Reality Distortion Field

[cc_star]

Reading comments from all over the site seems people see things the way they want to see things, and not the way they actually are and their pro/anti NP opinion distorts this

 

When I suggested that it was indeed a 343 formation as NP suggested, the reply was basically, no... it was a negative 5 at the back rubbish that we've all seen before, but this time against crappy Hull... at home, when any other manager would have had us play 0-0-10 formation and win the game a bajillion-nil and PL survival would be assured.

 

We were doing nothing more than long ball rubbish etc & etc

 

Bloody NP this & bloody NP that

 

Now, I'm not suggesting for one moment that we attacked enough, or our attacking players poured forward in sufficient numbers to give Hull the sort of game Arsenal gave Monaco in the first half last night

 

But the facts were a little different to that many would have us believe

 

For instance, we did play 3 at the back, not 5 as the two fullback's "positions of influence" eg. where they spent the majority of the time was pushed forward in line with the midfield duo on the halfway line... and the actual formation from starting players was 3-4-1-2, with Mahrez deeper than Vardy & Kram. Interestingly many people have been clamouring for Mahrez to play more central and that his creativity might be better suited behind a front two? Well, I think his influence in this game was far less than on the wing & cutting in

 

One thing, that perhaps isn't great is that Vardy & Krameric were very close to each other in the way a big man/little man forward pairing should be, but when Ulloa was introduced so we actually had the 'big man', there wasn't really a partner in crime that the big man's skillset requires

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then there's the long ball comments like; Yep, it was just more long ball rubbish that NP defaults too

Nonsense!

 

We had loads of final third passes & relatively few longer balls, it just looks like quality is the issue, or Hull defended well (there're the 9th best defence in the division) and have let in and average 0.66 goals per game in their past 6 games

 

Our attacking stats, mainly final 3rd passes, not long balls:

 

 

I'm not suggesting it was a great performance, but we had 158 attacking 3rd passes in this drab game against Hull, this compares extremely favourably to the 137 attacking 3rd passes we had against Spurs on Boxing Day... a game which there is the widespread opinion that we played well in... and the 149 attacking 3rd passes we had against ManUtd when they collapsed

 

 

Attacking 3rd passes of course is a meaningless stat in comparison to chances created and of course goals scored... but it does help paint the picture that we were in ok positions, we just didn't have the quality, or more likely the confidence to make the most of them

[stingray]

kudos for taking the time to analysis this. 

[fox_favourite]

Fair play in producing such an in depth analysis of the game!

 

When I was at the game, I did think it was 3 at the back. This was probably the reason why De Laet was playing ahead of Simpson.

 

I just think that overall we haven't had the right quality up front. I thought Ulloa was the solution, but he kind of fizzled out. I also think that we have too many midfielders the same. Drinkwater, James, King, Cambiasso etc.. they are all CM or DCM by trade. I think we were missing an Attacking Midfielder who can score goals and drive forward with the ball. Mahrez is more productive cutting from the wing as he has more space to run at defenders then he would in the middle behind the strikers. We need different options on the bench rather than sometimes bringing on like for like. 

[Ollie93]

Great analysis!

 

The thing is, people on this forum have been crying for him to play de laet and schlupp as wing backs, crying for this formation to be played. It was and because we didn't win it was "sh!t".

 

I just think he is getting desperate because nothing is working. I agree with fox favourite though, we are missing that flair.

[Donut]

Reading comments from all over the site seems people see things the way they want to see things, and not the way they actually are and their pro/anti NP opinion distorts this

 

When I suggested that it was indeed a 343 formation as NP suggested, the reply was basically, no... it was a negative 5 at the back rubbish that we've all seen before, but this time against crappy Hull... at home, when any other manager would have had us play 0-0-10 formation and win the game a bajillion-nil and PL survival would be assured.

