Educate me

[Halfsy]

I think yesterday's capitulation was down to several things really.

Firstly, if Steve Howard heads home a third just after the interval, the game is won.

You always need to score again in the second half when you are winning, but we didn't and to compound that, our system had to be changed due to the Wellens injury.

Wellens is such an integral part of our team, because as we have seen so far he is instrumental at not only winning the ball, but then playing it simply and keeping possession.

I for one was certainly confused when it appeared Pearson had asked Adams to play alongside King in the middle, rather than Oakley.

That is far too lightweight for this division, surely Oakley should have partnered King in the middle and have given a bit of experience and protection in front of the back two.

Coupled with this, Gallagher's reluctancy to play wide left meant that the Watford right-back could overlap in the gaps that Gallagher was leaving and that left Berner with no protection at all.

Finally, i think the right back Neilsen was absolutely garbage yesterday.

All three goals were his fault in my opinion, and it is very worrying we don't have many alternatives in that position.

If you look at their first goal, Gallagher gives their right back 10 yards to knock a ball forward, that is far too much, and Hobbs is beaten in the air, before Neilsen is easily rolled and it is game on.

The second goal, Gallagher again let the cross come in, Berner's header is poor and takes it away from Brown and Hobbs, but Neilsen is on his heels at the back stick and it is simply not good enough.

They had all the momentum and Helgusson's introduction had completely galvanised them once they had gone two up top and the third was inevitable.

Their third goal was poor once again, Hobbs ducked out of his header, and Neilsen was again beaten to it at the back post. It really was a capitulation of all sorts.

But what i will say is, and we all thought we had been beaten, is that the resiliance from the boys to then go and rescue a point, when we had thrown away a two goal lead was fantastic.

Pearson introduced Waghorn and N'Guessan and they both combined for a brilliant equaliser. It is very promising that we have players from the bench who can offer that sort of impact in to a game.

Personally, i am hoping for better performances from Howard and Oakley, who i am a big fan of, but they have not impressed me this season.

I think Brown's time is up, you all might sing he will break your legs, but that is all he is good for. Tunchev is a class above.

Hopefully Wellens is available for Preston and we can get a massive three points on Saturday.

[marbelladave]

Halfsey

I do not think blaming individuals is all that helpful, we fell apart as a team, no-one, especially in midfield, knew who was playing where, picking up whom and covering what.

Our whole back 4 was exposed, everyone of them, at one time or another made mistakes and Watford took full advantage, we were lucky to come away with a point.

BTW......Gallagher was deliberately moved to play centrally in the first half, then in the second it looked like he was asked to drop back into a covering left side position as we looked to sit back and hold onto our lead.

As a left midfield player he looked exactly what he is, a half decent centre forward!

[dogadug]

Halfsey

I do not think blaming individuals is all that helpful, we fell apart as a team, no-one, especially in midfield, knew who was playing where, picking up whom and covering what.

Our whole back 4 was exposed, everyone of them, at one time or another made mistakes and Watford took full advantage, we were lucky to come away with a point.

BTW......Gallagher was deliberately moved to play centrally in the first half, then in the second it looked like he was asked to drop back into a covering left side position as we looked to sit back and hold onto our lead.

As a left midfield player he looked exactly what he is, a half decent centre forward!

NP should have kept Gallagher where he was. Gallagher DOES NOT like playing on the left, and is shit at it, so surely we'd of bee better leaving him where he was, as attack is the best form of defense

[Halfsy]

Halfsey

I do not think blaming individuals is all that helpful, we fell apart as a team, no-one, especially in midfield, knew who was playing where, picking up whom and covering what.

Our whole back 4 was exposed, everyone of them, at one time or another made mistakes and Watford took full advantage, we were lucky to come away with a point.

BTW......Gallagher was deliberately moved to play centrally in the first half, then in the second it looked like he was asked to drop back into a covering left side position as we looked to sit back and hold onto our lead.

As a left midfield player he looked exactly what he is, a half decent centre forward!

It's all well and good saying that, but if individuals are making mistakes that cost us goals, you highlight it.

