[Football] At the moment, Graham Potter is too good for Brighton. He needs better players.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Sorry i am still recovering from the Boormuff and Cardiff games 2 years ago.

When is the last time we lost 5-0 at home?

Things HAVE improved.

Sure, the hard currency is league position but there is now a depth to the squad, a flow of talented young players coming through and a few players now worth serious money.
There’s a lot more to the club than before.
It’s worth keeping the faith for a little longer.

Where did I argue that things haven't improved or that losing to Palace was worse than the 5-0 defeats?

Potter has proven something. He has proven that it is possible to take a team of players playing defensive, percentages football, change the approach totally and still survive in the Premier League. Let's remember that the received wisdom when he was appointed was that he didn't have the players to make the change and that a Brighton team that had just limped to survival through draws would be dead certs for relegation without Hughton's organisation and pragmatism. To argue that he hasn't achieved anything because, within a season and a half, he hasn't yet turned one of the pundits' & bookies' perennial favourites for relegation into a solidly mid table side is a bit rich. Also, the club has actually pumped a lot of money into players over only three of the last four years. This year our expenditure was the third lowest in the division: https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1.

It is well known that I felt sacking Hughton was a mistake - but that is water long under the bridge now. Furthermore, I never claimed that Brighton were dead certs of relegation without Hughton or even that the club was assured of PL status if Hughton had remained in charge.

Potter has changed the approach and has survived in the PL - but it must be noted that he has done so with a completely new team. The team that played in Hughton's last game was Ryan, Bruno, Duffy, Dunk, Bernardo, Kayal, Bissouma, Knockaert, Gross, Ali J, and Murray (with Montoya, Locadia and Andone coming on as subs). The team that played against Palace was Sanchez, Veltman, Dunk, White, Burn, Gross, Bissouma, MacAllister, Alzate, Trossard and Maupay (with Ali J, Lallana and Wellbeck on as subs). of the 11 starters in each game - three are the same. Indeed there are times when the team that plays does not contain any players that were regular under Hughton with the exception of Dunk. Now this poses the question - would Potter be able to change the style of play if he was using the same squad of players as Hughton had available and avoid relegation? - and - would Hughton still be playing the same defensive, percentage football if he had the squad of players that Potter has at his disposal (because he certainly didn't at Newcastle or when Brighton were in the Championship). But again - this debate is water under the bridge and not relevant to the issue at hand.

You also argue that Brighton didn't spend money last summer - but that ignores the fact that the club signed both Wellbeck and Lallana as free agents (and significant wages) - something they would have been unable to do if they had to pay a fee for either player - both English internationals, both a risk because of their injury history, but both significant signings in comparison to other clubs in the lower half of the PL (particularly Lallana). The club also signed Veltman (a Dutch international who was part of the 2014 WC Finals squad) for a pittance because of his release clause and because of s significant injury history. So while it is accurate to say that the transfer fees were not substantial last summer, the reality is that 3 high profile players were signed by the club at significant financial outlay, just not in transfer fees.

We conceded against Palace because we overstretched in attack and with centre-halves covering for Lamptey and March, didn't have the pace needed to recover. This is not evidence of a 'soft underbelly' its the possible consequence of taking a risk to try to win the game. If there is such a thing as a 'soft underbelly' (a weird British football cliche that reeks of the kind of 'who would you want next to you in the trenches' mentality that shackled the game in these islands for decades, leading to the likes of Bryan Robson's aggressively efficient mediocrity being valued so highly above the thrilling talents of Hoddle and LeTissier) then I wouldn't be associating it with a team that have proven themselves capable of working through very long periods of disappointing results and putting together a six game unbeaten run. Mentality is not in question here for any of the players and that speaks in Potter's favour.

Hold the horses - have you forgotten that Brighton didn't win a home game for a year - and had a total of three wins through all of 2020? The team had three big wins against Leeds, Spurs and Liverpool - but again have gone three games without a win since. The team dominated against Palace and yet succeeded in losing a game they should have won - apart from the three wins mentioned above (and earlier wins away to Newcastle and Villa) this has been the story of the 20-21 season - drawing games they should win and losing games they should draw or win - and that is the very definition of a soft underbelly - a team that has shown itself capable of winning big games but most of the time flatters to deceive. The reality is that Potter hasn't proven anything yet - if the team lose to WBA (a possibility) and Fulham manage to beat Palace (a possibility) then the team are back within one point of the relegation zone and looking over their shoulder just like they were before the run of three wins in four games in January and the first week of February.

