Tactics Under Maresca

[Lillehamring]

On 20/08/2023 at 12:06, shen said:

I interpreted Maresca as saying Choudhury is backup to Winks though.

 

I would prefer if we could switch up the side that our 'Ricardo' plays from time to time, so we would be harder to read and mark out of the game - especially if it means we use Justin on the right who has the physique to contribute well in forward areas too without exposing us too much.

 

Ndidi, pretty obvious I'd say.

If Justin plays, based on what maresca did last time, it will mean that Ricardo goes to the left, Doyle to the bench - it might happen in rotation but it won't be plan A.

[BenTheFox]

5 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

LMAO!

 

Not trying to do you dirty! I did also hear that Burnley fans were quite impressed early on with Kompany. However, they were subjected to Dyche ball for 5+ years. Brendan's style was awful at the end of his tenure, but we saw major trophies, 5th place finishes and some amazing games like Southampton and Newcastle performances.

 

Right now we see potential of where we could get to, but we've got a long way to get there. To be fair to our new manager, he says this ad nauseam.

I've watched two episodes of the Burnley documentary and Kompany said that it's easier to implement a new style with new signings rather than players that are already there. I found this quite interesting. We have seen how our new signings seem to have acclimatised to this better than players that we already had. 

[Lillehamring]

On 20/08/2023 at 15:18, Paninistickers said:

I think Wilf has in (increasingly larger) patches in games, been magnificent. I've enjoyed seeing him enjoying his football again. He's not that far off 2018/19 Wilf

 

I think it would be a extremely unwise choice to drop him. He's fitter, stronger and smells danger and opportunity better than anything I'd expect to see in a championship midfield 

 

 

 

Horses for courses - it's clear that Casadei is a more instinctive attacking player, whilst wilf offers as good a defensive/pressing brain as there is in this squad.  There'll be games when either is an option, or evn if he wants to rest KDH.

[Paninistickers]

4 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

I think the difference is Maresca is trying to build something future proofed, a system that can work if we get promoted, a system that will work regardless of who goes and who comes in - playing to the strengths of the current squad is dangerously naive.

I get you, but I also think ignoring the strengths of the squad is dangerously naive. 

 

Football fans don't want jam tomorrow. Same goes for the finances. Both aspects need immediate PL football. Ignoring the safest route there is a gamble. Not sure if I'd have the balls to make the 'long game' call that the manager and club seem to want to. 

[Paninistickers]

2 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

Horses for courses - it's clear that Casadei is a more instinctive attacking player, whilst wilf offers as good a defensive/pressing brain as there is in this squad.  There'll be games when either is an option, or evn if he wants to rest KDH.

That part has  been so underrated in the clamour to slag off Wilf on here. 

 

I've loved seeing an oppo midfielder receive a slightly awkward ball or make a slight miscontrol and a split second later Wilf's long leg is there and a millisecond later he's got his body in front too. 

 

Wilf is amongst the first names on the teamsheet for me

 

 

I'd play Casadei (on the presumption he's as good as the manager clearly thinks he is). And Wilf. And KDH. And Winks. And even Praet. The wingers for me have been a waste of space (and yes, I know they have scored. But that doesn't tell the whole story) 

[coolhandfox]

7 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

That part has  been so underrated in the clamour to slag off Wilf on here. 

 

I've loved seeing an oppo midfielder receive a slightly awkward ball or make a slight miscontrol and a split second later Wilf's long leg is there and a millisecond later he's got his body in front too. 

 

Wilf is amongst the first names on the teamsheet for me

 

 

I'd play Casadei (on the presumption he's as good as the manager clearly thinks he is). And Wilf. And KDH. And Winks. And even Praet. The wingers for me have been a waste of space (and yes, I know they have scored. But that doesn't tell the whole story) 

Brendan is that you?

 

 

[Lillehamring]

56 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Our xG has been lower than our opponents in each game so far.

