a unit defending two zonal lanes. 

The underlined is a major ask if the teams shape doesnt slow the oppositions possession down.  

 

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Thing is, you can deal with the switch once it occurs. 
If Bell is further infield, if the switch occurs and Hamer sprays a 60 yard ball to the opposite flank, then Bell can react again that point, and in fact, the time the ball is in flight, he can easily have closed their wide man down. 
I’d much prefer us to be tight through the middle and then react when the ball goes wide, rather than stay wide in fear of a switch pass, and leave ourselves more open down the middle. 
In the scenario of this goal, the immediate danger is central, so we must deal with that, and then react to a wide pass of it comes. 

 

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Thing is, you can deal with the switch once it occurs. 
If Bell is further infield, if the switch occurs and Hamer sprays a 60 yard ball to the opposite flank, then Bell can react again that point, and in fact, the time the ball is in flight, he can easily have closed their wide man down. 
I’d much prefer us to be tight through the middle and then react when the ball goes wide, rather than stay wide in fear of a switch pass, and leave ourselves more open down the middle. 
In the scenario of this goal, the immediate danger is central, so we must deal with that, and then react to a wide pass of it comes. 

Open out in possession but get compact out of it. If the opposition go diagonal defend that but defend the center of the park first.

Cones out today defending 2/3 and 3/5.

[tin]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Interesting isn’t it?

Scott gets caught by Hamer dropping short.

Benarous gets caught getting sucked towards the ball for no reason.  From my position, time seemed to stop still with Benarous not picking up Maatsen.

Agreed, although I don't think Benarous is a CM. I think his future lies further forward and out wide. We missed Williams big time last night. 

[Harry]

2 hours ago, TomThumb84 said:

The last pic tells the tale for me.

As an ex right full-back my view is that Bell should be looking across the line but ready to get round and sweep should it drop over his centre-backs. Being aware of the guy outside him is irrelevant in this phase of play based on where the ball is coming from and he can see the whole line and game when play is on the opposite side.

This is how I was always coached but this is not a criticism of Bell as this is clearly not a specialist role for him. Looked awful in real time to be honest and was so telegraphed.

Exactly this. 
The back 4 should be both on a string but also on a concertina! 
As Three Lions mentions above. 
Out of possession, maintain good, close distances and when play is switched, move across the park as one unit. 
Once in possession, concertina, with the whole unit spreading wider. 

[Harry]

3 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

I agree with most of what you say, but it's a trade off.
Johnson used to keep his FB's very narrow, which does lead to the wingers having space. Last night with a "forward sweeper' it allows the FB's or WB's to stay wider . The old Arsenal training thing comes to mind. As one FB goes wide to cover threat the back 4 act as though they are tied together and move over as one. The thing is I'm not sure if we are playing as a back 4 with a shield, or a sort of 3 with WB's and the set up is slightly different. 
I don't like Benarous not going with the runner, and I don't like that Kalas is totally unaware of the runner. But I do agree, as Bell can see how the play is shaping up, he could take a chance and take Maatsen's run. 

 

I'm guessing it's not just he doesn't like loans, which I get, but just the extra costs which we could do without. Being fairly safe meant it wasn't so desperate a situation.

I guess this is the crucial element of our current tactical set up. 
Williams and Scott, over these last 2 games have done this sweeper/dm shield role. Thing is, how I’ve seen this is :

In possession, they become a sweeper, and go behind the CB’s to allow the CB’s to spread wide and the FB’s to advance to WB’s. 
Out of possession, they move to DM to shield the CB’s and the WB’s have to drop in to become FB’s. 
 

It’s been very interesting to watch and I wouldn’t say it’s worked every time. There were quite a few instances on Saturday when Williams stepped back up into DM once we lost the ball, but the WB didn’t drop to FB and it meant a CB had to come too far wide to defend.