[Albion] Jan Paul van Hecke - contracted to June 2027

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

You raise numerous sound points in here. I think you're being a little harsh on the 'playing with intensity', so I'll try and make the case for this, and make a few further points.

Yes, playing with intensity entails working harder, but it's more than that. It means that we pressurise the opposition more and potentially force them to make mistakes and, crucially, to do so higher up the pitch where the reward can be higher. Others are better at finding stats than me, but there was one circulating that we'd covered the greatest distance in the PL -- which is testament to a strategy. More important than distance covered is the intensity of the running, and we seem to have really upped the ante on 'aggressive sprints' (Minteh is something else on this, though less promising on other things, eg decision-making -- so far).

In terms of shape, fair enough. We do seem less structured, certainly less than under CH, but we didn't have too much more than a solid but very deep structure in the PL under him, but also less than GP and RDZ. FH was reputed to play a hybrid CB/DCM at SP, and I was under the impression that Wieffer was bought for this role. I'm somewhat less convinced by this having watched the games he's played. Irrespective of that, I do think the shape/structure looks more solid when he's present, and that he plays a sitting DCM role. He's good at breaking up play and anticipating danger, also his passing and finding space is impressive, but the latter is sometimes masked by the fact that he's slow and ponderous and obviously hasn't picked up the pace of the PL.

When he's been injured, we don't seem to have found a player that performs the same role as him. You could say that's a good thing (the replacement/s don't have the necessary skillset) or a bad thing (changing formation/game plan).

I have watched a few videos from the burgeoning youtube cast football analyst community, and they do mention the chaos you highlight, but do so in a positive sense, yet I do share the same reservations you do on this. I'm agnostic on the high line approach too. I can see what it brings, and those benefits are ignored by the critics. When it goes wrong, it's stark -- eg Forest second, many of Chelsea's attacks (but not their goals), and the concern is that FH has immediately been found out and we're due a tonking in forthcoming fixtures (he was asked very directly about the high line in a post-Chelsea interview and stated that he wouldn't be abandoning it).

If the critics' view is that we should abandon it, then are they really saying we should go into a deep block/low line? That, for me, is a recipe for disaster in the current PL. I think we just need a little more flexibility and suspect that FH would agree on that, but it's a question of drilling the players -- and particularly the back four -- about how/when to be flexible. We'll see.

Good post, thanks.

Yes I probably was a bit harsh on the idea of intensity, at least partly because I'm not great at clearly explaining what I mean. For me it's a way of winning the ball but not necessarily a descriptor of using it.

I think part of my issue so far is how different we appear to be to how we were under Potter and RDZ. That, and possibly a lack of patience!

Actually, the flexibility is an interesting thought. Under De Zerbi they were drilled to within an inch of their lives and under Potter they had positional and formation flexibility but did they have independent in game flexibility? Maybe it's the learning of this that is also causing some of the isues that concern me.

 

[chickens]

Good post, thanks.

Yes I probably was a bit harsh on the idea of intensity, at least partly because I'm not great at clearly explaining what I mean. For me it's a way of winning the ball but not necessarily a descriptor of using it.

I think part of my issue so far is how different we appear to be to how we were under Potter and RDZ. That, and possibly a lack of patience!

Actually, the flexibility is an interesting thought. Under De Zerbi they were drilled to within an inch of their lives and under Potter they had positional and formation flexibility but did they have independent in game flexibility? Maybe it's the learning of this that is also causing some of the isues that concern me.

Think more Klopp than Guardiola. If you take it off them quick, they haven’t got time to set themselves against an attacking play. That then relies on your player’s decision-making to make the right pass (or shot) at the right time.

Much less prescribed, but infinitely more satisfying to watch when it works. RDZ style coaching puts that part of the brain to sleep, players must just go where they’re told to.

It’s harder to make the Klopp/Hurzeler style work, but to me it’s preferable as it rewards the players that have a proper football brain.

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm a supporter of what we're trying to do. But there's a lot in between just playing "high line, high press" or a low block counter attack type game. It's not one or the other

Indeed, and I didn't mean to create the impression that these were the only two options.

 

[Commander]

Think more Klopp than Guardiola. If you take it off them quick, they haven’t got time to set themselves against an attacking play. That then relies on your player’s decision-making to make the right pass (or shot) at the right time.

Much less prescribed, but infinitely more satisfying to watch when it works. RDZ style coaching puts that part of the brain to sleep, players must just go where they’re told to.

It’s harder to make the Klopp/Hurzeler style work, but to me it’s preferable as it rewards the players that have a proper football brain.

You could argue the opposite. That you don't need as good a player to make it work with RDZ's style, you just need competent players that will follow instructions. Meaning that they can look like world beaters for us and fetch enormous transfer fees when we move them on, when really they aren't. Which fits our model perfectly.

Actually I'm not sure that's the opposite at all, but it is different.

 

[chickens]

You could argue the opposite. That you don't need as good a player to make it work with RDZ's style, you just need competent players that will follow instructions. Meaning that they can look like world beaters for us and fetch enormous transfer fees when we move them on, when really they aren't. Which fits our model perfectly.

Actually I'm not sure that's the opposite at all, but it is different.

You could, and there’s definitely an argument for that, but I personally prefer coaching styles that allow the individual player some autonomy within an overall system.

For the same reasons that I don’t like businesses (in any sector) that treat their employees purely as productivity per hour without any regard for their wider health or wellbeing, or personal characteristics.

I believe it’s possible to be successful with both approaches, but if I had to choose between watching a RDZ team and a FH team, I personally would prefer to see how our players develop under FH.

 

[Farehamseagull]

Wrong thread.