[Albion] Hürzeler’s (Brighton) Tactics

[raymondo]

From Barney Ronay in the Guardian:

True, it helps if an opposition manager chooses to shoot a whaling harpoon through his own foot, which is basically what Fabian Hürzeler did here by playing if not the stupidest high defensive line of all time, then perhaps the stupidest yet. Clearly, Hürzeler is an ideologue with a set way of playing, even if that set way is destined to become an act of self-immolation.

There will be talk of a crazy game and a mad half-hour. But the form of madness in play was the Albert Einstein definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So high was the Brighton line in the first half you wondered if Hürzeler had seen Lewis Dunk and Adam Webster play before, neither of whom is likely to challenge for the world indoor 60m title any time soon.

The moment Chelsea worked this out midway through the first half Brighton were toast, the game dissolving into an experiment into how many times Nicolas Jackson could beat Dunk in a straight footrace from the halfway line (answer: many, many times).

Ronay is a very entertaining journo

 

[Wardy's twin]

Has Pervis lost his speed, or simply forgotten that he also has defensive duties? Always caught upfield, but then maybe Dunk or Baleba are meant to be covering when he does that?

I think he has but I have no statistics to prove that , also think he is a bit slower getting forward than he was. I do remember him being able to get back and sweep up the break throughs , maybe it is a mindset thing but IMO (and that is all it is) he is not doing what he was capable of pre injury.

 

[Surrey Phil]

I still think we are integrating a lot of new players. Wieffer will eventually just sit in front of the 2 centre backs and when O'Reilly plays in the middle with Baleba we will be a different proposition. However, until everyone's up to speed, we need to stop the high line.

 

[Wardy's twin]

We have 13 PL games before the end of the year , we aren't getting anyone in before that (unless there is a free agent out there) so we have to review tactics if we don't have the personnel to play the required style.

 

[Milano]

We have 13 PL games before the end of the year , we aren't getting anyone in before that (unless there is a free agent out there) so we have to review tactics if we don't have the personnel to play the required style.

I believe Matip is available right now, we could do worse.

 

[nicko31]

Still early days but a big lesson to be learnt from Saturday. The high press doesn't work against the top sides....

 

[PlayMoran]

Just picking this line out, your conclusion for why Dunk is ahead of Igor is because he is captain?

Igor is a LCB with more recovery speed. Dunk is likely to play every game if fit, meaning it's difficult for Igor to get a look in.

van Hecke would benefit from a more athletic CB in a high line system.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

From Barney Ronay in the Guardian:

True, it helps if an opposition manager chooses to shoot a whaling harpoon through his own foot, which is basically what Fabian Hürzeler did here by playing if not the stupidest high defensive line of all time, then perhaps the stupidest yet. Clearly, Hürzeler is an ideologue with a set way of playing, even if that set way is destined to become an act of self-immolation.

There will be talk of a crazy game and a mad half-hour. But the form of madness in play was the Albert Einstein definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So high was the Brighton line in the first half you wondered if Hürzeler had seen Lewis Dunk and Adam Webster play before, neither of whom is likely to challenge for the world indoor 60m title any time soon.

The moment Chelsea worked this out midway through the first half Brighton were toast, the game dissolving into an experiment into how many times Nicolas Jackson could beat Dunk in a straight footrace from the halfway line (answer: many, many times).

Yet we only conceded from a backpass error, a mega soft penalty, a worldie free kick allowed to be taken 5 yards forward of the incident and our keeper passing it straight to them

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Igor is a LCB with more recovery speed. Dunk is likely to play every game if fit, meaning it's difficult for Igor to get a look in.

van Hecke would benefit from a more athletic CB in a high line system.

Sorry. Wait. Just a moment. Igor?

Igor would caught the Chelsea forwards after we got caught on halfway?

Have we entered the twilight zone?

Presumably he'd stopped the Forest goal also? Thunder thighs has his qualities but turning on the half way line and catching an opponent who've sprung our offside trap isn't something i've seen him do. Ever.

All you're doing is naming players who aren't faster and I'm pretty sure probably slower and without the many qualities of the player's we're talking about replacing

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

It doesn't matter how fast a defender is in a straight race, if the forward has started running in his own half to chase a long pass, and if our defender has to turn on the half way line and then start running, there is zero chance of catching the forward.

This is a point not made enough, or at least not sufficiently grasped. The real risk of playing the offside trap is the run from deep

The fastest ever split in a 100m relay is 8.7 seconds. 8.7! It obliterates the record from a standing start and it shows the difference between already on the run and having to start from scratch.

I think there is an argument to be made about whether we could start more side on and start to edge back

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I still think we are integrating a lot of new players. Wieffer will eventually just sit in front of the 2 centre backs and when O'Reilly plays in the middle with Baleba we will be a different proposition. However, until everyone's up to speed, we need to stop the high line.

I just don't think this will make any difference either. Even if we have the worlds best holding midfielder sat in front of the defence, I don't see how this would have helped us not concede any of the goals we've been letting in because of the ball over the top

If we have a spare man I think we're better off using him trying to stop the source of the chance

 

[phoenix]

We are basically asking our defenders to out run fast forwards from the half way line. When they are facing our goal and we are facing the other way. Well it was pretty obvious what would happen. It's just a case of learning and moving on.