The fact is that the club is attempting to do something that most in football would have had you believe was not possible. Gus Poyet said on the TV this week that he was told by everyone that you can't win lower league promotion playing this type of football with those type of players. Tony Bloom was told that a small team without endless resources cannot play expansive and creative football against the giants of the Premier League, especially if the players didn't come up from the championship doing it. Potter has proven that with the right approach in the right set up this is possible. No team has ever done it before. None of us know whether the next step up will happen, but allow the bloke some credit for being a big part of why we are even in a position to discuss it.

There is a bit of nonsense in all of this - there are many clubs who have changed their style of play and have begun to adopt a more expansive approach to playing (and not just in the Pl and not just in England). And you are correct that nobody knows what will happen next - unfortunately if the club gets relegated (still a real possibility) then the experiment will have failed and those who claimed that it couldn't be done will have been proven correct.

Now - I don't believe this team will get relegated - there is way too much talent on it. Unfortunately talent isn't everything - results do count - and Potter needs to get some results under his belt because the longer the team flirts with the relegation zone the more difficult it will be to climb away from it.

But why do I bother, you don’t even support us.

yada yada - once again jumping to conclusions and playing a broken record

 

[Stato]

Furthermore, I never claimed that Brighton were dead certs of relegation.

I didn't say that you did. I said that pundits said we were.

I couldn't comment on most of your posts because I generally don't read them. I don't mean to be accusatory or confrontational, but will state the simple facts. You will not say that you support the club or who else you support, despite multiple requests to clarify. You haven't given a logical reason for this coyness. This means that I usually don't engage with your comments because, rightly or wrongly, I am genuinely suspicious of your motives for being here.

For the same reasons, I won't engage with the rest of your post. To be honest I regret responding to the first one, but I bit after noticing the 'Potter hasn't proven anything' opening. Lets just say that he has nothing to prove to you. If his employers and Brighton fans are happy with the progress he is making, the opinions of outside parties without a dog in the fight are irrelevant, and if they are being offered unsolicited for potentially disingenuous reasons, perhaps best ignored.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

I didn't say that you did. I said that pundits said we were.

I couldn't comment on most of your posts because I generally don't read them. I don't mean to be accusatory or confrontational, but will state the simple facts. You will not say that you support the club or who else you support, despite multiple requests to clarify. You haven't given a logical reason for this coyness. This means that I usually don't engage with your comments because, rightly or wrongly, I am genuinely suspicious of your motives for being here.

For the same reasons, I won't engage with the rest of your post. To be honest I regret responding to the first one, but I bit after noticing the 'Potter hasn't proven anything' opening. Lets just say that he has nothing to prove to you. If his employers and Brighton fans are happy with the progress he is making, the opinions of outside parties without a dog in the fight are irrelevant, and if they are being offered unsolicited for potentially disingenuous reasons, perhaps best ignored.

You made the comment after quoting my post -

As for the rest - I have outlined previously my position. From the moment I started posting on this forum I was accused of being a troll - specifically individuals pointed to the fact that the word 'red' appears in my username. This continued even after I explained that the word 'red' represents my political views and not my club affiliations. I have also repeatedly pointed out that this is the only football forum that I post on (apart from an Irish international forum). And even on this thread I was accused of not supporting Brighton. Why should I have to justify myself to anyone on this forum - people can take my bona-fides or not, it is up to them - and even if I was to openly declare that I support Brighton there would be a torrent of abuse that I was lying.

Furthermore - you are engaged in the same antics - stating that if Brighton fans are happy with Potter then he has 'nothing to prove' to me. I would suggest that it would be much more appropriate to take my comments on their merit, rather than trying to read your conspiracy theory into them. The reality is that the only person Potter has to prove anything to is the guy who pays his not insignificant wages. After that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what people think - whether they are Brighton fans or not. But this is a football forum where people debate, discuss, vent and hurl abuse - and it is a perfectly valid forum for people to debate the topic irrespective of whether it makes a blind bit of difference or not.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Bizarre timing of this article off the back of being beaten 2-1 in the 94th minute by your bitter rivals.

