Great Result, but….

[1960maaan]

I still say, regardless of set up or formation M'boro would always have had more ball and more attacks in the 2nd half.
That has been proven numerous times over the years, even at home against good sides , we have battered teams after going a goal or two down in the first half.  Combinations of wanting to hold what you have, the other team getting a bollocking and being geed up and just not needing to take a risk the side winning tend to sit a little deeper and you see a momentum shift.
We have seen that under several managers, we get deeper trying to hold on. We have seen Pearson throw on an extra CB , the only time I have seen any one do differently was LJ. Can't remember the game , but he threw on an extra striker and we pushed out and played in the opposition half, it's rare though. 

We can't know if staying with the 4-3-3 would have meant we coasted through the 2nd 45. Tiredness must have played a part , and I don't think we couldn't have kept up the high press for 90 minutes. 
The 5-4-1 apparently didn't work as Manning wanted, who's to say the 4-3-3 would have ?

Tuesday throws up some interesting  selection questions, tiredness , fitness , fresh legs ,3-4-3 ?
After Saturday we have one game a week for a couple of weeks, time to rest and recuperate . In the meantime I look forward to a good performance Tuesday and Saturday. Southampton 2nd and buzzing , QPR seemingly finding a little resilience Head says possible 3 points , heart say 6 , the cynic in me 1 .

[Harry]

On 10/02/2024 at 20:42, Davefevs said:

Hey Dave. 
I like your little chart. It’s actually played very well into my thoughts on why the system was changed. 
 

I’ve made a mark on the chart below. 
The red line on the left signals the 32nd minute. The red line on the right signals the 55th minute. 
 

I’ve seen lots of comments here asking why we changed shape at half time. And then further comment saying the Manning failed to react. 
 

It was actually Boro who made the first tactical change. 
They had started with Barlaser & O’Brien as two deep lying CM’s and then had Hackney playing as a high 8. Azaz and Forss were wide, with Azaz occasionally coming inside from the left side. 
It was basically a 4-2-3-1. 
 

For the first 32 minutes we were able to play out from the back as they had little pressure on the ball high up as the 2 deep CM’s were sitting in their own half allowing us the space to play. 
 

Likewise, and I know this was one of your points about their CB’s not having an out ball in the first half, having Azaz wide and the 2 deep CM’s didn’t give Boro any numerical advantage centrally. They had a gap in central midfield. And whilst they were unable to hold possession in our 3rd it meant that Ayling had few opportunities to get forward. Only happened a couple of times in that first 30. 
 

Carrick made a change on 32 minutes. Highlighted in the pic. 
He moved Hackney back to play as a deep lying playmaker. He moved Azaz inside to the 10 position and he shifted O’Brien to a wide midfield role; on the left but enabling him to come inside and be a 3rd CM when out of possession. 
 

This change allowed the CB’s or Hackney to have an ‘out’ ball as Azaz was much more influential in finding holes and receiving the ball between the lines. 
We can see exactly on your chart how this impacted the possession. Boro, from 32 minutes onwards started to cause us problems. They weren’t huge problems but they were ominous. 
The only 2 blue blobs on that chart from 32 mins to half time were the 2 Sam Bell chances, where we counter attacked. 

So, from 32 minutes, Boro changed their shape and their system and started to find their way into the game and begin to dominate. 
It was clear in that 13 minutes that we needed to counter this because it was already 1 way traffic for the rest of that half. 
 

Now, the change was made and as we can see from the chart, we actually managed to stifle them for the first 10 minutes of the 2nd half. I think Azaz managed 1 very good through ball and they had another chance from a right sided cross when Pring was receiving treatment and we were down to 10. 
So the half time change actually managed to contain them and put a stop to their dominance from the 13 mins pre half time. Look at those blue blobs for us at the start of the 2nd half. 
Whilst Bell had been moved a little further back to RWB, that first 5 mins of the 2nd half he managed to get the ball in the opposition 3rd about 6 times and made 3 runs into the box. 
 

It could be argued that the half time change actually stifled Boro (pre halftime dominance became an even game again for 10 mins 2nd half. 
 

The biggest problems came when the 2nd set of subs was made. From 55 mins to 70 mins we were all over the place. Azaz was picking up the ball in the gaps and was enabling Ayling to get forward which was causing us all sorts of problems. Hackney was playing more as an 8, Azaz as a 10, Barlaser as a 6. They had numerical superiority in central midfield. 
At 70 mins, when Williams came on, Manning did react to this and he told us to be more compact centrally. You can clearly see Williams give this instruction when he comes on. 
Knight and Mehmeti, when out of possession, were now tucking in a lot tighter and started denying Boro the space that they enjoyed centrally. 
This worked for much of the remainder of the game. We conceded possession and territory but were generally very compact and hard to break down. 
After 70 minutes Boro didn’t really force too much upon us (between 55 and 70 they were very dangerous). They only had space out wide rather than centrally and thus were restricted to just crosses that we were able to clear or a couple of shots from distance. 