Wayne Brown has shown he simply isn't as good as Tunchev in the last three games, and the right back Neilsen had a poor performance at Watford.

Fryatt's miss against Peterborough cost us two points, he should have scored, simple.

If players are making costly errors they should be highlighted, that's all i am saying.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

It's all well and good saying that, but if individuals are making mistakes that cost us goals, you highlight it.

Wayne Brown has shown he simply isn't as good as Tunchev in the last three games, and the right back Neilsen had a poor performance at Watford.

Fryatt's miss against Peterborough cost us two points, he should have scored, simple.

If players are making costly errors they should be highlighted, that's all i am saying.

This.

Bring Tunch back and don't play Gallagher on the left and we will be fine.

I think Howard's place is most at threat at the moment due to the amount of chances he has missed lately.

[Thracian]

It's extrememely interesting to read people's reflections on Saturday's second half and my own fourpennyworth is this.

a) It is wrong to blame any individual. This was a collective failing with the manager Nigel Pearson just as much at fault as anyone else. However there were various individual failings which do need to be considered if we are to avoid the same thing happening again.

b) Our second half tranformation from being utterly dominant to being virtually overwhelmed was down to just two things in essence.

1) Instead of starting the second half in the same way as the first by closing down quickly and as a unit' thus denying Watford time and space, we sat off and invited them onto us just as we have done so many times before.

Our attitude was that we were two goals in front and we'd defy Watford to break us down enough to make a comeback.

This was demonstrated not only by our obviously sitting deeper from the off but from the total lack of runners and people making themselves available for a pass when we did gain possession - demonstrating beyond doubt that we had no ambition to get forward seriously or in numbers during the second half - until we had no alternative.

2) Our approach was made worse by the collective tiring of certain members of our team for various reasons, for example Neilson, Berner, Fryatt, Gallagher, Howard and possibly even King to a minor extent. And, of course the injury to Wellens played a part both before he went off (with King having to briefly hold the fort on his own and with few passing options, then afterwards insofar as Wellens departure required reorganisation we probably hadn't planned.

The team therefore collectively tired partly because we just don't seem to have alternatives for certain players - and curiously most of the players I've mentioned.

I don't think the players tired due to lack of fitness either. Neilson/Berner aren't naturally attacking full-backs but the attacking aspect of their role was crucial to enabling us to dominate the first half. Trouble is the role of attacking full-back is extremely demanding and we really needed two more attacking full-backs to maintain the pressure by which we took initial control of the game.

Gallagher has barely played a full-game for months yet he was given a demanding fairly free role behind the strikers and while he was lively and dangerous first half, he simply didn't make the same runs or have the same involvement later.

Fryatt has always had a tendency to fade or to find a full 90-minutes effort difficult to maintain and with it being his second game in four days it was hardly surpriising he was knackered.

So to King for whom it was his first full 90 of the season and Howard, again, making his second exhausting appearance in four days which is asking a lot of a big veteran striker who is constantly in the thick of the most physical action.

Meanwhile fresh players like N'Guessan and Waghorn sat idly by for 72 minutes or more, DJ, Dyer and Gradel were nowhere to be see and I've no idea who we'd got or indeed have as alternative attacking full-backs or central midfield players, apart from Oakley who was never going to up the pace during his fourth half in four days.

Any manager can show faith in his squad if they're losing or playing badly. Real belief is shown when a manager has the confidence to make changes when the team and even individuals, are playing well. It's a lesson that needs learning as is the foolhardiness of changing tactics which are working.

In fact I'd say it's silly to ever let a team run at you if it can possibly be avoided.

[Raj]

The introduction of HHelguson was a factor too me thinks.

[marbelladave]

It's extrememely interesting to read people's reflections on Saturday's second half and my own fourpennyworth is this.

a) It is wrong to blame any individual. This was a collective failing with the manager Nigel Pearson just as much at fault as anyone else. However there were various individual failings which do need to be considered if we are to avoid the same thing happening again.

b) Our second half tranformation from being utterly dominant to being virtually overwhelmed was down to just two things in essence.