At the moment, GP is like the teacher who has the snazziest PowerPoint presentations, but whose pupils get the same results as the class whose teacher uses blackboard and chalk. The “he’s too good for the pupils he’s been given” would not wash in an educational establishment, so for me it doesn’t in football either.

Interesting analogy.

You could extend it to things like Pep claiming any player would want to play for him. So, a kid gets a new teacher. After a couple of weeks his parents ask about the teacher and the kid replies that he's great and the whole class love him. Great think the parents.

Last year, however, he got a C in his end of year exam. And, guess what, this year he gets a C as well.

The kid may be happier but that is not measurable. All that happens in the National Schools League Table is that he and his class get the same grade. A "C" is a "C" and that's that.

It's not to say there isn't value in happy kids. Clearly there is. And many would argue it is *more* important.

That's the bottom line here and why this subject is so divisive, and why it will remain divisive until the league position improves (I would say dramatically). Else you are at risk of a school where the kids are happy but that may be about to enter special measures. And the parents have to choose which they want.

 

[Justice]

There seems to have been some talk since Monday of our club's need for a £50M striker. I know that all on here know it to be absolute guff, but before the word of idiot pundits starts being taken seriously, I thought it might be useful to look at which English clubs have signed £50M+ strikers. According to Wiki there have only ever been six strikers/forwards signed by four English clubs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers None of these were signed since the start of the pandemic, nor by clubs who reportedly have a wage cap somewhere near the bottom of the league, nor by by a club that had just announced an eye watering record annual loss.

Man Utd signed Lukaku in 2017, Man City Mahrez (2018) and Stirling (2015), Chelsea Morata (2017) and Pulisic (2019) and Arsenal Aubameyang (2018). Liverpool and Spurs are the only other two English clubs to have paid £50M+ for any player. Of the four of these still playing in the league two have scored more goals than Maupay this season: Stirling has 9, Aubameyang 8, Maupay 7. The other two have scored less. I know that someone will be along to say that Maupay's goals don't count because they were penalties, but my point is really just that we won't be buying a £50M+ striker. We have bought what we could afford. If we are lucky enough for Tony to buy again it would likely to be for around the £20 million that we bid for Nunez in the summer. For this you might get a Dominic Solanke or Rhian Brewster and still get relegated, or you might be lucky and get an Ollie Watkins.

By the way: Performance statistics between Watkins and another £20M striker signed from the Championship are not so widely different as the current moral panic may tempt you to think: https://www.fctables.com/ollie_watkins-vs-neal_maupay-294847-290619/. Watkins has scored more, but has a similar shots per goal ratio to Maupay, so seems to have scored more because of the higher number of chances he has had. Maupay's accuracy and conversion rate are both not where he would like them to be, but they are also not out of the ordinary when compared with most of his peers: https://www.footballcritic.com/prem...ats/strikers/shooting/conversion-rate/2/41756 This seems to support my interpretation of our current malaise. Our strikers are not of lesser quality, but the chances we are able to create are. Our domination of the midfield encourages opponents to sit deep and narrow against us and tasks us with creating clear chances in packed penalty areas. Faced with that conundrum, I'd suggest that the number of strikers who could be relied upon to always score a goal, amounts to one and he is 32, injured and paid quite a lot of money by Man City.

Potter has to tweak things and find another way. Its a big ask. If he manages it, we will all be much happier, until bigger clubs notice that then he will have proven himself to be too good for us.

Crap post because you would swap Maupay with anyone of those mentioned in a heart beat.

 

[kemptown kid]

I imagine Tony will be very pleased with the successful transition to a more expansive, attractive, possession based style of football and with the number of younger players (including several 'home grown') involved. We also have a number of players who will bring in big bucks if sold. I loved the Hughton years and will always remember them fondly, but the club looks in great shape now, even if we did get relegated - for what it's worth, I don't think we will - and I am desperate to get back to cheering them on rather than shouting at the TV.