The Williams sub and tactical tweak worked and again it stifled Boro and denied them the numerical superiority in midfield which they’d been enjoying. 
 

Conversely, when they finally got their goal it came from Ayling getting tonnes of space out wide, because Mehmeti was very narrow and Roberts had come too narrow as well. 
 

But in summary, Carrick made the first tactical change on 32 mins and Manning responded to this at half time. Which worked for a while until we had to make the further subs. As Boro got on top, Manning tweaked it again and regained the solidity in midfield to begin to frustrate Boro again. 
 

I think overall he reacted quite well to the changes that Boro made. 
 

 

Edited February 11 by Harry

[Davefevs]

@Harry not for the first time in recent weeks, an opposition manager struggling to get his team to play out against us (Robins - Coventry) drops a CM back in between the CBs go try to beat our block / press.  We were great for 23 mins against Cov, until Latibaudiere (on for Sheaf after 11 mins) dropped into their back 4 for early phase build-up.

When we retain our 442 without the ball we can split the “three” (2 CBs, 1 CM) because Conway / Knight or Wells / Night know when to block, when to press.  Coventry got their goal, but we resisted a change and fought back strong at the end of the first half and equalised.

But as soon as we went 343 / 3421 (eventually 541 on Saturday) in these two games specifically we end up with 1 Forward caught isolated by the “three” and our 2 number 10s caught trying to split side CB and FB on each side…and they get played around / through.  The opposition FBs are now acting like WBs.  Not only are they getting ball high up the pitch, they are performing the role of pushing back our own FBs.

It might’ve taken Boro 7 or 8 mins of the second half to suss out where the new advantage was because it was different to the little advantage they created first half.  What they did in the 10 mins or so at the end of the first half may have caused the reaction from LM…I agree with you on that.  But imho he chose the wrong solution.  So I disagree with you on that part of it.  Reaction Solution . Shit happens.

If you go back to my half time comments on Saturday in the MDT (without the aid of a sofascore graphic) I called out how they forced us into a deeper block (the high block was superb), and from there they played a bit.

Its not really the back three per se that’s the issue (that’s just a way of describing the change, perhaps poorly described on my part), it’s the loss of the well structured 442 press / block….in particular the front 4 part of that.

Nor is it to say that’s the only way we should play, because it has worked e.g. West Ham.  But it’s choosing when it’s right, when it’s wrong, when it’s working, when it’s not.

If others are fine with how the game panned out, i.e. 2-0 up until 91st minute, and a fluky deflection at that to give them their goal, that’s their choice, as is if they want to concur “job done”.  But I just happened to feel differently, because I’m not analysing the result, I’m looking at things like shape, what works well, what doesn’t, etc.

Analysis of The result = fantastic, away from home too against a capable opponent.

[chinapig]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

But I just happened to feel differently, because I’m not analysing the result, I’m looking at things like shape, what works well, what doesn’t, etc.

Some people get irritated when managers say they focus on performances over results but your post shows why they do that. Saying we won therefore it was the right thing to do doesn't necessarily follow.

Though we deserved to win the game on the excellent first half performance alone it's worth considering whether we made it harder for ourselves than we needed and maybe learning from that. I'm sure Liam and his staff do exactly that after every game anyway.

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Though we deserved to win the game on the excellent first half performance alone it's worth considering whether we made it harder for ourselves than we needed and maybe learning from that. I'm sure Liam and his staff do exactly that after every game anyway.

Boom

Said elsewhere we deserved to win.  If you race into a 2-0 lead away from home, and deservedly lead by two at half-time, you’ve earned the basis of the end result on that alone.

[Robbored]

33 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Though we deserved to win the game on the excellent first half performance alone it's worth considering whether we made it harder for ourselves than we needed and maybe learning from that. I'm sure Liam and his staff do exactly that after every game anyway.

That’s the bit I struggle with (not the ‘learning’ bit tho) Maybe Boro deserve credit as being 0-2 they made it far more difficult for us in the second 45 in an effort to salvage something from the game. City ultimately coped reasonably well and it could be argued that the second half was a masterclass in protecting a two goal lead.

[chinapig]

50 minutes ago, Robbored said:

That’s the bit I struggle with (not the ‘learning’ bit tho) Maybe Boro deserve credit as being 0-2 they made it far more difficult for us in the second 45 in an effort to salvage something from the game. City ultimately coped reasonably well and it could be argued that the second half was a masterclass in protecting a two goal lead.

