[Albion] Jesse Marsch…what a ******

[tronnogull]

I really dislike his histrionics which look contrived. But, grudgingly, I think he talks a lot of sense in this interview. He goes into some depth in talking about tactics and what went wrong . Actually says a lot of things that GP might say in the same situation but in more depth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8vyDVZ8gLU

 

[jcdenton08]

His tactical approach may have been questionable last season, but I loved Bielsa at Leeds. Cracking football, and never a complaint (whether that be injuries or referees). He also obviously set down similar rules for his players to follow - they just got on with stuff and rarely seemed to complain. That’s all changed now with Marsch. Back to Dirty Leeds. In a way, it’s better like this - we can all go back to hating them without the quandary of respecting their manager.

I also really liked Bielsa. Seems a genuinely good guy.

Marsch, however, doesn’t.

 

[Sheebo]

He said this after - I’m no tactical expert but I couldn’t disagree more with what he saw of the game:

‘Asked how Albion made life tough, he said: “They very clearly man-mark.

“Then with the ball they almost just played long and gave us the ball because they wanted to bypass our pressing, which is part of the match plan that we wanted to build.

“When you play against man-marking, if you give them time to get into their schemes, then it’s always difficult unless you’re really sharp with combinations and movements in behind to break them down.”

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Although we’re evidently not a long ball team, I’d say we’re ‘going long’ far more than we ever have done previously under Potter. Welbeck gives us that option.

 

[LamieRobertson]

He said this after - I’m no tactical expert but I couldn’t disagree more with what he saw of the game:

‘Asked how Albion made life tough, he said: “They very clearly man-mark.

“Then with the ball they almost just played long and gave us the ball because they wanted to bypass our pressing, which is part of the match plan that we wanted to build.

“When you play against man-marking, if you give them time to get into their schemes, then it’s always difficult unless you’re really sharp with combinations and movements in behind to break them down.”

Pffft

 

[Sheebo]

Although we’re evidently not a long ball team, I’d say we’re ‘going long’ far more than we ever have done previously under Potter. Welbeck gives us that option.

Agree with that but we mix it up still. They tried to play from the back and failed every time first half. We didn’t when we did it. We’re certainly using the diagonal switch to great affect too. The man marking bit is odd and not what I think we do at all. His comments also say we were going long almost every time, which we didn’t. And don’t get me started on giving them the ball as a tactic because we were essentially scared of their press… just doesn’t add up to what I saw!

 

[beorhthelm]

dont understand why holding the ball, pinging around the defense and exposing to press and error is held in such high esteam. sure building from the back is positive, getting the ball forward quickly is always the best option shirley? doesnt mean its "long ball". seen a few goals conceded recently by teams pissing about at the back, like some article of faith.

 

[BN41Albion]

Whenever people kept mentioning Aaronson and Adams, all I could think of was that scene at the start of Ferris Bueller's Day Off when the teacher with the really dull voice started taking the register.

Bueller

Bueller

Bueller

Bueller

 

[Weststander]

Agree with that but we mix it up still. They tried to play from the back and failed every time first half. We didn’t when we did it. We’re certainly using the diagonal switch to great affect too. The man marking bit is odd and not what I think we do at all. His comments also say we were going long almost every time, which we didn’t. And don’t get me started on giving them the ball as a tactic because we were essentially scared of their press… just doesn’t add up to what I saw!

I don’t think we particularly man mark eg Caicedo and MacA interchange, Veltman covers for March and vice versa. Although Dunk did a great job on Callum Wilson recently and Estupiñán on Dan James.

Potter’s shown great tactical flexibility and his game evolves. The first year or two involved, on repeat, Maty Ryan to Dunk and a.n.other CB, we were more predictable and teams pressed. Now we mix it up, but we’re light years away from a Pulis team, it’s all via wonderful passing.

Marsch consumed too many sour grapes.

 

[Triggaaar]

His tactical approach may have been questionable last season, but I loved Bielsa at Leeds.

Questionable tactics, by the greatest manager to ever walk the earth - that can't be right?

 

[Triggaaar]

Whenever people kept mentioning Aaronson and Adams, all I could think of was that scene at the start of Ferris Bueller's Day Off when the teacher with the really dull voice started taking the register.

