Tactics Under Maresca

[cityfanlee23]

4 hours ago, Nod.E said:

We have scored more goals than Leeds. What's with the obsession? 

 

Perhaps teams give us more respect and sit in because they think we're the best team they'll face. Or that we'd have too much for them if they opened up. We have very fast wingers and quality strikers. Point stands, if teams want to sit in, regardless of their ability or that of their opponents, they can do to their heart's content. It requires no manoeuvring from the defensive side to persistently sit in. I don't know how I can make it any more obvious to you than to say 'sitting in' could be successfully achieved by standing still for 90 minutes. That could be achieved whether we choose to play slow, fast, wide, narrow etc etc. it is literally a case of setting two banks of four close to your box. I could get a team of 10 year olds to do that to any team.

 

Whether the tactic would be successful is another matter, but that's not what we're debating.

 

'Inviting the low block' is the most of nonsensical thing I've read on here from a tactical POV.

We've scored 2 more goals than them in 20 games, my point was Leeds play a far more offensive style of football than we do yet do not run into the low block as much as we do, you're making a rebuttal to a point I did not make and is irrelevant. You think it's because teams respect us more than they do Leeds, It's impossible to prove or disprove, and it's just an example, no obsession.
To Steelman your point, you argue that the way we play has no relation to the way the opposition sets up against us, mine is that the way we play absolutely does have a direct relationship with how opponents attempt to stop it, the most effective way of stopping a possession-based team scoring is the low block, which is why we come up against it so frequently. The "Low Block" is an out of possession defensive strategy, so naturally teams with higher possession come up against it more frequently.

There are plenty of real-world examples of possession based teams consistently coming up against low blocks. We are not going to agree and frankly, your response seems to come across with a bit of arrogance that you "don't know how you can make it more obvious to me" so I don't see it's worth either of our time. 

Edited 13 December 2023 by cityfanlee23

[Nod.E]

5 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

We've scored 2 more goals than them in 20 games, my point was Leeds play a far more offensive style of football than we do yet do not run into the low block as much as we do, you're making a rebuttal to a point I did not make and is irrelevant. You think it's because teams respect us more than they do Leeds, It's impossible to prove or disprove, and it's just an example, no obsession.
To Steelman your point, you argue that the way we play has no relation to the way the opposition sets up against us, mine is that the way we play absolutely does have a direct relationship with how opponents attempt to stop it, the most effective way of stopping a possession-based team scoring is the low block, which is why we come up against it so frequently.

There are plenty of real-world examples of possession based teams consistently coming up against low blocks. We are not going to agree and frankly, your response seems to come across with a bit of arrogance that you "don't know how you can make it more obvious to me" so I don't see it's worth either of our time. 

We've scored 2 more despite teams sitting in with a low block' all the time. We must be pretty good then, eh?

 

Take it as a compliment, the low block is and always has been the go-to when a team recognises they are miles off being at a level to compete with the opposition.

 

Plymouth are the only team recently not to deploy this tactic and look what happened. This is why teams sit deep. Because we are too good for them. Can't exactly play counter attacking football when this is the case, can we?

 

And if Leeds played such good attacking football AND didn't suffer the indignity of the low block, shouldn't they have scored loads more than us by now?

 

Your argument is self evidently wrong, so forgive me if I tap into an arrogant tone.

Edited 13 December 2023 by Nod.E

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, Nod.E said:

We've scored 2 more despite teams sitting in with a low block' all the time. We must be pretty good then, eh? 
We are 2nd for a reason, I have not said we are not doing well. 

 

Take it as a compliment. And if Leeds played such good attacking football AND didn't suffer the indignity of the low block, shouldn't they have scored loads more than us by now?

I used Leeds as an example because they are a team who obviously command respect as they have players capable of playing in the premier league, and play more offensively than we do, the fact they don't score more is irrelevant. 

Your argument is self evidently wrong, so forgive me if I tap into an arrogant tone.
You've just claimed it's self evidently wrong by strawmanning my point to focus on the number of goals when that was never my point. 

You baited me back in so easily and i've let myself down, but well done, but you've effectively added nothing to this conversation and ignored most of what I've said and continued to say "nuh uh"
Low blocks are very common defensive strategies when out of possession, high possession teams come up against them far more frequently than average possession teams do. The way we play football has a direct link to how opponents try to counter it. If it was solely about respect, Leeds and Southampton would also be experiencing this. In reality, there is an element of many reasons why teams sit back in low blocks against us, our midfield passing plays a very important role in that. 
You believe our high possession strategy plays no role in how opponents set up against us, I think it does based on watching us give opponents an age to get into position time and time again, and plenty of real-world examples of other teams facing this same issue. 

Agree to disagree.

[trabuch]

The team has an identity, and they all seem to know what they are doing and buy into it. It appears to be successful as far as I can tell. I don't find it boring at all. I was quite enjoying watching the process happen, until we lost a couple of matches. Then I started to question the tactics, but we started winning again and now I think everything is going to be alright.