Given that we can't replay the second half without changing the shape we can't draw a firm conclusion either way. Which is why I posed it as a question rather than a conclusion.

Maybe we would have won more comfortably if we had not changed or maybe we would have been too open and lost. We can't know so neither of us can claim to be right.

[Harry]

9 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Harry not for the first time in recent weeks, an opposition manager struggling to get his team to play out against us (Robins - Coventry) drops a CM back in between the CBs go try to beat our block / press.  We were great for 23 mins against Cov, until Latibaudiere (on for Sheaf after 11 mins) dropped into their back 4 for early phase build-up.

When we retain our 442 without the ball we can split the “three” (2 CBs, 1 CM) because Conway / Knight or Wells / Night know when to block, when to press.  Coventry got their goal, but we resisted a change and fought back strong at the end of the first half and equalised.

But as soon as we went 343 / 3421 (eventually 541 on Saturday) in these two games specifically we end up with 1 Forward caught isolated by the “three” and our 2 number 10s caught trying to split side CB and FB on each side…and they get played around / through.  The opposition FBs are now acting like WBs.  Not only are they getting ball high up the pitch, they are performing the role of pushing back our own FBs.

It might’ve taken Boro 7 or 8 mins of the second half to suss out where the new advantage was because it was different to the little advantage they created first half.  What they did in the 10 mins or so at the end of the first half may have caused the reaction from LM…I agree with you on that.  But imho he chose the wrong solution.  So I disagree with you on that part of it.  Reaction Solution . Shit happens.

If you go back to my half time comments on Saturday in the MDT (without the aid of a sofascore graphic) I called out how they forced us into a deeper block (the high block was superb), and from there they played a bit.

Its not really the back three per se that’s the issue (that’s just a way of describing the change, perhaps poorly described on my part), it’s the loss of the well structured 442 press / block….in particular the front 4 part of that.

Nor is it to say that’s the only way we should play, because it has worked e.g. West Ham.  But it’s choosing when it’s right, when it’s wrong, when it’s working, when it’s not.

If others are fine with how the game panned out, i.e. 2-0 up until 91st minute, and a fluky deflection at that to give them their goal, that’s their choice, as is if they want to concur “job done”.  But I just happened to feel differently, because I’m not analysing the result, I’m looking at things like shape, what works well, what doesn’t, etc.

Analysis of The result = fantastic, away from home too against a capable opponent.

I agree Dave, that the reaction was not necessarily the correct solution. 
But I did want to make sure it was clear that LM did actually react. 
Not you, but some others in this thread, were keen to state that Manning did nothing to react to Boro’s changes. 
Whereas the opposite is true. He did react. The half time change was a reaction to Boro’s change on 32 mins. 
 

As you say, when Boro then reacted again and took dominance from 55-70 minutes, Manning DID react again, with the Williams sub he tweaked the block and brought Knight & Mehmeti tighter. 
 

So I think the argument I’m trying to make is not necessarily that the half time change was the correct one, but is in response to some who say there was no reaction. When in fact the half time reaction stifled Boro for 10 minutes and made them rethink, and then the 70 mins sub and tweak was a further reaction and contained Boro after a worrying spell. 
 

I was much like you after the game (as we mentioned on WhatsApp) that I was relieved when the final whistle went. But I watched the game back last night and a re-watch always takes the emotion out of it, and actually, from 70 minutes onwards we were actually quite comfortable and Boro didn’t really create much and were restricted to a few crosses. 
The most worrying spell of the game was the 55-70 minute spell. And Manning reacted to that and shored it up. 

[mozo]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Harry not for the first time in recent weeks, an opposition manager struggling to get his team to play out against us (Robins - Coventry) drops a CM back in between the CBs go try to beat our block / press.  We were great for 23 mins against Cov, until Latibaudiere (on for Sheaf after 11 mins) dropped into their back 4 for early phase build-up.

When we retain our 442 without the ball we can split the “three” (2 CBs, 1 CM) because Conway / Knight or Wells / Night know when to block, when to press.  Coventry got their goal, but we resisted a change and fought back strong at the end of the first half and equalised.

But as soon as we went 343 / 3421 (eventually 541 on Saturday) in these two games specifically we end up with 1 Forward caught isolated by the “three” and our 2 number 10s caught trying to split side CB and FB on each side…and they get played around / through.  The opposition FBs are now acting like WBs.  Not only are they getting ball high up the pitch, they are performing the role of pushing back our own FBs.

