[Albion] To those questioning our tactics

[Cadiz Seagull]

Allow me to translate, I speak a bit of Croydon.

Did Hughton react to their sub? No.
At half time? No
When they scored their first goal? No.
2nd goal? No.
When losing 3-2? Yeah, ok then. I had better react now.
Ignore my ramblings I’m clueless!!

 

[Kneon Light]

For me there was no, significant tactical change in the middle of this season, what CH did was move Gross deeper in m/f and allow Propper to attack more, yet again a case of just changing the players round.The change in wingers was a forced change and to be frank Propper should have been in the role he's got now at the beginning of the season, if not last season..

No significant tactical change? Move from 4-4-1-1 to 4-3-3 has led to a very different style of play (7 away goals before Jan, 8 in Jan since the change)

Isn't changing the players round exactly what a tactical change is??

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Throughout this season i’ve constantly read comments from people slating Chris Hughton’s tactics suggesting that when we go in front we sit back and defend to try and protect a lead, which frequently costs us. The debacle of last night has to be a new low point for this season and I’m now fed up reading these same comments about Hughton’s tactics. There is absolutely no way he is instructing his team to sit back and defend and I wish people would wake up and recognise the real problem.

In simple terms, our big weakness this season, which shines through in our away form is that we are simply not good enough at retaining possession and protecting the ball. Last night this was more blatantly obvious than ever. We take 2 glorious chances and go into a 2-0 lead but at half time I never felt comfortable and that was because we still conceded far too much possession to Fulham in the first half. This continued in the second and their early goal gave them them the lift they needed. If you give opposing teams the ball so cheaply and allow them to dominate possession like Fulham did last night then naturally any team is going to create a lot of goal scoring opportunities. When this happens it forces us back and we find ourselves defending for our lives and all too often we find ourselves singing the praises of Ryan, Dunk and Duffy because they have been outstanding at putting their bodies on the line to protect our goal - but last night was the straw that broke the camels back and even they caved in. We didn’t change our tactics to sit back and defend - we were pegged back because we failed to keep the ball long enough and allowed Fulham to dominate possession. This has been the theme in the many away games I’ve been to and it’s even been apparent in home games too (West Ham & Wolves immediately spring to mind where we cling on to a 1-0 lead).

Most notably in away games we seem to frequently lack composure on the ball, it’s almost as if we get a bit overawed and we panic at times and give the ball away far too easily. This is why our away form is so poor. We end up being dominated by the opposition for large periods of the game and they create a lot of chances as a result. When we go in front in a game this is usually because we’ve taken a good opportunity to score but this can often mask the fact that we’ve still not been great in keeping possession and when we find ourselves under the cosh people think we’ve sat back.

So people need to stop suggesting this is a tactical approach - CH has a far bigger job on his hands trying to coach our team to be better in possession, learn how to keep the ball and take the sting out of the game when needed. Sometimes we can appear lazy when I see a player in possession and he has very few options to make a pass because there is so little movement from more than one player trying to make themselves available to receive the ball, and other times you see a forward make a great run and yet the player on the ball fails to spot an early pass and then gets caught in possession.

In short, we do not sit back and defend a lead, we invite pressure on ourselves because we can’t retain possession for long enough.

Rant over - I feel better now !

If indeed this is true, then it’s a damning indictment of CH and the rest of the management team.

Personally I think a lot of the issues are structural (although I’m not basing this on Fulham as I wasn’t there). The lack of movement from forward players and the lack of an out ball in attack is often down to tactical drilling or selections - both of these are down to CH. For example, during much of the last two seasons, we’ve sat with two very clear banks of 4 in front of our goalkeeper, and we’ve sat those 8 players very deep. This means that we allow the opposition on to us very easily and we encourage pressure, making it easier for them to turn over possession. It also means that our wide midfield players, and central midfielders often have a lot of yards to make up just to find a little bit of space to be that out ball.

Little tactical changes can be made to give us clearer outballs however. And giving yourself a clearer out ball has knock-on effects - primarily that the opposition can’t pressure you as high up the pitch if they’re worried about the space in behind them, which opens up more space in midfield to then retain possession in crucial moments. But CH hasn’t, until the recent change to 433/451, been comfortably enough to do that as he’s preferred to sit us deeper and protect leads rather than pushing pacier players high and wide to confuse the opposition and press them back.

