Tactics for Home Games?

[Snowball]

Away, our results under SC look top-six, if not top 2


2-2 (L) Brighton (First away game after the 6-1 drubbing at Birmingham under Adkins)
1-0 (C) Huddersfield Dull game, very nice Blackman goal)
1-2 (L) Fulham We played well, should have wrapped it up before late Fulham winner
2-1 (C) Cardiff 1-0 behind, Norwood equalised, HRK 88th minute winner
0-0 (L) Millwall. Well on top but couldn’t get clinching goal even against ten men
2-1 (L) Wolves Pog & Williams, did well to win after Wolves equalised
2-1 (C) Derby HRK goal and assist for The Yak’s VG goal
1-0 (L) Ipswich Mackie
0-3 (L) Huddersfield. Six players rested. All goals bad individual errors
1-1 (L) Bolton Late equaliser showed spirit
0-0 (C) Bradford Hard fought, good draw on terrible pitch


5 Wins
4 Draws
2 Defeats

12-11


The game at Huddersfield, no doubt with the FA Cup on his mind, looks like a mistake on SC’s part, and seriously damages those stats which otherwise are very impressive. A full side and a grotty 0-0 draw up there and we’d be 5-5-1

But overall, even with the 0-3 it’s hard to argue that our defensive-mindedness away from home isn’t the right way. Full marks to SC



But at home we seem to have a negative mind-set too and that means trying to get to HT 0-0 and then (maybe) having a bit of a go.

Can’t fault us away, but should SC go all-out at home, like the good old days?

Seems to me away sides have a fairly easy ride for 45-60 minutes, whereas in the old days, esp under Steve Coppell we battered teams, going all out for early goals.

I don’t mind if occasionally we get “picked off” by sides on the break, but I wish we’d say that at home we go all-out to win 3-0, even if that means a few games finishing 0-1

[Wycombe Royal]

I still don't think cup games can be included and taken those out and you are down to a 2-3-2 record which is a lot less impressive. Cup games have different lineups, different tactics, different atmospheres, etc....but again it is all about manipulating the stars to fit your point of view.

[Dr_Hfuhruhurr]

Did you know that not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 of those are cup games and so Im not sure how that translates to Top 2 form in the league.

Home games should be more expansive simply because a manager telling players to behave negatively suggests he doesnt have much confidence in them. I mean he might not do - why should he? - but they dont need to know that before a game.

[Snowball]

I am NOT "trying to score points for cup games"
but the totality of our ability to play well away
from home becomes very obvious when ALL
games are included (including the cups)

For one thing the sample size is increased.

Though it's POSSIBLE that teams are different (not noticeably, BTW)
I see very little evidence that our tactics have been different in the
whole 11 games. We play away, keeping it tight, solid, keeping shape,
and are much less adventurous for the first hour, committing fewer
players forward etc.

We are set up "not to get beaten" and if wins were only 2 points
like in the old days, I think SC would go for a 0-0 draw every time.

And ANYWAY, even 2-3-2 (one unlucky defeat and one where SC rested six players)
is very decent away LEAGUE form equalling an actual 9 points from 7 games

[Snowball]

Under SC

Home

LWDWLLL W2 D1 L4 7 Points from 7 = 1 ppg

Away (League Only) (2-3-2) 9 Points from 7 = 1.29

Just as a matter of interest that would equate to

23.00 Points Home
29.57 Points Away

in a 46-game season

Here are the home points per team, ATM

38 Derby
37 Boro
37 Ipswich
36 Watford
36 Brentford

33 BMTH
32 Norwich
32 Wolves
30 Bolton
29 Forest
29 Blackburn
29 Charlton

28 Leeds
27 Cardiff
27 Fulham
26 Birmingham
26 Huddersfield


24 Brighton
24 Rotherham
24 RFC
20 Wednesday
20 Millwall

16 Blackpool
13 Wigan

[SCIAG]

Leaving aside the stats which are a bit of a red herring, I think the issue is that our wingers play too narrowly. They don't get the ball as often as they should, and when they do, they don't have space to do anything. I appreciate that they're not Little and Convey and can't swing in a precise cross from right out there, but it gives them the chance to build momentum when they run at the defence.

Obviously when you play with a lone striker you need the wingers to be nearby in support, but when the ball is in the middle of the pitch I think they should spread. If the ball goes wide, the opposite winger can then tuck in.