It might’ve taken Boro 7 or 8 mins of the second half to suss out where the new advantage was because it was different to the little advantage they created first half.  What they did in the 10 mins or so at the end of the first half may have caused the reaction from LM…I agree with you on that.  But imho he chose the wrong solution.  So I disagree with you on that part of it.  Reaction Solution . Shit happens.

If you go back to my half time comments on Saturday in the MDT (without the aid of a sofascore graphic) I called out how they forced us into a deeper block (the high block was superb), and from there they played a bit.

Its not really the back three per se that’s the issue (that’s just a way of describing the change, perhaps poorly described on my part), it’s the loss of the well structured 442 press / block….in particular the front 4 part of that.

Nor is it to say that’s the only way we should play, because it has worked e.g. West Ham.  But it’s choosing when it’s right, when it’s wrong, when it’s working, when it’s not.

If others are fine with how the game panned out, i.e. 2-0 up until 91st minute, and a fluky deflection at that to give them their goal, that’s their choice, as is if they want to concur “job done”.  But I just happened to feel differently, because I’m not analysing the result, I’m looking at things like shape, what works well, what doesn’t, etc.

Analysis of The result = fantastic, away from home too against a capable opponent.

Another thing to consider on this is that second halves are a different beast to the first 45. There's generally more chaos, as fatigue, substitutions and a ticking clock increasingly have an impact. 

I mentioned on the Cov MDT that at the hour mark both teams looked leggy and error prone. I don't know if that was the pitch playing a part or just standard January fatigue levels, but I don't believe that it was only formations/shape that changed the game.

I'm not denying your observations, because you actually know what you're talking about. But I'm just floating a waffly observation that a second half shouldn't be overly judged by a first half.

[mozo]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

The most worrying spell of the game was the 55-70 minute spell. And Manning reacted to that and shored it up. 

Ultimately, the tale of the tape is that we bombarded them for 15 minutes and they couldn't handle us. They bombarded us for 15 minutes and we withstood the pressure. The rest is all nip and tuck.

Edited February 12 by mozo

[mozo]

So if Manning made the wrong tactical change at half time... what was the right change to make?

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, mozo said:

Another thing to consider on this is that second halves are a different beast to the first 45.

totally.

There's generally more chaos, as fatigue, substitutions and a ticking clock increasingly have an impact.

fatigue should happen for both sides though, Boro didn’t tire per se.  Against Coventry the game got “strung out” for both sides.  My main criticism of Coventry was the players missing simple passes to each other that allowed Cov to break.  Cov tired too.

I mentioned on the Cov MDT that at the hour mark both teams looked leggy and error prone. I don't know if that was the pitch playing a part or just standard January fatigue levels, but I don't believe that it was only formations/shape that changed the game.

I'm not denying your observations, because you actually know what you're talking about. But I'm just floating a waffly observation that a second half shouldn't be overly judged by a first half.

yes, as I’ve posted elsewhere our schedule has had an impact, I just don’t think changing the system in the way LM did, did us any favours.  From what I hear, LM was not happy (post-match) about how big the distances were from to back, TC isolated.  What was apparent first half was Knight and Wells working as a pair.  But at the start of the second half the movement of Knight to Right#10 and Mehmeti to Left#10 meant Wells (and then Conway) lost their “wing-man” (not winger ).  See next response

8 minutes ago, mozo said:

So if Manning made the wrong tactical change at half time... what was the right change to make?

I can’t say what the right change was to make, but I can only offer that continuing what I posted above, is that it appears (small sample) that LM is gonna always stick with 2 CMs, so when he switches to WBs (at least what we fans see as a back 3 with WBs, the CF (Wells or Conway) become a one man press / block.  Because Knight now has to split the LCB and LB (LWB) - whereas Bell was sorting out LB (Engel) before the change.  And Mehmeti is splitting the RCB and RB (RWB) - whereas Cornick was sorting out the RB (Ayling) before the change.

So I’d have tried to find a way to play / keep Knight central and closer to Wells (then Conway).  Simplistically, and hopefully this makes sense, I’d have just dropped Knight a bit deeper, and gone 4411 rather than 442 per se, and settled into a block - the good ole fashioned two banks of four.  Knight can shuttle run side to side to create the extra man defending on the side of the ball, or fill in for Wells (Conway) if they do that for him.

But in retaining the existing basic shape, when we did get the ball, we’d have been creating similar patterns and movement as first half.  And they were bloody effective, but do it more from a cautious solid base.  No need for Dickie to try to drive forward, like he did two or three time first half (one led to the goal).  

I’m sure the above can have holes picked in it, but hopefully just by OTIB, not Boro!