Odd class that - like 6 surnames with A (starting with Adams I think), then Bueller and Fry. I may have watched it a lot. They're making a sequel, but it's not what one would expect.

 

[HP Seagull]

For a bloke who was so interested in the rules and Tuchel not being allowed in the dugout for their game last week, he spent half of Saturday’s game halfway down the touch line talking to his players, as if their technical area didn’t exist. I kept waiting for the fourth official to sort it out.

I think that’s the worst show of petulance and histrionics I’ve seen from an opposition manager since Dyche, and I don’t say that lightly!

 

[Guinness Boy]

Although we’re evidently not a long ball team, I’d say we’re ‘going long’ far more than we ever have done previously under Potter. Welbeck gives us that option.

There's a difference between "long ball" and "direct". Long ball is what Wimbledon's Crazy Gang played and Burnley often resorted to. Direct is forwards or good diagonal out balls. Like you say a focal point is needed for this and we did it well in the Championship with Murray being the "9" and Knocky the out ball from Bruno or Dunk. You also need a direct thinking midfielder. Vicente is the best I've ever seen at it but Caicedo is also relentlessly positive.

It does seem that a lot of our frustrating short possession may have been down to the less strong Maupay and needing him to create space rather than receive the ball and play it on.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

There's a difference between "long ball" and "direct". Long ball is what Wimbledon's Crazy Gang played and Burnley often resorted to. Direct is forwards or good diagonal out balls. Like you say a focal point is needed for this and we did it well in the Championship with Murray being the "9" and Knocky the out ball from Bruno or Dunk. You also need a direct thinking midfielder. Vicente is the best I've ever seen at it but Caicedo is also relentlessly positive.

It does seem that a lot of our frustrating short possession may have been down to the less strong Maupay and needing him to create space rather than receive the ball and play it on.

If you want to beat a team who press high, you need to stretch them or bypass them. Its what Man Utd did to Liverpool.

The game plan was to create space, overload and use it as usual. What seems to differ is where and how we create it.
Against Leeds we looked to overload them, particularly on the left side which created a lot of opportunities on the right when the ball was moved quickly.
The particular approach changes according to the threat and opportunity. This season we targetted the left hand side. I think this was mainly to force Harrison to work hard to defend his left side (our right) but Leeds RB was a bit suspect too.




Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

 

[Bodian]

“Then with the ball they almost just played long and gave us the ball because they wanted to bypass our pressing, which is part of the match plan that we wanted to build.

By 'long' is he meaning 'accurate pin-point passing to players some distance away'? Don't recall us hoofing the ball up to them very often.

 

[Acker79]

I did think Sanchez played it long (and not always in a pin point accurate way) more than usual. Though, frustratingly, not often when we had a good chance of catching their defence out of position. But there was a nice mix of playing it from the back, too.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I know it's a bit of a generalisation, but Americans tend to be very quick to lose their temper, don't they?

 

[faoileán]

I know it's a bit of a generalisation, but Americans tend to be very quick to lose their temper, don't they?

Errrr... well it's not just a generalisation, it's probably also inaccurate...

 

[Swansman]

I know it's a bit of a generalisation, but Americans tend to be very quick to lose their temper, don't they?

Dunno. They like fake. They like to be fake nice, fake friendly and I wouldn't be surprised if they get fake angry as well.

Probably was thinking "lets act angry about the ref and generally 'look passionate' so that the fans will forget and ignore our shortcomings."

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

He said this after - I’m no tactical expert but I couldn’t disagree more with what he saw of the game:

‘Asked how Albion made life tough, he said: “They very clearly man-mark.

“Then with the ball they almost just played long and gave us the ball because they wanted to bypass our pressing, which is part of the match plan that we wanted to build.

“When you play against man-marking, if you give them time to get into their schemes, then it’s always difficult unless you’re really sharp with combinations and movements in behind to break them down.”

That's palpably nonsense. However, I doubt he's sharing his actual analysis - he's playing to his audience: the fams, the board and his next employers.

Or, he just doesn't know what's going on and isn't in the same league as Potter.