So I actually disagree. I think a lot of it is tactical, albeit not based on Fulham; if it isn’t tactical though, then you have to be questioning what he’s doing on the training ground and what we’re doing with our money that’s meant we’ve not been out there buying players who can keep a football at Premier League level. Either way, the argument is a tad damning in that light.

 

[BBassic]

No significant tactical change? Move from 4-4-1-1 to 4-3-3 has led to a very different style of play (7 away goals before Jan, 8 in Jan since the change)

Isn't changing the players round exactly what a tactical change is??

This is me talking from a Football Manager viewpoint but I tend to think of the tactic or system or whatever being the style of play with the formation just being the positioning of the players ie - the players can line up in any number of formations but they'll play in adherence to a system within that formation.

 

[Kneon Light]

This is me talking from a Football Manager viewpoint but I tend to think of the tactic or system or whatever being the style of play with the formation just being the positioning of the players ie - the players can line up in any number of formations but they'll play in adherence to a system within that formation.

Whatever you call it it has certainly changed in the new year. We look like scoring (and conceding) more than before.

 

[twickers]

Firstly, keeping it in perspective this was the week, as there always is in January, where the teams that need to fight really fight and the teams that think they are going to pick up the points get hit with the complacency stick. Ours wasn't the only game this happened. I wasn't happy with talk of picking up 6 points against Fulham and Watford then being almost safe.

Secondly, there are some hard truths about the players on the night who were executing the tactics. Knockaert seems to either be fuelled by emotion to drive him to perform, or missing in action. Locadia...for all his industry, hasn't shown he can read the game either and respond accordingly. The captain needs to read the game as well and communicate...who on the pitch was seeing the Fulham threat and course correcting?

Bong, and I mention him reluctantly with the all the Bong bashing, did get double manned as a potential weakness by Fulham and they succeeded to the point that when Bong had possession he looked uncomfortable. It was pretty clear, but it wasn't clear that anyone was going to give him an alternative plan, cover or options to get him out of that mire.

It contrasts horribly with Murrary's excellent touches to score, Solly getting the cross well timed and accurate and Montoya using the channel and also pulling off a pin point cross.

Before the inquisition into the tactics, some of the players need a closer look first and a few of them not only fell short in the second half, but perhaps we have seen their best and it's not enough to keep them beyond the summer.

 

[West Upper Seagull]

I have not been to sufficient away games for too much weight to be given to my comment - but part of the problem I notice is the lack of movement. To retain possession players need a teammate to pass to and ours seem rarely on the move. Not just forward - although our wingers do not often invite the ball over the top - but just in space away from opposition players. Poyet talked about having to be brave in possession - and he was right. But you do need passing options.

I completely agree and was suggesting in my post that our players off the ball look lazy at times because as you rightly say, there is often very little movement to give the player on the ball options.

 

[APACHE]

No significant tactical change? Move from 4-4-1-1 to 4-3-3 has led to a very different style of play (7 away goals before Jan, 8 in Jan since the change)

Isn't changing the players round exactly what a tactical change is??

So the change of tactics that you talk about has got us what? 2 out of 12 points in the league. I still say the only change is Gross deeper and Propper allowed to push forward. The slower player is now playing further from Murray and Propper is in a more forward role. It is not 4-3-3. We are flooding the m/f with 5 instead of 4 because our m/f is so slow.

 

[Kneon Light]

So the change of tactics that you talk about has got us what? 2 out of 12 points in the league. I still say the only change is Gross deeper and Propper allowed to push forward. The slower player is now playing further from Murray and Propper is in a more forward role. It is not 4-3-3. We are flooding the m/f with 5 instead of 4 because our m/f is so slow.

We have played Liverpool and Man Utd during this time so hardly fair to look at points total from 4 games.
Gross deeper and Propper further forward IS a change yet you started by saying there had been no tactical change.
Whether you like the change or not the facts are that we are now scoring more away - something lots of fans were calling for.
We have had a poor 45 minutes and all of a sudden half our fans are going into meltdown - it's pathetic.

