[Albion] Potter's Phenomenal Courage

[Jim in the West]

Great posts on this thread - not much to add, except:

Potter has revolutionised our approach. As we all know, we absolutely stank out the league in 18/19. Very few teams manage such a huge change in style in such a short period of time. It took Pep more than a season at Citeh, even with their billions. Look at Arteta struggling to change Arsenal. Palace brought in De Boer and chucked in the towel after 5 games! What happened to Stoke when they tried to change their style....?

It takes huge courage (in the footballing sense) to play open, attractive football when you have the budget of a bottom six club, in the toughest league in the world. Especially when you have an absolute army of pundits/journalists going on and on about how many chances we miss. The Premier League is a very public place to cock-up....it definitely requires some type of "bravery" (or courage) to keep faith with your principles.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Not sure that is always an 'intent' though, think players are often responsible for sitting on a lead, you can often see managers shouting till their blue in the face trying to get their team up the pitch - Arteta is great to watch in that regard. If we take going 1 up at Burnley, we still attacked after being 1 up, however after HT Burnley came out and we struggled to live with them. It can happen. Not sure it was tactical on our part, the opposition came at us and we struggled, can't always blame tactics for that. We sat in the Leeds game I bit I thought, but only after we had seemingly exhausted ourselves looking for a 2nd, we kept a threat in that game though. Did you have any particular games in mind where we took the lead but clearly and tactically sat on it, I suppose subs are often an indicator of that.

Leicester, as I said; definitely Burnley as you did, Southampton at home certainly, Villa away after both goals, Wolves after the early Connolly goal, I didn't watch West Ham so let others be the judge of that day, Blackpool in the cup as well if my memory is right. In all those games there was almost an inevitability about the equaliser.

We allow them to come at us, which is subtly different to a tactical change perhaps. For me the most obvious change that leads to that is our ball recovery in midfield. When we are level or behind and have possession, we drive forward and when we lose it we tend to recover posession very quickly, there are bodies there in midfield to recycle the ball. When we have possession when leading in a game, we drive forward as before, but with fewer bodies, and when we lose possession we aren't biting into their defenders or midfield to get it back, we drop off and fall into shape and allow them to build a posession-based attack. We have very few long-spells of possession when in front. Its part of the reason why our possession stats in victories are so low relative to other games - we let the opposition have the ball when we are leading.

You can understand why - why take the risk of leaving gaps - but we then lose something about our game. We are one of the VERY BEST in the entire league at regaining and recycling possession, it has become one of our core skills that leads to our high possession and chance creation stats. By forming more of a low block we lose this part of our game, and thus it removes something that makes Brighton stand out. It takes some of Bissouma, White and Gross' key skills out of the game. Yes we are good at the low block, particularly when we have Burn and Webster in the three, but its not something that is special about us, and we're vunerable to set-pieces or a strong run from midfield. It turns us from an excellent team into an average one.

Like I said, Saints away we seemed to do it differently, and Newcastle as well (although with the obvious caveat) - and of course teams who are behind come at you more - I just think that if we retained the press and ball-winning in midfield, with support for attackers, we would really destroy more aggressive teams on the break.

 

[Weststander]

Great posts on this thread - not much to add, except:

Potter has revolutionised our approach. As we all know, we absolutely stank out the league in 18/19. Very few teams manage such a huge change in style in such a short period of time. It took Pep more than a season at Citeh, even with their billions. Look at Arteta struggling to change Arsenal. Palace brought in De Boer and chucked in the towel after 5 games! What happened to Stoke when they tried to change their style....?

It takes huge courage (in the footballing sense) to play open, attractive football when you have the budget of a bottom six club, in the toughest league in the world. Especially when you have an absolute army of pundits/journalists going on and on about how many chances we miss. The Premier League is a very public place to cock-up....it definitely requires some type of "bravery" (or courage) to keep faith with your principles.

That's a 'get the popcorn out' comment.

