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

[jcdenton08]

We didn’t create a chance second half against Chelsea, hardly anything against Ipswich or Forest second half either. We aren’t creating loads of chances.

I think you are being rather pessimistic. What are your ambitions for the season - are they realistic for a club like us to begin with?

 

[pigmanovich]

We didn’t create a chance second half against Chelsea, hardly anything against Ipswich or Forest second half either. We aren’t creating loads of chances.

To be fair, we're fourth in the league for shots, ninth for shots on target, and sixth for xG. Like I've said before, there's room for improvement but it's hardly shabby.

 

[pigmanovich]

To be fair, we're fourth in the league for shots, ninth for shots on target, and sixth for xG. Like I've said before, there's room for improvement but it's hardly shabby.

To add to this, it's safe to presume we'll only improve going forward, not just as Fabi beds in his tactics but also as new signings integrate and finally get on the pitch.

 

[chickens]

We didn’t create a chance second half against Chelsea, hardly anything against Ipswich or Forest second half either. We aren’t creating loads of chances.

In the Chelsea match we had 15 shots with 5 on target. We aren’t doing badly, especially against a “money no object” team.

We’re not going to win every match, and we’ve played without JP and JPvH.

I don’t doubt that we’re not yet carrying out FH’s instructions exactly as he wants us to play, you can see his frustration sometimes that players aren’t making decisions as he believes they should, but the more time he has in training with them, the more what we see on the pitch should resemble what FH is coaching.

We’re a work in progress, and we’re doing alright.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Whatever tactics we played at Stamford Bridge, the most likely outcome was defeat. They will likely finish top 4.

The positive are, we're scoring goals, our new players are integrating, and whether you like the plan or not, we look like a team with a plan

 

[Machiavelli]

In the Chelsea match we had 15 shots with 5 on target. We aren’t doing badly, especially against a “money no object” team.

We’re not going to win every match, and we’ve played without JP and JPvH.

I don’t doubt that we’re not yet carrying out FH’s instructions exactly as he wants us to play, you can see his frustration sometimes that players aren’t making decisions as he believes they should, but the more time he has in training with them, the more what we see on the pitch should resemble what FH is coaching.

We’re a work in progress, and we’re doing alright.

While the pair of you are too polite to say as much, you and @pigmanovich seem to be saying that @Justice is astoundingly wrong in his analysis.

 

[aolstudios]

In the Chelsea match we had 15 shots with 5 on target. We aren’t doing badly, especially against a “money no object” team.

We’re not going to win every match, and we’ve played without JP and JPvH.

I don’t doubt that we’re not yet carrying out FH’s instructions exactly as he wants us to play, you can see his frustration sometimes that players aren’t making decisions as he believes they should, but the more time he has in training with them, the more what we see on the pitch should resemble what FH is coaching.

We’re a work in progress, and we’re doing alright.

Veltman was missing too, crucially

 

[keaton]

Are you competing with Dwayne for some kind of “cheeriest outlook” award?

We play with a high line to take space out of the game, with the intention of there always being pressure on the ball, leading to a higher chance of an opposition mistake, or an interception.

It is leading to chances for us, for a variety of players, and hallelujah we seem to actually be taking some of them.

When it goes wrong, the optics are dreadful, watching our centre backs trailing in the wake of any pacy attacker, but if we’d played our part further up the pitch, the theory is that there wouldn’t have been space and time for an opposition player to judge and play an over the top ball. Our defending becomes “whole pitch”

I’d still rather we had a bit more pace in our back line, regardless of what those who think it doesn’t matter say, so there was a fighting chance of recovering when we are caught out. However, I trust our coach to see this as an area that needs work and to adapt his thinking where needed.

We may get a few false starts, but I honestly believe having some patience will be rewarded. This is his first season in this league, he’s learning on the job.

I think the pressure on the opponent is a key thing that's been missing and why Chelsea found it so easy. But also with slow centre backs and half a pitch to aim at it doesn't have to be a particularly considered or accurate ball to cause us issues

 

[chickens]

While the pair of you are too polite to say as much, you and @pigmanovich seem to be saying that @Justice is astoundingly wrong in his analysis.

I do, but hopefully not in an antagonistic way. Football is largely about opinions, we all take different things from what we see.