 

[drew]

Didn't the change in tactics coincide with Stephen's ban so that he was forced to play either Bissouma or Kayal?

 

[Icy Gull]

Let’s look on the bright side the games recently have been much more entertaining!

 

[Machiavelli]

Didn't the change in tactics coincide with Stephen's ban so that he was forced to play either Bissouma or Kayal?

First game I really noticed it was Bournemouth (when Stephens was available), and Propper played the deeper role.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Tactics? What is this mumbo jumbo of which you speak?

 

[twickers]

We have played Liverpool and Man Utd during this time so hardly fair to look at points total from 4 games.
Gross deeper and Propper further forward IS a change yet you started by saying there had been no tactical change.
Whether you like the change or not the facts are that we are now scoring more away - something lots of fans were calling for.
We have had a poor 45 minutes and all of a sudden half our fans are going into meltdown - it's pathetic.

Yes, I'd add that the tactics against the top teams, whilst they didn't bring us 3 points, brought us very close and much closer than many other teams in the PM. I just don't think tactics is a problem area.

 

[Kneon Light]

Yes, I'd add that the tactics against the top teams, whilst they didn't bring us 3 points, brought us very close and much closer than many other teams in the PM. I just don't think tactics is a problem area.

Agreed (and they did bring 4 points vs Everton and Arsenal)

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I completely agree and was suggesting in my post that our players off the ball look lazy at times because as you rightly say, there is often very little movement to give the player on the ball options.

But you have to ask what kind of movement you want (or CH wants). Do you want vertical or horizontal movement? And what happens if you make that movement, say horizontally to widen the pitch, and the pass isn’t good enough? The ball gets turned over and suddenly the team is a defender down...

I’ve seen enough of us under CH to know that, at Premier League level at least, he’s asking the players to play the percentages which means picking safer passes and making very specific runs within a tactical system that mean we aren’t exposed.

Also, is it really lazy not running 50 yards vertically to make space at every opportunity? Because that’s often what’s been required of our wide men in CHs system... if you compare that with a lot of other teams, their wide men are making runs that are half or a quarter of that distance because they’re simply positioned higher up the pitch. That makes it much easier to a) be in space and b) make clever movements to utilise space effectively. But again, that systemic, not down to laziness.

 

[Lifelong Supporter]

CH is an excellent coach. He is conservative and needs to be, given who we have in our squad compared to the opposition. He gets the most from what we have got. It may not be pretty but has been very much effective so far. I really doubt if ANYBODY would have achieved much more. At PL level we have one good goal scorer in our team and he is 35 years of age. Adone contributes well and will score a few but not enough.

 

[murciagull]

Without making excuses could the second half poor performance also be due partly to us playing only 3 days before, whereas Fulham had a 9 day break between games.

 

[Bwian]

The attitude of SOME of our fans baffles me.
At the start of the season many fans were accusing Chris Hughton of being too negative and defensive. Many at this time were saying they wished we would go for games more and be more attacking even if it did mean we conceded more goals as it would be more entertaining. This is now exactly what we are doing.
Before Jan 1 we scored just 7 away goals.
Hughton changed tactics significantly and it has led to us being more of an attacking threat (We scored 8 away goals in January alone!!) yet fans are still saying he is too negative and that he is using the "same old tactics". Yes we are now letting in more goals but as stated above a lot of fans were saying they would prefer higher scoring games even if we lost. I just don't get what some of our fans have against probably the best manager we have ever had.
We do need to find a balance between attack and defence and I don't think we are necessarily there yet but accusing him f using the "same negative tactics" is just pathetic and lazy.

What about the tendancy to gradually start dropping back after we've scored 1 or 2 goals until everybody is packed into the 35 yards from the goal line? We end up lumping the ball out and it comes straight back at us and inevitably ends up with us conceding goals.That is coming from somewhere and seems to be a constant of Hughton's game plans. Maybe he needs different coaches? They were with him at Norwich and their fans were saying similar things.

 

[BLOCK F]

Without making excuses could the second half poor performance also be due partly to us playing only 3 days before, whereas Fulham had a 9 day break between games.

That really is just an excuse!