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, trabuch said:

The team has an identity, and they all seem to know what they are doing and buy into it. It appears to be successful as far as I can tell. I don't find it boring at all. I was quite enjoying watching the process happen, until we lost a couple of matches. Then I started to question the tactics, but we started winning again and now I think everything is going to be alright.

Pretty natural response, I have been a fan of Gegenpress for a long while so possession football doesn't excite me much, but I can buy into it and enjoy the strategy when it's made with attacking intent. A nice balance somewhere in between the last match and some of the higher possession matches would be a good spot.

[Nod.E]

12 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

You baited me back in so easily and i've let myself down, but well done, but you've effectively added nothing to this conversation and ignored most of what I've said and continued to say "nuh uh"
Low blocks are very common defensive strategies when out of possession, high possession teams come up against them far more frequently than average possession teams do. The way we play football has a direct link to how opponents try to counter it. If it was solely about respect, Leeds and Southampton would also be experiencing this. In reality, there is an element of many reasons why teams sit back in low blocks against us, our midfield passing plays a very important role in that. 
You believe our high possession strategy plays no role in how opponents set up against us, I think it does based on watching us give opponents an age to get into position time and time again, and plenty of real-world examples of other teams facing this same issue. 

Agree to disagree.

Completely missing my point.

 

It absolutely is about respect BECAUSE of the goals we've managed to score relative to Leeds/Southampton DESPITE the low block.

 

Argument being, if teams didn't sit deep against us we'd score more (as per Plymouth) therefore we'd score EVEN more than we already do vs. Southampton and Leeds. 

 

You can't have it both ways by saying we're crap going forwards because we play in such a way that 'invites a low block', yet on the other hand point to supposed 'better offensive teams', who, by your logic, therefore do not come up against a low block. Both things simply cannot be true without goalscoring numbers backing that up.

 

Let me explain,

 

Low block = harder to break down

 

Yes?

 

Not low block = easier to score against

 

Yes?

 

Better attacking team + no low block = a sh!t tonne of goals, but that's not what is happening, is it?

 

Jesus wept.

Edited 13 December 2023 by Nod.E

[cityfanlee23]

32 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

Completely missing my point.

 

It absolutely is about respect BECAUSE of the goals we've managed to score relative to Leeds/Southampton DESPITE the low block. 2 goals more, of which 4 goals came in our last match, and leeds are in a dry spell, 2 goals over 20 games is not the deciding factor on whether we are respected or not, to suggest Leeds are not respected as much because of 2 goals is just silly.

 

Argument being, if teams didn't sit deep against us we'd score more (as per Plymouth) therefore we'd score EVEN more than we already do vs. Southampton and Leeds. 
You're literally proving my point that the low block is one of the most effective ways to nulify a high possession team.
 

You can't have it both ways by saying we're crap going forwards because we play in such a way that 'invites a low block', yet on the other hand point to supposed 'better offensive teams', who, by your logic, therefore do not come up against a low block. Both things simply cannot be true without goalscoring numbers backing that up.

Did I say we are crap going forwards? I have said we waste a lot of attacking transitions by passing the ball backwards mid attack and allowing teams the time to set themselves up in a low block. when did I say we are crap going forwards? You've got my logic wrong, you're implying I have suggested the reason Leeds don't come up against the low block is a result of them being a more offensively orientated team, I did not say that, I have not suggested correlation equals causation when it comes to why teams don't sit in a low block as much against Leeds. 
But I have suggested there is an element of that with us because high possession teams will naturally come up against low blocks more often than lower possession teams. 
 

Better attacking team + no low block = a sh!t tonne of goals, but that's not what is happening, is it?
There are way too many variables to simplify it like this, football is not black and white. 

You've strawmanned me multiple times now. 
We play high possession football, the low block is an out-of-possession strategy to nullify the opposition, the more we hold the ball, the more teams will naturally sit back. We can agree to disagree.

Edited 13 December 2023 by cityfanlee23

[Nod.E]

6 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

You've strawmanned me multiple times now. 
We play high possession football, the low block is an out-of-possession strategy to nullify the opposition, the more we hold the ball, the more teams will naturally sit back. We can agree to disagree because I'm quite bored of you seemingly talking down to me and replying in an arrogant tone, there is no need for it.

I agree that perhaps at times we could do a better job of finding a quality pass forwards. I've said as much before, but ultimately that will depend on recruiting the type of player to take the ball on the half turn and have the vision and weight of pass to split teams open. 

 

But that just means we'll be more effective. It doesn't mean we won't come up against low blocks. Because teams have seen what happens when they don't defend deep against us. We rip them apart. Please explain how us improving our forward passing and increasing the pace at which we do this will influence teams to not sit deep against us? The solution isn't coming and trying to play is at our own game or pressing us high, because the better we get the more we can just pick teams off.

