Match Report and MOM v Leicester

[SlowDownDerek]

The luck and the first goal gave the players a lift with belief and confidence and that can never be overstated in a players performance.

The same tactics with players that lack beliefs and confidence will see slow, turgid passing, no movement, no pressing, no creation and no risks.

With belief and confidence you get the players gaining a yard of pace, moving the ball quicker, movement off the ball, an organised press as the team “click”, players willing to take risks and chances.

If Stanislas doesn’t have the belief to cut inside and shoot and instead plays the easy five yard pass sideways, he doesn’t get the deflection and the third goal to seal the victory.

I agree, and I think I've said on this thread that the win was more about confidence than any tactical adjustments. Contrary to what Neil says we've played wingback before and we've even played creative number 10s before but with no confidence they play too conservatively and get pushed back. Howe said as much after the game - it was about mindset and we needed a massive stroke of luck to change that. Shame it didn't come against Palace.

 

[Neil Dawson]

I agree, and I think I've said on this thread that the win was more about confidence than any tactical adjustments. Contrary to what Neil says we've played wingback before and we've even played creative number 10s before but with no confidence they play too conservatively and get pushed back. Howe said as much after the game - it was about mindset and we needed a massive stroke of luck to change that. Shame it didn't come against Palace.

Not played the two together was what I said Del.

And we have played wingbacks when in much better confidence and they still played as full backs. In fact that was the first time we have played wingbacks with a team with low confidence so odd that they played the role properly following your logic.

The sole difference this time is they were told to play higher up the pitch and leave the defending to the three defenders. Unless you are suggesting our players in the previous occasions just completely ignored Eddie which I think unfairly paints a picture of him negatively.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Not played the two together was what I said Del.

And we have played wingbacks when in much better confidence and they still played as full backs. In fact that was the first time we have played wingbacks with a team with low confidence so odd that they played the role properly following your logic.

The sole difference this time is they were told to play higher up the pitch and leave the defending to the three defenders. Unless you are suggesting our players in the previous occasions just completely ignored Eddie which I think unfairly paints a picture of him negatively.

Eddie constantly waves players forward in all of our systems. They don't ignore him but the lower their confidence the more likely they are to give the ball away and end up deep. This has been the case for every side we've had under every manager - see whenever we are defending a one goal lead in the last ten minutes.

We got back in the game through a mistake by their keeper and a long ball flick on - no wingbacks or number 10s involved. Then we played against 10 men.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

Not to mention that Brooks has won games in a 4-4-2 coming central from the wing - it's part of our tactics and he had our best chance of the first half linking with Solanke doing exactly this.

 

[Waz afcb]

I agree, and I think I've said on this thread that the win was more about confidence than any tactical adjustments. Contrary to what Neil says we've played wingback before and we've even played creative number 10s before but with no confidence they play too conservatively and get pushed back. Howe said as much after the game - it was about mindset and we needed a massive stroke of luck to change that. Shame it didn't come against Palace.

When have we ever played a creative number 10? And don’t say Wilshere or J King because they most certainly are not number tens. Aside from Brooks playing there once at home to Man U last season (where he was brilliant and we played them off the park in the first half) I genuinely can’t ever remember Howe trying an out and out number 10 just behind the striker.

 

[NWCherries98]

When have we ever played a creative number 10? And don’t say Wilshere or J King because they most certainly are not number tens. Aside from Brooks playing there once at home to Man U last season (where he was brilliant and we played them off the park in the first half) I genuinely can’t ever remember Howe trying an out and out number 10 just behind the striker.

EH has been trying to replace Kermorgant for 5 years with varying degrees of success. I certainly don’t remember us starting many games with a No10.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

When have we ever played a creative number 10? And don’t say Wilshere or J King because they most certainly are not number tens. Aside from Brooks playing there once at home to Man U last season (where he was brilliant and we played them off the park in the first half) I genuinely can’t ever remember Howe trying an out and out number 10 just behind the striker.

How is Wilshere not a creative number 10 when he played in the hole? Stanislas, Ibe, Fraser, Brooks have all played number 10.

Can you genuinely not remember Yann Kermorgant and Brett Pitman playing as out and out number 10s just behind the striker?

 

[Tinpot Club]

Not to mention that Brooks has won games in a 4-4-2 coming central from the wing - it's part of our tactics and he had our best chance of the first half linking with Solanke doing exactly this.

Ritchie played the same role too but not with the same level of finesse.

One of the reasons it worked so well with Ritchie was the overlapping full backs. That’s why Brooks hasn’t been quite so successful coming inside once teams figured out our counter attack system in November 2018

 

[northstandmark]

Ritchie played the same role too but not with the same level of finesse.

One of the reasons it worked so well with Ritchie was the overlapping full backs. That’s why Brooks hasn’t been quite so successful coming inside once teams figured out our counter attack system in November 2018

I don't think Smith is as attack minded as he used to be (or perhaps has been instructed to be, it's hard to tell the two apart). Or as attack minded as 2014-17 era Franno was.

Jack Stacy seems pretty attacking and is lightening fast once he gets going, but he's inexperienced and has been in and out of the side. Certainly not built any chemistry with a right sided midfielder / winger. Obviously Brooks is only recently fit.

Speaks to the overall lack of partnerships due to having such an unsettled side.

 

[Tinpot Club]

Yeah it will be, or would have been, interesting to see how that Brooks-Stacey partnership developed over time. Looking back, that was surely the logic in recruiting Stacey.

