I have decided to publish my thoughts this week, although I do still have reservations about my ability to read the game through the lens of a camera operated and directed by third parties. I have noted those reservations in the text. Part of my motivation for doing so has been the merciless destruction of the team on here that has happened since the end of the game. I know that disappointed people will look for someone to blame, but some conclusions have in my view just been wrong, and their aim has been to hurt rather than to meaningfully analyse.
Unfortunately, Covid19 means that once again, I am condemned to watch via iFollow, but at the other side of the coin, I get to see an away game. In the reverse fixture, Stoke beat the Reds more comfortably than the 2-4 score line would suggest. However, since then, Stoke form has been non-existent, and approaching the game, hopes are high that we can bring home the points. Seven points out of nine since the lockdown suggests we have a chance. With a final score of 0-4, Minority Report would have concentrated on an analysis of what went wrong tactically and systematically. With the camera concentrating on the ball, there is no opportunity to look at the positions of the players away from the focus that the camera imposes. Based upon my previous analysis of this sort of game, I think that I know what happened, and I am going to write Minority Report this week with the assumption that I am right, but I cannot in all conscience say that I am certain. Stoke played in a way that you rarely see in these press orientated days. They played the old fashioned way. When they lost the ball, they immediately dropped off into a line of 4 with a line of 5 ahead of them. It did not begin after they had established the lead as the commentary team has suggested. It happened from the first whistle. The idea is that if you do that, you let the defenders in a team with Barnsley’s modus operandii (passing the ball from defence to attack, with small players who need the ball hit to feet in wide areas, or beyond the last defender into space) have the ball. The defender (Mads Andersen in particular) is looking for a player ahead of him in space, and that means that there has to be movement ahead of the ball and lots of it, and that is what we are unable to check through the lens of the camera with its focus on the ball. If he cannot find anyone, he does not hit a hopeful punt, because the chances of us winning the ball in the air with small forwards who are built for speed but not strength or height is almost nil. Therefore, the ball has to be moved sideways when a challenge does eventually come, and that happens over and over again. The pass must be accurate or the ball is lost, and the player receiving the ball must be in space, and he must have a colleague in space close to him so that he can control the ball and lay it off The whole point of the way our team is structured is that we are trying to work our way through the opposition on the floor using short passes and lots of movement, and if the opposition sets out solely to stop that happening, and has no constructive attacking plan themselves that might put that one aim in jeopardy, then it is very difficult for us to break down. Our possession stats look great, but in actual fact, we are doing very little with all that possession, other than pass it meaninglessly between defenders. Of course, we have to get players ahead of the ball, because otherwise, neither team is trying to score, and both teams are relying on the other to make the first mistake, but doing so simply means that when we lose the ball, there is a lot of room for our opponents to play into. Or at least, that is the idea unless you are the Stoke City coach. The Stoke City plan was not to commit too many players forward, even when you have a chance to break, because the plan is not to lure us forward, and hit us on the break. It is to keep things tight defensively and hope to score from a set-piece or from one of our mistakes. And there were plenty of those. Our system when defending corners does not involve man to man marking. When Sam Vokes scored the first goal on 7 minutes, many turned on the closest player (Ben Williams) and alleged that he had lost his man. Williams was at fault, but it was a different fault. Williams is not tall enough to be marking their best header of a ball at corners. His job was to get ahead of Vokes in order to stop him running into space at the near post. It was Mads Andersen’s job, as it always is, to win the ball at a set-piece. He has no man marking responsibility in the corner system. His job is simply to read the flight of the ball, and to go and win it if he can. The fact is though, with no tall forward in the team, we are painfully short of height at corners and free-kicks and a Stoke side that is full of height must have thought it was their birthday. There were just too many players for Andersen and Sollbauer to cover. It is the same in most games and with the height that Stoke have, there was going to be a problem at some point in the game. I have noted the problem repeatedly against a team like Stoke, and as a result, Halme would definitely have been in my team today, either as part of the back 3, or as the defensive point of the diamond. It was a bad start, but it soon got a whole lot worse. Mads Andersen tried to head a ball with no weight on it down the goal-line to Jack Walton. It was short, and Stoke scored as everyone was drawn to the near post in order to try to deal with the error. Andersen could easily have headed the ball out for a corner, but he knew our weakness at corners and decided to risk it. This one was definitely Andersen’s fault, and it drew uncomfortable memories of Andersen’s early season weaknesses. He has been faultless in recent weeks, and in fairness, he was faultless in the second half, but the Stoke system of play had put him under pressure from the start, and unfortunately, Andersen still has a tendency to crack under that pressure. The third goal also came before half time, and this one also came from a corner, but by a very different route. There was huge psychological pressure on the team brought about by the