Of course Boro might’ve changed themselves…but that’s what LM calls “it’s a game of cat and mouse”, right!

[mozo]

43 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I can’t say what the right change was to make, but I can only offer that continuing what I posted above, is that it appears (small sample) that LM is gonna always stick with 2 CMs, so when he switches to WBs (at least what we fans see as a back 3 with WBs, the CF (Wells or Conway) become a one man press / block.  Because Knight now has to split the LCB and LB (LWB) - whereas Bell was sorting out LB (Engel) before the change.  And Mehmeti is splitting the RCB and RB (RWB) - whereas Cornick was sorting out the RB (Ayling) before the change.

So I’d have tried to find a way to play / keep Knight central and closer to Wells (then Conway).  Simplistically, and hopefully this makes sense, I’d have just dropped Knight a bit deeper, and gone 4411 rather than 442 per se, and settled into a block - the good ole fashioned two banks of four.  Knight can shuttle run side to side to create the extra man defending on the side of the ball, or fill in for Wells (Conway) if they do that for him.

But in retaining the existing basic shape, when we did get the ball, we’d have been creating similar patterns and movement as first half.  And they were bloody effective, but do it more from a cautious solid base.  No need for Dickie to try to drive forward, like he did two or three time first half (one led to the goal).  

I’m sure the above can have holes picked in it, but hopefully just by OTIB, not Boro!

Of course Boro might’ve changed themselves…but that’s what LM calls “it’s a game of cat and mouse”, right!

Undoubtedly LM and Co will be doing their analysis so it'll be interesting to see if this is a 'go to' tactical move or if they're more flexible. 

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, mozo said:

Undoubtedly LM and Co will be doing their analysis so it'll be interesting to see if this is a 'go to' tactical move or if they're more flexible. 

As in other posts, LM doesn’t seem like a whimsical tactician, I’m sure there is sound logic in all of his decision-making.

It certainly seems like two base set-ups to us mere mortals:

• 4213 (where Knight makes it 442 / 424)
• 343 (where WBs can be make it 523 and / or Wide-forwards play like no10s 3421)

the 2 CMs the constant.  I’m sure @Harry would agree that LM would use McGuane and McEachran or McGuane and Brannagan whether he played 4231 / 3421 or with a lop-sided WB.  And sound logic that everything is built around those two key positions.

I personally think that is flexible enough…the fluidity comes from the players.

Edited February 12 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 hours ago, Harry said:

Hey Dave. 
I like your little chart. It’s actually played very well into my thoughts on why the system was changed. 
 

I’ve made a mark on the chart below. 
The red line on the left signals the 32nd minute. The red line on the right signals the 55th minute. 
 

I’ve seen lots of comments here asking why we changed shape at half time. And then further comment saying the Manning failed to react. 
 

It was actually Boro who made the first tactical change. 
They had started with Barlaser & O’Brien as two deep lying CM’s and then had Hackney playing as a high 8. Azaz and Forss were wide, with Azaz occasionally coming inside from the left side. 
It was basically a 4-2-3-1. 
 

For the first 32 minutes we were able to play out from the back as they had little pressure on the ball high up as the 2 deep CM’s were sitting in their own half allowing us the space to play. 
 

Likewise, and I know this was one of your points about their CB’s not having an out ball in the first half, having Azaz wide and the 2 deep CM’s didn’t give Boro any numerical advantage centrally. They had a gap in central midfield. And whilst they were unable to hold possession in our 3rd it meant that Ayling had few opportunities to get forward. Only happened a couple of times in that first 30. 
 

Carrick made a change on 32 minutes. Highlighted in the pic. 
He moved Hackney back to play as a deep lying playmaker. He moved Azaz inside to the 10 position and he shifted O’Brien to a wide midfield role; on the left but enabling him to come inside and be a 3rd CM when out of possession. 
 

This change allowed the CB’s or Hackney to have an ‘out’ ball as Azaz was much more influential in finding holes and receiving the ball between the lines. 
We can see exactly on your chart how this impacted the possession. Boro, from 32 minutes onwards started to cause us problems. They weren’t huge problems but they were ominous. 
The only 2 blue blobs on that chart from 32 mins to half time were the 2 Sam Bell chances, where we counter attacked. 

So, from 32 minutes, Boro changed their shape and their system and started to find their way into the game and begin to dominate. 
It was clear in that 13 minutes that we needed to counter this because it was already 1 way traffic for the rest of that half. 
 