 

[Fozzyboy]

I don't agree the answer is necessarily better players. A good coach works with what he's got and gets the best out of them. The system may be good but the results won't be if the players are not intelligent/skilful/technically good enough for it.
And I still can't get over how confused Ali J both looks and plays when he comes on. He looks proper bemused or does Potter spin him 12 times before putting him on?

edit - I've grown to enjoy more and more Potter's BHA, despite the results, but I am still not convinced that his substitutions in particular are good enough nor show he is too good for us

Erm, am I missing something in what you have said? You don't think he needs better players...... but what he has aren't good enough.... is what I read.

 

[ferring seagull]

Potter is improving some players, that is clear, whether it’s training or team shape/tactics it is working for Bissouma, March and Webster. Trossard has toughened up but I’m not sure it is helping him.

Our striking options are ‘bottom 3’, only a top 10 defence and midfield is just keeping us above water. We lack a real match winner - someone who is going to make something out of nothing in a tight game, in that respect we haven’t replaced Murray or Knocky yet. I’d personally like to see Andone given another chance if he is fit and willing.

I agree with you on that one !

 

[Wozza]

the only thing xG proves is that we are creating a lot of chances - NOT good quality ones.

Isn't xG based on the number and quality of the chance?!

 

[herecomesaregular]

Erm, am I missing something in what you have said? You don't think he needs better players...... but what he has aren't good enough.... is what I read.

All I meant was he has his system and formula in his brain, if some players just don't have the quality to carry it out well then does he consider changing his "perfect" system in the short term (until he can upgrade said players). Ali J for example, don't bring him on and ask him to do something he's not capable of. If Ali has certain attributes then improve and strengthen them, play to them or don't play him. But I don't pretend to know much about football I just enjoy watching it.

 

[Seasider78]

Where did I argue that things haven't improved or that losing to Palace was worse than the 5-0 defeats?



It is well known that I felt sacking Hughton was a mistake - but that is water long under the bridge now. Furthermore, I never claimed that Brighton were dead certs of relegation without Hughton or even that the club was assured of PL status if Hughton had remained in charge.

Potter has changed the approach and has survived in the PL - but it must be noted that he has done so with a completely new team. The team that played in Hughton's last game was Ryan, Bruno, Duffy, Dunk, Bernardo, Kayal, Bissouma, Knockaert, Gross, Ali J, and Murray (with Montoya, Locadia and Andone coming on as subs). The team that played against Palace was Sanchez, Veltman, Dunk, White, Burn, Gross, Bissouma, MacAllister, Alzate, Trossard and Maupay (with Ali J, Lallana and Wellbeck on as subs). of the 11 starters in each game - three are the same. Indeed there are times when the team that plays does not contain any players that were regular under Hughton with the exception of Dunk. Now this poses the question - would Potter be able to change the style of play if he was using the same squad of players as Hughton had available and avoid relegation? - and - would Hughton still be playing the same defensive, percentage football if he had the squad of players that Potter has at his disposal (because he certainly didn't at Newcastle or when Brighton were in the Championship). But again - this debate is water under the bridge and not relevant to the issue at hand.

The following were Hughton signings

Locadia £14m
Andone £4m (reduced from £15m due to clause)
Ali J. £17m
Izquierdo £13.5m
Bissouma. £17m
Bernardo. £9m

That is some serious backing from bloom and he also had Groß, a peak Glenn Murray and all the experience, influence and quality of Bruno.

Trying to airbrush history by suggesting Hughton was prevented from playing how he wanted to whilst Potter has had it all on a plate is a bit much even for you.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Isn't xG based on the number and quality of the chance?!

There's a lot of common misunderstanding it would seem. [MENTION=13376]albionalex[/MENTION] understands it.

This is a good simple explanation:

https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-is-xg-football-how-statistic-calculated/h42z0iiv8mdg1ub10iisg1dju

N.B.

"The context of a scoring opportunity is precisely what informs its xG rating. A rebound falling to a player in front of an open goal six yards out will have a high xG score, but a shot taken from 35 yards at a narrow angle will have a low xG score.

If you see that chance is described as having an xG rating of 0.35 that means a player would be expected to score from the chance 35 per cent of the time - a one in three chance. If a chance is described as 0.5xG it should be scored 50% of the time and so on."

So, if we think of the Villa game (BHA xgf 2.44) let's look at our total shots - 26 according to the BBC. Each shot was worth an average of 0.09. In other words, on average, each chance we created had less than a 10% chance of going in (if you believe xG).

