Coventry first goal

[1960maaan]

28 minutes ago, Harry said:

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. 

It's a new system, and TBF , one that a novice striker is playing WB/FB .  I think we have to expect poor moments when half the team are young or new to a position.  There will be more mistakes , but as they learn and players come back I think we will start to look more solid.

[spudski]

5 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. 

That was my point...we simply haven't been dealing with those balls. It's been lethargic and symbolic...look at how many goals an attempts on target have occured after those moves. 

Like I implied, under normal circumstances it's true what you say, but we've been awful at it on both flanks, mainly our right.

That's why teams have directed balls that way... they've seen our weakness.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, JonDolman said:

With us apparently going to 433 next season, I assume that means the wide forwards help cover more, making it a fairly straight forward compact out of possesion 4141.

So the wide channel being covered by a 2nd player means the full back comes inside more to make a compact 4 man defence.

This suits Tanner's game. Who knows how good Bell might become as a right back but I expect we look to bring in a new one.

It also suits Pring's game but certainly not Dasilva imo. I guess he's in now as the diamond system requires very attacking full backs.

So maybe Dasilva is sold in the summer and we bring in a new one there.

The problem with that is you end up with your “one up top” isolated because you can’t transition back into 433 quickly.

A team has to be able to move across the pitch quickly…and as a team.  You have to accept a 60 yard ball might catch you out every now and again, but that’s why you have to condense the play and get pressure on the man on the ball.  Forest did this ever so well a couple of seasons back with Grabban dictating which wing they’d force their opponents down, and then they’d squeeze that half of the pitch.

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The problem with that is you end up with your “one up top” isolated because you can’t transition back into 433 quickly.

 

That line brings back terrible memories of Diedhiou stuck miles away from any other red shirt....

[steviestevieneville]

7 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.

Same here. Time did stand still . I was shouting,  you're ball watching lads 

[Lrrr]

35 minutes ago, spudski said:

That was my point...we simply haven't been dealing with those balls. It's been lethargic and symbolic...look at how many goals an attempts on target have occured after those moves. 

Like I implied, under normal circumstances it's true what you say, but we've been awful at it on both flanks, mainly our right.

That's why teams have directed balls that way... they've seen our weakness.

Comes down to your personnel in FB slots though, this example with Bell, he's anything but lethargic and has the pace to get out on the switch of play, add his experience being in tighter would be better as you also don't want to leave him 1v1 in wide spaces.

[Numero Uno]

7 hours 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? 

Exactly. The full back has to sniff danger and if you play a 19 year old Forward at Full Back in his third full game as a pro footballer (for the right reasons, you could see what NP was trying to do) that is the risk you take. It didn't work last night but Sam Bell will be a more rounded player for it. Move on................

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Comes down to your personnel in FB slots though, this example with Bell, he's anything but lethargic and has the pace to get out on the switch of play, add his experience being in tighter would be better as you also don't want to leave him 1v1 in wide spaces.

Look at it again...Bell covering winger.

Coventry runner from midfield has a man on him and Kalas covering his run into box. Klose covering. There is literally no reason for Benarous to come forward and leave his man.

[Numero Uno]

Just now, spudski said:

Look at it again...Bell covering winger.

Coventry runner from midfield has a man on him and Kalas covering his run into box. Klose covering. There is literally no reason for Benarous to come forward and leave his man.

That's all true but at the end of it all once Bell sees the lad moving into that space he has to cover, whether the problem is caused by Benarous or not. You can't stand there and watch the lad drift in to the space and score saying "yeah, but I'm marking my man". That's not a criticism of Sam Bell, just a fact that George Tanner for example would have covered that off regardless of fault.

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

That's all true but at the end of it all once Bell sees the lad moving into that space he has to cover, whether the problem is caused by Benarous or not. You can't stand there and watch the lad drift in to the space and score saying "yeah, but I'm marking my man". That's not a criticism of Sam Bell, just a fact that George Tanner for example would have covered that off regardless of fault.

With respect...watch it in real time, not pictures, it tells a different story.

In the time it takes to make that pass, you wouldn't need both Bell and Benarous more central. Benarous needlessly comes forward and leaves Bell covering two...the winger and player who scored, goal side of him. Bell wouldn't stand a chance defending that. 

Literally no need for Benarous to come forward. Kalas was blocking the runner from midfield, Klose was covering Kalas, and the midfield runner ha a man tracking him.

 

[Davefevs]

28 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Comes down to your personnel in FB slots though, this example with Bell, he's anything but lethargic and has the pace to get out on the switch of play, add his experience being in tighter would be better as you also don't want to leave him 1v1 in wide spaces.

You might’ve seen this already.

18 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

That's all true but at the end of it all once Bell sees the lad moving into that space he has to cover, whether the problem is caused by Benarous or not. You can't stand there and watch the lad drift in to the space and score saying "yeah, but I'm marking my man". That's not a criticism of Sam Bell, just a fact that George Tanner for example would have covered that off regardless of fault.

