The Enzo Thread

[ThumbsUp]

15 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

There's strong evidence that his possession ideology at this club yields less control in games than performances like yesterday in the shots against stats as well as things like xG etc.

 

So many games in 2024 that we've dominated possession against some ordinary teams who've created a significant amount of chances.

 

Both games against Southampton where we gave up the majority of possession and chance creation and xG etc is an absolute landslide in our favour and will favourably stack up against our preferred way of playing.

 

Why that doesn't drive him to a light bulb moment in his vision for the way football should be played is beyond me.

There's evidence that the opposite is true with a weak to moderate correlation. The suggestion the opposite has strong evidence is completely incorrect.

 

 

 

 

[ThumbsUp]

For sake of completeness, theres some evidence more possession results in more shots but no evidence more possession results in more xG for us.

[bmt]

3 minutes ago, ThumbsUp said:

There's evidence that the opposite is true with a weak to moderate correlation. The suggestion the opposite has strong evidence is completely incorrect.

 

 

 

 

This is interesting. I think control and huge possession aren't the same thing as Ric says.

 

We struggle to control the game when a team won't engage us at all and it doesn't matter how long Vestergaard has the ball at his feet. Again, think next year we will have more control as teams press us and we can gain numerical advantages in midfield etc.

[ThumbsUp]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

This is interesting. I think control and huge possession aren't the same thing as Ric says.

 

We struggle to control the game when a team won't engage us at all and it doesn't matter how long Vestergaard has the ball at his feet. Again, think next year we will have more control as teams press us and we can gain numerical advantages in midfield etc.

I somewhat agree, but I'm not sure there's any easy stats that we can look at that show "control" in a better way. Touches in mid 3rd perhaps? But a lot of our passing around the back will likely fall into this too. It was more just a quick test to see if what Ric said held up. 

 

The Southampton game is so clearly apparent on both charts too which says a lot.

[Ric Flair]

25 minutes ago, ThumbsUp said:

I somewhat agree, but I'm not sure there's any easy stats that we can look at that show "control" in a better way. Touches in mid 3rd perhaps? But a lot of our passing around the back will likely fall into this too. It was more just a quick test to see if what Ric said held up. 

 

The Southampton game is so clearly apparent on both charts too which says a lot.

What I meant and I may still be wrong, is if you take some examples of games where we took the lions share of the possession - we still gave up a certain level of shots against us compared for example against Southampton where we gave up possession and yet they created less than any opposition I can remember all season.

 

This could be an outlier, they were poor and it might be lost in what was wasted before a shot was made but in 2024 we've started to be easier to attack against our heavy possession style.

[filbertway]

On 24/04/2024 at 12:43, An Away Move said:

For all of those of you thinking Enzo changed the tactics last night or tried something different, please go and stand in front of a mirror and look back at yourself and repeat, ‘I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about’. Then, just then, it may sink in?

 

Last night was Enzo ball. We just had an opponent who didn’t park the bus and played a possession game of their own. It allowed us to show what we can do. It augurs well for the EPL. No team in that league is going to park the bus against us. 

If Dyche and Moyes are there that'll be two that'll do that. 

 

The main difference is that Premier Leagues will put in some effort against us - that Southampton team was unbelievably lackluster. Reminded me of us under Rodgers. Slow and boring on the ball, slow and weak off the ball.

[MPH]

2 hours ago, ThumbsUp said:

There's evidence that the opposite is true with a weak to moderate correlation. The suggestion the opposite has strong evidence is completely incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

i absolutely KNEW @leicsmac would be the first to like this post 

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

i absolutely KNEW @leicsmac would be the first to like this post 

What can I say?

 

I like it when people can actually substantiate their arguments with data, rather than just putting forth opinion as fact.

Edited 25 April by leicsmac

[Dahnsouff]

28 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What can I say?

 

I like it when people can actually substantiate their arguments with data, rather than just putting forth opinion as fact.

Yet without opinion there can be no beauty  

[leicsmac]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Yet without opinion there can be no beauty  

Certainly.