1) Instead of starting the second half in the same way as the first by closing down quickly and as a unit' thus denying Watford time and space, we sat off and invited them onto us just as we have done so many times before.

Our attitude was that we were two goals in front and we'd defy Watford to break us down enough to make a comeback.

This was demonstrated not only by our obviously sitting deeper from the off but from the total lack of runners and people making themselves available for a pass when we did gain possession - demonstrating beyond doubt that we had no ambition to get forward seriously or in numbers during the second half - until we had no alternative.

2) Our approach was made worse by the collective tiring of certain members of our team for various reasons, for example Neilson, Berner, Fryatt, Gallagher, Howard and possibly even King to a minor extent. And, of course the injury to Wellens played a part both before he went off (with King having to briefly hold the fort on his own and with few passing optiois, then afterwards insofar as Wellens departure required reorganisation we probably hadn't planned.

The team therefore collectively tired partly because we just don't seem to have alternatives for certain players - and curiously most of the players I've mentioned.

I don't think the players tired due to lack of fitness either. Neilson/Berner aren't naturally attacking full-backs but the attacking aspect of their role was crucial to enabling us to dominate the first half. Trouble is the role of attacking full-back is extremely demanding and we really needed two more attacking full-backs to maintain the pressure by which we took initial control of the game.

Gallagher has barely played a full-game for months yet he was given a demanding fairly free role behind the strikers and while he was lively and dangerous first half, he simply didn't make the same runs or have the same involvement later.

Fryatt has always had a tendency to fade or to find a full 90-minutes effort difficult to maintain and with it being his second game in four days it was hardly surpriising he was knackered.

So to King for whom it was his first full 90 of the season and Howard, again, making his second exhausting appearance in four days which is asking a lot of a big veteran striker who is constantly in the thick of the most physical action.

Meanwhile fresh players like N'Guessan and Waghorn sat idly by for 72 minutes or more, DJ, Dyer and Gradel were nowhere to be see and I've no idea who we'd got or indeed have as alternative attacking full-backs or central midfield players, apart from Oakley who was never going to up the pace during his fourth half in four days.

Any manager can show faith in his squad if they're losing or playing badly. Real belief is shown when a manager has the confidence to make changes when the team and even individuals, are playing well. It's a lesson that needs learning as is the foolhardiness of changing tactics which are working.

In fact I'd say it's silly to ever let a team run at you if it can possibly be avoided.

Agreed by and large, though I don't totally buy into the tiredness issue.

As you highlighted the major problem was the way we set up after the break, we are horrible when we sit back and try and protect a lead and the disruption caused by losing Wellens made things even worse.

We gifted Watford the initiative and they took full advantage of it!

[Anish]

It's extrememely interesting to read people's reflections on Saturday's second half and my own fourpennyworth is this.

a) It is wrong to blame any individual. This was a collective failing with the manager Nigel Pearson just as much at fault as anyone else. However there were various individual failings which do need to be considered if we are to avoid the same thing happening again.

b) Our second half tranformation from being utterly dominant to being virtually overwhelmed was down to just two things in essence.

1) Instead of starting the second half in the same way as the first by closing down quickly and as a unit' thus denying Watford time and space, we sat off and invited them onto us just as we have done so many times before.

Our attitude was that we were two goals in front and we'd defy Watford to break us down enough to make a comeback.

This was demonstrated not only by our obviously sitting deeper from the off but from the total lack of runners and people making themselves available for a pass when we did gain possession - demonstrating beyond doubt that we had no ambition to get forward seriously or in numbers during the second half - until we had no alternative.

2) Our approach was made worse by the collective tiring of certain members of our team for various reasons, for example Neilson, Berner, Fryatt, Gallagher, Howard and possibly even King to a minor extent. And, of course the injury to Wellens played a part both before he went off (with King having to briefly hold the fort on his own and with few passing options, then afterwards insofar as Wellens departure required reorganisation we probably hadn't planned.

The team therefore collectively tired partly because we just don't seem to have alternatives for certain players - and curiously most of the players I've mentioned.