I once played with someone, and ex-pro at a club in the midlands who would resort to “not my fault I had my man”, even if he could’ve done something about it.  Used to piss me off big time.

[spudski]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You might’ve seen this already.

I once played with someone, and ex-pro at a club in the midlands who would resort to “not my fault I had my man”, even if he could’ve done something about it.  Used to piss me off big time.

But that's not the case in this instance. The runner from midfield has three men covering him...the tracker, Kalas and Klose covering Kalas. Bell has his man. Benarous needlessly comes inside and leaves his man.

[Numero Uno]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

With respect...watch it in real time, not pictures, it tells a different story.

In the time it takes to make that pass, you wouldn't need both Bell and Benarous more central. Benarous needlessly comes forward and leaves Bell covering two...the winger and player who scored, goal side of him. Bell wouldn't stand a chance defending that. 

Literally no need for Benarous to come forward. Kalas was blocking the runner from midfield, Klose was covering Kalas, and the midfield runner ha a man tracking him.

 

With respect I don't need pictures as I attend the game. The first person I looked at in real time was Bell and funnily enough so did Kalas. Then afterwards you have the Manager taking responsibility for playing a player out of position which led to the goal. Benarous wasn't played out of position last night.

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

But that's not the case in this instance. The runner from midfield has three men covering him...the tracker, Kalas and Klose covering Kalas. Bell has his man. Benarous needlessly comes inside and leaves his man.

Bell has his man but he has to spot that Benarous has lost his, THE BIGGER THREAT, and thus come off his own man and cover the threat. If Bell's original man then scores that's not his fault. Like I said, it's not a witch hunt against a young kid who did very well bar that one moment. It's just a reflection that he has no experience as a full back and it showed, that's all.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

But that's not the case in this instance. The runner from midfield has three men covering him...the tracker, Kalas and Klose covering Kalas. Bell has his man. Benarous needlessly comes inside and leaves his man.

I know, was just letting Lrrr see a doc re WBs / FBs.

[Numero Uno]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You might’ve seen this already.

I once played with someone, and ex-pro at a club in the midlands who would resort to “not my fault I had my man”, even if he could’ve done something about it.  Used to piss me off big time.

Defending, as you know, is about snuffing out the threat that presents itself in front of you, not sticking rigidly to your man, strutting around like a peacock afterwards because you "did your job" and sod the consequences to the team................that's not what I'm saying Sam Bell did btw.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Numero Uno

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

Bell has his man but he has to spot that Benarous has lost his, THE BIGGER THREAT, and thus come off his own man and cover the threat. If Bell's original man then scores that's not his fault. Like I said, it's not a witch hunt against a young kid who did very well bar that one moment. It's just a reflection that he has no experience as a full back and it showed, that's all.

Seriously fella...watch it in real time, no way was Bell ever going to cover the man left by Benarous in the time it took to pass to him. He'd have to move 10 yards, get inside the man in a blink of an eye...no chance. Kalas wasn't looking at Bell...it was Benarous. This is why I don't like pictures, they don't show the movement, build up, etc. We can agree to disagree...but you don't come from wide, to cover inside the runner, in one pass over a few yards into the 18. Absolutely no chance...he's completely wrong side for a start...basic.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

Seriously fella...watch it in real time, no way was Bell ever going to cover the man left by Benarous in the time it took to pass to him. He'd have to move 10 yards, get inside the man in a blink of an eye...no chance. Kalas wasn't looking at Bell...it was Benarous. This is why I don't like pictures, they don't show the movement, build up, etc. We can agree to disagree...but you don't come from wide, to cover inside the runner, in one pass over a few yards into the 18. Absolutely no chance...he's completely wrong side for a start...basic.

We’ll agree to disagree. Looks like Nige got it wrong too then.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

We’ll agree to disagree. Looks like Nige got it wrong too then.

Seriously...how do you back having three men follow the actions of a runner from midfield, but leave a man going into the 18 yard box to receive the pass? It's nonsense...

[stephenkibby.]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The problem with that is you end up with your “one up top” isolated because you can’t transition back into 433 quickly.

A team has to be able to move across the pitch quickly…and as a team.  You have to accept a 60 yard ball might catch you out every now and again, but that’s why you have to condense the play and get pressure on the man on the ball.  Forest did this ever so well a couple of seasons back with Grabban dictating which wing they’d force their opponents down, and then they’d squeeze that half of the pitch.

With respect (as that is the done thing tonight} With a side with 5 players 20 and under ? to expect them to get everything right is not ever going to happen . For me Bell all of the first half was ignored by both center backs even in acres of space both  looked, then turned the other way .

Coventry knew that and gave him 20 yards of space as they knew the ball was never going right.