 

We were doing nothing more than long ball rubbish etc & etc

 

Bloody NP this & bloody NP that

 

Now, I'm not suggesting for one moment that we attacked enough, or our attacking players poured forward in sufficient numbers to give Hull the sort of game Arsenal gave Monaco in the first half last night

 

But the facts were a little different to that many would have us believe

 

For instance, we did play 3 at the back, not 5 as the two fullback's "positions of influence" eg. where they spent the majority of the time was pushed forward in line with the midfield duo on the halfway line... and the actual formation from starting players was 3-4-1-2, with Mahrez deeper than Vardy & Kram. Interestingly many people have been clamouring for Mahrez to play more central and that his creativity might be better suited behind a front two? Well, I think his influence in this game was far less than on the wing & cutting in

 

One thing, that perhaps isn't great is that Vardy & Krameric were very close to each other in the way a big man/little man forward pairing should be, but when Ulloa was introduced so we actually had the 'big man', there wasn't really a partner in crime that the big man's skillset requires

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then there's the long ball comments like; Yep, it was just more long ball rubbish that NP defaults too

Nonsense!

 

We had loads of final third passes & relatively few longer balls, it just looks like quality is the issue, or Hull defended well (there're the 9th best defence in the division) and have let in and average 0.66 goals per game in their past 6 games

 

Our attacking stats, mainly final 3rd, not long:

 

 

I'm not suggesting it was a great performance, but we had 158 attacking 3rd passes in this drab game against Hull, this compares extremely favourably to the 137 attacking 3rd passes we had against Spurs on Boxing Day... a game which there is the widespread opinion that we played well in... and the 149 attacking 3rd passes we had against ManUtd when they collapsed

 

 

Attacking 3rd passes of course is a meaningless stat in comparison to chances created and of course goals scored... but it does help paint the picture that we were in ok positions, we just didn't have the quality, or more likely the confidence to make the most of them

 

Stats schmats

 

You cant sit there with a computer program and claim there was more attacking intent shown by us in the game vs Hull than there was in the game v Spurs on boxing day.

 

The formation certainly didnt play out like a 3 at the back on the pitch either.

 

And i think by now its clear on this forum, when talking about the so called anti brigade exaggerating their points, that the pro and anti Pearson brigade will exaggerate and argue their points with vigour because our fan base is completely split to the point where our differences cannot be reconciled.

[Guest ttfn]

It's an interesting post but I'm not sure that the "positions of influence" graphic necessarily proves that it was any more attacking than the formation we'd been setting out with for the previous few games. 3-4-1-2 it might have appeared from that graphic but it was little more a case of 3 at the back than previous games.

At Man City, for example, whilst Konchesky was deeper than Upson (!), Simpson was pretty much in a line with the midfielders (can't link as on my phone).

Similarly in the Arsenal game Konchesky and Simpson were in a line with James and Cambiasso in the equivalent graphic and I don't think anybody in their right mind would claim that was anything but a 5-4-1. Same goes for the Everton game.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

It was a 5-3-2, there's no hiding that fact.

 

Schlupp and De Laet were deployed as wingbacks, not wide midfielders or out and out wingers.

 

There's no problem with that, at least the wingbacks were more offensive than Konchesky and Simpson would have been but I think for many the problem with the formation came from the fact that when Hull had 10 men (and just one man playing up front) we still had three centre halves on the pitch in a game we needed to go and win.

[Isle of Wight Fox 86]

That was a very good read and I found it very interesting to read a breakdown of the stats from the game. I only really get to listen to games on Foxes Player/ online streams, depending what I am doing. I agree that we seem to lack a bit of flair in the middle of the park. I would be quite interested to know why we have completely changed our game plan from the first 5/6 games of the season when all of us believed that we wouldn't be looking at being relegated come May.

 

After those 1st few games I thought mid table safety would be where we would finish this season, and then who knows after that - now we look like we will be having a major re-build in the summer as half of the players that won promotion last year either wont be here, or their confidence has been shot to pieces.... 

 

But who knows what the future holds.

[Mike Oxlong]

I thought we set up to be more attacking but we just weren't good enough or enough of a team to be so.

[ScouseFox]

defensively/in the midfield the formation worked quite well i thought. the issue was mahrez had a stinker and kramaric (and then ulloa), our goalscorers, spent nowhere near enough time in anything like possible goalscoring positions. hence we kept a clean sheet, looked pretty comfortable but rarely threatened to score. 

 

i dunno why any of them things happened but they did. if mahrez had been the mahrez vs arsenal, spurs, liverpool (a) etc i think we'd have won 1 or 2-0. we just had no moments of magic to build on our pretty solid looking foundations. which is why nobody really thinks anyone played poorly, cos as a team we didn't, there was just a lack of cutting edge. 

