Minority Report V Blackburn Rovers

There is not much that I can say about that first half that I did not say in my report about the Chelsea game. The difference was not our play. It was in the way that the opposition played. Chelsea wanted to play the ball out from the back. They wanted to try to football their way through the press, and our intensity was such that they failed to do so. Their desire encouraged us to play the high press that was supported by a high midfield line and a high defensive line. The pitch was not conducive to that type of game, and Chelsea lost the ball, time after time. Blackburn were not going to make that mistake. They picked a quick front 3, and we had to respect that pace, especially since Blackburn were not interested in playing their way through us. They hit almost as many long balls as we did, and some of them very nearly paid off. If the opposition is intent on hitting long passes, there is less point in the intensive high press, and it was noticeable that the front 3 did not work as hard. Once more, at half time I was left to rue our reluctance to get the ball down and play it to the feet of our front 3. The commentators described it slightly differently. They described it as rushing the pass forward, but in my opinion it is a deliberate tactic on the part of VI, rather than the incompetence of the players. It represents a reluctance on the part of VI to let the team risk getting caught out of shape too early. That first half was written off, and VI invested everything in the second half.


At half time, Styles went off. It has been hard to rest Styles and he has had to play 90 minutes of almost every game, but now Jordan Williams has got back to fitness, it will be easier to rest both wing backs. Williams is quicker than Styles, and that was probably the factor that swayed the decision towards Styles. The commentators were convinced that it was the physical presence of Morris and Dike that changed the game. I am not so sure. For me the main factor was starting to hit balls to the front 3, rather than hitting the ball beyond them and in their general direction. When you pass the ball forward more accurately, our central midfield players suddenly begin to get involved. They get into the game as the ball is laid back to them, and they start dominating the way that the game is played. It is more risky, as we saw with Blackburn’s late consolation goal, because it opens the team up to the counter attack when the pass is intercepted, and that is particularly true when the opposition has pace, but that is the way that football works. Teams risk conceding in their efforts to score their own goals. It is called entertainment.


The first goal was the real game changer. It meant that Blackburn had to risk more themselves, and our second came as a result of them taking more risks. Again, it is how the game works. Football is a game of risk and reward. What I do not understand is why it is necessary to go through an hour of sterility before the game opens up and an entertaining game of football can begin.

 

Other than the sarcasm at the end of the 2nd para, i think that's fair. I might not agree with the overall tone but it's still a fair and reasonable view to hold.

 

Thanks Red Rain. Do you think we deserved to win?

 

I think six got it right at half time. The replacements upped te tempo a created more space. Morris playing off Dike will take some handling

 

Agree with the final sentiment of the last paragraph.

 

Yes, I do. Blackburn's pace was always a threat, but they committed even less to the game by way of entertainment than we did, and in the end, that has to count for something.

 

Like you said Big Val's tactics worked a treat, we are so lucky to have him in a results driven industry.

 

Bravo red rain. No undue criticism of the formation and tactics.

I don’t agree it was improved passing to the front three was the biggest catalyst to the improvement second half, I thought Adeboyejo and in particular Woodrow were well off the pace and their replacements changed the tone. Frieser for Chaplin, no harm done but no real threat added, though he did no wrong.

For me the first half was a very poor affair, two sides playing very poorly on a crap pitch. The balls up to the front three were rushed and lacked a bit of quality. Second half we improved greatly - yes we were hitting the front three more regularly, as you said, but that was easier (to be fair, possible at all), when we had a front three all hungry to show for and challenge for the ball as well as having the physicality to do so.

I also think we’ve seen what might lead to be our Achilles heel too. Quick forwards chasing balls over the top - Sibbick might be quick but I’m not convinced Helik and Andersen will cope with that. We may have to see Jordan Williams in that back three if we are to continue with the high back line and so open to the ball over the top as Halme isn’t really any quicker either.

You always argued we didn’t have the players to play 4-3-3 which I didn’t necessarily agree with, but now we have the two new lads up top, we are better equipped to play as Val wants, and we have decent players to come in all over the park to cover fatigue, injuries or suspensions. I do wish we had another wing back in the squad but we can’t have everything.

I was waiting for your write up tonight, I unfairly name dropped you on Sunday after the game, knowing full well you wouldn’t have watched. Over excitement I guess but I apologise to you for that, and whilst I didn’t agree with all you posted tonight, I certainly agree with the overall view and the more positive tone.