Obviously a free header six yards out like Ali Mac had is higher than that. Ditto Burn's shot fingertipped round the post. So you can argue that 2.44 isn't really too far off what is should have been, except that xG does not take into account at all that the player shooting in the latter is a defender who has never scored for us and the keeper saving it is having a very good night and high on confidence.

For those reasons I find it unreliable but what it is most definitely good at is confirming what we saw with our own eyes - that we had two decent chances, another where Maupay should have passed and it doesn't end up with a quality chance at all and lots of shots that get on the stats board but that are from the wrong place.

Palace wasn't much different BTW. We have the actual goal. We have Lallana's miss. After that the keeper doesn't get his kit dirty and our xG of 3 is inflated by lots and lots of poor shots through a packed area.

EDIT - what this shows for me is that people who trumpet our possessions stats and shots numbers haven't quite grasped that lesser teams (teams like Palace ) are quite content for us to have the ball and shoot from distance, knowing that we'll probably miss the one good chance we create.

 

[Icy Gull]

There's a lot of common misunderstanding it would seem. [MENTION=13376]albionalex[/MENTION] understands it.

This is a good simple explanation:

https://www.goal.com/en/news/what-is-xg-football-how-statistic-calculated/h42z0iiv8mdg1ub10iisg1dju

N.B.

"The context of a scoring opportunity is precisely what informs its xG rating. A rebound falling to a player in front of an open goal six yards out will have a high xG score, but a shot taken from 35 yards at a narrow angle will have a low xG score.

If you see that chance is described as having an xG rating of 0.35 that means a player would be expected to score from the chance 35 per cent of the time - a one in three chance. If a chance is described as 0.5xG it should be scored 50% of the time and so on."

So, if we think of the Villa game (BHA xgf 2.44) let's look at our total shots - 26 according to the BBC. Each shot was worth an average of 0.09. In other words, on average, each chance we created had less than a 10% chance of going in (if you believe xG).

Obviously a free header six yards out like Ali Mac had is higher than that. Ditto Burn's shot fingertipped round the post. So you can argue that 2.44 isn't really too far off what is should have been, except that xG does not take into account at all that the player shooting in the latter is a defender who has never scored for us and the keeper saving it is having a very good night and high on confidence.

For those reasons I find it unreliable but what it is most definitely good at is confirming what we saw with our own eyes - that we had two decent chances, another where Maupay should have passed and it doesn't end up with a quality chance at all and lots of shots that get on the stats board but that are from the wrong place.

Palace wasn't much different BTW. We have the actual goal. We have Lallana's miss. After that the keeper doesn't get his kit dirty and our xG of 3 is inflated by lots and lots of poor shots through a packed area.

It’s bad enough having to watch us squander opportunities to shoot, pass and stay calm under pressure in the opposition’s penalty area without spending ages afterwards analysing how and why it happened. I think you XG fans are all masochists.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It’s bad enough having to watch us squander opportunities to shoot, pass and stay calm under pressure in the opposition’s penalty area without spending ages afterwards analysing how and why it happened. I think you XG fans are all masochists.

I'm not a massive fan TBH. As I said, it takes no account of who the chance falls to or how the keeper is playing or, indeed, whether the last three recorded goals from that distance and angle all went in because of a deflection.

But read the last paragraph again that I edited in later. I think it DOES show that some teams, especially when we are at home, are happy to let us have it and just pack their own area, and that we do very badly when this happens. We can see it with our own eyes but actual goals v xG probably tells the story better than "75% possession".

It informs the Potter debate too. Let's remove the long term plan, bringing on of youngsters, developing of players all of which I agree he's the man for and simply go back to results. When teams as limited as Sheffield United, Burnley and Palace have worked out how to nullify us by allowing us to play we HAVE to have a plan B, and I haven't seen one.

 

[Machiavelli]

Interesting analogy.

You could extend it to things like Pep claiming any player would want to play for him. So, a kid gets a new teacher. After a couple of weeks his parents ask about the teacher and the kid replies that he's great and the whole class love him. Great think the parents.

Last year, however, he got a C in his end of year exam. And, guess what, this year he gets a C as well.

The kid may be happier but that is not measurable. All that happens in the National Schools League Table is that he and his class get the same grade. A "C" is a "C" and that's that.

It's not to say there isn't value in happy kids. Clearly there is. And many would argue it is *more* important.

