Parker, tactics and the board

kirsikka

kirsikka

UTC Legend
A lot has been said since yesterday, and not much of it kind. I have a slightly different perspective.

There's talk that Parker should have learnt from his Fulham experience how to play the top six. Strange then that Howe was still desperately looking for a method in his fourth and fifth seasons. Who could forget (sadly it's burned in my memory) the match v Man City when he tried to go ultra defensive and we became the first team in PL history not to have an attempt on goal in a home game? Sure, he also tried attacking the top six in some games and we got some good (incredible, even) results, but the poor results were so poor he still carried on searching for another method. And never found one.

Yesterday's first half was terrible. There's no denying that. However, it was the poor concentration at the start that made it so bad. Setting up like that we had a clear agenda. Keep it tight, keep them out, frustrate them and then try and pounce on their mistakes when they start getting a little desperate. A bit like the attempt against Man City last week.

With a game plan like that you can often split the first half into three distinct segments. The first 15-20 minutes when the opposition are out all guns blazing and you have the absorb all the pressure and hold them off. A slightly less frenetic 20ish minutes when you might actually break out of your half on occasion. Then the final minutes before half time when they'll likely be another big push from the opposition. It requires total concentration the whole time during these spells, and confidence in the system will grow as you transition from one stage to the next without conceding. Get to half time at 0-0 and doubts can start to creep in for the other team.

In both matches the game plan was in tatters before the first segment was over because we'd conceded.

It isn't pretty and when it goes wrong,as it has both weeks, it looks terrible and like we aren't even trying. Let's not pretend that we don't understand what it is we were trying to do though. If we'd held them off it would have been a 'heroic' 45 minutes. Instead the assessment from the pundits was 'you rarely see a gulf of class this large between two sides in the PL'. Again missing the point that we had no interest in trying to match them so would always look like a team from a lower league. Much like Howe's v Man City that time.

Parker has shown he isn't afraid to try and switch the tactics around and that flexibility bodes well as, if we have any hope this season, it won't be the matches against the likely top three that decide it. However, he may well have learnt yesterday that in the PL if he wants to sit deep and defend a position, Pearson alongside Lerma isn't as effective as L Cook alongside one of them. Better to pick up that information in yesterdays match than in a game we might have earmarked as potential points.

There was very little to enjoy about yesterday, but there are short memories for those that are surprised about having days like that in the PL. Parker is desperately looking for a way to nullify these teams and it's gone badly. It will likely go badly again next week. Big deal.

31st August. Home v Wolves.

3rd September. Away v Forest.

Those are when it starts to matter. If he sets up with Pearson and Lerma and 5 at the back in those two matches then I'll be worried. I don't think he will though. I think we'll look a very different team for those two games.

There's definitely an undercurrent of suspicion around Parker but I'm not going to damn him on games v Man City or Arsenal. I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in ten days time. That's when we can actually start judging his PL approach.

I'll also say I hope the board don't panic in the next ten days. Investing off the field was (I hope) the priority this season. If it means we go down, then so be it. Who gives a **************** what the PL pundits think about that approach? I'm interested in the long term prospects of AFCB, not making their tv spectacle better as they annoint one of their chosen clubs.

I think we'll have plenty of games that are a tough watch this season. As long as it's accompanied by good business decisions I'm alright with that.
 
Fundamental issue for me is the lack of width attacking when we have three centre halves. When we switched smith immediately started to combine with tavernier and likewise Anthony with JZ. Wingback role should suit JZ rather than smith but neither attack enough imho.

Defensively the back 5 worked against Villa as we were compact but arsenal are several tiers above Villa combined with Senesi still adjusting to the prem.

I think the focus on back 5 coincides with a tough opening run of games so hope that a more attacking style helped by Dom’s availability returns from wolves home.

If Scott want to persevere with the formation then the other option is tavernier left wingback and fredericks right wingback with rothwell in the middle.
 
dragonm8 said:
You got a tracksuit fetish?
Click to expand...

I assume @Old Cherry was involved with this Amiga game back in the 80's...
1661078954127.png

(looks a bit like Roy Hodgson actually, impressive they envisaged how he'd look 30 years on...)

