Tactics Under Maresca

[Foxaholic ME]

1 hour ago, Lillehamring said:

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 - 

 

I   cant understand the comments on the Middlesborough game   neither keeper made a save of note  Middles borough had 2 shots on target we had 1  all went in    

[Blarmy]

1 hour ago, Lillehamring said:

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.

It’s not an assumption and I don’t 100% know I’m right. But to look so dangerous going forwards right up until the point we score, and then look so lacklustre afterwards, suggests to me that not conceding was a priority. We were getting deeper and deeper, it was a disaster waiting to happen. 

 

I’m not saying it’s the game plan but something was stopping us pushing on and battering them. Whatever that thing is, it concerns me as every game is massive now and, if the players are flapping, we will more than likely end up in the play offs. If it’s what Enzo wants then I don’t agree with him.

 

I’m hoping it’s purely because we’d lost three on the spin.

[HankMarvin]

3 hours 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.

 

 

So generally speaking higher paid players that end up in the prem or top leagues in Europe are not suitable for this level?

“most of the players that are on high salaries were bought to play against PL teams, not EFL teams”

 

 

So if money was no object would the championship managers be choosing championship players or premier league players 🤔

 

 

[Lillehamring]

4 hours ago, BertFill said:

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

 

Not mine!

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, filbertway said:

 

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

Not sure there's much difference between 'being focussed on' and 'prioritising'?  The implication is the same, surely

 

Anyway, when i replied to your comment 'prioritising not conceding over scoring' is what i referenced - and it is still miles from the truth.  Only Ipswich in all four leagues have scored more goals than us - if that's the result of  'prioritising not conceding over scoring' - the mind boggles at how many goals we might have scored if we'd prioritised scoring over not conceding!

 

 

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Foxaholic ME said:

I   cant understand the comments on the Middlesborough game   neither keeper made a save of note  Middles borough had 2 shots on target we had 1  all went in    

Ok - well the question was:

 

Quote

Who's responsible for this seeming unwillingness to kill off games

 

And my reply was that against boro we had 24 shots of which only 2 were on target - the inference thus being that it was our players who were responsible for not killing off the game.

[Lillehamring]

2 hours ago, Blarmy said:

It’s not an assumption and I don’t 100% know I’m right. But to look so dangerous going forwards right up until the point we score, and then look so lacklustre afterwards, suggests to me that not conceding was a priority. We were getting deeper and deeper, it was a disaster waiting to happen. 

 

I’m not saying it’s the game plan but something was stopping us pushing on and battering them. Whatever that thing is, it concerns me as every game is massive now and, if the players are flapping, we will more than likely end up in the play offs. If it’s what Enzo wants then I don’t agree with him.

 

I’m hoping it’s purely because we’d lost three on the spin.

If you're talking specifically about the sunderland game - i posted some  general analysis on how it seemed to be to me - that sunderland set out to park the bus, allow us to have the ball and to try to see it out, they had 30% possession.  As such to the viewer it looks like we are going all in and inevitably dangerous.

 

After we scored, for the immediate 10 minutes following sunderland had 60% possession - they totally changed their game plan, they started to press and to control the ball. 

 

I don't think it was lacklustre, i just think we found ourselves up against a team that like to attack (don't forget their xG is almost as high as ours across the season) that decided to fight for the game.  Did we respond well? - well, we won, but it was very similar to the first meeting between us, when no one said we stopped trying, but said that sunderland were the best team we've faced....

 

The nature of the change being initiated by sunderland seems a lot more plausible (to me at least) than to believe that we just thought, after 13 minutes!  'that'll do it, let's just sit back and defend for 77 minutes'

 

 

[Lillehamring]

2 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

So generally speaking higher paid players that end up in the prem or top leagues in Europe are not suitable for this level?

“most of the players that are on high salaries were bought to play against PL teams, not EFL teams”

 

 

So if money was no object would the championship managers be choosing championship players or premier league players 🤔

 

 

I didn't say 'generally speaking' - i said they 'aren't necessarily' suited for the EFL.

 

For example, Nacho should be scoring 20 goals at this level not 5.  He just doesn't seem to be able to play against EFL teams the way he did against PL teams.

 

I think it's fair to say that the PL and EFL are very different - we bought Daka and to play against PL teams and in europe, not to play against 22 teams that park the bus.

There's a reason why we sold Hirst and why he's been brilliant for ipswich.

 

So, to answer your last question - it's horses for courses - there's no right or wrong answer - but i'm sure many championship managers will go for players that have a track record at this level on a reasonable salary, rather than a PL player on higher wages that may or may not adapt.

