Tactics Under Maresca

[bmt]

18 hours ago, Guppys Love Child said:

Is it me or have a large number of the EnzoBall lovers, who all swooned over this modern, progressive, new style, that the top teams play, who were oh so impressed with how technically  brilliant and cleaver it was, they seemed to have gone quite now that the early season "dominance" appears to be waining.

If going buy the last 10 or so pages of posts the general feeling has changes and more and more posters are questioning EnzoBall and even if he will still be here ( unheard off 2 months into the season)

Still here! Not posted much because I don't like the forum when it's negative - think that will be the same for most of the Enzo fan club. We've had a tough run and I do think Enzo can improve some aspects (ie subs) but overall still very happy, we've just hit a patch of bad form. Ndidi return is crucial

[Lillehamring]

On 05/03/2024 at 23:43, LFox99 said:

Our wage bill is nearly double that of 2nd place on that list, 23 teams should be in our position if given our resources. 

This is frankly a silly argument: firstly, salary is no indication of quality and secondly, perhaps being on those higher salaries adds additional pressure.  Whilst players coming up against us on lower salaries will feel like they have something to prove.

 

Furthermore, most of the players that are on high salaries were bought to play against PL teams, not EFL teams - so, whilst they may earn a lot, they aren't necessarily suitable for this level.

 

 

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 09:07, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

Honest question. Who's responsible for this seeming unwillingness to kill off games and try to defend slender leads which invites pressure onto us? 

QPR - 18 shots 5 on target - that is the players failing.

Leeds - 16 shots 5 on target (two sitters) - players fault

Boro - 24 shots 2 on target - players fault

 

You can't dominate games to that extent and be accused of not trying to kill off the game, the reality is that we have tried and failed to kill off games.

 

That isn't sitting back and defending a lead, that's creating chances but not taking them.

 

Even the sunderland game, there's no proof that maresca has ordered them to defend the lead, it's not like he brought Souttar or Nelson on.  Perhaps it was simply that Sunderland, after going 1-0 down, realised that they weren't going to get anything sitting back with the 30% possession that they'd had up to that point and decided to adjust to the way they played against us last time and increased their possession to 53% post-goal.  Yes, we can question how Enzo reacted to that change in sunderland's play, but it's not as simple as suggesting that he decided to park the bus.

[Fox92]

19 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

This is frankly a silly argument: firstly, salary is no indication of quality and secondly, perhaps being on those higher salaries adds additional pressure.  Whilst players coming up against us on lower salaries will feel like they have something to prove.

 

Furthermore, most of the players that are on high salaries were bought to play against PL teams, not EFL teams - so, whilst they may earn a lot, they aren't necessarily suitable for this level.

 

 

It's not a silly argument. Clubs with the greatest resources should be top (or near the top) of their respective divisions. I keep seeing how great our squad is supposed to be "greatest squad this division has ever seen" so we are where we should be considering all of that. That's not even taking into consideration our facilities compared to the other teams.

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 09:20, Blarmy said:

The thing is, if we took our early chances, would we sit back after the first of them, and therefore not get the other chances?

But in most games we don't sit back - we just carry on playing the same patient considered football that we play during most phases of most matches.

 

Because our way of playing doesn't appear urgent or high-energy it's easy to mistake it, when leading, for us sitting back and not trying to extend our lead, but it's just that low-key steady way of playing that  has seen us dominate games and get the results that we have been getting most of this season.

 

If you score after 13 minutes you don't have to suddenly turn into Ipswich and go all out attack.   Maresca favours the approach of controlling the ball, controlling the clock, breaking teams down and taking our chances when they come.

 

That's why in the 33 league games that we've scored, 22 times we've managed to score again, only 11 times have we failed to, and even in those 11, we've only lost 4 games (one of which was the cov game). 