Now I think about it, you can choose your style/clothes in Football Manager games. I'll have to check if you get some kind of boost/advantage wearing different outfits Perhaps opting for a tracksuit improves your players determination/work rate attributes.
 
MB1980 said:
I assume @Old Cherry was involved with this Amiga game back in the 80's...
View attachment 8503

(looks a bit like Roy Hodgson actually, impressive they envisaged how he'd look 30 years on...)

Now I think about it, you can choose your style/clothes in Football Manager games. I'll have to check if you get some kind of boost/advantage wearing different outfits Perhaps opting for a tracksuit improves your players determination/work rate attributes.
Click to expand...

I thought that was Mark Lamarr circa 2040.
 
kirsikka said:
A lot has been said since yesterday, and not much of it kind. I have a slightly different perspective.

There's talk that Parker should have learnt from his Fulham experience how to play the top six. Strange then that Howe was still desperately looking for a method in his fourth and fifth seasons. Who could forget (sadly it's burned in my memory) the match v Man City when he tried to go ultra defensive and we became the first team in PL history not to have an attempt on goal in a home game? Sure, he also tried attacking the top six in some games and we got some good (incredible, even) results, but the poor results were so poor he still carried on searching for another method. And never found one.

Yesterday's first half was terrible. There's no denying that. However, it was the poor concentration at the start that made it so bad. Setting up like that we had a clear agenda. Keep it tight, keep them out, frustrate them and then try and pounce on their mistakes when they start getting a little desperate. A bit like the attempt against Man City last week.

With a game plan like that you can often split the first half into three distinct segments. The first 15-20 minutes when the opposition are out all guns blazing and you have the absorb all the pressure and hold them off. A slightly less frenetic 20ish minutes when you might actually break out of your half on occasion. Then the final minutes before half time when they'll likely be another big push from the opposition. It requires total concentration the whole time during these spells, and confidence in the system will grow as you transition from one stage to the next without conceding. Get to half time at 0-0 and doubts can start to creep in for the other team.

In both matches the game plan was in tatters before the first segment was over because we'd conceded.

It isn't pretty and when it goes wrong,as it has both weeks, it looks terrible and like we aren't even trying. Let's not pretend that we don't understand what it is we were trying to do though. If we'd held them off it would have been a 'heroic' 45 minutes. Instead the assessment from the pundits was 'you rarely see a gulf of class this large between two sides in the PL'. Again missing the point that we had no interest in trying to match them so would always look like a team from a lower league. Much like Howe's v Man City that time.

Parker has shown he isn't afraid to try and switch the tactics around and that flexibility bodes well as, if we have any hope this season, it won't be the matches against the likely top three that decide it. However, he may well have learnt yesterday that in the PL if he wants to sit deep and defend a position, Pearson alongside Lerma isn't as effective as L Cook alongside one of them. Better to pick up that information in yesterdays match than in a game we might have earmarked as potential points.

There was very little to enjoy about yesterday, but there are short memories for those that are surprised about having days like that in the PL. Parker is desperately looking for a way to nullify these teams and it's gone badly. It will likely go badly again next week. Big deal.

31st August. Home v Wolves.

3rd September. Away v Forest.

Those are when it starts to matter. If he sets up with Pearson and Lerma and 5 at the back in those two matches then I'll be worried. I don't think he will though. I think we'll look a very different team for those two games.

There's definitely an undercurrent of suspicion around Parker but I'm not going to damn him on games v Man City or Arsenal. I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in ten days time. That's when we can actually start judging his PL approach.

I'll also say I hope the board don't panic in the next ten days. Investing off the field was (I hope) the priority this season. If it means we go down, then so be it. Who gives a **************** what the PL pundits think about that approach? I'm interested in the long term prospects of AFCB, not making their tv spectacle better as they annoint one of their chosen clubs.

I think we'll have plenty of games that are a tough watch this season. As long as it's accompanied by good business decisions I'm alright with that.
Click to expand...

