Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

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



Garry Nelson's Left Foot

Garry Nelson's Left Foot

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
13,520
tokyo
Machiavelli said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,677
Garry Nelson's Left Foot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 




Commander

Commander

Arrogant Prat
NSC Patron
Apr 28, 2004
13,528
London
chickens said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,677
Commander said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 




























R

Robdinho

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2004
1,064
dazzer6666 said:
Click to expand...

I'm obviously getting old, but I do wonder how the players feel about every little thing they do being immediately posted up to social media like this.

This was probably mildly amusing for those who were there, but by posting onto twitter all it seems to do is generate abuse from the weirdo element of the Man City fanbase.
 






LamieRobertson

LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
48,366
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Gabbiano said:
Maybe I'm being a spoilsport here. JPVH played well but Haaland scored, getting the better of him and then had 2 more clear cut chances.

Baleba coming on at half time is what stopped Haaland.
Click to expand...
Are you referring the header he put over the bar when Igor was marking him …and the chance where VB deflected it onto the post on Igors side ….then of course the goal where Haaland lost Igor but VH almost stopped him from scoring
 




Gabbiano

Gabbiano

Well-known member
Dec 18, 2017
1,720
Spank the Manc
LamieRobertson said:
Are you referring the header he put over the bar when Igor was marking him …and the chance where VB deflected it onto the post on Igors side ….then of course the goal where Haaland lost Igor but VH almost stopped him from scoring
Click to expand...
I am referring to both of those and the goal that he scored. They were all presentable chances for Haaland which would imply that he was not "in anyone's pocket". I'm not saying that we defended badly, I guess I'm just arguing semantics.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here