Tactics Under Maresca

[Bordersfox]

15 minutes ago, South Shire Fox said:

Going long is fine as it gets the ball away from our goal. The problem was putting a striker on that has zero mobility,  wont chase and doesnt put pressure on defenders so going long was effectively just giving Ipswich the ball back and allowing them to start another attack

Going long under pressure, sure I can understand or in the very dying minutes of a game.  But regardless of striker we aren't a team remotely set up for lumping it forward off goal kicks.  Enzo wants control, that was not helping us control anything. 

 

Just wondered why we decided to do that. 

[shen]

13 hours ago, HybridFox said:

Just irritates me how we seem to think the game is done with a one goal lead

How do 'we seem to think' that? 

[Pliskin]

31 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Im baffled at the lack of rotation actually. Earlier in the season when it was totally unnecessary he was making a point of how important rotation is. 

 

Now were at the point where rotation is important he has fallen into the trap of sticking with his trusted eleven.

I think the only reason for this is the mixture of teams we’ve had. Rotherham have taken points off some decent teams this season, so he didn’t want to take any risks there. Then you have Ipswich who you have to really go all out for, but then you’ve got Cardiff after which is another tricky game. 
 

I think you’ll see big changes over the next two games, and then obviously we lose a few players to the African nations. I can’t really blame him for going strong for the last few games, I think the only mistake he’s really made was yesterday, I think he thought we could see the game out at 0-1, and that’s a risky game to play against a side that scores a lot of goals. 

[shen]

9 minutes ago, Bordersfox said:

Going long under pressure, sure I can understand or in the very dying minutes of a game.  But regardless of striker we aren't a team remotely set up for lumping it forward off goal kicks.  Enzo wants control, that was not helping us control anything. 

 

Just wondered why we decided to do that. 

They manmarked us well. Often Hermansen had no options as he was closed down.

Faes being right-footed on the left side didn't help either.

[Les-TA-Jon]

56 minutes ago, Hammo said:

Maresca has had a dream first half of the season and has put us in a position of extraordinary strength for a return to the Premier League, so he deserves all the praise going for what he has done so far, both tactically and in terms of man management.

 

Yesterday, however, he got his substitutions horribly wrong, which ultimately cost us two points, and worryingly said afterwards that he was “very happy” with the performance.

 

We have had a few brilliant first halves of the season in the recent past. The second half will determine whether he is a Ranieri or a Rodgers.

 

 

He was probably happy because 9 times out of 10 we win that game 2-0 

 

Ipswich were incredibly lucky twice, with the non-pen and the total fluke double deflection equaliser. 
 

We lost a little bit of control in parts of the 2nd half but I don’t think Ipswich actually threatened us much at all. Lots of pot shots. Think Hermansen only made 1 meaningful save? 

[Chelmofox]

1 hour ago, Hammo said:

Maresca has had a dream first half of the season and has put us in a position of extraordinary strength for a return to the Premier League, so he deserves all the praise going for what he has done so far, both tactically and in terms of man management.

 

Yesterday, however, he got his substitutions horribly wrong, which ultimately cost us two points, and worryingly said afterwards that he was “very happy” with the performance.

 

We have had a few brilliant first halves of the season in the recent past. The second half will determine whether he is a Ranieri or a Rodgers.

Take issue with that comment. It's not worrying at all, and we nullified the joint (with us) top scorers to 1 lucky goal. Ipswich gave that 2nd half everything they had, and they are 2nd for a reason, but the fine margin turned out to be the penalty call.  I think Enzo was refreshingly philosophical about it - he understands you can't win every game. 

 

'Getting the subs wrong' is a bit of a cliche, and the ball didn't bounce off a subs head yesterday. The amount of times fans lambast Hamza because he makes a rash challenge or gives the ball away, yet yesterday he was the knight in shining armour who would have saved the day. The upshot is, we don't have a sub who can replace KDH and Nacho had his chance to perform but was woeful. We can't run KDH into the ground and Nacho has checked out, but i think Enzo had to use him yesterday as his experience should have been key. 

Edited 27 December 2023 by Chelmofox

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Hammo said:

Maresca has had a dream first half of the season and has put us in a position of extraordinary strength for a return to the Premier League, so he deserves all the praise going for what he has done so far, both tactically and in terms of man management.