 

Just not when it's expressed as fact.

[Ric Flair]

On 24/04/2024 at 12:43, An Away Move said:

For all of those of you thinking Enzo changed the tactics last night or tried something different, please go and stand in front of a mirror and look back at yourself and repeat, ‘I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about’. Then, just then, it may sink in?

 

Last night was Enzo ball. We just had an opponent who didn’t park the bus and played a possession game of their own. It allowed us to show what we can do. It augurs well for the EPL. No team in that league is going to park the bus against us. 

Then Southampton are much more able to control possession against us than we are them.

 

Our possession stats against them in the two games are:

 

Southampton 55%

Leicester 45%

 

Leicester 33%

Southampton 67%

 

That said, Enzo evidently doesn't like us not controlling possession so you might be right it wasn't a tactical plan to play the way we did, probably more Southampton were classically going nowhere with the ball and we found it easy to set traps and then counter after winning the ball in dangerous areas. But I repeat, Enzo is never glowing about this type of football so quite possibly player led.

[Chelmofox]

55 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Then Southampton are much more able to control possession against us than we are them.

 

Our possession stats against them in the two games are:

 

Southampton 55%

Leicester 45%

 

Leicester 33%

Southampton 67%

 

That said, Enzo evidently doesn't like us not controlling possession so you might be right it wasn't a tactical plan to play the way we did, probably more Southampton were classically going nowhere with the ball and we found it easy to set traps and then counter after winning the ball in dangerous areas. But I repeat, Enzo is never glowing about this type of football so quite possibly player led.

Don't know if you were at the game, but a few of us commented towards the end that we had little idea during the game we had such little possession. I genuinely thought we would have had about 55-60%. But what i do remember is us constantly pushing them backwards time and time again. When they were in possession it was like we were hunting in packs at times, and i was worried how long the players could keep it up. But the key thing was how well organised we were at it. This makes me think it wasn't just an accident that happened on the day, but instead a tactical approach. When they brought on Smallbone they became more direct but after 20 mins of riding that out the game drifted to what it was before. 

 

This wasn't counter attacking football in the sense of you surviving an attack, keeper collects and you then unleashing an attack nor was it playing low block (which Leeds pretty much did 2nd half at Borough). The was controlling the game through the press and pushing the opposition backwards and thus forcing mistakes further up the field. We could do it because of Russell's brendanesque approach of playing sideways out the back (god i don't miss that - Enzo ball is nothing like it). Once you pushed them backwards they would have a very predictable defensive sideways kickabout and we could hunt. Personally would loved to have seen Daka at them in that first half. The 5th goal was actually quite a measured (but fast) attack where Soton were just all over the place and gave the guys the whole pitch to work with.

 

I'm likely wrong but it felt similar to when we played Bournemouth once the proper team was on (2nd half and extra time). Bournemouth were much more direct than Brussells sh1t show but i felt there was an element of being able to control them rather than us just control the game holding the ball.  Bournemouth ended up snatching most of their chances because of this.

 

I still think people are trying to read to much into Enzo's comments. We haven't played exactly the same against the better sides and i would be very surprised if he knew nothing about what the players were up to as it was so organised.  At the time i thought it was a way of trying to keep everything grounded as the job isn't done. I am sure he's going to have styles he would rather play but there will be times like this were different styles of control are needed. But i dont think it was a switch to counter attacking play at all. If Soton had exploited us and become clinical he would have definitely changed the approach.

Edited 25 April by Chelmofox

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

Don't know if you were at the game, but a few of us commented towards the end that we had little idea during the game we had such little possession. I genuinely thought we would have had about 55-60%. But what i do remember is us constantly pushing them backwards time and time again. When they were in possession it was like we were hunting in packs at times, and i was worried how long the players could keep it up. But the key thing was how well organised we were at it. This makes me think it wasn't just an accident that happened on the day, but instead a tactical approach. When they brought on Smallbone they became more direct but after 20 mins of riding that out the game drifted to what it was before. 