I don't think the players tired due to lack of fitness either. Neilson/Berner aren't naturally attacking full-backs but the attacking aspect of their role was crucial to enabling us to dominate the first half. Trouble is the role of attacking full-back is extremely demanding and we really needed two more attacking full-backs to maintain the pressure by which we took initial control of the game.

Gallagher has barely played a full-game for months yet he was given a demanding fairly free role behind the strikers and while he was lively and dangerous first half, he simply didn't make the same runs or have the same involvement later.

Fryatt has always had a tendency to fade or to find a full 90-minutes effort difficult to maintain and with it being his second game in four days it was hardly surpriising he was knackered.

So to King for whom it was his first full 90 of the season and Howard, again, making his second exhausting appearance in four days which is asking a lot of a big veteran striker who is constantly in the thick of the most physical action.

Meanwhile fresh players like N'Guessan and Waghorn sat idly by for 72 minutes or more, DJ, Dyer and Gradel were nowhere to be see and I've no idea who we'd got or indeed have as alternative attacking full-backs or central midfield players, apart from Oakley who was never going to up the pace during his fourth half in four days.

Any manager can show faith in his squad if they're losing or playing badly. Real belief is shown when a manager has the confidence to make changes when the team and even individuals, are playing well. It's a lesson that needs learning as is the foolhardiness of changing tactics which are working.

In fact I'd say it's silly to ever let a team run at you if it can possibly be avoided.

Thracian - you'd be so much more respected if you weren't so blinkered about certain players. King was just as bad as everyone else in the second half, and was nowhere near the best player in the first half either. King, as he as so often proved, runs around a lot but never gets his foot in and the game just passes him by. You could probably count the number of passes he made and the number of interceptions/blocks/tackles he may on one hand. He's nothing more than a passenger as best and at worst he's a magician who manages to make himself disappear when the going gets tough.

The fact that he's nowhere to be seen half the time means people like you don't see him make any mistakes, but I'd rather a midfielder actually win the ball back and make the odd mistake (like Wellens, and to a lesser extent, Oakley) than just follow shadows and be on the periphery.

On that performance, King really needs to step up if he wants to make it in this league.

As for the likes of Brown and Neilson, they've been given plenty of stick and rightly so, so I'll leave it at that.

[knowitall]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

[Raj]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

:D

NP will learn from that then wont he???

What was that saying"Dont fix something that aint broke"!!!

[Salieri]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

Strange tactics indeed. To effectively try to "shut up shop" with a whole half still to play (even when 2 goals up) is madness. Inviting teams to come at you at any stage of the game, home or away, is not a good idea unless the team is expert in the art of counter attacking football.

Pearson is still learning his trade, and i'm sure he more than anybody would have taken a lot of things on board following that game. I'm sure he will learn from his mistakes.

[Daggers]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

I am now educated.

Trouble is, he's made this mistake before. And before. And before...

[CosbehFox]

The introduction of HHelguson was a factor too me thinks.

Or more Hobbs' inability to deal with him physically. I don't mind Hobbs but firstly he's a confidence player which I don't think is helped by Brown alongside who appears to have a bit of arrogant streak of been there done it and secondarily, he's a young lad and has a lot to learn.

Strange tactics indeed.

Hardly considering there's been plenty occasions when we were 1-0 up against Barnsley and 2-1 up against Blackpool, we flooded forward only for teams to hit us on the break and look incredibly short at the back (the memorable moment against P'boro when they had a 5 on 2 brake on). As you say Pearson's a relative novice in the game but I think he has enough self-awareness to know of his mistakes unlike ala Keane. Personally think it's elementary that when you're leading, you keep possession of the ball.

For me, there's still a little switch in the players brain. We gave Watford a corner after about 30 seconds and that was just the kind of nugget they needed to push on.

[lildave3]

Thracian - you'd be so much more respected if you weren't so blinkered about certain players. King was just as bad as everyone else in the second half, and was nowhere near the best player in the first half either. King, as he as so often proved, runs around a lot but never gets his foot in and the game just passes him by. You could probably count the number of passes he made and the number of interceptions/blocks/tackles he may on one hand. He's nothing more than a passenger as best and at worst he's a magician who manages to make himself disappear when the going gets tough.

