Pearson's change of tactic

[Kitchandro]

It's been so obvious since the start of last season the way we need to play, let alone this season. It's ridiculous that it's taken Pearson until now to realise that we were doing things right in the first place before we went all negative in September.

Hopefully, he's realised just in time and we'll carry on like this but it's like he realised we're dead and buried anyway unless we won matches now.
 

[Kitchandro]

We started the season camped on the edge of our box against Chelsea and arsenal, outplayed by stoke and we sort of nicked a point against Everton.

Against Utd, we were outayes for an hour and then had no choice but to go for it

 

You have a totally inaccurate recollection of some of those games.

 

It's true that we were penned back at times in those matches, but the Stoke match is the only one we really nicked.

We were very positive in all of the others, the only reason we had periods where we had to get men behind the ball was because of the quality they all possessed.

 

Despite this, we matched all of Chelsea, Arsenal and Everton on the day and arguably deserved to win all 3. We didn't take our chances against Chelsea but in the other 2 we had just as much of the games as they did and most importantly, even though we conceded 3 times we scored enough to get 2 points.

We were outplayed by a brilliant (on the day) Man U performance for much of that match but nonetheless played well with a high tempo and pressing game throughout. There was no way we'd have won that match had we not done, we'd have never been able to build momentum in the performance from nothing. For the last half hour of course we were totally dominant and that proved the point that attacking football was the only way to go, even against top sides. Maybe they took their foot of the gas just a little bit and that was the difference. It certainly wasn't a massive tactical change.

 

[Number 6]

Was Swansea our most balanced performance all season? Great attacking display but also resilience and shape in defence.

[Kitchandro]

So it was only Pearson that had to adapt, the players are only robots.This means only Pearson can take the credit,

if we survive.

I agree with alot of this post, but like many forget, no team can play all season at the pace we have done in the last 3 games.

Plus many seemed not to take into account or chose to ignore the fact (though Pearson never used it as an excuse)

that our top players were not available and carried knocks well into the end of 2014.

Another critic that doesnt stand up, Pearsons tactics...we play in the PL , if people have noticed, so for me no matter what a manager chooses for for games set up, the players shiuld be expected to do basics and put in decent performances

 

Who was not available? No one I can think of who makes a massive positive difference.

 

I'd question how much the players can do when Pearson says 'Krama, you stand up the other end of the pitch on your own and the rest of you guys just hoof it up to him.' The players have no chance in possession if they've got no options.

 

It's not a coincidence we've started to play well, it's not like the players have all of a sudden turned amazing. It's been a conscious change of mentality.

And why can't we play at that pace all season? There's nothing scientific behind that at all. In fact the more they do it, the easier it will get.

 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Find it hard to believe people think going all out attack every week is the only way we should be approaching games. If it was that easy every game in the Premier League would be an end to end goalfest.

[RedSoxUK]

3 - 4 - 3 has certainly won us games, we wouldn't have taken 3 points from West Brom without it.

Liverpool are the only other notable side playing / have played in a 3 - 4 - 3, and they're unbeaten run about 13 games showed how difficult it is to play against an attacking side.

 

I think our players know their role, and they're actually suited to the formation / Schlupp and Albrighton especially, both have that knack for defending and attacking.

 

The formation, our desire, along with our fitness level puts us in a very good position pre-game; put it with 'form' players and a winning side, and you've got our previous (including Tottenham away) results.

 

So tactically Pearson's doing what he always does, playing a winning side making changes only where necessary - don't have to change what is working, that's why we very rarely switched from out formation / tactics last season. We've found something that's actually worked, and it should be very effective in our games vs Newcastle, QPR, Sunderland, to an extent Southampton and Burnley. I can't see Pearson changing the 3 - 4 - 3, only when the feeling is right during the game like with Swansea pre-halftime, and what I can see being a 5 - 2 - 3 / 5 - 4  - 1 vs Chelsea.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

Find it hard to believe people think going all out attack every week is the only way we should be approaching games. If it was that easy every game in the Premier League would be an end to end goalfest.

Of course none of us can prove it one way or the other what would have happened, but after the Burnley game until 2 weeks ago we we only picked up 10pts!

I cannot believe that playing as we have in the last three games - flat to the boards - that we would not have bettered that tally in that SEVEN MONTH period.

[cc_star]

You have a totally inaccurate recollection of some of those games.

 

It's true that we were penned back at times in those matches, but the Stoke match is the only one we really nicked.

