[Albion] The high line is great

[Han Solo]

The "problem with the high line" has been mentioned a lot.

The core of this "problem", bit like the "problem of fannying around at the back" that emerged five years ago, is that Fabian Hurzeler is a brave coach and football fans are anxious cowards. But its time to accept it.

People have been going on and on about "you can't play like that unless you have Van der Ven in defense!!!", as if it exists a central defender who can turn around, accelerate his run and catch up with whatever sprinter that made his run behind the defense line.

Can we put to bed that the magical paranormal solution to the made up problem isn't to sign some sort of Martian cheetah?

The high line and offside trap is here to stay. Just like in most of the previous games, it worked excellent yesterday and the opponents were allowed no more than the "normal" amount of chances that will likely happen regardless of how you play.

There was nothing "naive" about the first half yesterday, that wasn't the cause of the issues; the cause was being as cowardly as us watching it. "Oh no, a Tottenham player is pressuring me, I need to hoof it randomly into the stands or to their defenders". "Oh no, they're doing those runs again, I don't trust our trap gonna run home and cover the goal". Lazy, cowardly, useless.

Second half, at least until 3-2, we pushed our "naive high line" higher, took more risk in "fannying about at the back" and ran past their allegedly invincible super quick back line through sheer determination and willpower.

I hope there won't be TOO much of the "we only concede goals in football matches due to high defense line" over the season. Teams like Wolves that have 48 players inside their own box also concede goals. In fact, everyone does. So at the end of the season, lets just wait and see what the "Conceded goals" column has to say about the success of our "naive high defense line" compared to lets say the "best football I've ever seen", which was the narrative last season.

 

[BadFish]

I am a fan of the high line. Football should be about excitement, bollocks to pragmatism, let's just score more than them.

This is not to say we shouldn't work on the defensive just accept that making us more attacking may mean we let on a few more.

Hurrah!!

 

[dwayne]

As long as we can mix it up I like the risk/reward. We can't play it the whole game Vs city, arse or pool though.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

We were nearly a goal down in the first 30 seconds FFS

 

[Han Solo]

We were nearly a goal down in the first 30 seconds FFS

And that has never happened with a low defense line?

 

[Hamilton]

I don't think it is just the high line. It's coaching the players to use the high line. And that doesn't mean using it all the time.

There's no coincidence between the change that Fab made at half time and the change in performance. I like Ferdi, but it felt like he was playing in multiple positions down the flank yesterday. As a result, I felt Hinshelwood's first half was shocking as he had no idea where Ferdi was. It's why they had so much freedom down that side.

With Pervis on, we were still playing a higher line but with a more defensively minded player. I actually thought Pervis had one of his best games for us so far this season.

I wonder what might have happened had Webster not been injured. Igor is - IMHO a tad faster than Adam. Playing a high line with Lewis and Webster is always going to give me heart attacks.

In the second half, we played a higher line because our midfield turned up and we were able to link the front 4 with Baleba and Hinshelwood much more.

The high line, like fannying around at the back, will get criticism if it's not being used correctly. Just MHO.

 

[beorhthelm]

so the problem with the high line is players aren't comfortable with it, get rushed, make mistakes.

apart from that it's fine.

 

[jcdenton08]

Some interesting points (let it never be said despite our differences that I don’t respect your football input in the main).

I know it’s stating the obvious, but it feels like imposing a system on players who aren’t suited to it.

I remember Jimmy Case as manager MK II, when we were absolutely dogshit with a load of cloggers, trying to coach his players to bring the ball down. This translated to hilarious attempts to chest the ball down at head height, instead of the usual head tennis. It… didn’t go well because he didn’t have good enough players to do it.

Usually when playing a high line, your keeper acts as a sweeper. The problem is we are so high that the ball is dropping midway through our half, so too far out for the keeper to cover.

This essentially means a foot race between our back four and elite level forwards who are much quicker than, say, Dunk, Igor, Veltman and Ferdi.

We need much more pace to play this system as it is, in my view.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The "problem with the high line" has been mentioned a lot.

The core of this "problem", bit like the "problem of fannying around at the back" that emerged five years ago, is that Fabian Hurzeler is a brave coach and football fans are anxious cowards. But its time to accept it.

People have been going on and on about "you can't play like that unless you have Van der Ven in defense!!!", as if it exists a central defender who can turn around, accelerate his run and catch up with whatever sprinter that made his run behind the defense line.

Can we put to bed that the magical paranormal solution to the made up problem isn't to sign some sort of Martian cheetah?

The high line and offside trap is here to stay. Just like in most of the previous games, it worked excellent yesterday and the opponents were allowed no more than the "normal" amount of chances that will likely happen regardless of how you play.