The fact that he's nowhere to be seen half the time means people like you don't see him make any mistakes, but I'd rather a midfielder actually win the ball back and make the odd mistake (like Wellens, and to a lesser extent, Oakley) than just follow shadows and be on the periphery.

On that performance, King really needs to step up if he wants to make it in this league.

As for the likes of Brown and Neilson, they've been given plenty of stick and rightly so, so I'll leave it at that.

The bit you quoted, Thracian didn't say King was one of the best players, he just said he had tired.

[Anish]

The bit you quoted, Thracian didn't say King was one of the best players, he just said he had tired.

I got carried away there with Thracian yet again trying to paint King in a positive light when he was actually no better than most of our players and worse than quite a few of them.

[Salieri]

Hardly considering there's been plenty occasions when we were 1-0 up against Barnsley and 2-1 up against Blackpool, we flooded forward only for teams to hit us on the break and look incredibly short at the back (the memorable moment against P'boro when they had a 5 on 2 brake on). As you say Pearson's a relative novice in the game but I think he has enough self-awareness to know of his mistakes unlike ala Keane. Personally think it's elementary that when you're leading, you keep possession of the ball.

For me, there's still a little switch in the players brain. We gave Watford a corner after about 30 seconds and that was just the kind of nugget they needed to push on.

I never said he should have encouraged the players to "flood forward", just not change the whole mentality to a defensive/negative approach. If a team is playing very well a certain way, why change it?

I do however think the injury to Wellens played a part in our demise.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

I never said he should have encouraged the players to "flood forward", just not change the whole mentality to a defensive/negative approach. If a team is playing very well a certain way, why change it?

I do however think the injury to Wellens played a part in our demise.

For me I would have thought about bringing McGivern on for him and putting Berner in the centre as he was already on a yellow and couldnt really afford to tackle hard on the left anymore.

Wellens going off was a key factor but it shouldnt have been. Should have just shut up shop and played the ball around.

[Radovan's Caravan]

Strange how none of you could see this from the perspective of your opponents. Have any of you stopped to consider what the odds were of Watford clawing back a two goal deficit? I'll tell you now - about one in three.

They don't call a two goal lead the most deceptive in football for nothing - particualrly when it is 0 - 2 at half time. The home team on the balance of probabilities will come out in the second half with a feeling that they have nothing to lose by adopting a policy of all out attack. And for a number of reasons this policy was a certainty in Watford's case - they are a good team with high expectations and by all acounts a higly motivated coach.

Most away teams in your position on Saturday would have asked themselves do we stick or twist? Do we carry on playing the same way or put up the shutters? It is this uncertainty that is exploited by the new found certainty of the losing home team (who have the added psychological advantage of defending their territory and being encouraged by their larger support).

Statistically the correct approach when leading 2 - 0 away from home is to sit deep and close down the centre. But that's only half the answer. The space that is created behind the home team as they throw men forward must be exploited by swift counter attacking thrusts. The opposition will be particualrly vulnerable to one touch raids, as their midfielders will be moving and on the wrong side of the ball - that's how Newcastle beat you

By the sounds of it, your players didn't think they had the match won at half time. In fact ithey almost certainly didn't think that - they were just unsure how to play the game out. If anyone thought they had the match won it was Watford when they took the lead. But they didn't gamble on the last gasp stab of the dying man.

The fact that your team could recover to do that is a testament to their character.

[Daggers]

Chandler really has issues.

Mainly Man-Love Quarterly, but he does have other issues too.

[Thracian]

Thracian - you'd be so much more respected if you weren't so blinkered about certain players. King was just as bad as everyone else in the second half, and was nowhere near the best player in the first half either. King, as he as so often proved, runs around a lot but never gets his foot in and the game just passes him by. You could probably count the number of passes he made and the number of interceptions/blocks/tackles he may on one hand. He's nothing more than a passenger as best and at worst he's a magician who manages to make himself disappear when the going gets tough.

The fact that he's nowhere to be seen half the time means people like you don't see him make any mistakes, but I'd rather a midfielder actually win the ball back and make the odd mistake (like Wellens, and to a lesser extent, Oakley) than just follow shadows and be on the periphery.