 

At the end of the day - the original comment i was replying to was that we should have no excuses for not winning because we have the most highly paid players - which is nonsense.

[Bourbon Fox]

6 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

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.

 

6 hours 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)

 

It's not often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly but you will no doubt be thrilled to learn that I do here!

 

There is a difference in our play though between the start of the season, when we were scoring most of our goals in the last 20 minutes of games (and the most late goals of any team in the league).

 

We don't seem to be firing those quick balls to feet around the final third - we used to miss a player out and break the lines a little more often, a little quicker I think.

 

Enzo was making subs around 60 minutes back then, and he's stopped doing that so much too.

 

I think it comes down to two things. The first is teams adapting as the season has worn on. The second is our midfield. 

 

Previously teams would be knackered from chasing the ball, and then we'd have basically a second Championship-winning standard midfield waiting on the bench.

 

Ndidi would start, and usually we'd change up and bring on two out of Casadei, Fatawu, McAteer, Akgun. As the season has passed we've lost options. Bringing McAteer and Fatawu on to tear apart a tired defence with youthful energy and pace was the source of so many goals and we simply don't have that in the locker right now.

[Lillehamring]

1 hour ago, Bourbon Fox said:

 

It's not often I find myself agreeing with you wholeheartedly but you will no doubt be thrilled to learn that I do here! 

 

There is a difference in our play though between the start of the season, when we were scoring most of our goals in the last 20 minutes of games (and the most late goals of any team in the league).

 

We don't seem to be firing those quick balls to feet around the final third - we used to miss a player out and break the lines a little more often, a little quicker I think.

 

Enzo was making subs around 60 minutes back then, and he's stopped doing that so much too.

 

I think it comes down to two things. The first is teams adapting as the season has worn on. The second is our midfield. 

 

Previously teams would be knackered from chasing the ball, and then we'd have basically a second Championship-winning standard midfield waiting on the bench.

 

Ndidi would start, and usually we'd change up and bring on two out of Casadei, Fatawu, McAteer, Akgun. As the season has passed we've lost options. Bringing McAteer and Fatawu on to tear apart a tired defence with youthful energy and pace was the source of so many goals and we simply don't have that in the locker right now.

Always nice to hear - especially with so much negativity on the board.

 

I think it's far too easy for people to just say 'oh, we score and just sit back and defend our lead'.

 

And you point out some further extenuating factors that people need to factor into things.

 

We don't know why Enzo seems to be making fewer, later substitutions but it certainly has seen us less dominant later in games.

 

I think teams are also making earlier subs to try to combat the effort needed to keep track of our passing game, teams are also less willing to just carry on parking the bus once they concede - i seem to remember, i think it was stoke, and we scored early and their keeper was already happy to time waste.  i think teams were initially happy to limit the damage, now they've seen we're not impregnable and when they go behind they decide to have a go.  things have changed, we're not finding things as easy as at the start of the season, but i can't accept that in games like the sunderland one we'd be idiotic enough to believe the best thing to do is defend a 1-0 lead for 77 minutes.

[davieG]

As I see it

 

Enzo has a 3 year plan to develop us into his style of play which many top teams seem to be doing in their own way and fans are getting impatient, concerned and frustrated over a few negative results

 

Pearson on the other hand who likes to build a team over a period of time with the right players often losing many games as he tries to perfect it  is renowned and praised by so many LCFC fans.

 

Incidentally our recent negative results have coincided with the absence of at least 1 more of our 3 best players for this system, Ricardo, Vestergaard and Ndidi. Ndidi and Casadei's absence has had a big impact on our ability to attack and defend down the middle whist causing a level of fatigue due to few options to rotate.

 

[Mark]

You really see our weaknesses even against a poor Chelsea side, it’s half time and we’re lucky it’s only 2. Far too slow at the back, everyone is lackadaisical and at this stage of the season you can't play like that as most teams still have something to play for.
 

We desperately need better options out wide and a tactical rethink. Ndidi is absolutely not the saviour as a number 8 either.

[Blanchflower78]

Well be torn to pieces in the Prembut may just be enough to get us promoted

[dylanlegend]

How is there 208 pages on Enzo tactics. It’s the same every game. The right back goes into centre mid leaving us exposed everytime we lose the ball. You can’t play that against most teams in the Prem so he needs to come up with a Plan B asap 

[Chocolate Teapot]

We've no chance of staying up and the way we're playing we've no chance of going up.

 

It's horrendous and he's refusing to charge anything.

[phoneticerror]

1 minute ago, Blanchflower78 said:

Well be torn to pieces in the Prembut may just be enough to get us promoted

Let’s face it mate, we’re not quite good enough to go up at the minute. 

