Carlos Flexibility - How we got back in it - Tactical Review

[Lord Snooty]

 

The way I saw it.

A diamond. In the first half at least.

Ironically seeing as we usually play a flat 4-4-2 that would have matched them up, tonight our first half Diamond caused us some problems as it narrowed our play even more than usual!

McGeady was having a lot of space to get into in wide areas, though for my money didn't look any better than when he was here.

 

We were very rigid and though we had the ball in central areas, we didn't dominate it as we would have liked because our movement wasn't up to scratch.

 

Abdi looked a yard off the pace, sadly. Bannan and Wallace were having to do a lot of shuttling to get out wide and close down.

As I said, it's ironic as usually when teams come and outnumber us in midfield they are having to tuck in...this time they were having to run out!

Second half Fletcher came on for the ineffectual Abdi. Some game time under his belt at least for old Almen, and his lack of match legs might perhaps go someway to proving to the conspiracy theorists that the injuries he's had are genuine and not made up by evil Carlos for no explainable reason. Anyway.I digress...

 

The obvious adapting to this change would be that Fletcher went to centre forward and Hooper would take up Abdis place at the tip of the diamond.

Simples... except........by accident or design (and I'm going to give Carlos credit)  it worked ever so slightly differently and ended up more 4-3-3.

 

 

Fletcher nominally playing down the middle with Winnall (and later Rhodes) as a centre forward but.. with a natural strikers instinct Hooper was playing more advanced than Abdi had done in the first period and Fletcher didn’t stay down the middle. Rather he kept coming out wide left.

 

This caused Sunderland all sorts of problems. 

Firstly it stretched the Black Cats back-line width ways, and stoped any advancement of Sunderlands full backs, who were now being instructed to pick up the wide runs of Wednesdays strikers by their centre halves who didn't want to get pulled out themselves and leave the central areas free.

 

Secondly, when Winnall did the same on the other side it made Hooper the nominal centre forward. 

But with him always adopting a slightly deeper starting position , it made it hard for their centre halves to know whether to come out or stay put.  As comes naturally, and not wanting to leave any side on gaps to the diagonal ball they dropped off him and tried to stay as a tight pair.

They also didn't want to run the risk of pushing higher up than their fullbacks (who were pinned in by Fletcher and Winnall)  and being caught by a ball in behind them.

This resulted in a deeper and deeper line and invited Wednesday on.  Which Wednesday were only too glad to do! 

 

Thirdly, and in many ways most importantly, the working of the channels by our strikers rather than staying central allowed our full backs to have someone to link with directly rather than the wide open spaces they had faced in the first half.

No one took advantage of this more that Reach, who with Fletcher to find down the line, was looking for him at will and then making his own powerful surges PAST him  for the return (or a second ball from Bannan after a Fletcher lay off into midfield)

 

The link between Bannan, Reach and Fletcher was superb. The only slight downside was that it meant Fletcher wasn't in the box as much as I'd have liked to have seen.

Ironically it was a role which would have suited Fernando down to the ground as the left of a 3 pronged attack. Being a centre forward, but having licence to go wide and find space (and create space for others) without having to track back as he does when played wide in a 4.

 

Anyway...another ten minutes and I do firmly believe that Wednesday would have won it.

 

I genuinely hope this is a tactical turning point for us and is a sign of a greater flexibility from the manager and  fluidity from the players to come.

Mojo back? Who knows.

Now we just need to start a game like we finished this one

[shireowl]

Well thought out post ....

[Orlando_Trustful]

The only problem is we don't start games like that. So many times last season we started slowly and it cost us, especially at home. Only Newcastle and a handful OF other games did we really start with that mentality. With our personnel we should be going for teams from the off and not letting them settle, again especially at home. 

[Frank_Lucas]

Got half way and fell asleep a cracking post upto this point though 

[pgmetcalf]

Not so much as how we got back in it, I thought we matched them all match and perhaps should have nicked it in the end. If it wasn't for the Westwood horror show early on, when he came for 3 or 4 balls he shouldn't have, the result could have been better. I wish he'd stop trying to spin the ball when he hoofs it out of his hands too

[slinger208b]

2 hours ago, Orlando_Trustful said:

The only problem is we don't start games like that. So many times last season we started slowly and it cost us, especially at home. Only Newcastle and a handful OF other games did we really start with that mentality. With our personnel we should be going for teams from the off and not letting them settle, again especially at home. 