Now, the change was made and as we can see from the chart, we actually managed to stifle them for the first 10 minutes of the 2nd half. I think Azaz managed 1 very good through ball and they had another chance from a right sided cross when Pring was receiving treatment and we were down to 10. 
So the half time change actually managed to contain them and put a stop to their dominance from the 13 mins pre half time. Look at those blue blobs for us at the start of the 2nd half. 
Whilst Bell had been moved a little further back to RWB, that first 5 mins of the 2nd half he managed to get the ball in the opposition 3rd about 6 times and made 3 runs into the box. 
 

It could be argued that the half time change actually stifled Boro (pre halftime dominance became an even game again for 10 mins 2nd half. 
 

The biggest problems came when the 2nd set of subs was made. From 55 mins to 70 mins we were all over the place. Azaz was picking up the ball in the gaps and was enabling Ayling to get forward which was causing us all sorts of problems. Hackney was playing more as an 8, Azaz as a 10, Barlaser as a 6. They had numerical superiority in central midfield. 
At 70 mins, when Williams came on, Manning did react to this and he told us to be more compact centrally. You can clearly see Williams give this instruction when he comes on. 
Knight and Mehmeti, when out of possession, were now tucking in a lot tighter and started denying Boro the space that they enjoyed centrally. 
This worked for much of the remainder of the game. We conceded possession and territory but were generally very compact and hard to break down. 
After 70 minutes Boro didn’t really force too much upon us (between 55 and 70 they were very dangerous). They only had space out wide rather than centrally and thus were restricted to just crosses that we were able to clear or a couple of shots from distance. 

The Williams sub and tactical tweak worked and again it stifled Boro and denied them the numerical superiority in midfield which they’d been enjoying. 
 

Conversely, when they finally got their goal it came from Ayling getting tonnes of space out wide, because Mehmeti was very narrow and Roberts had come too narrow as well. 
 

But in summary, Carrick made the first tactical change on 32 mins and Manning responded to this at half time. Which worked for a while until we had to make the further subs. As Boro got on top, Manning tweaked it again and regained the solidity in midfield to begin to frustrate Boro again. 
 

I think overall he reacted quite well to the changes that Boro made. 
 

 

I checked the WhoScored minute by minute bit and on a similar note to you, split it into 46-60 and 61-90.

First 15 after HT, we had about 1/3 of the ball and the shot count was in favour of Middlesbrough 5-2, Shots on Target 2-1 in their favour.

That sounds like a good Counter Attacking Strategy. Still retaining some semblance of threat and possession.

61 mins to the final whistle?

Middlesbrough

81.6% Possession

6 Shots- 3 on Target and 1 Goal

We had obviously 18.4% Possession and not a single shot.

Pure Bunker in some respects. Albeit the shots or shots on target to minute ratio did drop again.

55-70 on there also very much bears out what you say.

[Davefevs]

@Mr Popodopolous if you want some data:

Some nice 1st half / 2nd half splits here too:

Look how they got in centrally second half

How much they crossed second half (5 first v 21 second)

 

Quite insightful!  If you’re that way inclined

[Mr Popodopolous]

Cheers Dave, that is excellent.

That one for Average Formation Line, that seems a real new one.

I do believe 60 mins to the end broadly speaking, we were dominated. First half we controlled it albeit less possession, 1st 15 of the 2nd Middlesbrough on top but we still retained a threat.

Yeah they came out firing but it is hard to look beyond the substations and shape change from our perspective. Had we kept 4-3-3ish I suspect we would have retained a more sustained threat on the break.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

1st 15 of the 2nd Middlesbrough on top but we still retained a threat.

We had that one attacking phase.  Check out BCFC Analysis twitter x he clipped that spell.  Was really good, shame that was it!

my notes:

50 - good possession / CP shot saved / CP hurt ankle

then it becomes a recurring theme

52 - opened up too easily - MO saves

56 - Greenwood misses 1-on-1

(didn’t realise Max saved it until they were awarded the corner.

===

subs

===

etc

[mozo]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

As in other posts, LM doesn’t seem like a whimsical tactician, I’m sure there is sound logic in all of his decision-making.

It certainly seems like two base set-ups to us mere mortals:

• 4213 (where Knight makes it 442 / 424)
• 343 (where WBs can be make it 523 and / or Wide-forwards play like no10s 3421)

the 2 CMs the constant.  I’m sure @Harry would agree that LM would use McGuane and McEachran or McGuane and Brannagan whether he played 4231 / 3421 or with a lop-sided WB.  And sound logic that everything is built around those two key positions.

I personally think that is flexible enough…the fluidity comes from the players.

Yeah and you made a good point that it could be the players not executing a well understood plan, but equally, it could be Manning thrusting either the wrong tactical shift, or a tactical shift that the players just aren't well versed with, which ultimately is on LM. So, I'm still open to your criticism being right (tone doesn't come across well on here, but I'm not at all sniping at that). The in-game decision making might be an issue, but I'm not making any judgement so soon.

