Tactically (and substitutions) Poor

[Silvio Dante]

Wow.

As my posting history suggests, I feel we have a good squad. And I feel we are better than we are showing. But, today…jeez…

Taking this one by one, and not being wise after the event:

- The initial selection I didn’t mind. Vyner deserved to come back in although Tanner didn’t deserve to be dropped. My concern was no “defender” in the centre against a physical attacking side

- We got away with it first 20. They pressed us high knowing we wanted to play the ball out and penned us in. We got out due to Conway (more on this later) and Wells stretching the back line. For fifteen minutes we were excellent - the goal was deserved, two quality balls from the Scott/Conway axis and Weimann hitting the post

- The first goal is unforgivable. King turns his back on a ball causing it to hit his shoulder and drop in a dangerous area. It’s totally on him, and crystallised the “concern”

- However, it’s 1-1. In the second half, we don’t clear and it becomes 2-1. And this is where the problems start majorly for me

- First sub - Semenyo for Conway. Makes no sense. TC is stretching the Stoke defence, works well with Wells and plays to playing the ball through the lines. Ultimately makes us worse.

- Second sub - Sykes for Williams. Means we push Weimann up and play 5-2-3 as opposed to 5-3-2. Reduced options to play out from and we don’t create as a result and can’t combat the press

- Third sub - Martin for King. We go 4-2-4 so you’d expect “bomb alley”. No. We end up still trying to play out but now have even less passing options and players get caught. Under Holden throwing multiple strikers on the pitch didn’t work and it doesn’t under Pearson. We end up with 4 isolated and never look like getting in it.

I have no problem in “gung ho” as a tactic. But you can’t do it and then patiently pass. You have to do it then go long and early, and a disinterested Semenyo and past his best Martin don’t allow that.

For all that we were poor, and set up badly initially, somehow, today, each of Niges substitutions made it worse. That’s, for me, the major takeaway and concern today.

[GrahamC]

Agree with 99% of that.

Re the second sub though it was daft to have Weimann at RWB so that rectified it.

However it was a poor display, Stoke are a physical, rugged side & a couple of Williams’ challenges aside I felt we didn’t match them in that department.

[Silvio Dante]

1 minute ago, GrahamC said:

Agree with 99% of that.

Re the second sub though it was daft to have Weimann at RWB so that rectified it.

However it was a poor display, Stoke are a physical, rugged side & a couple of Williams’ challenges aside I felt we didn’t match them in that department.

I think Weimann is an interesting case at the moment. Love the bloke, but there is a case of if we play 5-3-2 where he fits in the team. 
 

In the 3 (as the 10) is he in ahead of Scott?

In the 2 - does he break the Conway/Wells axis (which we all probably agree is our best front two)

So, bizarrely, he’s in as RWB by default currently

[GrahamC]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think Weimann is an interesting case at the moment. Love the bloke, but there is a case of if we play 5-3-2 where he fits in the team. 
 

In the 3 (as the 10) is he in ahead of Scott?

In the 2 - does he break the Conway/Wells axis (which we all probably agree is our best front two)

So, bizarrely, he’s in as RWB by default currently

I’d pick him in the midfield 3, though Scott is my first choice, so either Williams or James would be the one to drop out.

To me he simply isn’t a RWB, Sykes was out of form when dropped so I got that, but I’d rather he played there or Tanner, who might not be the best going forward but would make us stronger defensively, which is obviously our biggest problem.

[Charlie BCFC]

22 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Wow.

As my posting history suggests, I feel we have a good squad. And I feel we are better than we are showing. But, today…jeez…

Taking this one by one, and not being wise after the event:

- The initial selection I didn’t mind. Vyner deserved to come back in although Tanner didn’t deserve to be dropped. My concern was no “defender” in the centre against a physical attacking side

- We got away with it first 20. They pressed us high knowing we wanted to play the ball out and penned us in. We got out due to Conway (more on this later) and Wells stretching the back line. For fifteen minutes we were excellent - the goal was deserved, two quality balls from the Scott/Conway axis and Weimann hitting the post

- The first goal is unforgivable. King turns his back on a ball causing it to hit his shoulder and drop in a dangerous area. It’s totally on him, and crystallised the “concern”

- However, it’s 1-1. In the second half, we don’t clear and it becomes 2-1. And this is where the problems start majorly for me

- First sub - Semenyo for Conway. Makes no sense. TC is stretching the Stoke defence, works well with Wells and plays to playing the ball through the lines. Ultimately makes us worse.