[winteriscoming]

I don’t think the side is good enough to go up but we also have a manager who isn’t good enough either. 

[Nod.E]

I'd love to see us under Maresca with a creative 8.

 

I'm convinced we take the gamble of pressing so aggressively because he feels that's the only way we'll create anything. Said it a thousand times before, but for all the strengths of KDH and N'didi, they're both awful at finding a pass. 

 

So we press with everyone and leave ourselves exposed, which isn't ideal when you have slow centre halves. 

 

Until we address the lack of creativity in the middle, I'd like to see us be more selective with our press. It looks suicidal at times.

[Shane]

Coady needs to play more! He’s constantly communicating and organising, a proper leader on the pitch.

[Lillehamring]

On 17/03/2024 at 14:35, Mark said:

You really see our weaknesses even against a poor Chelsea side, it’s half time and we’re lucky it’s only 2. Far too slow at the back, everyone is lackadaisical and at this stage of the season you can't play like that as most teams still have something to play for.
 

We desperately need better options out wide and a tactical rethink. Ndidi is absolutely not the saviour as a number 8 either.

You are familiar with our record at stamford bridge, right?

[CosbehFox]

Defensive structure with same issues as last season in the PL. 

 

The team in transition becomes two units of 5. When the full backs decide to head out of their defensive shape. Then we have 7 in that forward transition. One of the reasons Enzo slows the game down in possession. 
 

One poor decision and suddenly teams utilise the space left by the full backs (inverted or not), the midfield becomes solely Winks and teams can just put the two slow defenders into the channels. 

 

The Championship teams are realising it too. Get the ball quick behind the full backs and get the centre defence isolated. If you use the press well too, you’ll catch Faes and Hamza out too. 

Edited 18 March by CosbehFox

[Lillehamring]

Come on guys - we've had a few disappointing results, games we've got tactics right but where the application has been wrong.  What Maresca has done to this team this quickly is sensational.

 

 

[Vazman]

On 07/03/2024 at 22:50, Lillehamring said:

Always nice to hear - especially with so much negativity on the board.

 

I think it's far too easy for people to just say 'oh, we score and just sit back and defend our lead'.

 

And you point out some further extenuating factors that people need to factor into things.

 

We don't know why Enzo seems to be making fewer, later substitutions but it certainly has seen us less dominant later in games.

 

I think teams are also making earlier subs to try to combat the effort needed to keep track of our passing game, teams are also less willing to just carry on parking the bus once they concede - i seem to remember, i think it was stoke, and we scored early and their keeper was already happy to time waste.  i think teams were initially happy to limit the damage, now they've seen we're not impregnable and when they go behind they decide to have a go.  things have changed, we're not finding things as easy as at the start of the season, but i can't accept that in games like the sunderland one we'd be idiotic enough to believe the best thing to do is defend a 1-0 lead for 77 minutes.

Whilst I think it's easy to just say our form is rubbish, it's also easy to over think it, the bottom line is we have thrown a significant points advantage, my opinion only, is we threw away 6 points, by some really poor finishing, in both the Leeds and Borough matches, had we won those we would be 6 points clear with a game in hand, we simply have to be better, and Enzo, who I like as manager, will have his work cut out to get us back on track after the international break, if he doesnt with the facilities and squad we have, expect more negativity, if he pulls it out the bag he will be the hero and rightly so, it's as simple as that.

[filbertway]

If we don't go up I do hope Enzo sticks around.

 

Given that he's been such a genius getting this rag tag bunch of non league players supplemented with around 40 million pounds worth of signings, to the top of the league.

 

Next season when we have no money and have to sell our best assets to cut down on expenditure and also pay back Macqarie, there's no better manager to have us back challenging for a league title

[Lillehamring]

On 19/03/2024 at 11:13, Vazman said:

Whilst I think it's easy to just say our form is rubbish, it's also easy to over think it, the bottom line is we have thrown a significant points advantage, my opinion only, is we threw away 6 points, by some really poor finishing, in both the Leeds and Borough matches, had we won those we would be 6 points clear with a game in hand, we simply have to be better, and Enzo, who I like as manager, will have his work cut out to get us back on track after the international break, if he doesnt with the facilities and squad we have, expect more negativity, if he pulls it out the bag he will be the hero and rightly so, it's as simple as that.

You can say that about pretty much every game we've lost, except perhaps Coventry.  Hull was particularly bad.

 

This is why i still have faith in Maresca's tactics - when we execute it right it's almost unbeatable (at least at this level), it's only when we don't execute that it looks bad - and the naysayers all start bleating about plan B's and 'being found out'.