Seeing's as it's clear from your insightful post that you pay attention to detail, just out of interest, when you compare us with successful teams with three at the back + wing backs, what are we missing when we play that formation? I've been trying to work it out but am struggling. I think it's more than just our wing backs not getting forward enough. What do Tottenham do, for instance when they play the formation well?
 
Sleepy Cherry said:
Seeing's as it's clear from your insightful post that you pay attention to detail, just out of interest, when you compare us with successful teams with three at the back + wing backs, what are we missing when we play that formation? I've been trying to work it out but am struggling. I think it's more than just our wing backs not getting forward enough. What do Tottenham do, for instance when they play the formation well?
Click to expand...

With Spurs, pacy direct wingers who will run behind (Son, Moura, Kulusevski) coupled with a player such as Kane that will drop deep and play incisive through balls helps massively. Yesterday 2 of our front 3 had very little pace (Moore,Billing).
If you look at one of our most successful performances playing the formation, 3-0 away at Chelsea, we had a front 3 of Ibe, Wilson, Stanislas with Fraser at Wing Back, much more pace.
 
sjhafcb said:
With Spurs, pacy direct wingers who will run behind (Son, Moura, Kulusevski) coupled with a player such as Kane that will drop deep and play incisive through balls helps massively. Yesterday 2 of our front 3 had very little pace (Moore,Billing).
If you look at one of our most successful performances playing the formation, 3-0 away at Chelsea, we had a front 3 of Ibe, Wilson, Stanislas with Fraser at Wing Back, much more pace.
Click to expand...
Also, deep lying playmakers such as Hojberg who are able to play accurate over the top balls to run onto helps- something not in the skill set of Lerma/Pearson- for me who need a L Cook in a mf2 who can play those types of balls.
 
Sleepy Cherry said:
Seeing's as it's clear from your insightful post that you pay attention to detail, just out of interest, when you compare us with successful teams with three at the back + wing backs, what are we missing when we play that formation? I've been trying to work it out but am struggling. I think it's more than just our wing backs not getting forward enough. What do Tottenham do, for instance when they play the formation well?
Click to expand...
So so many things that we didn’t do yesterday.

•they push the wing backs high when in possession and the centre backs spread, the wider centre backs will be so wide that they occupy the full back areas when in possession. Yesterday our wing backs were in the full back position.

•they have central midfielders who are comfortable at receiving the ball on the half turn and progressing the ball through the thirds, yesterday we started the game with two purely defensive midfielders who are not particularly comfortable on the ball.

•they have pace and movement in the forward areas, players who are willing to stretch an opposition defence by running in behind. Kane will often drop deep and act as a midfield playmaker whereas Son and their right sided forward will start wide and then constantly make diagonal runs into the central areas, Kane has the vision and passing ability to feed them more often than not. We had Moore dropping deep to link play yesterday but nobody making runs beyond him, Billing and Tav were both very deep in their positioning and not posing any threat to the opposition back line. In fairness I think this system was set up to accommodate two mobile forwards and one advanced attacker in behind them (more like the Forest variation of the system than the Tottenham one.) This was effective to an extent vs Villa but the absence of Solanke meant that Moore was our only viable forward option and the whole thing fell apart.

•if we’re going to play three at the back it has to be with two strikers really because we don’t really have wide forwards with the pace or the natural inclination to make those diagonal runs that the Tottenham forwards do. Without some kind of direct pressure on the opposition back line it becomes all too easy to defend against.
 
kirsikka said:
A lot has been said since yesterday, and not much of it kind. I have a slightly different perspective.

There's talk that Parker should have learnt from his Fulham experience how to play the top six. Strange then that Howe was still desperately looking for a method in his fourth and fifth seasons. Who could forget (sadly it's burned in my memory) the match v Man City when he tried to go ultra defensive and we became the first team in PL history not to have an attempt on goal in a home game? Sure, he also tried attacking the top six in some games and we got some good (incredible, even) results, but the poor results were so poor he still carried on searching for another method. And never found one.

Yesterday's first half was terrible. There's no denying that. However, it was the poor concentration at the start that made it so bad. Setting up like that we had a clear agenda. Keep it tight, keep them out, frustrate them and then try and pounce on their mistakes when they start getting a little desperate. A bit like the attempt against Man City last week.