There was nothing "naive" about the first half yesterday, that wasn't the cause of the issues; the cause was being as cowardly as us watching it. "Oh no, a Tottenham player is pressuring me, I need to hoof it randomly into the stands or to their defenders". "Oh no, they're doing those runs again, I don't trust our trap gonna run home and cover the goal". Lazy, cowardly, useless.

Second half, at least until 3-2, we pushed our "naive high line" higher, took more risk in "fannying about at the back" and ran past their allegedly invincible super quick back line through sheer determination and willpower.

I hope there won't be TOO much of the "we only concede goals in football matches due to high defense line" over the season. Teams like Wolves that have 48 players inside their own box also concede goals. In fact, everyone does. So at the end of the season, lets just wait and see what the "Conceded goals" column has to say about the success of our "naive high defense line" compared to lets say the "best football I've ever seen", which was the narrative last season.

Yep. Nailed it.

As the manager said after the game, the half time talk was about ensuring the players did what was required, better.

And to flip it around, the only times we have conceded this season as far as I recall is when the high line was caught out. This means that the typical old slicing-us-apart goals that would befall us previously seem to have been stymied.

Funny old game.

 

[Littlemo]

I don’t think the high line is costing us goals,
It’s not the issue in that respect.

I think Chelsea illustrated it better but even when it’s working fine and offside works, it’s shit watching the other team outsprint us and score constantly - even if the goals subsequently don’t count.

 

[Weststander]

MOTD2 ... first half coverage was a nightmare, the second half ecstacy. Having the insurance of speed merchants such as Estupinan worked a treat, plus we noticeably cut off danger at source. Pressing the hell out of them when they looked to get the counter under way.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Except it's not a high line we are playing. It's a high press with the whole team pushing forward and trying to win the ball in the opponent's half.

When people talk about 'high line' it's as if the defence can be moved forward or backwards, regardless of what else is happening with the rest of the team. And we were then treated to 20 mins of deep, deep block from the whole team at the end of last night after 70 mins of high press.

 

[Coldwaltham Seagull]

You've developed a habit of posting sensible opinions of late and I'm not sure how I feel about it....

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A week ago or so I was critical. I now understand what we’re trying to do. I’m on board. As I said in another post, it’s a red-herring.

 

[Bold Seagull]

MOTD2 ... first half coverage was a nightmare, the second half ecstacy. Having the insurance of speed merchants such as Estupinan worked a treat, plus we noticeably cut off danger at source. Pressing the hell out of them when they looked to get the counter under way.

They also came out looking like they'd been in a steam room for 15mins drinking pints of Aperol Spritz....

 

[jcdenton08]

You've developed a habit of posting sensible opinions of late and I'm not sure how I feel about it....

Give it a few days

 

[Han Solo]

Some interesting points (let it never be said despite our differences that I don’t respect your football input in the main).

I know it’s stating the obvious, but it feels like imposing a system on players who aren’t suited to it.

I remember Jimmy Case as manager MK II, when we were absolutely dogshit with a load of cloggers, trying to coach his players to bring the ball down. This translated to hilarious attempts to chest the ball down at head height, instead of the usual head tennis. It… didn’t go well because he didn’t have good enough players to do it.

Usually when playing a high line, your keeper acts as a sweeper. The problem is we are so high that the ball is dropping midway through our half, so too far out for the keeper to cover.

This essentially means a foot race between our back four and elite level forwards who are much quicker than, say, Dunk, Igor, Veltman and Ferdi.

We need much more pace to play this system as it is, in my view.

I think our players are very much suited to this system, just not used to it. We have brainy defenders, not powerful ones. Giving the opponent 3 opportunities from failed offside traps will fit us better than allowing 20 situations like these happening every game:

 

[Weststander]

They also came out looking like they'd been in a steam room for 15mins drinking pints of Aperol Spritz....

I've just remembered something .... the Spurs pre second half team huddle. That worked well .

 

[jcdenton08]

I think our players are very much suited to this system, just not used to it. We have brainy defenders, not powerful ones. Giving the opponent 3 opportunities from failed offside traps will fit us better than allowing 20 situations like these happening every game:

View attachment 189945

The issue being that those three opportunities in this last game should’ve been three goals, and all from the first half - and against Chelsea were consistently punished.

I get the idea, I just worry that we don’t have the pace to execute it.

 

[Freddo]

I don't see it as an on or off, high line or deep block set up. Against Chelsea the line was literally on the half-way line, which gives us no room for error at all. Against Spurs it seemed we dropped back 3-5 yards, which was still a high line but not to the extremes of Chelsea (A).
And agree with those that have said that our poor performance in the first half yesterday was nothing to do with the high line.