From what I can see, @Justice’s view is that the glass is two thirds empty, to me the glass is almost full. Time will tell which of us needs an urgent trip to Specsavers.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

Whatever tactics we played at Stamford Bridge, the most likely outcome was defeat. They will likely finish top 4.

The positive are, we're scoring goals, our new players are integrating, and whether you like the plan or not, we look like a team with a plan

Which is?

Genuine question as currently
I can't work out what it is beyond the high line.

And it's my lack of understanding of what we're trying to do that is stopping me from getting fully on board the fab train.

If I knew what we were
trying to do I could see where we're
at and where we're improving.

Unfortunately all I'm seeing at the moment is players making basic mistakes - misplaced passes(more than I've got used to over the past 5 years), poor decisions and players running into the same space, sometimes into each other - as well as every game having lengthy periods where it descends into chaos, any semblance of shape or structure disintegrates and it looks like a schoolboy match.

Since Hughton joined we've been a team greater than the sum of its parts. Right now it feels like the opposite is true.

If it's a case of one step back to go two forwards then that's fine, I'd just like to know what 'the process' is and where we're headed.

Then I could relax.

As it is, there's just confusion in my head and at times it looks like there's more confusion in the players' heads.


And before any misconstrues this as a FH out post or bedwetting or anything along those lines, it isn't. I'm just confused as to our game plan and would love to know what it is.

 

[chickens]

I think the pressure on the opponent is a key thing that's been missing and why Chelsea found it so easy. But also with slow centre backs and half a pitch to aim at it doesn't have to be a particularly considered or accurate ball to cause us issues

I agree, and it’s why I disagree with those who say having 2 x slow centre backs isn’t a problem. As an emergency last ditch measure, when it does go wrong, I want someone who has a chance in a foot race to at least get the ball out of play, allowing us to get bodies back.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Results wise we've had one bad game, one underachievement (Ipswich) and one that we arguably threw away having come from behind (Forest). Fab has still only lost ONE game in the time he's been here and we've scored plenty of goals (mostly).

Veltman, Van Hecke and Pedro are probably three of the players who most make a difference when they are out. There are signs that Ferdi could be great instead of Veltman but there but other signs that he is a utility player and therefore not quite the answer anywhere.

The worry is Weiffer. His passing isn't quite there yet.

 

[Machiavelli]

Which is?

Genuine question as currently
I can't work out what it is beyond the high line.

And it's my lack of understanding of what we're trying to do that is stopping me from getting fully on board the fab train.

If I knew what we were
trying to do I could see where we're
at and where we're improving.

Unfortunately all I'm seeing at the moment is players making basic mistakes - misplaced passes(more than I've got used to over the past 5 years), poor decisions and players running into the same space, sometimes into each other - as well as every game having lengthy periods where it descends into chaos, any semblance of shape or structure disintegrates and it looks like a schoolboy match.

Since Hughton joined we've been a team greater than the sum of its parts. Right now it feels like the opposite is true.

If it's a case of one step back to go two forwards then that's fine, I'd just like to know what 'the process' is and where we're headed.

Then I could relax.

As it is, there's just confusion in my head and at times it looks like there's more confusion in the players' heads.


And before any misconstrues this as a FH out post or bedwetting or anything along those lines, it isn't. I'm just confused as to our game plan and would love to know what it is.

I refer you to the post from @Guinness Boy for a wider perspective, although I'm not entirely convinced losing 4-2 to Chelsea is a bad result (there were concerns about the game plan).
The plan is to press high, play with intensity (probably the most used FH word) and squeeze the opposition. These are the most substantial changes from the plan under RDZ.

 

[jcdenton08]

When is that game all the people from his home town are coming over? They’re going to be sorely disappointed

 

[pigmanovich]

When is that game all the people from his home town are coming over? They’re going to be sorely disappointed

Wolves at home

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

I refer you to the post from @Guinness Boy for a wider perspective, although I'm not entirely convinced losing 4-2 to Chelsea is a bad result (there were concerns about the game plan).
The plan is to press high, play with intensity (probably the most used FH word) and squeeze the opposition. These are the most substantial changes from the plan under RDZ.

I understand the wider perspective, if the wider perspective is results, new players in a new league, new coach in a new league etc.

I am not anti FH or FH out or anything like that.