I can hear the Hughton Defence League sharpening their keyboards.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Sanchez - out of the blue, 18 games and into the Spain national team.
Alzate - From Orient to 31 appearances and 4 for Colombia
White - ever present, hot property
Mac Allister - Eased into the Premier League and now one of our top players, 22 years old.
Moder & Zeqiri - watch this space

Not including Lamptey because he was quality before he got here.

Connolly probably is, and will never be, good enough...

Potter's done a phenomenal job in bringing those four players through - they're probably worth more than £100m all together.

He's also done a great job with Biss, who has come leaps and bounds under Potter, especially this season.

I think we need that statement on Connolly in your new signature. You know, so we can come back to it in the future

 

[vagabond]

That's a 'get the popcorn out' comment.

I can hear the Hughton Defence League sharpening their keyboards.

[emoji1787]

 

[vagabond]

I think we need that statement on Connolly in your new signature. You know, so we can come back to it in the future

Yep.. I can kind of understand it, but think some are writing off Connolly far too soon. It’s just based on goals, but he has way more to his game than that. He has a lot more potential to be realised yet. He does need to play though (how many games has he even started this season?).

 

[Swansman]

Depends on your definition of " courage" really? I think health are workers still working with Covid patients while having limited or faulty PPE was a tad more courageous. Or, our soldiers braving the horrors of Afghanistan for £20k a year is pretty courageous.
Not so courageous to play a certain way as a football team and get paid off a Million or so if it goes wrong.

Is Lewis Dunk a good defender, really? I think Russia, fending off quite a few invasions over their history, are better defenders. NATO is also quite strong and got a lot of bombs and weapons, they could defend against pretty much any threat, including Harry Kane.

Is Tariq Lamptey really that quick? I think F1 cars are a tad more quick. Hell, even some 100 m Olympic runners are quicker.

We could go on...

 

[vegster]

Is Lewis Dunk a good defender, really? I think Russia, fending off quite a few invasions over their history, are better defenders. NATO is also quite strong and got a lot of bombs and weapons, they could defend against pretty much any threat, including Harry Kane.

Is Tariq Lamptey really that quick? I think F1 cars are a tad more quick. Hell, even some 100 m Olympic runners are quicker.

We could go on...

You Swede's are supposed to be neutral aren't you ?

 

[Hampster Gull]

I’ve always said Potters got big gonads. I like him despite some things grating. The style of play of course is why he’s employed, if he became Dyche like with these results he’d be gone, as Hughton was. His record is no better despite a better squad but it has promise of better things.

 

[Swansman]

You Swede's are supposed to be neutral aren't you ?

I dont know about that. Me as an individual however is capable of understanding things in a context. When someone writes about GP having courage, I make the assumption that it is compared to other managers, not compared to people doing entirely different things in different areas. And when someone says Lewis Dunk is a good defender, I make the assumption that it is compared to other footballers playing as defenders and not with the Pentagon or M16 or the atmosphere protecting earth.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Leicester, as I said; definitely Burnley as you did, Southampton at home certainly, Villa away after both goals, Wolves after the early Connolly goal, I didn't watch West Ham so let others be the judge of that day, Blackpool in the cup as well if my memory is right. In all those games there was almost an inevitability about the equaliser.

We allow them to come at us, which is subtly different to a tactical change perhaps. For me the most obvious change that leads to that is our ball recovery in midfield. When we are level or behind and have possession, we drive forward and when we lose it we tend to recover posession very quickly, there are bodies there in midfield to recycle the ball. When we have possession when leading in a game, we drive forward as before, but with fewer bodies, and when we lose possession we aren't biting into their defenders or midfield to get it back, we drop off and fall into shape and allow them to build a posession-based attack. We have very few long-spells of possession when in front. Its part of the reason why our possession stats in victories are so low relative to other games - we let the opposition have the ball when we are leading.