With a game plan like that you can often split the first half into three distinct segments. The first 15-20 minutes when the opposition are out all guns blazing and you have the absorb all the pressure and hold them off. A slightly less frenetic 20ish minutes when you might actually break out of your half on occasion. Then the final minutes before half time when they'll likely be another big push from the opposition. It requires total concentration the whole time during these spells, and confidence in the system will grow as you transition from one stage to the next without conceding. Get to half time at 0-0 and doubts can start to creep in for the other team.

In both matches the game plan was in tatters before the first segment was over because we'd conceded.

It isn't pretty and when it goes wrong,as it has both weeks, it looks terrible and like we aren't even trying. Let's not pretend that we don't understand what it is we were trying to do though. If we'd held them off it would have been a 'heroic' 45 minutes. Instead the assessment from the pundits was 'you rarely see a gulf of class this large between two sides in the PL'. Again missing the point that we had no interest in trying to match them so would always look like a team from a lower league. Much like Howe's v Man City that time.

Parker has shown he isn't afraid to try and switch the tactics around and that flexibility bodes well as, if we have any hope this season, it won't be the matches against the likely top three that decide it. However, he may well have learnt yesterday that in the PL if he wants to sit deep and defend a position, Pearson alongside Lerma isn't as effective as L Cook alongside one of them. Better to pick up that information in yesterdays match than in a game we might have earmarked as potential points.

There was very little to enjoy about yesterday, but there are short memories for those that are surprised about having days like that in the PL. Parker is desperately looking for a way to nullify these teams and it's gone badly. It will likely go badly again next week. Big deal.

31st August. Home v Wolves.

3rd September. Away v Forest.

Those are when it starts to matter. If he sets up with Pearson and Lerma and 5 at the back in those two matches then I'll be worried. I don't think he will though. I think we'll look a very different team for those two games.

There's definitely an undercurrent of suspicion around Parker but I'm not going to damn him on games v Man City or Arsenal. I'm looking forward to seeing what he does in ten days time. That's when we can actually start judging his PL approach.

I'll also say I hope the board don't panic in the next ten days. Investing off the field was (I hope) the priority this season. If it means we go down, then so be it. Who gives a **************** what the PL pundits think about that approach? I'm interested in the long term prospects of AFCB, not making their tv spectacle better as they annoint one of their chosen clubs.

I think we'll have plenty of games that are a tough watch this season. As long as it's accompanied by good business decisions I'm alright with that.
Click to expand...
As someone that made the comment, it wasn’t against the top six that I’d hoped Parker had learnt, it’s against every team. Fulham bored their home fans into submission the year they went down scoring 9 goals at the Cottage all year. Mitrovic benched because he is no use on the break.

We set up with the same formation and lack of possession v Villa and I will be amazed if we see four at the back at home to Wolves.

To me the bigger concern is the lack of flexibility or overall board and manager combined strategy. He had three centre backs he trusted to start in the championship last season and lost two of them. If ever there was a time for either a) the board to make bringing in centre backs for pre season training the priority it was this summer. Senessi (who we trust is decent) showed yesterday the difficulty of adjusting to this league. Our flagship signing and he isn’t ready four games in. Or b) for Parker to realise that the time to move to a system with three centre half’s isn’t the time where you have just one you like. It can wait… lack of strategic though and lack of flexibility.

Five at the back works when it’s really three at the back as Conte plays it. It can work as a five in a much duller context, Pulis was probably the best proponent of this if you concede possession, play for set pieces and long throws and have an excellently schooled defence of top defenders. This may sound familiar as you read it out apart from the excellently schooled top defenders which sadly is the crucial bit.


Someone once suggested Pulis on here when it was all going a bit wrong for Eddie. Quite rightly this board went up with hilarity. Yesterday you watched Pulis football for the third game in a row…. I’m not sure some people have clicked on to this yet.