However in terms of the game plan - press high, squeeze the opposition and play with intensity is a very basic plan. Pressing high, squeezing the opposition are the reason for the high line. I understand that and it clearly needs work but it's the one part of the game plan that I do understand.

'Playing with intensity' by itself as a game plan is basically meaningless IMO. It's a slightly more eloquent way of saying work hard. It doesn't explain how we're going to play. What are our tactics on the ball?

At times we look really good but that's when we play a more controlled build up, similar to that of RDZ or Potter. At other times we look a shapeless mess and the game descends into players from both teams running at full pace from one box to the other. That's the chaotic schoolboy football that I mentioned in my earlier post. Is this a deliberate tactic? Is it a necessary issue while we transition form RDZ/Potter's style of football into FH's? Or is it something else? And why do the players seem to be in the same spaces as each other so often? Several times they're even running into each other.

My issue - and it's my issue rather than FH's or anyone else's - is that I just don't get what we're trying to do beyond the high line/press.

So far to my eyes it looks like we're at our best when we play in a similar style to Potter/RDZ and at our worst when the game descends into the running around shapeless chaos. Which makes it looks like the only thing that FH is adding is that chaos which makes us weaker than before. If I knew what the purpose of that was I could relax as I'd know what we're building towards.

I have huge faith in TB and PB and they have huge faith in FH so I'm sure it'll all come good sooner or later and the issues that I currently have will prove to be nothing but basic teething troubles. I just wish I knew what was going on so I could enjoy the games more!

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Which is?

Genuine question as currently
I can't work out what it is beyond the high line.

And it's my lack of understanding of what we're trying to do that is stopping me from getting fully on board the fab train.

If I knew what we were
trying to do I could see where we're
at and where we're improving.

Unfortunately all I'm seeing at the moment is players making basic mistakes - misplaced passes(more than I've got used to over the past 5 years), poor decisions and players running into the same space, sometimes into each other - as well as every game having lengthy periods where it descends into chaos, any semblance of shape or structure disintegrates and it looks like a schoolboy match.

Since Hughton joined we've been a team greater than the sum of its parts. Right now it feels like the opposite is true.

If it's a case of one step back to go two forwards then that's fine, I'd just like to know what 'the process' is and where we're headed.

Then I could relax.

As it is, there's just confusion in my head and at times it looks like there's more confusion in the players' heads.


And before any misconstrues this as a FH out post or bedwetting or anything along those lines, it isn't. I'm just confused as to our game plan and would love to know what it is.

I just replied to this on the Hurzeler tactics thread mate

 

[Machiavelli]

I understand the wider perspective, if the wider perspective is results, new players in a new league, new coach in a new league etc.

I am not anti FH or FH out or anything like that.

However in terms of the game plan - press high, squeeze the opposition and play with intensity is a very basic plan. Pressing high, squeezing the opposition are the reason for the high line. I understand that and it clearly needs work but it's the one part of the game plan that I do understand.

'Playing with intensity' by itself as a game plan is basically meaningless IMO. It's a slightly more eloquent way of saying work hard. It doesn't explain how we're going to play. What are our tactics on the ball?

At times we look really good but that's when we play a more controlled build up, similar to that of RDZ or Potter. At other times we look a shapeless mess and the game descends into players from both teams running at full pace from one box to the other. That's the chaotic schoolboy football that I mentioned in my earlier post. Is this a deliberate tactic? Is it a necessary issue while we transition form RDZ/Potter's style of football into FH's? Or is it something else? And why do the players seem to be in the same spaces as each other so often? Several times they're even running into each other.

My issue - and it's my issue rather than FH's or anyone else's - is that I just don't get what we're trying to do beyond the high line/press.

So far to my eyes it looks like we're at our best when we play in a similar style to Potter/RDZ and at our worst when the game descends into the running around shapeless chaos. Which makes it looks like the only thing that FH is adding is that chaos which makes us weaker than before. If I knew what the purpose of that was I could relax as I'd know what we're building towards.

I have huge faith in TB and PB and they have huge faith in FH so I'm sure it'll all come good sooner or later and the issues that I currently have will prove to be nothing but basic teething troubles. I just wish I knew what was going on so I could enjoy the games more!

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.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

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'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

 

[Flounce]

While the pair of you are too polite to say as much, you and @pigmanovich seem to be saying that @Justice is astoundingly wrong in his analysis.

I think he is still smarting from RDZ’s sacking personally