 

It's how we play, and it's generally been very successful - i think people here are just looking to find fault as usual, they need to find a reason why we've lost 3 games in a row - so the popular explanation seems to be blaming it on the style of play, rather than blaming it on the real cause  - our finishing (let's not forget - the other 3 losses are where we failed to score despite having bucket loads of chances)

 

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 11:42, Noahfence said:

I know it isn’t a simple as just scoring 2/3 and then shutting up shop but last night I genuinely believe we could’ve scored as many as we wanted in the first half if we kept the pressure on. There was a clear difference in how we played at 0-0 & 0-1. Just bizarre 

But the problem is it's easy to say 'keep the pressure on' but in reality it's hard to do. In the first 13 minutes (up to the goal) sunderland sat back and we had 70% possession and created 5 shots on goal.

In the 10 minutes after we scored, sunderland responded and doubled their possession to 60%.  (for what it's worth we still had 2 shots to their 1)

 

There's only so much of a change that you can attribute to a side 'easing off', especially so early in the game, and a team, especially a home team, 'adopting a plan B'  - to jump from 30% to 60% suggests that this was more to do with a change from sunderland from letting us have the ball to trying to dominate the ball themselves

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 13:09, bovril said:

This sounds a bit like Rodgers "I'm a coach not a magician" - if the players aren't good enough to play a certain way why play that way? Especially as we're talking about the Championship where teams including us are not going to have technically gifted players. 

Becasue Maresca has made it clear that he sees building a team as a three year project so the tactics are established then the players fitted to that system.

 

Creating a system around the players you have is as short term as the contracts of the players.  

 

 

[bovril]

Just now, Lillehamring said:

Becasue Maresca has made it clear that he sees building a team as a three year project so the tactics are established then the players fitted to that system.

 

Creating a system around the players you have is as short term as the contracts of the players.  

 

 

we have pretty short term needs

[Blarmy]

9 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

But in most games we don't sit back - we just carry on playing the same patient considered football that we play during most phases of most matches.

 

Because our way of playing doesn't appear urgent or high-energy it's easy to mistake it, when leading, for us sitting back and not trying to extend our lead, but it's just that low-key steady way of playing that  has seen us dominate games and get the results that we have been getting most of this season.

 

If you score after 13 minutes you don't have to suddenly turn into Ipswich and go all out attack.   Maresca favours the approach of controlling the ball, controlling the clock, breaking teams down and taking our chances when they come.

 

That's why in the 33 league games that we've scored, 22 times we've managed to score again, only 11 times have we failed to, and even in those 11, we've only lost 4 games (one of which was the cov game). 

 

It's how we play, and it's generally been very successful - i think people here are just looking to find fault as usual, they need to find a reason why we've lost 3 games in a row - so the popular explanation seems to be blaming it on the style of play, rather than blaming it on the real cause  - our finishing (let's not forget - the other 3 losses are where we failed to score despite having bucket loads of chances)

 

Thanks. I’m fully on board with how we play by the way, and put performances since after the Leeds game down to nerves and absences. My post was in response to the presumption that it was a time thing, whereas I believe it’s more down to nerves kicking in when sitting on 3 points.  For example, the “15 minute” thing against Sunderland may well have been a “first half” thing had we scored at 44 minutes. I think the huge importance of having to win can have a big impact after scoring the first. You flip from “must score” to “must not concede” in a second. They need the self belief to push on and score three imo. 

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 14:28, bovril said:

If we were trying to implement a certain style of football for long term success that makes sense. If we are in as dire a financial situation as some claim then it's not a project, it's a must we get promoted. And the point stands that he has come into a Championship club which will obviously have a limited squad and needs to find a style that fits the players, not the other way round.  

well not really - if we accept that maresca is using a significant percentage of players he'd rather not have then regardless of where we play next season, he's going to want to replace as many as possible.

if we don't go up, we'll sell and replace with cheaper players that enzo wants; if we go up we'll sell and replace with slightly more expensive players that enzo wants.

 

Either way, as long as enzo stays it's clear that he's building a system to fit a team to (a project, if you will) rather than building a team and adopting a system purely to get promoted (needs must, if you will).

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 14:46, lcfcbluearmy said:

Or maybe the players are just worn and the international break will be a god send to get ndidi fit, vesterguard back from suspension, Ricardo fit and they realise that the tactics are fine and they just aren't playing them well. 

 

Or even they are just had a couple of dodgy points, we played well for 80 minutes of the leeds game, the second half of the Middlesbrough game and all of the Bournemouth game.