- Second sub - Sykes for Williams. Means we push Weimann up and play 5-2-3 as opposed to 5-3-2. Reduced options to play out from and we don’t create as a result and can’t combat the press

- Third sub - Martin for King. We go 4-2-4 so you’d expect “bomb alley”. No. We end up still trying to play out but now have even less passing options and players get caught. Under Holden throwing multiple strikers on the pitch didn’t work and it doesn’t under Pearson. We end up with 4 isolated and never look like getting in it.

I have no problem in “gung ho” as a tactic. But you can’t do it and then patiently pass. You have to do it then go long and early, and a disinterested Semenyo and past his best Martin don’t allow that.

For all that we were poor, and set up badly initially, somehow, today, each of Niges substitutions made it worse. That’s, for me, the major takeaway and concern today.

Disagree with you around the subs, thought Conway had a poor showing today (difficult against Souttar who was very good I thought), lacked a lot of energy in midfield which Weimann would give us and actually thought Sykes done well. Martin sub was to go for it which at 2-1 down who could blame him

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, GrahamC said:

I’d pick him in the midfield 3, though Scott is my first choice, so either Williams or James would be the one to drop out.

To me he simply isn’t a RWB, Sykes was out of form when dropped so I got that, but I’d rather he played there or Tanner, who might not be the best going forward but would make us stronger defensively, which is obviously our biggest problem.

I think I’ve said before, I don’t see it with Sykes - he’s not great defensively and not great going forward - he’s just “there” - however I take the point and Tanner (or Wilson when fit) would be above him for me.

I think Scott’s intelligent enough to play CM/CDM with Weimann as 10 so I’d probably agree. It’s a clear case of an unbalanced squad though as we’re talking in both cases about moving players from their best position 

[Offside]

I thought Semenyo did ok and caused them problems. He should have scored from that cross. But I agree that in the last 20 mins, like has been the case so often when we’re chasing a game, we lacked any sort of fluency and didn’t make it difficult enough for Stoke. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I think I’ve said before, I don’t see it with Sykes - he’s not great defensively and not great going forward - he’s just “there” - however I take the point and Tanner (or Wilson when fit) would be above him for me.

I think Scott’s intelligent enough to play CM/CDM with Weimann as 10 so I’d probably agree. It’s a clear case of an unbalanced squad though as we’re talking in both cases about moving players from their best position 

Sykes never really was a wide player, we just shoehorned him in there and for a while it kinda worked, he got some form and gave us an option.

[Dan Robin]

After results like today's one my doubts about Nigel come back.

I'v always backed him because of our financial problems & transfer restrictions, bad luck with injuries (especially in defence) , referees disrespecting us, our attacking progress...but I don't understand some of his choices and team rules. Why leaving Atkinson out if we have so many defenders unavailable? King at CB for emergency is OK, for tactical choice it seems odd. An out-of-form Weimann doing RWB? Massengo not considered even when the transfer window was far?

Maybe his football plan is going slower than he expected? I wouldn't want him to go, but maybe we need a  new face, someone who can bring a new spark and new ideas into the team?  Honestly I don't know...

Edited December 17, 2022 by Dan Robin

[Davefevs]

My view was that we went from (simplistically) 352 to 3412 then 4213 through the various subs.  I don’t think we played 4 in a line up top at any point.

And through it all, we still created chances, good chances.  We didn’t take them.  That’s what cost us, plus the two poor goals conceded.  I don’t think the changes made us worse.  Haven’t watched back so not sure if any redemption due on their goals, didn’t feel like it at the time.