You can understand why - why take the risk of leaving gaps - but we then lose something about our game. We are one of the VERY BEST in the entire league at regaining and recycling possession, it has become one of our core skills that leads to our high possession and chance creation stats. By forming more of a low block we lose this part of our game, and thus it removes something that makes Brighton stand out. It takes some of Bissouma, White and Gross' key skills out of the game. Yes we are good at the low block, particularly when we have Burn and Webster in the three, but its not something that is special about us, and we're vunerable to set-pieces or a strong run from midfield. It turns us from an excellent team into an average one.

Like I said, Saints away we seemed to do it differently, and Newcastle as well (although with the obvious caveat) - and of course teams who are behind come at you more - I just think that if we retained the press and ball-winning in midfield, with support for attackers, we would really destroy more aggressive teams on the break.

I still not sure it's tactical - the opposition of course react to going behind and naturally any caution they're taking is suddenly gone. There is a big difference between making a clear decision, and that dictated by the quality of the opposition. I mentioned Burnley not that we made a tactical decision to sit, that the opposition didn't allow us to attack - a big difference. Same at West Ham to be fair, I thought they were cautious against us, but once behind they started to play. You seem to be concluding we control all aspects of these matches, when of course the opposition can blow your best laid plans out of the water.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I was about to change it, but on second thoughts I don't want to be berating an Albion player with every post I make.

Maybe one of us will remember to bounce this.

My prediction is that he will never make it as a Premier League footballer, beyond the football he's getting now.

I reckon he might find his level as a decent Championship striker though... but there are things that have happened that make you wonder about his professionalism, and whether that is the reason he hasn't improved.

Obviously no-one is guaranteed to make it - but at his age the range of possibilities is very wide. I think he has all the attributes needed to be a success. My prediction is that he will end up a superstar.

 

[Hamilton]

Jesus wept, the stench of self-congratulation on this thread is so overwhelming that I am going to have to lie down for a couple of hours.

I'm just checking that we are still 16th in the league and not on the brink of claiming a place in Europe.

I wish the bloke all the best and want his team to do brilliantly, but for ****'s sake, rein it in. Let's get a few more points on the boards shall we?

 

[Swansman]

Obviously no-one is guaranteed to make it - but at his age the range of possibilities is very wide. I think he has all the attributes needed to be a success. My prediction is that he will end up a superstar.

I think so as well. Maybe not a superstar but a very capable PL striker. He is a rough diamond, lots of polishing required, but he got a nice strike on the ball, is a decent dribbler and got good technique. Most of his downsides are brain stuff, like decision making and finding the right spaces, things that should come naturally.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes I agree with the OP.
I think "bravery" is a word potter has used a lot since joining us.
Right from the beginning he spoke about the bravery needed from the players to play his way,and you could really see the conflict in the players minds in the early days.
I think potter has instilled that bravery in the players now,and leads by example in everything he does(team formation,player selection,choice of jacket,etc) which also rubs off on the players, especially the youngsters like Sanchez,moder,zequiri etc.
But also I think that courage and bravery comes from bloom as well.
In the same way lesser men than potter may have thought"ok,**** this .we need to start parking the bus now,forget everything I said ok guys,defend for your lives dammit!" ,Lesser men than Tony bloom would have sacked potter and we may well be in a far worse situation than we are now.
But bloom had the courage to believe in his choice of manager and the abilities of the manager.
I think that's the thing now at the club and potter has been a key part of that is everyone has bravery courage and belief in themselves and what they are doing,even at times when natural human instincts say otherwise.

Yeah, this!

It's easier to be brave, when you know your boss understands what you are trying to achieve and backs you all the way.
This filters down from Tony, all the way down to the youth teams.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I still not sure it's tactical - the opposition of course react to going behind and naturally any caution they're taking is suddenly gone. There is a big difference between making a clear decision, and that dictated by the quality of the opposition. I mentioned Burnley not that we made a tactical decision to sit, that the opposition didn't allow us to attack - a big difference. Same at West Ham to be fair, I thought they were cautious against us, but once behind they started to play. You seem to be concluding we control all aspects of these matches, when of course the opposition can blow your best laid plans out of the water.