We were very positive in all of the others, the only reason we had periods where we had to get men behind the ball was because of the quality they all possessed.

 

Despite this, we matched all of Chelsea, Arsenal and Everton on the day and arguably deserved to win all 3. We didn't take our chances against Chelsea but in the other 2 we had just as much of the games as they did and most importantly, even though we conceded 3 times we scored enough to get 2 points.

We were outplayed by a brilliant (on the day) Man U performance for much of that match but nonetheless played well with a high tempo and pressing game throughout. There was no way we'd have won that match had we not done, we'd have never been able to build momentum in the performance from nothing. For the last half hour of course we were totally dominant and that proved the point that attacking football was the only way to go, even against top sides. Maybe they took their foot of the gas just a little bit and that was the difference. It certainly wasn't a massive tactical change.

 

 

We've been positive in almost all games, the exception being the likes of Swansea away & Sunderland, Hull at home.

 

Obviously there's a couple of other halves of football which hasn't been as great as the 2nd half Vs Utd or whatever, where we were greatly helped by Man Utd falling to pieces

 

I don't think there's been any real change in tactics in the last 3 games at all, barring a very good shape against Swansea which restricted them to mainly long-range efforts, as our midfield is usually ran through time, time & time again. Perhaps we were helped a bit by Swansea not having a forward, in the same way Arsenal never had one when we drew 1-1 at home and they had about 40 chances

 

It's our attacking intent & therefore loss of midfield shape which has seen us lose the 2nd most games in the division, and only a gung-ho QPR side that has lost more

[EnglishOxide]

We had the same attacking, high energy game at the start of the season, and it served us well.

Then all the cautiousness and tinkering started, and we looked at a loss for a result, that's what pissed me of with Pearson, he was to blind or stubborn to see it didn't work, thankfully he has started playing to our strengths again, and the players look for more confident playing like it.

There's no doubt Pearson has got his tactics wrong on a few occasions this season but I think a few people are going overboard about it.

If it weren't for bad finishing and officiating we would be much better off.

There is a reason most pundits are now saying 'they have played very well in most their games this season'. Because we have.

Let's not diss our manager too much. If we went gung ho in most games like some fans seem to be suggesting the chances are we would be going down swinging like Blackpool rather than being in with a very realistic chance as it stands.

It took us a while to adapt to the quality of some of the teams in the league, Pearson has had to wrestle with the fact that we were struggling for possession in most games and he was reluctant to go 4-5-1 as its very defensive. Fair play to him for trying something different and it seems to be paying off. We are very flexible tactically.

Not only are we looking good for survival. But our confidence is in tact and goal difference better than those around us.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Of course none of us can prove it one way or the other what would have happened, but after the Burnley game until 2 weeks ago we we only picked up 10pts!

I cannot believe that playing as we have in the last three games - flat to the boards - that we would not have bettered that tally in that SEVEN MONTH period.

 

Except we have played attacking football a lot this season, in some games much more so than the Swansea game, and we picked up some, what might prove to be vital points, in defensive performances, Hull and Stoke most notably. Just need a bit of balance, can just see the reaction on here the next time we lose already.

[Monsell1976]

There's no doubt Pearson has got his tactics wrong on a few occasions this season but I think a few people are going overboard about it.

If it weren't for bad finishing and officiating we would be much better off.

There is a reason most pundits are now saying 'they have played very well in most their games this season'. Because we have.

Let's not diss our manager too much. If we went gung ho in most games like some fans seem to be suggesting the chances are we would be going down swinging like Blackpool rather than being in with a very realistic chance as it stands.

It took us a while to adapt to the quality of some of the teams in the league, Pearson has had to wrestle with the fact that we were struggling for possession in most games and he was reluctant to go 4-5-1 as its very defensive. Fair play to him for trying something different and it seems to be paying off. We are very flexible tactically.

Not only are we looking good for survival. But our confidence is in tact and goal difference better than those around us.

Never wanted all out attack, just not playing 1 up front for so long, at least we are playing a system that the players are comfortable with.

[Babylon]

It's true you are right about both games, but just because it doesn't work EVERY week doesn't mean it's not whats best for us.

 

We've certainly got a lot more points playing 2/3 strikers and having a go than we have trying to defend be it 4-5-1 or 5-4-1.

 

I didn't say it wasn't what's best for us, I said at the start of the season and repeated it several times since that I would rather us go out having a go than not trying to win.

 

What I'm disagreeing with is people saying it's only suddenly changed in the last three games, when in fact I believe we gave it a go in plenty of other games before these, without getting results it deserved.