 

This wasn't counter attacking football in the sense of you surviving an attack, keeper collects and you then unleashing an attack nor was it playing low block (which Leeds pretty much did 2nd half at Borough). The was controlling the game through the press and pushing the opposition backwards and thus forcing mistakes further up the field. We could do it because of Russell's brendanesque approach of playing sideways out the back (god i don't miss that - Enzo ball is nothing like it). Once you pushed them backwards they would have a very predictable defensive sideways kickabout and we could hunt. Personally would loved to have seen Daka at them in that first half. The 5th goal was actually quite a measured (but fast) attack where Soton were just all over the place and gave the guys the whole pitch to work with.

 

I'm likely wrong but it felt similar to when we played Bournemouth once the proper team was on (2nd half and extra time). Bournemouth were much more direct than Brussells sh1t show but i felt there was an element of being able to control them rather than us just control the game holding the ball.  Bournemouth ended up snatching most of their chances because of this.

 

I still think people are trying to read to much into Enzo's comments. We haven't played exactly the same against the better sides and i would be very surprised if he knew nothing about what the players were up to as it was so organised.  At the time i thought it was a way of trying to keep everything grounded as the job isn't done. I am sure he's going to have styles he would rather play but there will be times like this were different styles of control are needed. But i dont think it was a switch to counter attacking play at all. If Soton had exploited us and become clinical he would have definitely changed the approach.

Totally agree. The reduction in possession was more taken away from our back line which is the heaviest contributor and as you say the press was executed almost to perfection. 

 

Our midfield and attack was far more on point than anything seen in recent months.

[Chelmofox]

11 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Totally agree. The reduction in possession was more taken away from our back line which is the heaviest contributor and as you say the press was executed almost to perfection. 

 

Our midfield and attack was far more on point than anything seen in recent months.

Shit you not, as the game we joked it was like we were hunting in packs. Every time we did it eyes were dead focussed (god know what they were on) and the the replay i watch we win so many balls from all sorts of positions (highlights dont do this justice). And yes, less emphasis on the back line having so much possession, which in turn means no one is whinging about Faes or JJ over forcing things.

 

I loved Russell saying he thought Soton played the press well. Think my sons U12 team would have done a better job. They were shocking.

 

Its just not going to happen again this season though. I wonder how Enzo will setup for Preston, because it so so bloody obvious what they are going to do. Does he go back to the method that worked well for him most of the season and might work again because confidence is high (and Preston might be beachy), or does he have another trick up his sleeve? I'm not sure he does.

Edited 25 April by Chelmofox

[MPH]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Certainly.

 

Just not when it's expressed as fact.

 

is this an opinion or a fact?

 

[Matt]

Following on from his comments after Tuesday, specifically the "On the ball we could play more better because there was space to play" comment but also the "We could keep the ball more" and "I think we had more games where the team was better on the ball".

 

That to me means playing sideways, aimless passes, passing for passing sake.

 

Why? I mean given we won 5-0 why would you want the above?!

 

A lot was levelled and joked about Rodgers (and possession based football full stop) that he didn't like us shooting or scoring because it meant we gave up possession but I genuinely have to start asking if that's seriously the case, we're in an age where it seems possession is the first stat people look at and care about.

 

I note Maresca's comments regarding dropping Fatawu because he'll be shooting too much were tongue in cheek but I think there may be an element of truth in it.

[ajthefox]

I see a lot about Enzo's ideology and what he takes from Pep, but are people forgetting how good Man City are on the counter? Not to mention how much they try and win the ball/stop attacks in the opponents 3rd. He's seen all that first hand.

 

As has been pointed out, he's a very inexperience manager who is still finding his feet. I don't think any of it is black and white.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, Matt said:

Following on from his comments after Tuesday, specifically the "On the ball we could play more better because there was space to play" comment but also the "We could keep the ball more" and "I think we had more games where the team was better on the ball".

 

That to me means playing sideways, aimless passes, passing for passing sake.

 

Why? I mean given we won 5-0 why would you want the above?!