On that performance, King really needs to step up if he wants to make it in this league.

As for the likes of Brown and Neilson, they've been given plenty of stick and rightly so, so I'll leave it at that.

King started two moves that led to goals in the match - a significant contribution in the scheme of things and that's before you consider a couple of important late blocks just before our equaliser and his part in our team's total domination of the first half.

But for all that I didn't once say or imply that King was our best player in either half. Fryatt was our best player, no question.

As for "getting his foot in" he often does exactly that as when starting the move for our first goal but what you really mean seems to be "get's stuck in".

Well I saw Tiatto and I've seen Brown and I know this. I'd sooner we passed the ball to one of our men when we win it than look all macho and pass the ball to the opposition.

King doesn't follow shadows at all. He looks up, takes in the whole situation and very rarely gets caught ball watching or getting drawn out of a covering position. His ability to help retain the team's shape is one of his major strengths and if you are unable to appreciate it that's your problem.

As for your championing of Oakley and Wellens I've no real objection to that. Both have ability in abundance. But when either carry the goal threat that King possesses given licence then I'll be happily surprised. The fact that King is utilised primarily as a holding midfielder is not his fault but the choice of the manager.

But that shouldn't blind your eyes to the reality of the threat that he carries going forward, nor his ability to be just as creative as the other two as well.

[iancognito]

I'm not convinced by Oakley so far this season and it is worrying that we have a 1 man midfield.

Ditto.

Don't worry though, Clemence will be back by Christmas

Whether it's the first half or the second, at some point the midfield loses it's grip on the game and seems to end up a man short all the time which is leaving the back line exposed. I keep looking at the team and wondering if it'd be better suited to a Little/O'Neill 3-5-2 formation instead. Tunch, Brown & Hobbs at the back, Kingy, Oakley and Wellens in the middle and use Neilson & Berner as wing backs.

Other than that I don't know. Maybe Big Nige could scream "Wake up!" in each player's earhole as they leave the dressing room at the start and HT.

[marbelladave]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

This was pretty much obvious to anyone who was at the game! See the above posts.

The question is not that these instructions were made, but why they were made, given that we have already shown this season that we do not have the faintest idea of how to defend a lead.

Once again we gave away points through poor tactical decisions, dis-organisation and lack of ambition. This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time it has happened this season.

And to think that some on this forum are happy with this.......

KIA.......Nice to see you back!

[marbelladave]

Ditto.

Don't worry though, Clemence will be back by Christmas

Whether it's the first half or the second, at some point the midfield loses it's grip on the game and seems to end up a man short all the time which is leaving the back line exposed. I keep looking at the team and wondering if it'd be better suited to a Little/O'Neill 3-5-2 formation instead. Tunch, Brown & Hobbs at the back, Kingy, Oakley and Wellens in the middle and use Neilson & Berner as wing backs.

Other than that I don't know. Maybe Big Nige could scream "Wake up!" in each player's earhole as they leave the dressing room at the start and HT.

The answer to the midfield issue is simple, we saw it for about 35-40 minutes on Saturday.

Oakley-----King-----Wellens

Right now that is easily our best option.

Our back line desperately needs the Tunch and we need pace and some possibility of width either side of Fryatt.

But for that to happen we have to lose Brown and Howard, and that is not going to happen anytime soon.

[Radovan's Caravan]

The whole team were told at half time by NP to slow the game down. Not to play such an open attacking play. To hold on to the ball and not be so direct. Both Berner and Neilsen told not to attack as much. Gallagher to cover Berner. The team in general where told play more compacted.

Make what you will of these instuctions.

This is the bog standard half time advice of British coaches when their teams are leading away from home. And all the stats show that it is the wrong tactic. The signal sent out to the home team is: 'You can attack us with impunity.'

By all means sit deep and get your men behind the ball - but don't just sit there soaking up the punishment. Sitting deep is a trap that is meant to catch the opposition out - a platform for launching fast raids into empty enemy territory using a fraction of the forces you use in conventional attacking play.

And you have the players who can play that way.