 

We are lacking quality and depth in some very important positions. Genuinely can't see how we finish anywhere near the top 2 if we don't strengthen the team and Enzo is set on sticking with this system. We're on 9 points atm but it could easily be 0-3 points.

 

A lot of people talking about xG as if it is the defining factor in creativity, but we need to remember that xG is about the quality of chances as well as the amount of chances created.  When you have 70% possession, chances are you're going to find 11 men sitting deep in front of you, so naturally the chances you create are going to be harder chances and carry a lower xG value - i suspect the xG for marcal's goal was low because of the amount of defenders it needed to beat.  Cardiff had a higher xG than us, but only had 10 shots to our five - so we can see that xG doesn't mean they created more chances, it means they created easier chances, which is inevitable when most of them came on the counter.  A 1v1 is going to have a much higher xG than nacho's shot against the post.

 

The problem isn't that we aren't creating chances, it's that we're not getting into the right places with the ball to create easy chances, which is easier said than done and will take time until everyone knows the system and is familiar with where their team mates are going to be.

[honeybradger]

56 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

 

 

Beating Sunderland 4-2 with an XG of 0.7?! Did we loan Ward to Sunderland for a game?

I'm more surprised by the Wigan 5-1 result. Xg of 0.9 to wigan's 1.8! Burnley must have scored some bangers that match.

 

edit: not sure about @StriderHiryu's xg stats. looking at the highlights the xg for burnley should be much higher 

 

Edited 21 August 2023 by honeybradger

[moore_94]

16 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

That part has  been so underrated in the clamour to slag off Wilf on here. 

 

I've loved seeing an oppo midfielder receive a slightly awkward ball or make a slight miscontrol and a split second later Wilf's long leg is there and a millisecond later he's got his body in front too. 

 

Wilf is amongst the first names on the teamsheet for me

 

 

I'd play Casadei (on the presumption he's as good as the manager clearly thinks he is). And Wilf. And KDH. And Winks. And even Praet. The wingers for me have been a waste of space (and yes, I know they have scored. But that doesn't tell the whole story) 

What system would you have us playing with all those centre mids on the pitch and no wingers?

Edited 21 August 2023 by moore_94

[Lillehamring]

19 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I get you, but I also think ignoring the strengths of the squad is dangerously naive. 

 

Football fans don't want jam tomorrow. Same goes for the finances. Both aspects need immediate PL football. Ignoring the safest route there is a gamble. Not sure if I'd have the balls to make the 'long game' call that the manager and club seem to want to. 

Well, it's early days but Leeds went with tried and tested EFL management and it's not working - Maresca was/is a huge risk but the club have always tended to go with risky appointments, so we should be used to it by now - personally, i'm still smiling at the fact that we didn't go for scott parker!

 

And i think Maresca, within his system, is playing to the strengths of the team - for example, he clearly doesn't have confidence in VK, JJ or thomas so he's going with Doyle who he knows can play his system and has proven to be comfortable in the role. Same with going for stolarcyzk over iversen - he clearly sees that the young keeper has the strengths needed for the system even if iversen maybe the better keeper?

[filbertway]

3 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

 

A lot of people talking about xG as if it is the defining factor in creativity, but we need to remember that xG is about the quality of chances as well as the amount of chances created.  When you have 70% possession, chances are you're going to find 11 men sitting deep in front of you, so naturally the chances you create are going to be harder chances and carry a lower xG value - i suspect the xG for marcal's goal was low because of the amount of defenders it needed to beat.  Cardiff had a higher xG than us, but only had 10 shots to our five - so we can see that xG doesn't mean they created more chances, it means they created easier chances, which is inevitable when most of them came on the counter.  A 1v1 is going to have a much higher xG than nacho's shot against the post.

 

The problem isn't that we aren't creating chances, it's that we're not getting into the right places with the ball to create easy chances, which is easier said than done and will take time until everyone knows the system and is familiar with where their team mates are going to be.