 

i think it goes back to the idea that we just aren't good enough. everyone needed to drop a little deeper/be a bit more cautious (ie vardy more as a winger than a striker, kram dropping deep to get possession) for us to be solid and get a clean sheet, but then we don't threaten. if we'd have gone all out with vardy and kramaric as two genuine strikers we'd probably have conceded a couple and still not won anyway. that's been the problem all season. we commit and we concede. we defend and we can't score. so we're bottom and going down. 

I thought we set up to be more attacking but we just weren't good enough or enough of a team to be so.

 

yeh this is just a better way of saying what i was rambling on about 

[nettle]

Wow that's amazing we still played crap though.

[l444ry]

This topic begins with the statement, "Reading comments from all over the site seems people see things the way they want to see things, and not the way they actually are....."

 

All this analysis "proves" is that black can be made to look white and that statistics mean anything to anyone wishing to "prove" a point. Even Stevie Wonder would have seen that our "wingbacks" were more intent at stopping Hull's wide players than attacking the flanks therefore making it  a virtual five at the back.

 

People can put any spin they like to defend Pearson, which this seems to be all about, but the overall performance was a negative shambles. And Stevie Wonder would have seen that also.

[ealingfox]

Mahrez and Krammy were both shite which took most of the bite out of the formation.

[foxfanazer]

Well a few people clearly can't read a post properly and have further proven the OP to be correct. Top work

[foxfanazer]

Mahrez and Krammy were both shite which took most of the bite out of the formation.

Spot on. Poor performance doesn't always mean the formation was wrong. I think that's why NP came out and criticised the players lack of attacking intent as he thought he'd set them up in a positive way

[Burbage Fox]

This topic begins with the statement, "Reading comments from all over the site seems people see things the way they want to see things, and not the way they actually are....."

 

All this analysis "proves" is that black can be made to look white and that statistics mean anything to anyone wishing to "prove" a point. Even Stevie Wonder would have seen that our "wingbacks" were more intent at stopping Hull's wide players than attacking the flanks therefore making it  a virtual five at the back.

 

People can put any spin they like to defend Pearson, which this seems to be all about, but the overall performance was a negative shambles. And Stevie Wonder would have seen that also.

Oh I am so glad that someone else uses their eyes and not stats.. do the stats show how many real opportunities we had compared to Hulls 2 glaring ones, do they show that potentially the best striker in club spent most of his time outside the box, or that as stated above it was too negative and that our manager who said the players did not go for it as much as he wanted to, sat on his arse in the stand...

 

It is great that you have found these stats and all credit to you, but as I sit in my office with one eye on the budget speech it goes to show how the same figures can be spun in the direction you want to spin them in. I know the stats show we did not long ball it on Saturday but my eyes and brain got fed up with our just chipping balls up to Vardy and Kramaric for Dawson etc just to lap them up.

 

Good work anyway and a nice try in defending the out of his depth manager we unfortunately currently still have.

[Monsell1976]

Stats schmats

You cant sit there with a computer program and claim there was more attacking intent shown by us in the game vs Hull than there was in the game v Spurs on boxing day.

The formation certainly didnt play out like a 3 at the back on the pitch either.

And i think by now its clear on this forum, when talking about the so called anti brigade exaggerating their points, that the pro and anti Pearson brigade will exaggerate and argue their points with vigour because our fan base is completely split to the point where our differences cannot be reconciled.

Spot on, both sides go to the extreme in their views, me including, well maybe .

Whatever tactics he used wether it's 3 or 5, the one thing we can surely can agree on, it didn't work.

[Mike Oxlong]

One stat - 20th

[Monsell1976]

Oh I am so glad that someone else uses their eyes and not stats.. do the stats show how many real opportunities we had compared to Hulls 2 glaring ones, do they show that potentially the best striker in club spent most of his time outside the box, or that as stated above it was too negative and that our manager who said the players did not go for it as much as he wanted to, sat on his arse in the stand...

It is great that you have found these stats and all credit to you, but as I sit in my office with one eye on the budget speech it goes to show how the same figures can be spun in the direction you want to spin them in. I know the stats show we did not long ball it on Saturday but my eyes and brain got fed up with our just chipping balls up to Vardy and Kramaric for Dawson etc just to lap them up.

Good work anyway and a nice try in defending the out of his depth manager we unfortunately currently still have.