Yeah, I get that, there are always two teams on the pitch. But I can't look beyond the conclusion that, if teams are able to stop us attacking, like Burnley - then why can none of these lower-half teams ever seem able to do it while the game is goalless? Why did Burnley let us completely dominate them for 130 minutes this season - but when we took the lead, they were suddenly capable of not allowing us to attack? This pattern is repeated over and over. You could say its an opposition tactic to nullify us, but it doesn't really work considering the huge volume of chances we create - teams get lucky playing that way against us.

Yes teams push forward more when behind, but why are they all so ridiculously passive when games are level? WBA away were perhaps the only one who took the game to us from the off, which they had to do in their league position, they attacked us as if they were behind and we perhaps defended as if a draw was fine... and the opening stages of that game played out like the later stages of many others...

So - I have to conclude this is in large part down to us - either we're deliberately changing our tactics when we want to hold what we have (what I think is happening), often to our detriment, or we don't respond well to teams attacking us with verve, and we need to sort our tactics out on these occasions.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Jesus wept, the stench of self-congratulation on this thread is so overwhelming that I am going to have to lie down for a couple of hours.

I'm just checking that we are still 16th in the league and not on the brink of claiming a place in Europe.

I wish the bloke all the best and want his team to do brilliantly, but for ****'s sake, rein it in. Let's get a few more points on the boards shall we?

Makes a nice change to the stench of self-flagellation that tends to pervade these boards when we haven't won two in a row, however much we check that we're still 16th or 17th in the league and not on the brink of relegation.

 

[stingray]

Great posts on this thread - not much to add, except:

As we all know, we absolutely stank out the league in 18/19. .

absurd take on a tough period. Hughton's team competed well and were relatively comfortable mid-season that year.

 

[Nameless]

I can only think of Swansea who were a lower half premier league side who played with the same courage and bravery and were successful and maybe Leeds this season. Most teams in our position rely on the dare I say boring park the bus and nick a goal approach and to be fair if you have the players it can be a successful method. Palace probably being the prime example at the moment under Hodgson, god awful to watch but steal results. The bridge to the top 6 is pretty much closed now and teams are playing different brands of football which is good for the league. But unfortunately still some horrid teams to watch.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

Yeah, I get that, there are always two teams on the pitch. But I can't look beyond the conclusion that, if teams are able to stop us attacking, like Burnley - then why can none of these lower-half teams ever seem able to do it while the game is goalless? Why did Burnley let us completely dominate them for 130 minutes this season - but when we took the lead, they were suddenly capable of not allowing us to attack? This pattern is repeated over and over. You could say its an opposition tactic to nullify us, but it doesn't really work considering the huge volume of chances we create - teams get lucky playing that way against us.

Yes teams push forward more when behind, but why are they all so ridiculously passive when games are level? WBA away were perhaps the only one who took the game to us from the off, which they had to do in their league position, they attacked us as if they were behind and we perhaps defended as if a draw was fine... and the opening stages of that game played out like the later stages of many others...

So - I have to conclude this is in large part down to us - either we're deliberately changing our tactics when we want to hold what we have (what I think is happening), often to our detriment, or we don't respond well to teams attacking us with verve, and we need to sort our tactics out on these occasions.

You're touching why I started the thread in the first place - because many managers are naturally cautious and risk averse. They start games not to go behind rather than to go ahead. In the case of Leicester at home, I don't think they intended to start cautiously, we outplayed them first half, but they really started to play second half, and we struggled to live with them. I'm not disagreeing with you that once you have something, it is a natural to want to hold it, what I guess we're discussing is whether it is definitively a tactic set from the sideline or prior to the game, or whether it is happening beyond our control with the players naturally wanting to hold what they have and the opposition taking more risks to get something out of the game.

I think there is a truth between us somewhere because GP has frequently talked about game management. I don't think that means sit and defend, or committing too many bodies forward, but does mean maintaining a threat. It reminds me of Han telling Chewy in Return of the Jedi not to fly too close to the star destroyer, but don't look like you're not trying to fly too close...