 

Yesterday, however, he got his substitutions horribly wrong, which ultimately cost us two points, and worryingly said afterwards that he was “very happy” with the performance.

 

We have had a few brilliant first halves of the season in the recent past. The second half will determine whether he is a Ranieri or a Rodgers.

 

 

Why have just taken a point away at our nearest rivals, having played 6 games in 24 days, a game every 4 days.

 

In which we have won 5 and draw 1, all of our rivals have dropped more points then us in that time.

 

Southampton have dropped 4 pts in December.

 

Ipswich 7 pts

Leeds 7 pts 

 

He understands fatigue is a factor, the players aren't robot. He probably think the players gave it there all.

 

That's why his happy.

 

 

Edited 27 December 2023 by coolhandfox

[splinterdream]

I thought cannon would have been a better player to chase down and defend from the front. 

[Matt]

Being incredible critical (More playing devils advocate) even by my standard but personally i'd have rested players for the Rotherham game rather than the Ipswich game, I questioned it at the time on Saturday in order to play a stronger team last night, hindsight suggests that was the way to go. I'm ruing last nights substitutions aswell.

 

That said, I understand had we not beat Rotherham people would have been going even more crazy, with Ipswich losing on Saturday it was imperative we won and it was more of a case of not losing last night - I think last night team would have beat Rotherham though.

 

Now, I know people are gonna say we "shouldn't look at the PL" ahead of actually getting there but style still concerns me if we carry on as we are next season, we are going to get battered, I can't stress enough that I get it this season, in the here and now and dare I say it, quite enjoy it - because I can understand why we're doing it. Next season however no-ones coming up against us being scared of us, threatened by us, putting players behind the ball, allow us to make the mistakes we're making this season and we'll most certainly concede late on as habit.

 

I'll probably get pelters for all of that and as I said i'm being critical even by my standards - but I don't even mean it in the case of slagging it all off because I see these bad things in hope lessons will be learnt and as we've seen following the losses this season or following international breaks we've always came back better and stronger, learning.

 

Edited 27 December 2023 by Matt

[phoneticerror]

24 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

I thought cannon would have been a better player to chase down and defend from the front. 

I guess Enzo expected Nacho to show up and use his experience to finish the game. Not fanny around like he’s playing in a testimonial.

Edited 27 December 2023 by phoneticerror

[StriderHiryu]

4 hours ago, CosbehFox said:

@StriderHiryu

 

What you think of Ipswich’s use of Chaplin and getting one of centre backs to go out of shape? They kept getting Vestergaard to follow and left significant gaps for quick one/two’s. 
 

Also they had Harness come away from his wing which Ricardo had to follow. This neutralised Fatawu whom spent good parts of the game having to play RB and cover Leif Davis at LB 

Chaplin was their best player IMO, he was quite impressive.

 

The way Ipswich play is to bomb both full backs on to provide the width, so their wide men in Chaplin and Burns end up playing in half spaces. The reason they score so many goals is that when they attack, they often do so with 6 players, compared to our 5. The downside is on the turnover that leaves them with 4 which is one reason why our transitions looked so dangerous.

 

The big change I saw was that second half they doubled up on Mavididi and Fatawu and negated both. That should have meant that our 8's got more time and space on the ball, and for me that's where the points were dropped. Ndidi and KDH were tiring, and their replacements didn't do the job.

 

There's a lot more to say about it. But IMO I felt like even though they made changes, we let them back into the game more than them outplaying us. The game got scrappy and Ipswich were more direct and physical to disrupt our rhythm, which worked because we lost control. But sloppy passing I felt was out biggest downfall, other than the penalty shout which should have been given, our passing through the lines was crap in the second half and we didn't test them enough.

 

Overall I would have taken a point before the game, but after that first 45 I am disappointed we didn't finish them off.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Does it need to be pointed out that what a manager says in front of the cameras doesn’t necessarily match what is said behind closed doors? 
 

It’s perhaps also worth mentioning that it’s in a manager’s interest to promote a positive atmosphere within a squad.