We will probably not see how it might have flourished now which is a shame

 

[USCherry]

I agree, and I think I've said on this thread that the win was more about confidence than any tactical adjustments. Contrary to what Neil says we've played wingback before and we've even played creative number 10s before but with no confidence they play too conservatively and get pushed back. Howe said as much after the game - it was about mindset and we needed a massive stroke of luck to change that. Shame it didn't come against Palace.

The interview with Stacey after the game highlighted a couple of things. The change in formation was to match up against Leicester which then allowed them to press man to man. Secondly, the attitude of the dressing room at half time.

So, yes confidence seems to be key to successfully pressing a team and "creating" our own luck

 

[USCherry]

The interview with Stacey after the game highlighted a couple of things. The change in formation was to match up against Leicester which then allowed them to press man to man. Secondly, the attitude of the dressing room at half time.

So, yes confidence seems to be key to successfully pressing a team and "creating" our own luck

And to self-quote!

To add to this, I wonder if being in the position we were in, basically a hopeless position, helped our players. Almost like taking all the pressure off them

 

[SlowDownDerek]

The interview with Stacey after the game highlighted a couple of things. The change in formation was to match up against Leicester which then allowed them to press man to man. Secondly, the attitude of the dressing room at half time.

So, yes confidence seems to be key to successfully pressing a team and "creating" our own luck

Eddie said as much. Something along the lines of "Sure there were some tactical issues to sort but the main change was in confidence and belief".

In fairness they have come out with added impetus in other games this season, Man United, Wolves, etc. but its been undone by conceding sloppy goals. This time they scored a couple of fortunate goals and took full advantage.

 

[Jules]

And to self-quote!

To add to this, I wonder if being in the position we were in, basically a hopeless position, helped our players. Almost like taking all the pressure off them

Yes the pressure may have been off because of The predicament but I think they could have just as easily capitulated so I think the half time talk and tactical changes helped more, plus that early gift. That said, I thought they were awesome second half and got their mojo back and we’re fully deserving of the Fans‘ appreciation and The Win. Really, really hope that those 50 mins in the second half have lifted them for the next three matches

 

[Waz afcb]

How is Wilshere not a creative number 10 when he played in the hole? Stanislas, Ibe, Fraser, Brooks have all played number 10.

Can you genuinely not remember Yann Kermorgant and Brett Pitman playing as out and out number 10s just behind the striker?

You can put anybody in that position but it doesn’t make them suited to that position. Yann and Brett just proves my point, instead of playing a natural number 10 Eddie has often opted to play a second striker slightly deeper, the point I had made was that we looked a lot more functional as a team with a natural number 10 (Brooks) in that position. Aside from Brooks none of the players you listed are natural to that position, how many other managers have played Wilshere as a 10 during his career? Not a single one. And there’s a reason for that. Ibe is the only one listed who ever looked like he had the potential to play there but was never given an extended run.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

You can put anybody in that position but it doesn’t make them suited to that position. Yann and Brett just proves my point, instead of playing a natural number 10 Eddie has often opted to play a second striker slightly deeper, the point I had made was that we looked a lot more functional as a team with a natural number 10 (Brooks) in that position. Aside from Brooks none of the players you listed are natural to that position, how many other managers have played Wilshere as a 10 during his career? Not a single one. And there’s a reason for that. Ibe is the only one listed who ever looked like he had the potential to play there but was never given an extended run.

Maybe it's just semantics but a natural number 10 is a second striker playing deeper is it not? Albeit one who has the ability to link play such as Yann, Brett, Beardsley, Maradona.... You can play one or two strikers ahead of them.

 

[Neil Dawson]

Eddie constantly waves players forward in all of our systems. They don't ignore him but the lower their confidence the more likely they are to give the ball away and end up deep. This has been the case for every side we've had under every manager - see whenever we are defending a one goal lead in the last ten minutes.

We got back in the game through a mistake by their keeper and a long ball flick on - no wingbacks or number 10s involved. Then we played against 10 men.

I think that’s a really derogatory view of a great tactical change. The reason we were able to capitalise on their mistakes was because we had more players higher up the pitch. All our previous opponents passed across the box or dropped balls too short... we just didn’t have players close enough to them to capitalise.

 

[SlowDownDerek]

I think that’s a really derogatory view of a great tactical change. The reason we were able to capitalise on their mistakes was because we had more players higher up the pitch. All our previous opponents passed across the box or dropped balls too short... we just didn’t have players close enough to them to capitalise.

We scored after Schmeichel booted it at Ndidi's a*se and it fell for Wilson. Then we scored from an old fashioned long ball flick on. Then they had ten men, we were confident and exploited the space. I'm not suggesting that the tactical changes weren't important or the right moves but they weren't how we turned the game around.

Like Howe said it was more about belief and mentality. That has been our problem all season - for whatever reason we've looked completely without confidence and have been the most mentally fragile team I've seen. We had managed to turn it around before lockdown after the Brighton game where, again, we were crap for most of the first half, rode our luck and managed to win. Hopefully this will lead to better performances like that game did.

 

[Topfarrier]

I have to point out that Brooks went off at 2-1.....we scored 2 and created chances without playing a 10 for the rest of the game.

 

[TrueCherry]

[QUOTE="SlowDownDerek, post: 387327, member:
We got back in the game through a mistake by their keeper and a long ball flick on - no wingbacks or number 10s involved. Then we played against 10 men.[/QUOTE] we were 2-1 up BEFORE they were down to 10 men