That's the bottom line here and why this subject is so divisive, and why it will remain divisive until the league position improves (I would say dramatically). Else you are at risk of a school where the kids are happy but that may be about to enter special measures. And the parents have to choose which they want.

Well, sticking on this theme, I can add three points.
There is a broad expectation amongst the public -- generated by ideologically-driven politicians -- that the way to improve education is purely a result of teaching ability whereas resource allocation might just also come into it.
There is another broad expectation amongst the public of endless growth, progress or improvement.
Finally, we could also add that Potter has taken a group of Year 11 students increasingly developing bad habits and whose predictability has been found out by the educational establishment. He has replaced them with a motley crew from Years 7, 8 and 9, and still got them a C.

 

[Justice]

The following were Hughton signings

Locadia £14m
Andone £4m (reduced from £15m due to clause)
Ali J. £17m
Izquierdo £13.5m
Bissouma. £17m
Bernardo. £9m

That is some serious backing from bloom and he also had Groß, a peak Glenn Murray and all the experience, influence and quality of Bruno.

Trying to airbrush history by suggesting Hughton was prevented from playing how he wanted to whilst Potter has had it all on a plate is a bit much even for you.

Biss was nowhere near £17m

 

[Machiavelli]

EDIT - what this shows for me is that people who trumpet our possessions stats and shots numbers haven't quite grasped that lesser teams (teams like Palace ) are quite content for us to have the ball and shoot from distance, knowing that we'll probably miss the one good chance we create.

Now that I do agree with. We're not very good against teams like Palace or B&HA under CH or even a Le Grand Sammage team eek who play a compact and deep defensive block. We are against teams that come at us, which is why under Potter are results tend to be less predictable in terms of expectations prompted by table position.
That is the task for Potter to try and work out. If Murray was three years younger we'd have a field day, as he's great for putting in high crosses (we don't do that now, understandably, or at least shouldn't), and picking up scraps from blocks, deflections, etc

 

[Guinness Boy]

Well, sticking on this theme, I can add three points.
There is a broad expectation amongst the public -- generated by ideologically-driven politicians -- that the way to improve education is purely a result of teaching ability whereas resource allocation might just also come into it.
There is another broad expectation amongst the public of endless growth, progress or improvement.
Finally, we could also add that Potter has taken a group of Year 11 students increasingly developing bad habits and whose predictability has been found out by the educational establishment. He has replaced them with a motley crew from Years 7, 8 and 9, and still got them a C.

I could counter with the fact that in Welbeck and Lallana we have brought in 6th formers from a bigger school but I'm already stretching the analogy

It's not something that completely holds water but the performance v results debates on here certainly mirror the parental debates I see on other social media between parents who push their kids to good exam grades and parents who just want their kids to be happy.

 

[Seasider78]

Biss was nowhere near £17m

Fee was reported to be £13-14m up front with add ons up to £17m. Without knowing what the add ons are based on hard to say what we have ended up paying but general point was still represented significant investment in the squad at the time.

 

[Icy Gull]

I'm not a massive fan TBH. As I said, it takes no account of who the chance falls to or how the keeper is playing or, indeed, whether the last three recorded goals from that distance and angle all went in because of a deflection.

But read the last paragraph again that I edited in later. I think it DOES show that some teams, especially when we are at home, are happy to let us have it and just pack their own area, and that we do very badly when this happens. We can see it with our own eyes but actual goals v xG probably tells the story better than "75% possession".

It informs the Potter debate too. Let's remove the long term plan, bringing on of youngsters, developing of players all of which I agree he's the man for and simply go back to results. When teams as limited as Sheffield United, Burnley and Palace have worked out how to nullify us by allowing us to play we HAVE to have a plan B, and I haven't seen one.

Plan B only needs an awkward and reasonably big strong striker, dare I suggest a Mitrovic or a Benteke? Someone to worry, even scare the big defenders, because at the moment they are almost relaxing, laughing at us with a fag and a coffee as we huff and puff around them when their team are defending in depth

Welbeck isn’t the answer because he is not aggressive enough and the rest are midgets, who get swatted aside. It might also give the midfielders more time to shoot from distance as the defence will be worried about a big strong player buzzing around them in the box.

It’s all a bit too simplistic probably though