 

A lot was levelled and joked about Rodgers (and possession based football full stop) that he didn't like us shooting or scoring because it meant we gave up possession but I genuinely have to start asking if that's seriously the case, we're in an age where it seems possession is the first stat people look at and care about.

 

I note Maresca's comments regarding dropping Fatawu because he'll be shooting too much were tongue in cheek but I think there may be an element of truth in it.

Especially given the opposition had only 7 shots and zero on target. 

 

Enzo wants his teams to score goals but he wants them to do it by controlling possession at all times and he'd rather that happen than additional goals for the sake of it, or that's what it seems to me.

 

Bizarre.

[Ric Flair]

The promising thing though, is pur players will go for pressing in packs, turning the ball over and attacking quickly if the opportunities or games present themselves. 

 

Maybe in time that encourages the manager to not be so against it.

[HighPeakFox]

35 minutes ago, Matt said:

Following on from his comments after Tuesday, specifically the "On the ball we could play more better because there was space to play" comment but also the "We could keep the ball more" and "I think we had more games where the team was better on the ball".

 

That to me means playing sideways, aimless passes, passing for passing sake.

 

Why? I mean given we won 5-0 why would you want the above?!

 

A lot was levelled and joked about Rodgers (and possession based football full stop) that he didn't like us shooting or scoring because it meant we gave up possession but I genuinely have to start asking if that's seriously the case, we're in an age where it seems possession is the first stat people look at and care about.

 

I note Maresca's comments regarding dropping Fatawu because he'll be shooting too much were tongue in cheek but I think there may be an element of truth in it.

In plain English, what he said was 'we gave the ball away too frequently' - which in the first half especially, we did.

[Motty]

We won 5 nil had 34% possession

If we get promoted we're gonna win the league.

Did it feel we were out of control no.

We controlled Southampton whilst they had the ball. Enzo watch the Vt polish your head, blink your eyes. There is more than one way to skin a cat 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

23 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

In plain English, what he said was 'we gave the ball away too frequently' - which in the first half especially, we did.

If you take risks in playing with attacking intent then you will give the ball away more but I’d accept that all day long as opposed to possession for possession’s sake. 

 

Also if you are strong in the art of pressing and regaining possession then taking those risks becomes less of an issue 

 

 

[Tom12345]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

What I meant and I may still be wrong, is if you take some examples of games where we took the lions share of the possession - we still gave up a certain level of shots against us compared for example against Southampton where we gave up possession and yet they created less than any opposition I can remember all season.

 

This could be an outlier, they were poor and it might be lost in what was wasted before a shot was made but in 2024 we've started to be easier to attack against our heavy possession style.

I agree with you.

 

Aside from the “possession” point we have been talking about, I think the even more important point here is “purpose” and “mentality”.

 

What a lot of people have said here is that against Southampton we seem to do more with the possession we had. We had more purpose. But what that translates to, much more importantly, is a better mentality. We wanted to press, to win, to keep attacking. That was what put Southampton under pressure and on the back foot and why in the end they could not get a decent chance against us.

 

In games where we had loads of possession (but my argument is that possession does not matter as much in this context), we instead feared losing the ball, we feared therefore going forward and attacking, and we therefore invited pressure and boosted the other team’s confidence. This is why we bottled so many times. This is also the reason for Rodger’s downfall.

 

This is why I feared what Maresca said about him not being happy. What I fear more than anything else is overcoaching and his desire to be too perfect to the point where we fear and therefore bottle.

 

Again, if we win 5-0, he should complement on all the risks the players took. Yes, we may have lost possession at times, but it is exactly because of that we gained confidence and the upperhand in mentality, as I mentioned above.

 

Top managers like Pep, Klopp and Ferguson see that. If Enzo can see that and learn from this, he can be much better.

 

Edited 26 April by Tom12345

[Gazza M]

Enzo needs to get used to the Southampton level of possession if we go up as we ain't controlling many games next season. It was effective football and maybe a blueprint. 

[Bordersfox]

Cheers Enzo 🍻