 

It was probably effective because we don't start like that and it's not the default approach. If it was the opposition would counter it.

 

It's not as simple as "that worked well, let's adopt that as standard"

 

You only mention the slow starts costing because you don't like it.

What about all the times it worked? Probably more than it didn't.

 

You can't just look back and say it didn't work on that game we should be playing this way because that would undo the positive results...

[soulj.owl]

Great post.

 

I'd still like to see us at least once with a 3 at the back. The new lad from Portugal is familiar with the system, drop him right of Lees, Pudil/Loovens to the left. Let reach/hunt/fox/palmer push up the wings and force teams back.

 

Hutch/jones protecting back four.

 

Bannan roaming.

 

Hooper every game linking with 2 from rhodes/winnal/fletcher.

 

First time poster so please be kind.

[full fathom five]

Great post

 

It's no coincidence that we have looked a far better team against noth QPR and Sunderland when we have played a 4,3,3 system with Hooper playing behind a front two.

 

[WatfordOwl]

I thought we were good (not perfect) 2nd half with the changes made.

 

The crowd responded in kind and on another night we'd have won the game.

 

I get that we don't want to have lost the game in the 1st half but the difference between the 2 performances was so clear last night that it cannot go on being ignored by CC.

 

We'll get to a time where there won't be enough points on the board and we have to set up a little more dynamically from the off. 

 

The crazy part of all of this for me is that CC knows how our players can perform but just seems to want to constantly shackle the team by adopting a defensive stance for half of the game - his team may end up being managed by someone who does give them that licence and being more successful, which would be a shame.

[Bassetts Allsorts]

Good post and this passmap echos what you've said - I've become obsessed with these things! (Give @11tegen11 a follow on Twitter.)

 

[moralturpitude]

Reach had some joy down the left early on in the first half until Grayson detailed someone to track him better, and was then stifled pretty much until the substitutions had the effect exactly as described.  At times in the latter stages we were almost playing three at the back with Reach so advanced and Pudil naturally moving over.

[Blatter]

8 hours ago, Lord Snooty said:

 

The way I saw it.

A diamond. In the first half at least.

Ironically seeing as we usually play a flat 4-4-2 that would have matched them up, tonight our first half Diamond caused us some problems as it narrowed our play even more than usual!

McGeady was having a lot of space to get into in wide areas, though for my money didn't look any better than when he was here.

 

We were very rigid and though we had the ball in central areas, we didn't dominate it as we would have liked because our movement wasn't up to scratch.

 

Abdi looked a yard off the pace, sadly. Bannan and Wallace were having to do a lot of shuttling to get out wide and close down.

As I said, it's ironic as usually when teams come and outnumber us in midfield they are having to tuck in...this time they were having to run out!

Second half Fletcher came on for the ineffectual Abdi. Some game time under his belt at least for old Almen, and his lack of match legs might perhaps go someway to proving to the conspiracy theorists that the injuries he's had are genuine and not made up by evil Carlos for no explainable reason. Anyway.I digress...

 

The obvious adapting to this change would be that Fletcher went to centre forward and Hooper would take up Abdis place at the tip of the diamond.

Simples... except........by accident or design (and I'm going to give Carlos credit)  it worked ever so slightly differently and ended up more 4-3-3.

 

 

Fletcher nominally playing down the middle with Winnall (and later Rhodes) as a centre forward but.. with a natural strikers instinct Hooper was playing more advanced than Abdi had done in the first period and Fletcher didn’t stay down the middle. Rather he kept coming out wide left.

 

This caused Sunderland all sorts of problems. 

Firstly it stretched the Black Cats back-line width ways, and stoped any advancement of Sunderlands full backs, who were now being instructed to pick up the wide runs of Wednesdays strikers by their centre halves who didn't want to get pulled out themselves and leave the central areas free.

 

Secondly, when Winnall did the same on the other side it made Hooper the nominal centre forward. 

But with him always adopting a slightly deeper starting position , it made it hard for their centre halves to know whether to come out or stay put.  As comes naturally, and not wanting to leave any side on gaps to the diagonal ball they dropped off him and tried to stay as a tight pair.

They also didn't want to run the risk of pushing higher up than their fullbacks (who were pinned in by Fletcher and Winnall)  and being caught by a ball in behind them.