 

Yes we didn't win them all but we didn't play badly the only game we were completely poor in was the qpr game and yesterday's Sunderland game and we still won that.

 

I'm not saying people can't have questions but put it into a bit of context we have played some brilliant football this season and had a small blip comparing him to Rodgers is ridiculous 

it's almost like we didn't, immediately before, have a 5 game run where we posted figures of P5 W5 D0 L0 GF 15 GA 2

[Lillehamring]

On 06/03/2024 at 12:59, filbertway said:

I am seeing teeny tiny red flags. I'm getting the same kind of vibe as I did from Rodgers after WBA. We were 3-0 up at half time and drew 2nd half 0-0. Post match he said he was disappointed with the first half and delighted with the 2nd because we were tighter and kept better control of the ball.

 

If you put a premium on not conceding chances over creating them, eventually players and fans will turn on that mindset, especially when it's not working.

 

At the minute he gets the benefit of the doubt and it's just something I'm logging mentally. If the pattern continues next season after he's had another summer to bring in his own players then it becomes a concern.

I respect that that's your reading of the game, but it doesn't tally with reality - if that really was the focus/mentality we'd have GF/GA/GD stats like man u, but we don't we've scored more than almost anyone in all 4 leagues this season.

 

What we should be saying is - how have we managed to score so many and conceded so few?  And the answer is by sticking to the system whether it's 0-0, 1-0 or 5-0

[Lillehamring]

19 hours ago, Guppys Love Child said:

Is it me or have a large number of the EnzoBall lovers, who all swooned over this modern, progressive, new style, that the top teams play, who were oh so impressed with how technically  brilliant and cleaver it was, they seemed to have gone quite now that the early season "dominance" appears to be waining.

If going buy the last 10 or so pages of posts the general feeling has changes and more and more posters are questioning EnzoBall and even if he will still be here ( unheard off 2 months into the season)

I think it's more that this thread started off about tactics, segued into a subsidiary post-match thread, and now has been taken over by people who are just looking for someone to blame for a recent string of bad results.....

[Lillehamring]

18 hours ago, Guppys Love Child said:

I see your point.

 

But it was hailed by quite a few as this wonderful playing style that was so brilliant  and clever and if anyone so much as dared question it or Enzo for applying it they were instantly told how wrong they were, that knew nothing about football, lacked the knowledge to understand the intricacies of the setup etc. and now that EnzoBall seems to have hit a bump in the road  posters who were singing it's plaudits aren't singing so loud.

Yes some may counter with but but we have injuries and suspensions. But the squad are professional footballer for god's sake are they not capable of at least playing in a slightly different role in a similar area of the pitch. It not like we have 8 or  9 players out of position every match  It's not the player it's the god awful system. 

No system or team is perfect, there will always be dips, but you have to remember that before we played leeds (in fact up until the last 10 minutes of the leeds game) we'd actually been playing the best we'd played all season, wining 5 out of 5 scoring 15 and conceding just twice.

 

The problem here is people trying to blame that dip in results on maresca and the tactics, when every man and his dog know it is because the players didn't execute.

[filbertway]

1 minute ago, Lillehamring said:

I respect that that's your reading of the game, but it doesn't tally with reality - if that really was the focus/mentality we'd have GF/GA/GD stats like man u, but we don't we've scored more than almost anyone in all 4 leagues this season.

 

What we should be saying is - how have we managed to score so many and conceded so few?  And the answer is by sticking to the system whether it's 0-0, 1-0 or 5-0

 

Good question, this would indicate we're fortunate to have better finishers than most teams.

 

 

[BertFill]

24 minutes ago, bovril said:

we have pretty short term needs

We do. But we also have long term needs, and if we only ever address the short term ones then the long term ones will never ever be met.

[Lillehamring]

18 hours ago, Guppys Love Child said:

There could be things going on behind the scenes, we'll never know.

 

But I just have a feeling we have been found out.

 

Teams are not falling for running about in the first half so much, and fatigue is managed better

Areas are being marked and not players so much, so their shape is better 

Teams know we will definitely set up with EnzoBall and it's a methodical, pragmatic, patient build up style and are training to combat this and not get sucked in.  