I don't mind a defensive mindset, but unless you're playing for the draw (and we as supporters will only be happy with that against far superior opposition), you need to have a plan to score goals as well. Without getting our wingers involved in attacks, we're reliant on set pieces.

I think we miss Jobi more than anything tbh.

[Snowball]

Leaving aside the stats which are a bit of a red herring, I think the issue is that our wingers play too narrowly. They don't get the ball as often as they should, and when they do, they don't have space to do anything. I appreciate that they're not Little and Convey and can't swing in a precise cross from right out there, but it gives them the chance to build momentum when they run at the defence.

Obviously when you play with a lone striker you need the wingers to be nearby in support, but when the ball is in the middle of the pitch I think they should spread. If the ball goes wide, the opposite winger can then tuck in.

I don't mind a defensive mindset, but unless you're playing for the draw (and we as supporters will only be happy with that against far superior opposition), you need to have a plan to score goals as well. Without getting our wingers involved in attacks, we're reliant on set pieces.

I think we miss Jobi more than anything tbh.

The stats reveal the actuality, not guesswork

Can't argue with the rest of it, and yes, we miss Jobi.

I still can't understand the increasing invisibility of Hal Kanu

[SCIAG]

The stats reveal the actuality, not guesswork

You're comparing two samples of seven. Anyone who knows anything about stats will know that conclusions with those sample sizes are pretty dodgy. If we'd gained another point at home and dropped one away - let's say Mackie strikes a shot sweetly against Wigan instead of Bolton - then you'd be drawing a completely different set of conclusions.

I still can't understand the increasing invisibility of Hal Kanu

He's an impact player who we're suddenly relying on. He benefits from open matches with lots of space to exploit, not dealing with two banks of four.

[Ian Royal]

Cup games are a total red herring when talking about how you'd do in the league, even when played against opposition from the same division. Most cup games are about getting a result on the day, with no one wanting a draw. Obviously the likes of Cambridge vs Utd and Bradford vs Reading are an exception to this norm.

All the pressure is on getting that win and so teams will naturally play with different emphasis. This is relevant because in the league our number one problem is in breaking down stubborn defences from teams that are happy to take a draw and see if they can sneak in a winner. That's simply because our attack is weak. It's full of poor decision making, little support into the box and players who aren't good enough finishers / at providing a decent final ball. The players we do have who can be dynamite in attack are woefully out of form, like McCleary and HRK, who on his day is one of our best finishers.

This is demonstrated in our better away form, because at their home even more limited sides are drawn into playing more expansive and attacking football, giving us more space and opportunity to attack defences that aren't set. This is also why our record against the top 8 is better than the middle 8 who should be easier for us to beat.

Now we had less problem with the worse teams under Adkins, because he played a more open attacking style, so we scored more goals (Murray was a massive help here too). This also meant we were better at nicking in with that first goal, which would see oppo heads go down allowing us to put teams like Rotherham, Blackpool and Fulham to the sword. But it meant we were far more open defensively and conceded more goals, losing more games against mid-tier opposition.

Based on the current table, obviously form and position at the time we played them will have an effect, but that's a real ball ache to sort out.

Adkins
Top 8: P7, W3, D1, L3 = 1.4 ppg
Middle 8: P8, W0, D1, L7 = 0.1 ppg
Bottom 7: P6, W4, D2, L0 = 2.3 ppg

Clarke
Top 8: P5, W3, D1, L1 = 2 ppg
Middle 8: P4, W1, D0, L3 = 0.8 ppg
Bottom 7: P5, W0, D3, L2 = 0.4 ppg

I don't see how we can afford to play more cavalier at home, except against the worst teams, because we simply don't have the strike force to take advantage and score goals. We'll leave ourselves more open and get more duff results from sucker punches.

It's quite worrying actually that Clarke has such a poor record against the teams below and around us. Because those are the teams we need to be taking points off. Not those at the top we aren't competing with. Unfortunately, the only top teams left for us to play now, apart from Watford, are all ones who have demonstrated they've easily got the beating of us.

[yappy]

I do think our home performances are slightly to do with confidence. The problem is of course that at home we need to try and break teams down and I think there are a few reasons we're struggling with this:

1. Some of our midfielders are clearly decent passers. Norwood & Chalobah we've both seen they can pass a ball, however Norwood seems a shadow of the player we first signed at present. Chalobah too shows promise but is a little inconsistent. Those two on form I think have the ability to break teams down in this division.