I'm not sure what your point is  

 

It seems like an argument that I would use if our xG was higher than our opposition, due to the sheer volume of shots we've taken.

 

 

We're badly lacking the quality that would present us with the better quality chances, which is my point. If we don't bring in the quality, we'll find that eventually the luck will run out and it'll be very easy to find ourselves in a rut.

[Lesta Legend]

At the moment Mavididi is in the top ten for progressive carries and progressive passes received in the league with KDH our next best player, no surprise he has two goals! The importance that we get a right side player that can drive at players like Stephy cannot be underestimated, with second best possession we need to get the ball up more quickly to create more chances to take advantage of the higher possession and not go back to the Todgers ball we've been used to.

I would imagine Cesare will positively effect our attacking stats as Wilf very rarely go into the opponents box, its not in his nature.

Edited 21 August 2023 by Lesta Legend

[Lillehamring]

19 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

That part has  been so underrated in the clamour to slag off Wilf on here. 

 

I've loved seeing an oppo midfielder receive a slightly awkward ball or make a slight miscontrol and a split second later Wilf's long leg is there and a millisecond later he's got his body in front too. 

 

Wilf is amongst the first names on the teamsheet for me

 

 

I'd play Casadei (on the presumption he's as good as the manager clearly thinks he is). And Wilf. And KDH. And Winks. And even Praet. The wingers for me have been a waste of space (and yes, I know they have scored. But that doesn't tell the whole story) 

One of the first things Maresca mentioned about his system was 'ball recovery' and that is the area that has been the difference between our up periods and our down periods in these games - when we're good our ball recovery is super quick and efficient, when we've been bad it's because we've failed to recover the ball and left our (we all know it) slow defenders exposed.

 

That said there will be games this season where ndidi's inability/reluctance to get in the box will mean that Casadei will always be a better option.

[Lillehamring]

4 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I'm not sure what your point is  

 

It seems like an argument that I would use if our xG was higher than our opposition, due to the sheer volume of shots we've taken.

 

 

We're badly lacking the quality that would present us with the better quality chances, which is my point. If we don't bring in the quality, we'll find that eventually the luck will run out and it'll be very easy to find ourselves in a rut.

Again, it's not about the VOLUME of shots, but about the quality of chances.  Our low xG means that even though we've the 4th highest SPG in the EFL, those shots have been from difficult chances with a low likelihood of success - thus low 'expected' goals - expected goals doesn't mean that if you have 100 shots you're expected to score X amount of goals, it's the value of likelihood of a particular shot resulting in a goal, thus a penalty gives a high xG, Ramsey's worldie would have a  low xG.

 

As for the quality debate, in theory yes a better quality set of players will create better quality of chances, but not always.  For example,  our 15/16 team was low on quality - 'on paper' - but rather than having quality we had suitability - sometimes the 'right' player, is more important than the 'best' player.  Vardy and Nacho are 'quality' strikers, but neither seems 'right' for the system - people said Winks wasn't quality, but he was the perfect choice for the system.  

 

As for luck, i'd say blowing a one-on-one, for examplem, isn't us being 'lucky', it's just poor football, whereas Nacho hitting the post was 'unlucky' - swings and roundabouts, luck never decided a league season, maybe the odd game.

[Lillehamring]

14 minutes ago, Lesta Legend said:

At the moment Mavididi is in the top ten for progressive carries and progressive passes received in the league with KDH our next best player, no surprise he has two goals! The importance that we get a right side player that can drive at players like Stephy cannot be underestimated, with second best possession we need to get the ball up more quickly to create more chances to take advantage of the higher possession and not go back to the Todgers ball we've been used to.

I would imagine Cesare will positively effect our attacking stats as Wilf very rarely go into the opponents box, its not in his nature.

Even if we have to stick with Marcal out wide, he looked a lot better when playing alongside praet, it's possible that Casadei will have a similar effect on his game.  Also, the surge in his confidence after his goal was almost palpable.