The problem is Enzo religiously sticks to his style and won't entertain even tweaking a bit. So in eccence we are less affective now than we were at the beginning of the season. 

 

 

But how true is any that?

 

Boro simply rode their luck and, fair play, took their chances, we didn't -  24-2 in shots backs this up.

Leeds looked completely bewildered against us.

Bournemouth over ran us but we defended brilliantly and took our chance.

QPR - see the boro game - 18-3 in shots this time

Sunderland - see the bournemouth game.

 

We've had more than enough chances to have won all 5 games - oddly, the two we seemed most likely to lose, the two games where it might be said our opponents got the better of us, were the games we won - 

 

[Lillehamring]

54 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

It's not a silly argument. Clubs with the greatest resources should be top (or near the top) of their respective divisions. I keep seeing how great our squad is supposed to be "greatest squad this division has ever seen" so we are where we should be considering all of that. That's not even taking into consideration our facilities compared to the other teams.

Well, it is for exactly the points i raised.

 

And arguing that something 'should' be a certain way is just adding to the silliness.  We 'should' have avoided relegation last year, but we didn't.

 

Any reference to how 'great' this squad is, is just opinion and based on arbitrary things like salary and PL experience - but nothing is guaranteed.

For all our payroll we don't, for example, have the same EFL experience as other teams, or the winning momentum that ipswich came up with. 

 

There are so many thing beyond simply salary - to single that out as an absolute defining factor of success is, sorry, silly.

[Lillehamring]

34 minutes ago, bovril said:

we have pretty short term needs

I can only go on what Maresca said at the start of the season - that he sees building a team as a 3 year project.

 

Furthermore, the club under KP has always been focussed on the long game, never on a quick fix.

[BertFill]

20 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

every man and his dog know it is because the players didn't execute.

My dog insists it's all the fault of Wellens and Perez.

But then he eats soil. And has never understood how offside works. So...

 

 

Edited 7 March by BertFill

[Lillehamring]

35 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

Thanks. I’m fully on board with how we play by the way, and put performances since after the Leeds game down to nerves and absences. My post was in response to the presumption that it was a time thing, whereas I believe it’s more down to nerves kicking in when sitting on 3 points.  For example, the “15 minute” thing against Sunderland may well have been a “first half” thing had we scored at 44 minutes. I think the huge importance of having to win can have a big impact after scoring the first. You flip from “must score” to “must not concede” in a second. They need the self belief to push on and score three imo. 

Sure, but like so many other posters here you're making an assumption that they don't have the belief to push on.  which they've proved they do as i suggested in my post - we have extended our lead on numerous occasions.

 

Again, just because we don't seem to have any urgency doesn't mean that the game plan isn't still to score further goals.

[Lillehamring]

19 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Good question, this would indicate we're fortunate to have better finishers than most teams.

 

 

Sure, but if, as the original poster suggested, we were more focussed on not conceding than on scoring, we wouldn't have the third highest xG - the reason it is so high is because we've created the best chances this season, and i'm sure we're right up there by volume of chances too.

 

The simple fact is, by virtue of having a good system and good players we've been able to adopt a system that results in a high number of goal chances whilst limiting teams to a minimal amount of scoring chances.

 

Certainly nothing to do with prioritising not scoring over scoring.

[Lillehamring]

6 minutes ago, BertFill said:

My dog insists it's all the fault of Wellens and Perez.

But then he eats soil. And has never understood how offside works. So...

 

 

I've never had much time for the opinion of dogs.

 

Cats all day long for me.

[BertFill]

Just now, Lillehamring said:

Cats all day long for me.

Cats? Slinky little b******s.

[filbertway]

59 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

Sure, but if, as the original poster suggested, we were more focussed on not conceding than on scoring, we wouldn't have the third highest xG - the reason it is so high is because we've created the best chances this season, and i'm sure we're right up there by volume of chances too.

 

The simple fact is, by virtue of having a good system and good players we've been able to adopt a system that results in a high number of goal chances whilst limiting teams to a minimal amount of scoring chances.

 

Certainly nothing to do with prioritising not scoring over scoring.

 

I actually said prioritising not conceding over scoring. Which is pretty much the plan if we take the lead in games.