Edited February 12 by mozo

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, mozo said:

Yeah and you made a good point that it could be the players not executing a well understood plan, but equally, it could be Manning thrusting either the wrong tactical shift, or a tactical shift that the players just aren't well versed with, which ultimately is on LM. So, I'm still open to your criticism being right (tone doesn't come across well on here, but I'm not at all sniping at that). The in-game decision making might be an issue, but I'm not making any judgement so soon.

Think it’s really worth watching today’s press-interview, especially the James Piercy questions and responses:

Probably his best pre-match interview for me (I’ve been cataloguing them all).  A bit of insight into his man-management, especially in relation to Cornick.  Insight into what he thinks Bell has given him despite not scoring.  And in relation to this thread about the tactical approach, loads of useful insight.

And confirms (not that I doubted) he’s not whimsical.  I’ve used the term “I think he’s genuine” previously. I stand by that.

Edited February 12 by Davefevs

[Super]

3 hours ago, mozo said:

So if Manning made the wrong tactical change at half time... what was the right change to make?

He didn't.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

We had that one attacking phase.  Check out BCFC Analysis twitter x he clipped that spell.  Was really good, shame that was it!

my notes:

50 - good possession / CP shot saved / CP hurt ankle

then it becomes a recurring theme

52 - opened up too easily - MO saves

56 - Greenwood misses 1-on-1

(didn’t realise Max saved it until they were awarded the corner.

===

subs

===

etc

I will look at that passage later.

We did have about 1/3 of the ball though which I'd say can help you rest a bit in possession..15-20% from 61 onwards that can be a huge mental strain if nothing else.

That's too low I reckon to provide a threat.

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

@Mr Popodopolous if you want some data:

Some nice 1st half / 2nd half splits here too:

Look how they got in centrally second half

How much they crossed second half (5 first v 21 second)

 

Quite insightful!  If you’re that way inclined

Thanks Dave. 
Again kinda backs up my thoughts. 
That 55-70 period was where Azaz was finding pockets and either creating centrally or allowing Ayling to overload wide right. 
That period was horrible and I was very worried. 
But the substitution and tweak made on the block (ie Williams on gave more legs than James plus JK & AM tucking in to close down the spaces in midfield) allowed us to stifle Boro again.

Again having watched it back without emotion, on Saturday I was on the edge of my seat all 2nd half, with head in hands, but without the emotion we were actually quite comfortable in the final 20 mins after the sub and tweak. 
 

My conclusion there is that LM knows exactly what he’s doing, knew where we were struggling, knew where Boro were gaining the advantage and he adjusted accordingly to good effect. 
 

Edit. And plus in the interview today he did reference that 10 mins prior to halftime (it was actually from 32 that Boro changed it). So again, for those who have said he doesn’t see the opposition tactical changes - well, he did. And he adjusted accordingly. 

Edited February 12 by Harry

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Harry said:

Thanks Dave. 
Again kinda backs up my thoughts. 
That 55-70 period was where Azaz was finding pockets and either creating centrally or allowing Ayling to overload wide right. 
That period was horrible and I was very worried. 
But the substitution and tweak made on the block (ie Williams on gave more legs than James plus JK & AM tucking in to close down the spaces in midfield) allowed us to stifle Boro again.

Again having watched it back without emotion, on Saturday I was on the edge of my seat all 2nd half, with head in hands, but without the emotion we were actually quite comfortable in the final 20 mins after the sub and tweak. 
 

My conclusion there is that LM knows exactly what he’s doing, knew where we were struggling, knew where Boro were gaining the advantage and he adjusted accordingly to good effect. 
 

Edit. And plus in the interview today he did reference that 10 mins prior to halftime (it was actually from 32 that Boro changed it). So again, for those who have said he doesn’t see the opposition tactical changes - well, he did. And he adjusted accordingly. 

I wouldn’t say we were comfortable!!!  Emotion of watching real time is one thing, but it’s also much easier to not fret about situations watching it back when you know the striker isn’t gonna place a shot into the corner, and hit a good shot straight at O’Leary…or Dickie is gonna somehow get a toe to a cross!

Williams got amongst them.  Shame the other 3 subs didn’t make any impact (Conway excluded as he worked hard without service).  Having said that, Roberts did his job, more McCrorie and Mehmeti who didn’t get anywhere near the levels of Bell and Cornick.

+++++

It was good to hear Manning’s interview today and him talk specifically about his systems, and in particular it’s more what each system does without the ball, which is what I was alluding to with the two man press (with Knight) and the one man press (without).