One final point, why did Max hit a large percentage of his kicks down Souttar’s throat?  My view was that us getting into a scrappy game around the 20 minute mark was when we started getting it down our right, either through reasonable build up or through picking up bits and pieces from loose balls off of kicks down the less aerial capable Morgan (not Megan) Fox’s throat.  Pring’s cross and Nahki’s goal started on our right meaning the switch got Pring one-on-one and he rinsed his opponent.

The other thing Stoke did was to move Baker from collecting deep as a playmaker to marking Alex Scott.  He ran the show from 25-40 mins…and was our best player before that too.  They let Thompson play the pivot on his own.  I felt Scott should’ve gone and played on Thompson and let James / Williams worry about Baker.

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

- Third sub - Martin for King. We go 4-2-4 so you’d expect “bomb alley”. No. We end up still trying to play out but now have even less passing options and players get caught. Under Holden throwing multiple strikers on the pitch didn’t work and it doesn’t under Pearson. We end up with 4 isolated and never look like getting in it.

This is my biggest issue. Pearson, a hugely experienced manager, is using the same “stick on 4 strikers” tactic that was Holden 101.

Plumping for 4 strikers means the team loses its shape, it’s structure, it’s function. 

It’s awful. And desperate. 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

This is my biggest issue. Pearson, a hugely experienced manager, is using the same “stick on 4 strikers” tactic that was Holden 101.

Plumping for 4 strikers means the team loses its shape, it’s structure, it’s function. 

It’s awful. And desperate. 

We didn’t play 4 up top though.  We played 3.  Weimann didn’t play as a striker today.

[Harry]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

We didn’t play 4 up top though.  We played 3.  Weimann didn’t play as a striker today.

Yep. But I mean deploying 4 strikers at once. 
Means you basically have 3 of them in an unfamiliar position. 
The strikers we have are all best deployed centrally. Martin is a central target man. Wells is an off the shoulder, run in behind striker, Semenyo is a power and pace, drift wide and cause havoc striker, Weimann is a drop and link striker. 
By deploying all 4 of them together, you have only 1 of them operating in the ‘central’ role, with 2 of them pushed wide and one of them dropping to AM. 
It basically nullifies all of their best attributes. 
Pearson has played this 4 strikers lark a few times this year, and it’s made us worse every time. I don’t know why he can’t see that 

[pride of the west]

Was I seeing things/going mad? I'm sure I saw Sam Bell on the touchline waiting to come on then I looked back and Chris Martin came on. Did that happen?

[Dr Balls]

Bringing on Martin and going long against their back line was a complete waste of time. Against a 6ft 6in right back and a 40 year old centre back surely playing at pace would be a far better option. It seems this is always Pearson’s last throw of the dice when chasing a game rather than thinking what might actually work against a particular opponent.

[Cityboy1954]

15 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Wow.

As my posting history suggests, I feel we have a good squad. And I feel we are better than we are showing. But, today…jeez…

Taking this one by one, and not being wise after the event:

- The initial selection I didn’t mind. Vyner deserved to come back in although Tanner didn’t deserve to be dropped. My concern was no “defender” in the centre against a physical attacking side

- We got away with it first 20. They pressed us high knowing we wanted to play the ball out and penned us in. We got out due to Conway (more on this later) and Wells stretching the back line. For fifteen minutes we were excellent - the goal was deserved, two quality balls from the Scott/Conway axis and Weimann hitting the post

- The first goal is unforgivable. King turns his back on a ball causing it to hit his shoulder and drop in a dangerous area. It’s totally on him, and crystallised the “concern”

- However, it’s 1-1. In the second half, we don’t clear and it becomes 2-1. And this is where the problems start majorly for me

- First sub - Semenyo for Conway. Makes no sense. TC is stretching the Stoke defence, works well with Wells and plays to playing the ball through the lines. Ultimately makes us worse.

- Second sub - Sykes for Williams. Means we push Weimann up and play 5-2-3 as opposed to 5-3-2. Reduced options to play out from and we don’t create as a result and can’t combat the press

- Third sub - Martin for King. We go 4-2-4 so you’d expect “bomb alley”. No. We end up still trying to play out but now have even less passing options and players get caught. Under Holden throwing multiple strikers on the pitch didn’t work and it doesn’t under Pearson. We end up with 4 isolated and never look like getting in it.