Great stuff. Thank you.

 

Blackburn were stung by Preston’s press last Friday and had no intention of repeating the exercise, so the first half was a case of two long ball teams cancelling each other out. Yet, we still created one or two chances.

The triple change did have a massive effect. I don’t think the midfield we’re providing more accurate service to Morris and Dike, but their extra pace and physical presence means there’s more margin for error playing balls to them.

As for the last question, given how Blackburn setup purely to nullify the press that we’d selected a team to do, it was case of staying in the game and having too much for them in the last half hour. We’re almost like a rugby league team, kicking for territory, trying to pen teams in their own half in defence and bringing on impact subs

 

Think the commentator hit the nail on the head when they said Blackburn looked tired and ragged and we looked strong.
That’s the impact of having a rotating squad

 

Add to that, VI has already said in his post match comments, that the subs would win the game.

So it's a very good observation

 

“What I do not understand is why it is necessary to go through an hour of sterility before the game opens up and an entertaining game of football can begin.”

Because normally there are 2 teams on the pitch, and one may try and nullify the other. Tonight our manager made key substitutions which altered the game, giving us more impetus & energy.

in the past week we’ve played an intensive game against a multi million pound Premiership team and less than 72 hours later we were then away at the in form team of the moment and not sure if you noticed but we beat them with a high tempo performance for 90 minutes.

We don’t operate in a vacuum - but if you can’t (or won’t ) acknowledge the progress that the squad has made under this manager and the ability of the individuals therein then you’re in for a glum season. We’ve nearly surpassed last years points goal in 17 fewer games - after a terrible start which wasn’t that entertaining either, but we did pass the ball aimlessly about a lot if that’s your thing.

 

You’ve just made the mistake of trying to appeal to Red Rain’s ‘emotional self’.

 

Not much to say either.,just one word. Barnsley.! xx
Comments are more boring than that match..

 

I thought I was interesting how they petered out so quickly after we scored. I sense they had to tried to match us at our game but just ran out of steam. We look fitter than any team I can ever remember and always fitter than the opposition. Leeds were like this last season. It makes a big difference in the closing stages of games

 

I believe that the difference last night was in the way that substitutions worked. VI knows before the game starts exactly when and how he will use his substitutes. Changing the front 3 together is fast becoming his standard practice. It is as if for the first hour, the front 3 are just chasing long balls to tire their defense and lull them into a false sense of security and well being. Then the finishers with fresh legs are brought on and we begin playing the game differently. Balls are hit forward to feet, our midfield players come into play, and we start playing the game with a winning objective, rather than just an objective to tire the opposition. It is an interesting way of playing, but it does leave me bored for an hour as we play without risk, managing the opposition and keeping them at a distance. As for Blackburn, I felt their best team started the game. Their substitutions were a reaction to tiredness in their starting eleven, and they became less of a threat with every substitution. They were always a threat, because they always had the pace of Armstrong. He was the player that we were most frightened of, and he was the player who dominated VI's tactical thinking and planning.

 

The back 3 is always going to be a compromise. Yes it would be nice is all the players in the back 3 were quick, but you still need to be aware that their primary task is to win the ball in the air at set pieces and also when the ball is crossed from the wings. You are right that Williams' pace would have given us a batter balance against their pace, but we would have been weaker at set pieces. As I say, the game is a compromise when you cannot afford players with both height and pace. Sibbick has pace, but I felt that his reading of the game was not as good as it might have been last night on a number of occasions. When that gets better, he is going to be a very good player, because he has enough pace to play in the Premier League.

 

I think the height and aerial ability of our defenders is more about winning the ball after the press has made the opposition clear it long. More often the opposition do kick it long and Helik and Andersen then head it back, the midfield flick it on and it usually goes back to the opposition defenders to start the cycle all over again.

I'm starting to think there are multiple styles of this press. One, to try and win the ball high. Two, to make them have an out ball thats long for our defenders to head back and just keep recycling to put pressure on them and wear them out.

We seemed to do the latter more last night and when the game descends into this sort of schoolyard ping pong, it makes for an awful spectacle. And I feel for our starting strikers. They must come off knackered and then suddenly see a complete playing style shift where the ball is played to feet more, passing encouraged and opportunities being created with intent rather than chance.