[Red Army 75]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Think it’s really worth watching today’s press-interview, especially the James Piercy questions and responses:

Probably his best pre-match interview for me (I’ve been cataloguing them all).  A bit of insight into his man-management, especially in relation to Cornick.  Insight into what he thinks Bell has given him despite not scoring.  And in relation to this thread about the tactical approach, loads of useful insight.

And confirms (not that I doubted) he’s not whimsical.  I’ve used the term “I think he’s genuine” previously. I stand by that.

Cornick getting some good praise from Manning. Not sulking when he’s hasn’t been getting game time. 

[Port Said Red]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Think it’s really worth watching today’s press-interview, especially the James Piercy questions and responses:

Probably his best pre-match interview for me (I’ve been cataloguing them all).  A bit of insight into his man-management, especially in relation to Cornick.  Insight into what he thinks Bell has given him despite not scoring.  And in relation to this thread about the tactical approach, loads of useful insight.

And confirms (not that I doubted) he’s not whimsical.  I’ve used the term “I think he’s genuine” previously. I stand by that.

I can't say I have watched many of his interviews since the first couple, but I found that (and him) very engaging. 

I did pick up on one thing that was discussed on a previous thread, where we were discussing what constitutes a "full training session". It seems from what he has said there, that they rotate players in sessions of 8 to 10, to give them all R&R time. That seems really sensible to me although I am sure others will question his honesty again.

I also like the idea of the walking football, I know he said it was done on a a whim, but he has used it before, but I would think it has several benefits.

Yes it sounds like the players found it fun, always handy, but it gets them all on the pitch together without expending too much energy and it should reinforce the benefits of letting the ball down the work for you. 

I am sure there are other benefits that others will pick up on too. 

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I wouldn’t say we were comfortable!!!  Emotion of watching real time is one thing, but it’s also much easier to not fret about situations watching it back when you know the striker isn’t gonna place a shot into the corner, and hit a good shot straight at O’Leary…or Dickie is gonna somehow get a toe to a cross!

Williams got amongst them.  Shame the other 3 subs didn’t make any impact (Conway excluded as he worked hard without service).  Having said that, Roberts did his job, more McCrorie and Mehmeti who didn’t get anywhere near the levels of Bell and Cornick.

+++++

It was good to hear Manning’s interview today and him talk specifically about his systems, and in particular it’s more what each system does without the ball, which is what I was alluding to with the two man press (with Knight) and the one man press (without).

Comfortable-ish

Like you, on Saturday I was thinking it was an onslaught. But watching back without emotion it was the 55-70 that was white-knuckle. The last 20 was relatively more comfortable ish and it wasn’t anywhere near as threatening as it ‘felt’ on Saturday. 

[italian dave]

On 10/02/2024 at 18:20, W-S-M Seagull said:

Hate this excuse. Its the same for everyone else. 

No, it's not.

I replied to your similar statement a couple of weeks ago, and I gave you the facts about how many games we are playing compared to our opponents. We are playing significantly more games - and that was before our replay went to extra time.

You didn't reply to that, which is your prerogative.

But I wish you'd stop repeating stuff that's demonstrably not true.

[mozo]

3 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Think it’s really worth watching today’s press-interview, especially the James Piercy questions and responses:

Probably his best pre-match interview for me (I’ve been cataloguing them all).  A bit of insight into his man-management, especially in relation to Cornick.  Insight into what he thinks Bell has given him despite not scoring.  And in relation to this thread about the tactical approach, loads of useful insight.

And confirms (not that I doubted) he’s not whimsical.  I’ve used the term “I think he’s genuine” previously. I stand by that.

Thanks for the heads up, that was interesting presser. 

Funny that the journo referenced the debate amongst fans about the tactical switch. Even a hint of a wry smile from LM I thought.

So, the switch actually happened in the first half. I hadn't spotted that. And he said it was a gut feel decision, which I guess still ties in with the theory that Carrick made the first move.

Also, funny he mentioned throw-in training, because that's another topic of debate on a recent thread.

Good to hear Pring's okay and Twine in with a shout this week 

[W-S-M Seagull]

30 minutes ago, italian dave said:

No, it's not.

I replied to your similar statement a couple of weeks ago, and I gave you the facts about how many games we are playing compared to our opponents. We are playing significantly more games - and that was before our replay went to extra time.

You didn't reply to that, which is your prerogative.

But I wish you'd stop repeating stuff that's demonstrably not true.

Oh I'm so sorry. Firstly I didn't see that post and secondly I didn't realise that Bristol City had been given a tougher schedule than anyone else and that we're the only team to play replays. 

Please note the sarcasm.