 

I think my list of games we've had a decent go in was

 

Chelsea A

Arsenal H

Man U H

Burnley H (I only put this as I'm constantly told we were too attacking and should have shut up shop)

QPR A

Spurs H

Liverpool A

Villa H

Palace H

Arsenal A

Spurs A

 

With a few other middle ground games like the two against Everton. But I've left them from the list as I think they and a few others were as a reaction to going behind.

 

It's not a coincidence we often look better against better teams, because they are more attacking and leave space which is what we thrive on. Against the lower teams who pack their defence we can look negative because the game we like to play isn't available. We have had the same problem for years.  Sometimes it's not because we don't want to attack, it's because the space isn't there to play our game.

 

That's not to say Pearson hasn't been his own worst enemy with some of the tactical switches mid season which did lead us to be negative.

[Guest ttfn]

We didn't attack anybody from the outset of a game between the Newcastle game and the QPR game. If we go down it will be the Newcastle/Swansea/West Brom/Southampton/Sunderland run of games which will have done for us. 3 of those opponents were completely there for the taking and we only had a go at Newcastle for about 25 minutes and failed to score in any of those games. By the time we thought about attacking anybody again the team was totally drained of confidence.

It also portrayed and then set in place a very deferential mentality which purveyed until the Spurs home game. It was stark contrast from the utter positivity which has exuded from the team at the start of the season and since Spurs away.

[Guest ttfn]

I didn't say it wasn't what's best for us, I said at the start of the season and repeated it several times since that I would rather us go out having a go than not trying to win.

What I'm disagreeing with is people saying it's only suddenly changed in the last three games, when in fact I believe we gave it a go in plenty of other games before these, without getting results it deserved.

I think my list of games we've had a decent go in was

Chelsea A

Arsenal H

Man U H

Burnley H

QPR A

Spurs H

Liverpool A

Villa H

Palace H

Arsenal A

Spurs A

With a few other middle ground games like the two against Everton. But I've left them from the list as I think they and a few others were as a reaction to going behind.

It's not a coincidence we often look better against better teams, because they are more attacking and leave space which is what we thrive on. Against the lower teams who pack their defence we can look negative because the game we like to play isn't available. We have had the same problem for years. Sometimes it's not because we don't want to attack, it's because the space isn't there to play our game.

That's not to say Pearson hasn't been his own worst enemy with some of the tactical switches mid season which did lead us to be negative.

Also this, but I think "having a go" should come as standard. Some games it's obviously sensible to be a bit more defensive but I'd like to think we should be trying to play positively in every home fixture at least.

[Babylon]

We didn't attack anybody from the outset of a game between the Newcastle game and the QPR game. If we go down it will be the Newcastle/Swansea/West Brom/Southampton/Sunderland run of games which will have done for us. 3 of those opponents were completely there for the taking and we only had a go at Newcastle for about 25 minutes and failed to score in any of those games. By the time we thought about attacking anybody again the team was totally drained of confidence.

It also portrayed and then set in place a very deferential mentality which purveyed until the Spurs home game. It was stark contrast from the utter positivity which has exuded from the team at the start of the season and since Spurs away.

Agree with you, that time was bitterly disappointing.

[Babylon]

Who was not available? No one I can think of who makes a massive positive difference

Well to be fair we did have quite a few injuries and suspensions for a fair run of games. One week you'd have a couple of CM's out, another week the other two were out. It didn't help us get a settled team.

[EnglishOxide]

Also this, but I think "having a go" should come as standard. Some games it's obviously sensible to be a bit more defensive but I'd like to think we should be trying to play positively in every home fixture at least.

But 'having a go' from the offset can sometimes be detrimental. Two counter attacks in the first 10 minutes and we are already out of the game. Feeling out the opposition, working out their tactics and being conservative in the opening parts of a game is also a smart approach.

[The Year Of The Fox]

I'm a big Pearson fan as anyone who bothers to read my posts will know. I think a lot has been down the fact though that he and we all knew we had to win the last 3 games (the first two in particular) it loosens the shackles and the players know we need to win.

I expect us to be a lot more cautious Saturday and the more games we win the more cautious I could see us being.

EG 1-1 at Turf Moor on Saturday with 20 mins to go. As the table stands now it's a tricky call. If we'd played burnley 3 games ago with the same scoreline then everyone would be expecting us to go for broke the last 20mins.