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

Again, it's not about the VOLUME of shots, but about the quality of chances.  Our low xG means that even though we've the 4th highest SPG in the EFL, those shots have been from difficult chances with a low likelihood of success - thus low 'expected' goals - expected goals doesn't mean that if you have 100 shots you're expected to score X amount of goals, it's the value of likelihood of a particular shot resulting in a goal, thus a penalty gives a high xG, Ramsey's worldie would have a  low xG.

 

As for the quality debate, in theory yes a better quality set of players will create better quality of chances, but not always.  For example,  our 15/16 team was low on quality - 'on paper' - but rather than having quality we had suitability - sometimes the 'right' player, is more important than the 'best' player.  Vardy and Nacho are 'quality' strikers, but neither seems 'right' for the system - people said Winks wasn't quality, but he was the perfect choice for the system.  

 

As for luck, i'd say blowing a one-on-one, for examplem, isn't us being 'lucky', it's just poor football, whereas Nacho hitting the post was 'unlucky' - swings and roundabouts, luck never decided a league season, maybe the odd game.

Again im not sure if you're disagreeing with me or agreeing with me

 

I've read the football code, it goes into great depth about xG, I feel I have a very decent understanding of it as clearly you do. All I said was that our xG is lower than our opponents, for some reason you started explaining xG at me

 

If your xG is lower than your opponents then generally that's not a good sign, especially for a team that wants to get promoted.

 

You make a fair point on the "luck". Good players will generally outperform xG whereas poor players will generally underperform. Teams that do better will be the teams that pick up a higher xG on a consistent basis. If we keep giving other teams better chances we'll likely stop winning games.

 

[BenTheFox]

39 minutes ago, honeybradger said:

I'm more surprised by the Wigan 5-1 result. Xg of 0.9 to wigan's 1.8! Burnley must have scored some bangers that match.

 

edit: not sure about @StriderHiryu's xg stats. looking at the highlights the xg for burnley should be much higher 

 

State of some of that Wigan defending!

[steveb]

The tactics so far have been remarkable, bore everyone to death by giving Vesty the ball as much as possible, sending everyone to sleep, fans and opponents.

Then mysteriously bring the game back to life by giving the opponents an easy goal.

Followed by scoring in the last moments to win.

 

Remarkably these bizarre tactics seem to be working

[steveb]

What i really like so far, lucky wins aside is lots of 3 o`clock kick offs,, its like being back in the good old days when we got promoted or relegated every other season,, oops.

[Lillehamring]

29 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Again im not sure if you're disagreeing with me or agreeing with me

 

I've read the football code, it goes into great depth about xG, I feel I have a very decent understanding of it as clearly you do. All I said was that our xG is lower than our opponents, for some reason you started explaining xG at me

 

If your xG is lower than your opponents then generally that's not a good sign, especially for a team that wants to get promoted.

 

You make a fair point on the "luck". Good players will generally outperform xG whereas poor players will generally underperform. Teams that do better will be the teams that pick up a higher xG on a consistent basis. If we keep giving other teams better chances we'll likely stop winning games.

 

To be honest i replied to your post simply because it was there and you mentioned our lower xG, something that people seemed to be focussing on.

 

I guess the point i'm making is that having a low xG only tells us so much.  The fact that it has been lower than our opponents doesn't mean that we should have lost these games or that we've been unlucky, it just goes with the territory of the system, and shouldn't really be of any concern right now... 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

1 hour ago, Lillehamring said:

How many goals have we conceded by any of our defenders being caught out of position - none - granted teams have had chances, but we've seen that this is a risk worth taking given the low quality of EFL strikers.  What we have to consider is: over a season will this cost us sufficient goals that it is worth sacrificing having a ball playing CB?  Justin may have pace, but he's clearly not good enough in the pivot/CB area for maresca to use him there, so it would mean, having a back three of...actually your suggestion doesn't make sense unless you mean doyle to RCB - ie JJ/Faes/Doyle/ricardo? - but then you have doyle playing out of position, faes as the CB pivot and JJ... - mate, this doesn't make any sense, just because vestergaard is slow...