This resulted in a deeper and deeper line and invited Wednesday on.  Which Wednesday were only too glad to do! 

 

Thirdly, and in many ways most importantly, the working of the channels by our strikers rather than staying central allowed our full backs to have someone to link with directly rather than the wide open spaces they had faced in the first half.

No one took advantage of this more that Reach, who with Fletcher to find down the line, was looking for him at will and then making his own powerful surges PAST him  for the return (or a second ball from Bannan after a Fletcher lay off into midfield)

 

The link between Bannan, Reach and Fletcher was superb. The only slight downside was that it meant Fletcher wasn't in the box as much as I'd have liked to have seen.

Ironically it was a role which would have suited Fernando down to the ground as the left of a 3 pronged attack. Being a centre forward, but having licence to go wide and find space (and create space for others) without having to track back as he does when played wide in a 4.

 

Anyway...another ten minutes and I do firmly believe that Wednesday would have won it.

 

I genuinely hope this is a tactical turning point for us and is a sign of a greater flexibility from the manager and  fluidity from the players to come.

Mojo back? Who knows.

Now we just need to start a game like we finished this one

Snooty, do you really believe we normally play a flat 4-4-2?

Otherwise I agree with your analysis, which does rather disprove the insistence by many that Carlos is tactically inadequate.

[IstillhateSteveBould]

Great post Snoots.

 

433 with key players back in = great chance of promotion.

 

442 = Boring football and no chance

[Guest samowl]

Surely one obvious change would have been. Boyd for the ineffectual Wallace and hit them down both flanks 

[Lord Snooty]

10 minutes ago, Blatter said:

Snooty, do you really believe we normally play a flat 4-4-2?

Otherwise I agree with your analysis, which does rather disprove the insistence by many that Carlos is tactically inadequate.

 

Not entirely flat of course. I use that phrase to make the distinction between what we normally do and the diamond which puts players in different zones and lines than what we normally do.

 

To be honest,  what we normally do at times looks  6-2-2 when we have midfield players in the central areas a yard in front of the centre backs and the wingers tucking in when we lose it!  (6-2-1-1 when Hooper plays )

 

Yes it becomes a 4-4-2 when we get the ball and the players open the play. Not flat of course because we always have a central ,midfield player holding back. But as a name for the understandable starting block. Yes. I'd say 4-4-2.

[Lord Snooty]

5 minutes ago, samowl said:

Surely one obvious change would have been. Boyd for the ineffectual Wallace and hit them down both flanks 

 

If The medical team hadn't been on to put Hunt back together 3 times I do believe Boyd would have been the third change and got a run out for Ross.

 

But it became evident that they would keep a sub in store should Hunt find it too much. Which he e eventually did.

[TrueOwl]

I hope you're right and we go for it from the kick off from now on and revert to type when we're firmly ahead to close out the game as had we done that we'd have won. From a game management pov surely it makes sense to replace flagging attackers with defenders not the reverse.

Edited August 17, 2017 by TrueOwl

[Flat Owl]

Proper football forum post Snoots.

 

Great work.

 

[NI22A22A-owl]

Great post. Been talking about this a lot with people. It's a shame we don't start like this, go out and really put in work for the first 20-30 minutes, grab a couple of goals, and then change shape, to keep those goals. It's sad that we have to wait until we are behind to do so. 

[Lord Snooty]

10 minutes ago, NI22A22A-owl said:

Great post. Been talking about this a lot with people. It's a shame we don't start like this, go out and really put in work for the first 20-30 minutes, grab a couple of goals, and then change shape, to keep those goals. It's sad that we have to wait until we are behind to do so. 

 

To be fair, with Hunt going down with not even a minute on the clock and them scoring whilst he was sidelined everyone was caught cold. I thought it was quite even first half. 

 

It's an oddity of the game though that sometimes going behind does force the issue.  I am wary of defending leads early. 

England Germany the kaiser etc etc.

England under Erikkson too . .nothing worse than England scoring first and early as you knew 75 minutes of painful defensive play was coming and that we'd inevitably buckle. 

And the problem when that happens is it very hard to change mindset and go out attacking again. 

 

I think we'd have beat Sunderland with 1 more minutes to get at them. Grayson was looking pretty frantic down on the touchline.