[Guest ttfn]

But 'having a go' from the offset can sometimes be detrimental. Two counter attacks in the first 10 minutes and we are already out of the game. Feeling out the opposition, working out their tactics and being conservative in the opening parts of a game is also a smart approach.

Equally "having a go" could see us 2-0 up after 10 minutes.

Of course it's not quite as simple as I've put it but a positive mentality should be a pre-requisite.

In the age of 3 points for a win a prevailingly defensive mentality doesn't make sense without absolutely top quality coaching and/or genius attacking players.

[Carlos88LCFC]

I'm a big Pearson fan as anyone who bothers to read my posts will know. I think a lot has been down the fact though that he and we all knew we had to win the last 3 games (the first two in particular) it loosens the shackles and the players know we need to win.

I expect us to be a lot more cautious Saturday and the more games we win the more cautious I could see us being.

EG 1-1 at Turf Moor on Saturday with 20 mins to go. As the table stands now it's a tricky call. If we'd played burnley 3 games ago with the same scoreline then everyone would be expecting us to go for broke the last 20mins.

I think if we play negative against burnley and don't go all guns blazing Pearson would have got it wrong.

Burnley are going to be attacking us with real intent as we are a 'must win' game for them that they would be very disappointed if they didn't win.

If we sit back and invite the pressure we will lose. We should attack them strongly for the first 20/30 mins and try and score. It will get them very worried and hopefully we can capitalize on their nerves.

Man for man we are a much better outfit than burnley. If we play how we love to play, it should be a win. If we play with a defensive mindset against a burnley side that 'must win' either Schlupp or Morgan will score an own goal and we will lose 1-0 haha!

This is our biggest game so far! Let's go for it!! It could be the difference, burnley beat us, gain momentum and start believing they can stay up.

Burnley lose to us, get deflated and go down!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Thing is though if we go in to a game and are put on the back foot, as well may be the case against Burnley, then you can't just flick a switch to push them back and constantly be on the front foot and attacking, it doesn't work like that.

[deep blue]

Kitchandro - you say we had no significant injuries at the start of the season. There were James and Drinkwater, which is why we had to play King and Hammond. Cambiasso was not yet signed; he has become essential as the season progressed. Oh, and the small matter of Vardy. However well the replacements played, do you really believe that we were unaffected by the absenses? I particularly remember Taylor-Fletcher having to come on in midfield at Chelsea.

As for the general argument about whether our set-up has been different in the last few games, there's no doubt that we've been set up to be more offensive. We've dropped defensive full backs in favour of attack-minded wing backs and are playing with 3 forwards. Long may it continue.

[SpacedX]

As for the general argument about whether our set-up has been different in the last few games, there's no doubt that we've been set up to be more offensive. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzCEIBaV1Es

[The Year Of The Fox]

I think if we play negative against burnley and don't go all guns blazing Pearson would have got it wrong.

Burnley are going to be attacking us with real intent as we are a 'must win' game for them that they would be very disappointed if they didn't win.

If we sit back and invite the pressure we will lose. We should attack them strongly for the first 20/30 mins and try and score. It will get them very worried and hopefully we can capitalize on their nerves.

Man for man we are a much better outfit than burnley. If we play how we love to play, it should be a win. If we play with a defensive mindset against a burnley side that 'must win' either Schlupp or Morgan will score an own goal and we will lose 1-0 haha!

This is our biggest game so far! Let's go for it!! It could be the difference, burnley beat us, gain momentum and start believing they can stay up.

Burnley lose to us, get deflated and go down!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree mate. Was just thinking its what SNP could be thinking.

[Carlos88LCFC]

Thing is though if we go in to a game and are put on the back foot, as well may be the case against Burnley, then you can't just flick a switch to push them back and constantly be on the front foot and attacking, it doesn't work like that.

I agree to an extent but if Burnley go on the offense and so do we, who do you believe has more quality?

We have more pace and technique to hurt burnley than they do us, so we attack, they get scared and have to change their game plan as they are being over run, having very little possession and look like conceding (if they haven't already)

If it was an out and out attacking battle, as we could really expect, I would say we would come out on top.

If it's a boring sit every man behind the ball and aim for Ulloa whilst Vardy and Kramaric/Nugent are looking after their wing backs, we will lose.

343/352 again should work fine. Have Ings marked out the game and let Schlupp and Albrighton look after there wings with cover from the central midfielders and the extra man at centre back.

We can win this game if we approach it the right way and if we do win it, I think that will be the last time this season we will be in the relegation zone!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk