Reality Distortion Field

[Babylon]

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.

It goes from the centre of the name and not the first letter... Unless Schwarzer didn't move from his line all game.

[Donut]

It goes from the centre of the name and not the first letter... Unless Schwarzer didn't move from his line all game.

 

Lets all split hairs.

 

Do you see a 3-4-3? no. Did it look like 3-4-3 on the pitch? no. Are we trying to argue black is white? yes.

[Babylon]

Lets all split hairs.

 

Do you see a 3-4-3? no. Did it look like 3-4-3 on the pitch? no. Are we trying to argue black is white? yes.

Sorry for pointing out a fact, I'll try not to bring them up in future. Perhaps we'll just stick with inaccurate posts that claim 7 people spent most of their game in our half when they didn't.

 

Also, perhaps it didn't look like it to you so much because the three centre backs actually stepped up a lot more compared to previous games. Again, another fact sorry.

[hackneyfox]

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.

If I thought my job was on the line Id be telling the players at half time to be more positive. If after 5 minutes they weren't I'd have been on the touch line telling them if they didn't up their game they'd be dropped. I wouldn't be sat in the stands!!!

[Fox Ulike]

Lets all split hairs.

 

Do you see a 3-4-3? no. Did it look like 3-4-3 on the pitch? no. Are we trying to argue black is white? yes.

 

... ... … and unfortunately, some people will stare at a black kettle all day and then tell you that, actually, it’s a cauldron. Mentioning no names…

 

Sorry for pointing out a fact, I'll try not to bring them up in future.

 

Thanks, appreciate it...

[Donut]

Sorry for pointing out a fact, I'll try not to bring them up in future. Perhaps we'll just stick with inaccurate posts that claim 7 people spent most of their game in our half when they didn't.

 

Also, perhaps it didn't look like it to you so much because the three centre backs actually stepped up a lot more compared to previous games. Again, another fact sorry.

 

Not having one sustained attacking spell in the whole game, except for about 85 minutes in is a fact, however you try and twist everything people say.

[Collibosher70]

I'll give the short analysis....we were shyte

[Donut]

I'll give the short analysis....we were shyte

 

 

Exactly.

 

Its like Moores and the England cricket team. Lets look at the data. Lets blind you with science.

 

People witness with their own eyes a performance without intent attack wise, and players whos effectiveness throughout the game was limited.

 

Its a must win game v Hull at home, and at times it was like a testimonial.

[Gerard]

Exactly.

 

Its like Moores and the England cricket team. Lets look at the data. Lets blind you with science.

 

People witness with their own eyes a performance without intent attack wise, and players whos effectiveness throughout the game was limited.

 

Its a must win game v Hull at home, and at times it was like a testimonial.

 

 

We were rubbish but to suggest data is irrelevant is something from the dark ages.

[filbertway]

 

 

 

 

If your two wide man are actually wide men then they'd be a fair bit ahead of the two CM's. As it is, they're spending the majority of the time just behind or on the half way line, doesn't exactly scream attacking intent to me. Interesting to see Upson is slightly behind the other 2, I wonder if that's him dropping to compensate for his complete lack of pace.

 

Fair play for taking a step back and looking at the stats objectively. They still scream "too reserved" to me though.

 

Edited to remove everything I didn't reply to as it was way too long!

[Donut]

We were rubbish but to suggest data is irrelevant is something from the dark ages.

 

Data from matches is highly relevant.

 

But not to argue a baffling and contradictory point that our outlook towards the game on saturday was positive or that the formation went exactly as planned.

[Babylon]

If your two wide man are actually wide men then they'd be a fair bit ahead of the two CM's.

As I've already mentioned, our CB's stepped up further than they have been which means the two wide men look flatter than perhaps they normally would do.

 

For instance, if you look at Hull's map showing the same things. The B of Alex Bruce starts on on the edge of his own D. Which shows how deep their CB's were compared to their wide men, who were generally in about the same position as ours.

[Guest Col city fan]

Well done for taking the time buddy, but does it matter that much?

We were still unable to get a win and to play particularly well.

[David Hankey]

Statistics, great but the only one that matters is points on the board and we simply haven't got enough. 

 

We're winning 1 in 7 (4 in 28) and Pearson reckons we need to win 5 out of 6 home matches to have any chance. What a chuff!! Even a 2 year old could tell you that's impossible on current form. NP is becoming a joke!!

[Guest MattP]

Good post that, enjoyable read and quite an eye opener.

[Merging Cultures]

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

You know I'm with u on a lot of the tactics and discussion on here.

I believe 5-4-1 can be positive with wing backs who attack, and I'd love it if we actually did play 3-5-2 or anything attacking. Stats can show so sorts of things, but what I saw was a travesty. No one looked like they really wanted to win the game.

[fleckneymike]

These heat maps may present a more accurate picture of how attacking our wing backs were

[Richard]

I wish we'd just develop a system and stick with it all season. It worked perfect for us last season and Burnley have worked a near miracle this season as all their players know their roles and what's expected of them. I believe we're one of the teams who have used the most different formations (http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/mar/13/louis-van-gaal-united-tinker-table-premier-league), if we'd have just stuck with our fluid 442 from last season then I truly believe we'd be in a better position than just being so pragmatic and adaptive this season and ending up looking disjointed and clueless. The buck here stops with Pearson, and I've been a huge supporter of his until a couple months ago.

[the-blue-wildabeast]

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.

 

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.

Playing wing backs is good away from home, or against the big boys at home, not at home to Hull. It was slightly more attacking in the sense that we played wing backs rather than deep full backs, but its clear we are not getting enough out of Krammy (We may have him next season if he finishes the season on only 2/3 goals) who doesnt look happy on his own, and we desperatly need to stop purely relying on Mahrez to create our chances.

[GingerrrFox]

Juventus have demolished Italian football for the past 3 years playing with wing backs. It's not the formation that is negative. It's the mindset of the players that does that. We played conservatively because our players felt the pressure. They knew losing that was game over for the season and it had a huge impact on our teams performance.

[Stan]

OP posts a completely reasonable analysis and gets jumped on. FT this season in a microcosm.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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.

This.

[Finn Claw II]

Hull sat with a bank of 5 and then 4 in front of them and hit on the break. They were playing for 0-0 or to nick a winner. They did that well.

Given Hull's set-up our players' average positions should look attacking. The key question is given Hull's approach how many 'key chances' (There are stats for that) did we have? From memory zero - possibly Nugent near the end.

The long ball analysis is interesting as I genuinely thought we played a lot of long balls.

Thoughtprovoking though and more interesting than the Pearson Hokey-cokey.

[seenitall]

There is no formation you could play that will win you games if your players aren't good enough and that, Im afraid, is our problem - too many mediocre players for this division - fault rests with whoever decided that a good Championship team would be good enough, bottled it and then replaced at random the heart of the team - either Nige should have stuck with DD, Knocky, Moore, King, Nuge etc or replaced them with better - he dilly dallied and now we have lost the heart of last year (Burnley kept theirs) and replaced it with journeymen and a play to earn bunch that don't give a toss - inexperienced management is what it comes down to at both Nige's level and the boards - not good enough.

[Izzy]

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

Fascinating stuff - I wish I had as much time on my hands as you .

Bottom line: Hull was a 'must win' game. And we didn't win