I have no problem in “gung ho” as a tactic. But you can’t do it and then patiently pass. You have to do it then go long and early, and a disinterested Semenyo and past his best Martin don’t allow that.

For all that we were poor, and set up badly initially, somehow, today, each of Niges substitutions made it worse. That’s, for me, the major takeaway and concern today.

Yes have to agree as soon as you see Martin brought on its all over dont think he touched the ball yesterday hes gone better off trying Bell or palmer-holden .

[GrahamC]

13 hours ago, pride of the west said:

Was I seeing things/going mad? I'm sure I saw Sam Bell on the touchline waiting to come on then I looked back and Chris Martin came on. Did that happen?

They were both stripped off ready to come on at one stage but only Martin did.

To be honest I’m not sure disrupting a Wells (our best player yesterday) Semenyo & Weimann strike force with either of them made much sense.

[Bar BS3]

I'm still fuming about the fact that, at 1-2 down, our game plan was to spend any set piece, be it free kick or goal kick, spending 5 or 10 unconvincing passes, to ultimately end up getting the back to where the free kick was, or back to MoL for them to then try and get it forward (if we hadn't already lost it)

What is the f...ing point or intention of that..?!

I understand patient, controlled football, building from the back - but not for it to end up back where the set piece was from in the first place..!

Abdolute clueless nonsense that is fully on NP - he wasn't even looking concerned by it on the touchline..!

Fine if you are winning & winding the clock down, but unforgivable when you are chasing the game in the later stages. 

Sincerely,

Mr Pissed off with NP's clueless leadership.

[sh1t_ref_again]

Thought a straight swap for Vyner and King was have given us a better defence and maybe started with Sykes instead of Weimann. But for the 1st 45 minutes it worked, we were well worth our lead and unlucky to not be further ahead, then concede a very poor goal in injury time. 

Stoke were buoyant from this, then overloaded us and stopped us playing in midfield, Williams looked to be struggling with the injury. The game was crying out for a change, this is why I am really annoyed about the HNM stance, he may be off but we are still paying his wages, he is an excellent young player that could have given us the energy in midfield we lacked, by the time we went 4 at the back it was too late.

[Bazooka Joe]

14 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

Bringing on Martin and going long against their back line was a complete waste of time. Against a 6ft 6in right back and a 40 year old centre back surely playing at pace would be a far better option. It seems this is always Pearson’s last throw of the dice when chasing a game rather than thinking what might actually work against a particular opponent.

Spot on.

Pace and intensity were required to stretch Stoke's defence and create more chances than we did.

Unfortunately, Martin is a slug (who gets paid more than what most fans think he's worth or what we can now afford). He is lethargic and rarely moves faster than gentle-jogging or walking pace, He doesn't win the heading duels he's expected to and he can't hold off or intimidate defenders.

I expect better from Pearson with regard to team selection and tactical substitutions. Against a team like Stoke, you need Atkinson at the heart of the defence.

King was never a centre-back and can't suddenly be transformed into one.

 

[Dr Balls]

3 hours ago, GrahamC said:

They were both stripped off ready to come on at one stage but only Martin did.

To be honest I’m not sure disrupting a Wells (our best player yesterday) Semenyo & Weimann strike force with either of them made much sense.

No it needed someone else in midfield and going to 4 at the back. Hence the complaints about what midfield options were or weren’t on the bench. We need fresh legs there not a mannequin up front.

[1960maaan]

I've long been critical of Pearson's Subs and  I don't like "fitting players in" , Weimann occasionally gets in good positions from WB,but I feel we would be better off with him central . If Wells and Conway are first choice great, use Semenyo and Weimann as Subs. 
Just throwing more strikers on is never the answer. If we are creating chances and not taking them, swap strikers. If we are not creating chances, change the supply line. We have had games when we haven't really created much and just thrown strikers on, pointless. Pearson seems to like robbing the midfield to load strikers, as others have said , if you're bombing the Penalty area then maybe, but generally pointless. Specially for us who's "Target man" isn't a Target man.