How their bloke missed that open goal , we should be talking about another defeat.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

To be fair, it's not just out-of-context stats. The visual representations and lengthy analysis the guy has offered do count for something and those just dismissing it outright are being a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

 

Some people keep talking about formations as if the players just stay in one rigid shape for a whole game. It doesn't work like that and I can only imagine someone thinking that it does if they base their views about football tactics on computer games rather than real life. There are times where there is literally no discernible difference between playing 5-3-2 and playing 3-5-2. If you have mobile and energetic wing-backs who can join the 3 centre-backs when defending and get forward when their team has the ball, you can look something like a 3-5-2/3-4-3 going forward and a 5-3-2/5-4-1 when defending. I don't know why some people are finding this so hard to understand. It's like as soon as they see "5" mentioned, they assume it must inherently be negative when sometimes it's totally the opposite. With the right players/attitude/energy levels it can be a very aggressive way to play.

[Donut]

To be fair, it's not just out-of-context stats. The visual representations and lengthy analysis the guy has offered do count for something and those just dismissing it outright are being a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

 

Some people keep talking about formations as if the players just stay in one rigid shape for a whole game. It doesn't work like that and I can only imagine someone thinking that it does if they base their views about football tactics on computer games rather than real life. There are times where there is literally no discernible difference between playing 5-3-2 and playing 3-5-2. If you have mobile and energetic wing-backs who can join the 3 centre-backs when defending and get forward when their team has the ball, you can look something like a 3-5-2/3-4-3 going forward and a 5-3-2/5-4-1 when defending. I don't know why some people are finding this so hard to understand. It's like as soon as they see "5" mentioned, they assume it must inherently be negative when sometimes it's totally the opposite. With the right players/attitude/energy levels it can be a very aggressive way to play.

 

This is all good, youre right.

 

But the way the formation played in the game wasnt aggressive, there was no way for the majority of the time it was anything other than a 5, and the performance did lack positive intent, all the things that have been picked up on.

 

For those suggesting this, they have no right to be patronised for their opinion.

[Gerard]

Playing three centre backs should have given De Laet and Schlupp a licence to attack and let one of the centre backs cover if the attack breaks down.

 

In fact how this system should work when you're attacking is one can go forward and play as a winger when we're attacking that flank of the pitch and the other one stays back to become a back four. I would guess that our wing backs spent less than 10% of the match in the Hull final third.

 

Our wing backs weren't an attacking threat which is probably why we were so toothless as an attacking force.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

This is all good, youre right.

 

But the way the formation played in the game wasnt aggressive, there was no way for the majority of the time it was anything other than a 5, and the performance did lack positive intent, all the things that have been picked up on.

 

For those suggesting this, they have no right to be patronised for their opinion.

 

Well I know you won't have read every single thing I have written on this forum, but I agree with you and have made this exact point several times. It was a very passive performance and it looked like nobody wanted to take any risks. The players we rely on for creativity weren't being creative, and we definitely didn't have the sense of urgency that the occasion demanded. But the fact is that this has to be down to the players because they are capable of playing that formation properly and creating good chances by doing so. The people blaming the formation itself for being inherently negative are wrong. We were negative because we played negatively, not because negativity was forced on us by a negative formation.

[Fox Ulike]

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

An interesting post admittedly, but all it really proves is that some people can stare and stare at a black kettle all day, and then argue and argue that it’s bright red!

 

Look at the diagram. Your own stats don’t even back up what you’re saying. Schlupp’s area of influence is no further advanced than Morgan’s!  de Laet’s area of influence is in his own half, as is Cambiasso’s. The ‘J’ of James is bang on the half way line.

 

The main thing about this diagram is that  7 of our outfield players played most of the game in their own half. That’s it.  It certainly doesn't support your assertion that we played 343 or any other particular formation.

[MooseBreath]

None of the attacking players knew what they were doing. Schlupp didn't know if he was a left winger or left back. Vardy and Kramaric each didn't know whether they were supposed to be a striker or a left winger. Mahrez didn't know whether he was supposed to be a winger or a CAM. Half the team were baffled.

The idea of experimenting tactically in such an important game is unbelievably dumb. The idea of tactically experimenting when almost all, no all, of your tactical experimentation this season has failed is inexplicable. To tactically experiment without giving the players a good idea of what is expected is just utterly appalling management, which in the context of the overall failure of the season is a well justified final straw for many fans.