[Albion] How did West Ham beat us?

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

Interesting (though we know what happened) assessment of the tactics that beat us on Saturday.

Plus an interesting assessment of Villa and Brentford.

 

[Diablo]

How did West Ham beat us?​

They scored three goals to our one.
It happens all the time, score more goals than the opposition and you win.
Own goals excluded.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

How did West Ham beat us?​

They scored three goals to our one.
It happens all the time, score more goals than the opposition and you win.
Own goals excluded.

That's why they beat us (they scored more) but "how" is what they discuss in this video

 

[Dibdab]

All this over-analysis to explain what was actually very simple is starting to grate on me a lot. They packed out their third of the pitch to make it hard for us to score and targeted our weak full back position on the break with players who can take advantage of those opportunities. It really is as simple as that. If we'd played Veltman I honestly don't think we would have let in three. The fact we didn't score any meant all they really needed was to capitalise on Websters calamity anyway.

 

[CAPTAIN GREALISH]

All this over-analysis to explain what was actually very simple is starting to grate on me a lot. They packed out their third of the pitch to make it hard for us to score and targeted our weak full back position on the break with players who can take advantage of those opportunities. It really is as simple as that. If we'd played Veltman I honestly don't think we would have let in three. The fact we didn't score any meant all they really needed was to capitalise on Websters calamity anyway.

 

[CAPTAIN GREALISH]

Just about sums it up
Simple

 

[AlexBH]

How did West Ham beat us?​

They scored three goals to our one.
It happens all the time, score more goals than the opposition and you win.
Own goals excluded.

Haha I was waiting for someone to post this, was going to then thought too predictable. But this is true though lol

 

[Frutos]

That's why they beat us (they scored more) but "how" is what they discuss in this video

By kicking/heading the ball into our net.

 

[Giraffe]

Defended very well, kicked the ball long to the big bugger up front. I remember a team from Wimbledon doing it very well in the 80s/90s, and Dion Dublin made his name at Cambridge in similar fashion. It's nothing new really.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

“Football is a simple game. It’s just very hard to play it simple.”

West Ham’s approach was so simple and effective.

On Saturday, ours was the opposite. Every extra touch, overplayed pass and desire to work a slightly better shooting opportunity was far too complicated for the opposition we were facing.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Interesting (though we know what happened) assessment of the tactics that beat us on Saturday.

Plus an interesting assessment of Villa and Brentford.

Thanks for posting, I found this hugely interesting, unlike some posters! I never played football to any decent standard so tactics tend to pass me by. For idiots like me, these illustrations of the impact of the low block etc are very enlightening. I’d recommend it to all fellow tactical idiots.

 

[Icy Gull]

If their keeper hadn’t had the game of his life, we would have got at least a draw regardless of our errors and their fine set up and clincial finishing imo

 

[Greg Bobkin]

According to what I've seen/heard since Saturday night, it was down to:

Rubbish defence (Webster specifically)
Efficient counter-attacks
Lack of Caicedo
New goalkeeper
Welbeck being on the pitch
No Enciso
James Milner
Antonio being a beast
No pre-match fireworks
Veltman NOT being on the pitch
Uneven pie/sausage roll distribution around the ground
Lack of RB backup
West Ham's 'Champions of Europe' chant
RDZ tactics cock-up
Halftime guest Brighton Bard

 

[Colonel Mustard]

If their keeper hadn’t had the game of his life, we would have got at least a draw regardless of our errors and their fine set up and clincial finishing imo

Up to a point, Lord Copper. There have been many games where we’ve played against great goalkeeper performances but still won due to the sheer number of chances created through opening up a defence time after time. Against West Ham nearly all our attacks were reduced to hopeful crosses that their defence snuffed out. In other words, it’s a numbers game. Create a ton of great chances and we’ll still beat you however well your keeper plays because his luck/skill can’t hold out forever. Create only a small number of good chances and the maths tells you that a good goalie has a far greater chance of keeping the ball out of the net.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

According to what I've seen/heard since Saturday night, it was down to:

Rubbish defence (Webster specifically)
Efficient counter-attacks
Lack of Caicedo
New goalkeeper
Welbeck being on the pitch
No Enciso
James Milner
Antonio being a beast
No pre-match fireworks
Veltman NOT being on the pitch
Uneven pie/sausage roll distribution around the ground
Lack of RB backup
West Ham's 'Champions of Europe' chant
RDZ tactics cock-up
Halftime guest Brighton Bard

Bloody hell, that HT poet was embarrassing. I nearly took up vaping.

 

[Dibdab]

According to what I've seen/heard since Saturday night, it was down to:

Rubbish defence (Webster specifically)
Efficient counter-attacks
Lack of Caicedo
New goalkeeper
Welbeck being on the pitch
No Enciso
James Milner
Antonio being a beast
No pre-match fireworks
Veltman NOT being on the pitch
Uneven pie/sausage roll distribution around the ground
Lack of RB backup
West Ham's 'Champions of Europe' chant
RDZ tactics cock-up
Halftime guest Brighton Bard

To be fair 9 of your first 10 items were all potentially contributory.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

There was of course a massive dollop of luck involved as well.

One of our centre backs had by far the worst game he's ever played for the club
Their keeper played the best game he has played for their (and probably any) club

But more than that, if you cough up 80% possession and 35 crosses and 25 shots, you pretty much need everything that can go right to go right if you want to claim the points.

In my opinion, If you played that same game through 10 times, we win 8 of them, they nick a draw in one and win the other. But over a long season those sort of games will happen.

I'm very confident that our approach will win us more games than it loses and their approach loses more games than it wins over 38 games.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

All this over-analysis to explain what was actually very simple is starting to grate on me a lot. They packed out their third of the pitch to make it hard for us to score and targeted our weak full back position on the break with players who can take advantage of those opportunities. It really is as simple as that. If we'd played Veltman I honestly don't think we would have let in three. The fact we didn't score any meant all they really needed was to capitalise on Websters calamity anyway.

It's not over analysis, it's just analysis. And if that's not for you, that's ok.

We did score btw (or is that me beint too analytical??)

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

There was of course a massive dollop of luck involved as well.

One of our centre backs had by far the worst game he's ever played for the club
Their keeper played the best game he has played for their (and probably any) club

But more than that, if you cough up 80% possession and 35 crosses and 25 shots, you pretty much need everything that can go right to go right if you want to claim the points.

In my opinion, If you played that same game through 10 times, we win 8 of them, they nick a draw in one and win the other. But over a long season those sort of games will happen.

I'm very confident that our approach will win us more games than it loses and their approach loses more games than it wins over 38 games.

I agree with you to some extent. But what worries me is that we saw teams do this at the end of last season very successfully, and now again this season. We need to find an answer to teams that block deep and play purely on the break. But we all know this. I have faith the RdZ is not just sitting back with his one lauded plan and hoping it will work in the future. I can't wait to see what he feels is the answer in these circs.

 

[Icy Gull]

Up to a point, Lord Copper. There have been many games where we’ve played against great goalkeeper performances but still won due to the sheer number of chances created through opening up a defence time after time. Against West Ham nearly all our attacks were reduced to hopeful crosses that their defence snuffed out. In other words, it’s a numbers game. Create a ton of great chances and we’ll still beat you however well your keeper plays because his luck/skill can’t hold out forever. Create only a small number of good chances and the maths tells you that a good goalie has a far greater chance of keeping the ball out of the net.

OK I’ll bite, who the f*** is Lord Copper?

I am assuming that this is a put down