I’m assuming Enzo likes a balance - Vesty being a left footed CB and LCB for example. Doyle is also left footed. Justin has played CB for us I think in one our numerous injury crises. I don’t think it’s an issue at all, though I take your point about the standard of strikers in this league being mostly rubbish.

[filbertway]

5 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

To be honest i replied to your post simply because it was there and you mentioned our lower xG, something that people seemed to be focussing on.

 

I guess the point i'm making is that having a low xG only tells us so much.  The fact that it has been lower than our opponents doesn't mean that we should have lost these games or that we've been unlucky, it just goes with the territory of the system, and shouldn't really be of any concern right now... 

It's a minimal difference so really the law of averages says the team with the higher quality should edge more games than not.

 

It's a concern to me as long term, our squad will pick up suspenisions, injuries, drops in confidence. If our squad now, with most players available is struggling to best teams, further down the line the results will take a hit.

 

I don't believe that this system is magical that it means we should expect a lower xG than our opponents. You've got me stumped on that. 

 

If the system is to give up high % chances while creating lots of low % chances then it's not very good and I'm amazed that Man City, Arsenal, Burnley and Brighton have done so well :p

 

I like this way of playing, but we need to sign players that will suit it so we can get the most of it. We're still 3 or 4 short of having that quality of depth.

 

I won't find Maresca culpable if the squad isn't improved and we can't finish top 2 or get promoted via play offs. This is a proven system and he's clearly a good manager and coach on top of that.

 

Enzo is saying as much himself. People are too quick to pull their pud over good results and cry about terrible results. Get the process and underlying stats trending in the right direction and the results will come.

[Lillehamring]

14 minutes ago, filbertway said:

It's a minimal difference so really the law of averages says the team with the higher quality should edge more games than not.

Not sure if something as simple as that works here, though - when it comes down to it, edging games is all about the quality of the finisher rather than the quality of the chance. Coventry really should have edged that game but their strikers were woeful.

 

It's a concern to me as long term, our squad will pick up suspenisions, injuries, drops in confidence. If our squad now, with most players available is struggling to best teams, further down the line the results will take a hit.

The other side of this coin is that, given the amount of newness, we're probably playing as bad as we'll play all year - all other things remaining equal - so in all likelihood if we are effected by these things, we'll be in a better position to deal with them.

 

I don't believe that this system is magical that it means we should expect a lower xG than our opponents. You've got me stumped on that. 

I'm basing it on the logic that it's harder to create easy chances against a team that parks the bus, compared to one that is wide open at the back - a 1v1 counter will always result in a higher xG than a shot from distance through a crowed penalty area.

 

If the system is to give up high % chances while creating lots of low % chances then it's not very good and I'm amazed that Man City, Arsenal, Burnley and Brighton have done so well :p

Have faith - when the system is working well, the chances created will become a lot better!

 

I like this way of playing, but we need to sign players that will suit it so we can get the most of it. We're still 3 or 4 short of having that quality of depth.

Sure.

 

I won't find Maresca culpable if the squad isn't improved and we can't finish top 2 or get promoted via play offs. This is a proven system and he's clearly a good manager and coach on top of that.

 

Enzo is saying as much himself. People are too quick to pull their pud over good results and cry about terrible results. Get the process and underlying stats trending in the right direction and the results will come.

Amen

 

[filbertway]

10 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

 

Feels like we're more or less on the same page, I just lean to the pessimistic side and you lean to the more optimistic side

 

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

won't find Maresca culpable if the squad isn't improved and we can't finish top 2 o

System or no system, signings or no signings.... if a manager can't get us promoted automatically with this squad (assuming no unexpected departures on deadline day) of players (even if some are overpaid and unwanted) and a 62m wage budget, he ought to be shot