I don’t believe any manager would look at the squad we have and think that packing your team with defenders was the option. Parker is working to how he thinks a team should tackle the PL rather than what he has as his best options

You don’t need to spend like Forest and never have a training ground. You can breed players with excellent recruitment and and sell on value. Brighton and Brentford the best proponents of this. That should be our aspiration, then you can improve your facilities and wealth by staying in the big league. We don’t have the experience or talent at the top of our club for this though or in recruitment. We have someone’s son in law and someone’s mate appointed with a tap on the shoulder. They saw what Parker did at Fulham and still paid compensation for him which freed Fulham (who were waiting incredulously for us to do this) to go and get Silva. The man we should have gone for who was available free. 1.5m a year to make these decisions. Good work if you can get it.
 
Sleepy Cherry said:
Seeing's as it's clear from your insightful post that you pay attention to detail, just out of interest, when you compare us with successful teams with three at the back + wing backs, what are we missing when we play that formation? I've been trying to work it out but am struggling. I think it's more than just our wing backs not getting forward enough. What do Tottenham do, for instance when they play the formation well?
Click to expand...

As others have said, it's as much about personel as anything. The skill set of the players we are using stymies attempts to go forward in this formation. If you could swap, for example, Pearson for peak Harry Arter then you've got a player buzzing around doing defensive duty but also busting a gut to get forward.

Attacks in this situation are a bit like an effective press. A complete failure if one of two players try and do it on their own. It has to be a group effort working at pace like a well oiled machine. You can let a full back attack up if someone is covering him, but the other players need to join him. Ideally you would have two players in the wide position, an over/underlap for the player on the ball and three players trying to find space in the middle or on the other side. And it all needs to happen like lightning.

The ball would be hit to Moore and he'd tried and chest or head it into someone's path. Even if they managed to pick it up, they were then completely isolated as there was too much caution/not enough pace. Choose your poison from them.

Even when we changed formation it was still problematic. There was one point in the second half when the ball came to Smith on the right. The angle wasn't great but the full back had been pulled out of position (maybe by a run) so he had clear space to get a cross in. He looked up and there were 4/5 Spurs players in the box and Moore. And no other AFCB player barreling forward to get in there with him.

As has been mentioned, L Cook can offer that on the ball ability to take in on the turn and look for a pass but there needs to be more commitment to make runs in numbers (and players that can do that). Every time Tavernier or similar cut back because there was no option I knew the move was likely over.

The challenge was, when we did go after Man City with numbers we looked mildly dangerous but they scored twice. That's why I think the first half tactic was to try and completely shut out Arsenal and get to half time 0-0. We had no real ambition beyond set pieces for the first 45. It was a purely defensive attempt that failed.

If we'd have hit 45 at 0-0 it would have been interesting to see what Parker did. As it was, he could change with impunity as it couldn't look too much worse.

Ignoring the quality in the players, that's the big difference as I see it with someone like Spurs. They set up like that to beat teams. Yesterday we set up like that to nullify and nothing more.
 
kirsikka said:
As others have said, it's as much about personel as anything. The skill set of the players we are using stymies attempts to go forward in this formation. If you could swap, for example, Pearson for peak Harry Arter then you've got a player buzzing around doing defensive duty but also busting a gut to get forward.

Attacks in this situation are a bit like an effective press. A complete failure if one of two players try and do it on their own. It has to be a group effort working at pace like a well oiled machine. You can let a full back attack up if someone is covering him, but the other players need to join him. Ideally you would have two players in the wide position, an over/underlap for the player on the ball and three players trying to find space in the middle or on the other side. And it all needs to happen like lightning.

The ball would be hit to Moore and he'd tried and chest or head it into someone's path. Even if they managed to pick it up, they were then completely isolated as there was too much caution/not enough pace. Choose your poison from them.

Even when we changed formation it was still problematic. There was one point in the second half when the ball came to Smith on the right. The angle wasn't great but the full back had been pulled out of position (maybe by a run) so he had clear space to get a cross in. He looked up and there were 4/5 Spurs players in the box and Moore. And no other AFCB player barreling forward to get in there with him.