2. Lack of width. This is particularly true on the left, but I think it's important to have Gmac on the right as he's the only player really who is confident to take players on. HRK on the left is clearly being instructed to cut inside, but I think we would really benefit from an out and out winger on the left too.

3. Lack of goalscorers. Pog has never been prolific, Cox is off form and our midfield really haven't chipped in as many as you'd hope. If you look at some of our home games under Clarke we've created plenty of chances, but either we haven't had players in the right places or someone has fluffed their chance. Personally think we'd benefit from a pacey striker who tries to get in behind too. We've been slightly blessed with likes of Long and Forster over the years who could fashion their own chances out of nothing, but same can't really be said for our current strikers.

[Snowball]

Clarke
Top 8: P5, W3, D1, L1 = 2 ppg
Middle 8: P4, W1, D0, L3 = 0.8 ppg
Bottom 7: P5, W0, D3, L2 = 0.4 ppg



It's quite worrying actually that Clarke has such a poor record against the teams below and around us. Because those are the teams we need to be taking points off. Not those at the top we aren't competing with. Unfortunately, the only top teams left for us to play now, apart from Watford, are all ones who have demonstrated they've easily got the beating of us.

You have, of course noted that our last 11 games only involve playing Rotherham/Blackpool away and Brighton (H) from the bottom few

So we have managed 2 ppg against top 8

H Brentford
H Bournemouth
A Derby
A Watford

That's 8 POINTS (as if) (Hard to see more than 4 points, may easily be less)

and .8 ppg against the middle 8?

H Blackburn
H Birmingham
H Charlton
H Cardiff

and 3.2 Points (I fancy at least 6 points from these)

and ,4 ppg against the bottom 8?

H Brighton
A Rotherham
A Blackpool

and 1.2 Points ( I fancy 7)

12.4 points. That'll do nicely

Of course WLL against Brighton, Rotherham and Blackpool and we are 2 points ahead of the game

[Snowball]

The stats reveal the actuality, not guesswork

You're comparing two samples of seven. Anyone who knows anything about stats will know that conclusions with those sample sizes are pretty dodgy. If we'd gained another point at home and dropped one away - let's say Mackie strikes a shot sweetly against Wigan instead of Bolton - then you'd be drawing a completely different set of conclusions.

I still can't understand the increasing invisibility of Hal Kanu

He's an impact player who we're suddenly relying on. He benefits from open matches with lots of space to exploit, not dealing with two banks of four.

I know all about sample size, hence I included the cup games to thicken the stats up

but only a total numpty can argue that our away form and home form are remotely equivalent.

Clarke is (probably) too defensive-minded, good away but not so good at home.

[kwik-silva]

I know all about sample size, hence I included the cup games to thicken the stats up

But you're packing it with, arguably, irrelevant statistics.

[Snowball]

I know all about sample size, hence I included the cup games to thicken the stats up

But you're packing it with, arguably, irrelevant statistics.

I don't think they are irrelevant, as explained

Every away game has been approached in the same way

[Platypuss]

Every away game has been approached in the same way

But maybe not by the opposition.

[Snowball]

Every away game has been approached in the same way

But maybe not by the opposition.

There's that word, "maybe".


The fact is you have no idea.

[Hoop Blah]

And how do you know how we've approached our away games snowball?

[Snowball]

And how do you know how we've approached our away games snowball?

By

(a) Watching them, noting the lack of adventure

(b) Listening to SC himself who talks of being hard to beat, not of winning

(c) Listening to WBA fans who predicted his methods of playing


Are you seriously saying that any average fan can't see the differences in set-up
and attitude, between, say, Coppell's teams at home, Adkin's, teams and SC's teams?

[Hoop Blah]

Obviously different style to other managers yes, but how can you know if we went into the Fulham and Millwall games with the same approach as we did Huddesfield, especially when we've played different formations and selections in specific games.

[Snowball]

Obviously different style to other managers yes, but how can you know if we went into the Fulham and Millwall games with the same approach as we did Huddesfield, especially when we've played different formations and selections in specific games.

But what does "obviously different style" MEAN?

It means we can infer a certain method just by watching.


For example, for the last few season's Wenger's Arsenal have been too gung-ho,
trying to attack all the time, and had some horrendous defeats. That appeared
to be what Wenger wanted, until (if reports are to be believed) player-power said
"enough" and Arsenal went to Man City, surrendered the ball, forced Man C wide
and dealt comfortably with their attacks.

A three-quarters blind donkey could see the difference in tactics, and since then
Arsenal's premiership win record has been excellent.