He played as a nervous kid 2nd half two or three crosses hardly getting off the ground. no surprise confidence is everything.

Can't wait for next season  these kids are the best bunch in my lifetime and that's since 1966.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, stephenkibby. said:

With respect (as that is the done thing tonight} With a side with 5 players 20 and under ? to expect them to get everything right is not ever going to happen . For me Bell all of the first half was ignored by both center backs even in acres of space both  looked, then turned the other way .

Coventry knew that and gave him 20 yards of space as they knew the ball was never going right.

He played as a nervous kid 2nd half two or three crosses hardly getting off the ground. no surprise confidence is everything.

Can't wait for next season  these kids are the best bunch in my lifetime and that's since 1966.

With respect back to you (), I wasn’t referring to last night or any of our players, least of all Bell.  I was purely commenting back at JonD’s suggestion as to how a 433 should function in / out of possession if Nige goes with a 43s next season.

 

 

[MarcusX]

On 23/02/2022 at 11:10, 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.

I thought Benarous moved the right way? He should be able to leave 2 defenders to pick up one runner between them - he went to press the midfield and neither reacted behind him

[MarcusX]

On 23/02/2022 at 15:02, 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.

Agreed and like you say, that’s what happens if you don’t have a natural RB playing that position. Though Kalas should be talking to him 

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

Fleming today said in the press conference about Benarous making a mistake on the first goal.

I think Bell was not in that position on Maatsen because Benarous was there. He surely doesnt run over and stand with another player on one teammate.

Had Bell shouted for Benarous to leave that position earlier in the move when Hyam was on the ball, then Benarous runs into what looked like at that time to be a bit of a pointless position. As Weimann was on Allen. And Hamer was on the other side of the pitch so Benarous could not have put pressure on the ball.

So with the positions they found themselves in Benarous just had to stay with Maatsen imo.

As it turned out Weimann then let Allen go which I think is what makes Benarous come out leaving Maatsen free in behind.

Obviously this is stuff Pearson needs to know who does what, and then these young players need to learn it.

Scott at fault too.  Again, more than one error leads to a goal.  Unless it’s a complete individual cock-up like Simpson at WBA, you’ll generally find a sequence of events culminating to make an individual look bad in the conceding of a goal.

With regards to Bell and Benarous we cannot be sure what comms they passed between them, we do not know what tactical instruction they were given either for scenarios like this.

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I expect in that situation the box to box midfielder is expected to stay with his man as there's no one for Benarous to come out to press or mark.

Scott looks like he's anticipating a high ball down the line. And he's waving Semenyo to come over to Hamer.

A few mistakes for sure. There does seem to be a lack of structure to our defending.

As I keep saying “shit happens”

[italian dave]

5 minutes ago, JonDolman said:

I expect in that situation the box to box midfielder is expected to stay with his man as there's no one for Benarous to come out to press or mark.

Scott looks like he's anticipating a high ball down the line. And he's waving Semenyo to come over to Hamer.

A few mistakes for sure. There does seem to be a lack of structure to our defending.

Yes, and not just defending. The stand out for me from the whole Coventry game was the difference between a side where everyone knew their role, what to expect of others, what was expected of them - and City! 

Every time they won the ball they knew immediately who was going to run where and what pass to make. Every time they lost the ball they knew who to cover who where. 
When we won the ball we needed an extra touch, needed to look up, weren’t  sure what run to make. When we lost it, as you say, we lacked structure.

Not surprising, and I’m not expecting it to be much different given the circumstances. But it stood out. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

There's always 2 sides to every story. Over in Coventry they're drooling about a "defence splitting pass" and a striker who "finished with aplomb". Sometimes you're just undone by good play. Albeit, the sight of Benarous and Bell looking at each sheepishly after the goal went in, as if to say "was that your fault or mine?", is still fresh in my mind and it did feel a bit of a soft one to concede! Hey ho, onwards and upwards.

Edited February 24, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels

[italian dave]

22 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

There's always 2 sides to every story. Over in Coventry they're drooling about a "defence splitting pass" and a striker who "finished with aplomb". Sometimes you're just undone by good play. Albeit, the sight of Benarous and Bell looking at each sheepishly after the goal went in, as if to say "was that your fault or mine?", is still fresh in my mind and it did feel a bit of a soft one to concede! Hey ho, onwards and upwards.

And, to be honest, I'm with Coventry on that. It just was a very good goal.

[Merrick's Marvels]

27 minutes ago, italian dave said:

And, to be honest, I'm with Coventry on that. It just was a very good goal.

Agreed. Still feel it was a bit soft and our young uns might have done a bit better but that's what you get sometimes with young uns! And there's no denying the quality of the finish - I thought we'd got away with it for a second because he didn't control it perfectly... but then he buried it, beautifully! The bastard. 

As for the defence splitting pass - remember them??? No, me neither! 

Edited February 24, 2022 by Merrick's Marvels