[Lillehamring]

15 hours ago, filbertway said:

Its that old classic problem of professional footballers not knowing they can play through balls in behind the oppo defence. Im glad they picked it up after 6 months though  :p 

But they've been doing that since pre-season?

 

I think it's just more noticeable now because we've started to relax/become more confident in the final third, so now those passes aren't wasted and forgotten.

[Lillehamring]

7 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

Pressing triggers / who to press. It looked like Ndidi was on Morsy and did a great job on him. Casadei less so…

 

It might also be because of what foot Ipswich’s midfield uses. Luongo was rested for them, but he’s left footed. 

I think you also have to factor in the opposition when considering the difference between ndidi and casadei.

Ipswich started the game clearly quite nervous, lots of mistakes trying to pass out and a lack of fluency going forward; as such we controlled the game and ndidi was basically just part of a very good press from us; by the time casadei came on, ipswich had found some belief and were dominant, we weren't pressing nearly as high, and casadei was defending deep and as such much more involved in our transitions to counter attack (which i thought he did very well) even though they broke down (but others were more guilty in that respect than him).

[Paninistickers]

4 hours ago, splinterdream said:

I thought cannon would have been a better player to chase down and defend from the front. 

Not digging you out in particular, but the clamour for Cannon on here is a bit weird. None of us have seen him play more than 10 minute cameos three times. On each occasion he's looked, frankly, slow, weak and out his depth. 

 

Plus the abuse Kels is getting from others is strange. I saw him play his usual pitch perfect pass forward  to Mavididi and some neat ball juggling to set up KDH (I think, I've forgot who it was to tbh) and was no more anonymous than our strikers usually are in this system 

 

 

[Lillehamring]

7 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

One of the things I found odd was Hermansen going long from goal kicks towards the end.  It contributed to us ceding control of the game as Ipswich won most of those long balls and came straight at us.  

 

I'm all for a hoof where the situation demands it, if he's under pressure etc but I couldn't understand why Maresca and told him to go long.  

 

I had consumed the best part of a bottle of fortified wine so perhaps I'm missing something or was I dreaming this?

Just a guess, but it might have been because ipswich's defenders were shocking at trying to play out from defence, but their forwards were dangerous sniffing around our defenders in possession - maybe he just figured we'd win the ball in their final third, which we did, but failed to take advantage of?

[JimJams]

11 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Not digging you out in particular, but the clamour for Cannon on here is a bit weird. None of us have seen him play more than 10 minute cameos three times. On each occasion he's looked, frankly, slow, weak and out his depth.

Not really. He's looked like a striker coming into games when our biggest attacking threats have left the field. In 2 games he's come on when the game is in our favour and Mav has gone off (replaced by Albrighton and Hamza), later to be joined by the likes of KDH and Wilf. In the only game where he came on before we took off any attack minded players he took the shot that was parried back for Ricardos Wilfarse goal.  Like against Plymouth, with the game won, he came on and got no time with Mav and 6 minutes with Wilf and KDH, replaced by Casadei and Praet. He's played a grand total of 58 minutes too btw.

Though I agree on the clamour point. We don't know what he'll be like. Until Afcon!

[justfoxes]

5 hours ago, phoneticerror said:

I guess Enzo expected Nacho to show up and use his experience to finish the game. Not fanny around like he’s playing in a testimonial.

Disappointed big time with Nacho of late his nonchalant play his lack of chasing down looks like someone who doesn’t want to be here which makes me think he’s off in January and by the bits I’ve been hearing he’s off to the Villa, after saying that he’ll probably be off to Brentford to replace Tony who could be off to the Goonies !! 

[phoneticerror]

19 minutes ago, justfoxes said:

Disappointed big time with Nacho of late his nonchalant play his lack of chasing down looks like someone who doesn’t want to be here which makes me think he’s off in January and by the bits I’ve been hearing he’s off to the Villa, after saying that he’ll probably be off to Brentford to replace Tony who could be off to the Goonies !! 

Always a shame when former good players leave in this way 

[Lillehamring]

9 hours ago, Pliskin said:

I felt we tried to manage the game at 1-0 and that’s a dangerous game at this level particularly, because I think more players are willing to take those pop shots from distance than you will in the premier league where most of the teams prefer to play through teams. 
 