 

This is the genius of playing this way. Teams are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

So, ultimately, the conversation comes back around to the question 'what is the problem?' I can't find one other than the idea that you might be a little bored.

 

I hope for your sake (and others in your camp), that with a little added talent to the system we have in place, you will find some enjoyment in the success we have with this style of play. 

[Nicolo Barella]

Log off guys ahaha

[Lionator]

Enzo has received criticism for not having a plan B but Saturday showed us there is a plan B but within plan A, if that makes sense. We have one structure, but we can adapt within that structure. 

[Lillehamring]

8 hours ago, Lionator said:

Enzo has received criticism for not having a plan B - by people who don't understand the system

 

but Saturday showed us there is a plan B but within plan A, if that makes sense. We have one structure, but we can adapt within that structure. - which we've been arguing was the case all along...

 

[Nod.E]

14 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Log off guys ahaha

I'm at the game tonight. Might have to leave early to catch up on sleep 👀

[Chelmofox]

11 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I'm at the game tonight. Might have to leave early to catch up on sleep 👀

I might need to leave early to post my review on why the atmosphere was sh1te

[cityfanlee23]

47 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

I'm at the game tonight. Might have to leave early to catch up on sleep 👀

You might be able to catch some in the first half 😉 

Im going to look really stupid aren’t I 😂

[Lionator]

Mentally exhausting the opposition is a massive part of this. It’s like slowly banging down a door until the hinges can no longer tolerate it. It is risky and can be slow and painful but you can see why we do it, it’s very enterprising. 

[coolhandfox]

Nice tactical tweak by Enzo tonight moving Wilf to left 8, KDH central and pushing Ricardo further forward to make it a 3.

 

Gave more opportunities for overloading especially down the left.

[blaaklint]

from an attacking sense, i think that was one of our better games this season. sometimes slow at the back, but the change of pace when we chose to move forward was better

[Daggers]

I reckon this side would have battered last season’s Rodgers effort. 

[honeybradger]

5 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Nice tactical tweak by Enzo tonight moving Wilf to left 8, KDH central and pushing Ricardo further forward to make it a 3.

 

Gave more opportunities for overloading especially down the left.

It is a bit worrying that we struggle to make things happen with KDH and Mavididi on the left. As much as i do like KDH, Ndidi seems to be much better at finding space to receive the ball and he works better off our wingers as a result of it.

 

Hopefully with less teams sitting deep against us next season KDH will have more opportunities to get Mavididi into the game.

[coolhandfox]

3 minutes ago, honeybradger said:

It is a bit worrying that we struggle to make things happen with KDH and Mavididi on the left. As much as i do like KDH, Ndidi seems to be much better at finding space to receive the ball and he works better off our wingers as a result of it.

 

Hopefully with less teams sitting deep against us next season KDH will have more opportunities to get Mavididi into the game.

They play a 5 back which meant it was 5 on 5, the switch made it 6 against their 5.

 

Just an off night for KDH but still an important assist.

 

As one of our main men team are going to come up with plans to keep him quiet.

 

 

Edited 13 December 2023 by coolhandfox

[StriderHiryu]

13 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Nice tactical tweak by Enzo tonight moving Wilf to left 8, KDH central and pushing Ricardo further forward to make it a 3.

 

Gave more opportunities for overloading especially down the left.

Talking about this on Beyond the 90 now.

 

Changes at half-time:

- Pushed Ricardo forwards because Millwall were playing a back 5. So he wants a superiority against their defensive block, hence making it 6 v 5. This is why we blew them away so quickly.

- Changed the 8's round because Millwall brought on a sub because one of their players got booked, and they change the preferred foot of their outside CB's in the defensive 3.

- Changed the pressing trigger to target the players booked, so they were more likely to give the ball away. Means they have to more rash in their passing, meaning we win the ball more often.

 

Will write-up more later, but those changes murdered them.

[Aleksz]

That change to create the 6v5 in the last line won the game, fair play Enzo. They were comfortable defending in the first half but that change completely stumped them and they didn’t have an answer. Bravo. 

[Daggers]

Match thread, first half

 

 

[StriderHiryu]

50 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Talking about this on Beyond the 90 now.

 

Changes at half-time:

- Pushed Ricardo forwards because Millwall were playing a back 5. So he wants a superiority against their defensive block, hence making it 6 v 5. This is why we blew them away so quickly.

- Changed the 8's round because Millwall brought on a sub because one of their players got booked, and they change the preferred foot of their outside CB's in the defensive 3.

- Changed the pressing trigger to target the players booked, so they were more likely to give the ball away. Means they have to more rash in their passing, meaning we win the ball more often.

 

Will write-up more later, but those changes murdered them.

 

SMUG MODE ACTIVATED

[StriderHiryu]

 

We went on for a while today! But I think this was a good one.

 

Put it on to help you get to sleep, or if you are bored at work! Either way it will do something for you!