As has been mentioned, L Cook can offer that on the ball ability to take in on the turn and look for a pass but there needs to be more commitment to make runs in numbers (and players that can do that). Every time Tavernier or similar cut back because there was no option I knew the move was likely over.

The challenge was, when we did go after Man City with numbers we looked mildly dangerous but they scored twice. That's why I think the first half tactic was to try and completely shut out Arsenal and get to half time 0-0. We had no real ambition beyond set pieces for the first 45. It was a purely defensive attempt that failed.

If we'd have hit 45 at 0-0 it would have been interesting to see what Parker did. As it was, he could change with impunity as it couldn't look too much worse.

Ignoring the quality in the players, that's the big difference as I see it with someone like Spurs. They set up like that to beat teams. Yesterday we set up like that to nullify and nothing more.
Click to expand...

Good post.

Were the Spurs players helping us or Arsenal ;)

'He looked up and there were 4/5 Spurs players in the box and Moore. And no other AFCB player barreling forward to get in there with him.'
 
Neil Dawson said:
As someone that made the comment, it wasn’t against the top six that I’d hoped Parker had learnt, it’s against every team. Fulham bored their home fans into submission the year they went down scoring 9 goals at the Cottage all year. Mitrovic benched because he is no use on the break.

We set up with the same formation and lack of possession v Villa and I will be amazed if we see four at the back at home to Wolves.

To me the bigger concern is the lack of flexibility or overall board and manager combined strategy. He had three centre backs he trusted to start in the championship last season and lost two of them. If ever there was a time for either a) the board to make bringing in centre backs for pre season training the priority it was this summer. Senessi (who we trust is decent) showed yesterday the difficulty of adjusting to this league. Our flagship signing and he isn’t ready four games in. Or b) for Parker to realise that the time to move to a system with three centre half’s isn’t the time where you have just one you like. It can wait… lack of strategic though and lack of flexibility.

Five at the back works when it’s really three at the back as Conte plays it. It can work as a five in a much duller context, Pulis was probably the best proponent of this if you concede possession, play for set pieces and long throws and have an excellently schooled defence of top defenders. This may sound familiar as you read it out apart from the excellently schooled top defenders which sadly is the crucial bit.


Someone once suggested Pulis on here when it was all going a bit wrong for Eddie. Quite rightly this board went up with hilarity. Yesterday you watched Pulis football for the third game in a row…. I’m not sure some people have clicked on to this yet.

I don’t believe any manager would look at the squad we have and think that packing your team with defenders was the option. Parker is working to how he thinks a team should tackle the PL rather than what he has as his best options

You don’t need to spend like Forest and never have a training ground. You can breed players with excellent recruitment and and sell on value. Brighton and Brentford the best proponents of this. That should be our aspiration, then you can improve your facilities and wealth by staying in the big league. We don’t have the experience or talent at the top of our club for this though or in recruitment. We have someone’s son in law and someone’s mate appointed with a tap on the shoulder. They saw what Parker did at Fulham and still paid compensation for him which freed Fulham (who were waiting incredulously for us to do this) to go and get Silva. The man we should have gone for who was available free. 1.5m a year to make these decisions. Good work if you can get it.
Click to expand...

It wasn't really aimed at you, there was a slew of comments with similar sentiments. However, Brighton are the fourth most indebted club in the country:

https://sportsbrief.com/facts/top-listicles/12097-rankings-premier-league-clubs-debt-2022/

Since then they've managed to sell high so it might have improved. However, I'd say that if corona hadn't temporarily dropped the bottom out of the transfer market and we'd retained our PL status I'd imagine some of the sales we made would have been for much better fees. Ake at £60m instead of £40m... Wilson for probably double what he went for. We had the same model of buying young talent to develop and sell on, but were unfortunate with the timing on when we started cashing out.

As for Brentford, they're owned by somebody with immense wealth who made that money building statistical models for sports betting success. He's applied all the expertise and analysis within his company to the club. And it isn't one individual that produces those stats for his company, it's apparently over 100. Not so easy to replicate unless you're already set up like that.

There are definitely things we can learn from both those clubs but I'm not sure we can hold them up as examples to copy as they have access to resources we don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;