Looking at it again, he’s got to rotate, he can’t keep playing the same players over and over when we have other options, especially through this period. 
 

In a nutshell, we should have pursued that second goal more relentlessly before making the changes we did, if we had got it, the game was over. 

It's probably the hardest thing for a manager to balance - that's why it such a 'dangerous' score - you don't want to risk conceding but you know getting a second will kill off the game.

 

Ipswich certainly stepped up a few gears in the last half hour, but equally we had some phases where they simply couldn't get the ball off us.  I think ideally maresca would have us sustaining those phases indefinitely and if a goal presents itself - just so - and there have been many games like that.  Ipswich have such a good press that it wasn't possible for us to play this way - the option then was to defend and try to hit them in transition, and we did create a lot of these countering actions, sadly the impression is that we did nothing, simply because pretty much every time we countered it broke down.

[Lillehamring]

9 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

Going long is fine as it gets the ball away from our goal. The problem was putting a striker on that has zero mobility,  wont chase and doesnt put pressure on defenders so going long was effectively just giving Ipswich the ball back and allowing them to start another attack

Good point - and i think Cannon would have made more sense - he seems to have that vardyesque wish to go chase players and would have also offered more height to target.

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Not digging you out in particular, but the clamour for Cannon on here is a bit weird. None of us have seen him play more than 10 minute cameos three times. On each occasion he's looked, frankly, slow, weak and out his depth. 

 

Plus the abuse Kels is getting from others is strange. I saw him play his usual pitch perfect pass forward  to Mavididi and some neat ball juggling to set up KDH (I think, I've forgot who it was to tbh) and was no more anonymous than our strikers usually are in this system 

 

 

I don't think it's quite like that.

 

Neither player is excelling at the moment (for polar opposite reasons) - so either way it was a bit of a punt.  However, given the situation, i'd rather have seen Cannon (who has at least shown a willingness to run) than nacho who, as really does seem the case, just hasn't got his heart in it.

 

Nacho's one decent pass is scant compensation for the other 14 inconsequential touches he managed in half an hour's football.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

One strange thing I find with Maresca is his tendency to tie his own hands with the way he makes substitutions.

 

The rules are you can use 5, but only via 3 stoppages.

 

Yet against Ipswich, and he’s done this sort of thing before, he made 3 individual substitutions, preventing himself from making 2 more.

 

The first change (Casadei, 56) was fairly close to the second (Iheanacho, 63) so I can’t really understand why those changes weren’t considered and made as a double change to leave the option of making 3 more substitutes across 2 stoppages for the rest of the game.

 

It had to be fairly obvious to Enzo that he was going to manage the playing time of certain starters before the game, so why wouldn’t you group those substitutions together to simply give yourself more options rather than less?

[SafewayFox]

3 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

I don't think it's quite like that.

 

Neither player is excelling at the moment (for polar opposite reasons) - so either way it was a bit of a punt.  However, given the situation, i'd rather have seen Cannon (who has at least shown a willingness to run) than nacho who, as really does seem the case, just hasn't got his heart in it.

 

Nacho's one decent pass is scant compensation for the other 14 inconsequential touches he managed in half an hour's football.

Absolutely spot on.

 

How someone can oddly slate Cannon from his limited minutes yet in the same post defend Kelechi based on the majority of this seasons appearances is beyond me.

 

A prime FoxesTalk moment for me is someone praising Kelechi’s ball to KDH against West Brom….he’s a professional footballer who passed a ball 10/15 yards forwards….it wasn’t deftly weighted, nor a difficult reverse pass etc.

 

Yet some make it out like only Kelechi could have done it 🤯

[DJ Barry Hammond]

8 minutes ago, SafewayFox said:

A prime FoxesTalk moment for me is someone praising Kelechi’s ball to KDH against West Brom….he’s a professional footballer who passed a ball 10/15 yards forwards….it wasn’t deftly weighted, nor a difficult reverse pass etc.

 

Yet some make it out like only Kelechi could have done it 🤯

Behave!

 

Kelechi deserves credit for his involvement for that goal, he had to secure posession, turn, not fall over and the weight of pass was well judged, allowing KDH to take it up in stride.