 

[Swegulls]

Is there any reason not to play with a lower block in games like those ahead?

First, I’m no tactician (surprise…huh). Just think it would fit players like Veltman and Pervis (maybe Dunk to). They ARE good at defending.

At the other side of the pitch we got pace that a lot of teams in the PL would like to have. Mitoma, Adingra, Minteh, Joao Pedro to name a few. I’d love to see them in a more counter attacking line up.

Why not try it against some of the best teams? If we get another go i Europe, there’s no other alternative. A first leg away, with a high line, no thanks!

 

[Barnet Seagull]

I've had a bit more time to look at the highlights and think about the high line some more. I absolutely get it tactically, and although pacey centre backs would be some help, it's more about anticipating the threat.

We haven't conceded because of it per se, but my major problem with it is a psychological one rather than one based on stats or evidence.

Leaving so much space in behind must be an encouragement to the opposition and must have attackers thinking more aggressively than perhaps they would against a lower defensive line. Any quick striker is going to love to see all that space to run in, knowing that a clever bit of movement could give them a clear opportunity to score.

Why give so much encouragement so early and readily? The problem against Chelsea was that what we are doing was obvious and they could smell the opportunity and were aggressively looking to exploit it.

I definitely think there is an argument to de-risk and start lower both in engagement and defensive line early in the game against stronger opposition. You could then then flip to increase both lines and squeeze the opposition more as the game goes on.

 

[The Fits]

I've had a bit more time to look at the highlights and think about the high line some more. I absolutely get it tactically, and although pacey centre backs would be some help, it's more about anticipating the threat.

We haven't conceded because of it per se, but my major problem with it is a psychological one rather than one based on stats or evidence.

Leaving so much space in behind must be an encouragement to the opposition and must have attackers thinking more aggressively than perhaps they would against a lower defensive line. Any quick striker is going to love to see all that space to run in, knowing that a clever bit of movement could give them a clear opportunity to score.

Why give so much encouragement so early and readily? The problem against Chelsea was that what we are doing was obvious and they could smell the opportunity and were aggressively looking to exploit it.

I definitely think there is an argument to de-risk and start lower both in engagement and defensive line early in the game against stronger opposition. You could then then flip to increase both lines and squeeze the opposition more as the game goes on.

Agreed. It created pressure. That can't be argued against. Looks like we got carried away because it seemed to be working. After Palmer had hit the post it needed a rethink, after the disallowed goal it needed changing.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Igor is a LCB with more recovery speed. Dunk is likely to play every game if fit, meaning it's difficult for Igor to get a look in.

van Hecke would benefit from a more athletic CB in a high line system.

Dunk is likely to play every game if fit over Igor because he is a vastly superior player! It's difficult for Igor to get a look in because he's not as good.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Yet we only conceded from a backpass error, a mega soft penalty, a worldie free kick allowed to be taken 5 yards forward of the incident and our keeper passing it straight to them

I'm not sure it's a positive they only managed to score 4 from all the clear chances they had.

 

[Screaming J]

In the Grauniad today (apologies if already posted - couldn't see it!).

 

[Seagull58]

It was working really well for twenty minutes. We were pressing them and not giving them the time to calibrate passes through the offside trap. Even when Palmer hit the post, it would have been called off for offside.

The loss had a lot more to do with giving the ball away in super dangerous positions rather than Chelsea abusing our high line.

"Can't play like this if we don't have faster CBs boohoo".. well, where are we finding the CB that catches up with Jackson when he gets a through ball from Webster?

The first goal was a situation where Webster puts them in a 2v1 where they're going to score four out of five times.
The second goal is an unnecessary (and honestly rather cheap) penalty were giving to them.
The third goal is an insane free kick from 200 meters and there's no defending against that one. But again the free kick wasn't a result of high defending, it was a result of giving the ball away very cheaply and then fouling the player.
The fourth goal is a result of Bart giving the ball away.

None of the goals are a consequence of the high back line. There's really extraordinarly little that indicates we'd have fared better if we had given Chelsea more time, ball and space on our half of the pitch.

Neither quicker defenders or lower defence line is going to prevent us from losing when repeatedly giving the ball to the opponent in super dangerous positions.

If they had a decent finisher instead of barndoor Jackson we would have conceded 8 or more. They continually breached the high line and its only because 1. Jackson can't finish and 2. he has difficulty staying onside, that we didn't concede 8.

 

[Seagull58]

Looking at the numbers, Hinsh gave it away 8 times. Weiffer 9 times. Dunk 13 times.

Not sure what that proves as i didn't think Weiffer was good. But he was not the only one

He wasn't the only one but he was one. I'm surprised at that stat for Dunk (not saying it's wrong) as I thought he did OK in very difficult circumstances. At least he ran himself into the ground chasing back to try and plug holes, and made more than one crucial, last-ditch blocks/tackle. On the other hand, I don't remember Wieffer doing anything noteworthy in the positive column.