refusal to pick Halme. As I say, Stoke are a big side and Vokes was causing us big problems. The reaction was for the team to drop deeper in order to protect their goal from the impending assault and loss of the header. No-one stayed out to guard against the low cross to feet, and when it came, there was acres of space for their player to pick out his shot into the corner. It was a 3-0 half time lead, and there was no point in worrying about this game anymore. Generally, our team has to work harder than the opposition in order to get a result, and two games per week might produce this sort of tired performance by default. We shall see. At the start of the second half, we just had to forget it and move on to the Luton game next Tuesday. Struber made 3 substitutions at half-time and two more in the second half. None of them had the aim of turning around the game. They were all about saving legs for Tuesday. In fact, the game was more even in the second half, but both teams were well aware that the game was over by half-time. The fourth Stoke goal did not come until very late in the game, and once again, there is a defensive error to note. Two Barnsley players were drawn towards the player with the ball in our left back position, leaving a Stoke player completely unmarked inside him, and with time to pick his spot with his shot he left a helpless Walton with no chance. Stoke have beaten us comprehensively twice this season by an aggregate score of 8-2. One defeat was under a caretaker Chief Coach, and one was under Gerhard Struber. On both occasions we have started with 3 at the back, and on both occasions, the team has made huge individual errors that have given Stoke a helping hand. Is it just co-incidence that probably our two worst performance of the season have come against Stoke, or is there more to it than that. Have the two coaches played in the wrong way, is the team fundamentally weak against big sides or do we struggle with two games in a week. The next 5 games will give us an answer, one way or another. Minority Report player of the match This one is a tough choice because no player deserves it. It is simply a question of who was least poor, and who made fewest errors. He was by no means faultless, especially in that first half when he struggled to find a pass to a player ahead of him, but the one player who let the situation affect him least was Alex Mowatt, and he is MotM almost by default.
Perfect assessment in my view RR. The second paragraph nailed it in particular for me...Stoke set up exactly the same against Wigan, you could have thought they were trying to get a hard earned point away to one of the premier league's big hitters rather than Wigan Athletic...the difference was Butlands error threw Stoke's game plan out of the window.
Totally agree I pointed out our lack of height before yesterdays game. Would have brought Halme in to play the holding midfielder role and either moved Mowatt to left side or even top of the diamond. Shame we couldn't give Mowatt a breather 2nd half because I think he's going to have a pivotal part to play at the end of this season.
Yea decent appraisal there RR....we were slow and sluggish from the get go and our usual (and only outball) to brown to flick on was non existent. This is not hindsight but just common sense, which we were deliberating before the game, why not pick halme in midfield for the physicality and styles because offensively he proved his worth v blackburn and at least can carry the ball forward and get us on the front foot. Like you im stuggling for a mom, mowatt improved 2nd half but poor first and when hes off .... we are off. Getting concerned with woody's no show again but we really dont have anyone else.
Enjoyed reading that. Stoke have a team of orcs and we have a team of kids. Was only ever going to end one way.
For me, Woodrow is not a great footballer. Furthermore, he does not have great pace or a good engine. But he can score goals, and he should be played in a position where he can take best advantage of that skill. In my view, he is also better beside a big man, someone to win the ball in the air and take attention away from him. The loss of Moore was key to our chances of retaining our place in the Championship, and even more key than the loss of Pinnock, in my opinion. I think that there was a feeling around the club that the press was even more important, and big men cannot work as hard in a press or get as quickly to the man with the ball as small men. His loss, and our subsequent reluctance to find a replacement from the same mold has done little to improve Woodrow's effectiveness, although playing him at the attacking tip of the diamond cannot have helped either.
The system is one of the things that I struggle with when I am not at games. There is no great difference between the three systems that Struber uses, and it is those sort of subtleties that I struggle with via the TV camera. Cheers.
In danger of being Majority report with that. Not so sure that fatigue contributed to the first ten minutes but far more the physical dominance of the opposition. The worry is that if other teams set up in a similar way we have no alternative approach to break down a team who put men behind the ball.
There isn't a great difference, not in most areas, you're right. But as the central of three defenders, he's less likely to find himself in wide defensive positions. That's where he has struggled all season. There are countless examples of him being undone when he's in a full-back area. I can only assume that the way in which we turned the game against Blackburn on the Tuesday once reverting to the diamond had Gerhard convinced that that was the way to beat Stoke. Unfortunately, as we've seen so often, our team in whatever system, struggles against the physical sides who aren't interested in playing football. Preston, Cardiff, Millwall (despite one fortunate win), Stoke and even Birmingham to an extent. And we are the worst team in the division at defending and scoring from set plays. Yesterday was one bad game out of four. That needs to be noted. And yes, an opportunity missed. I felt gutted. But we aren't dead and buried. We have to hope it was a one-off. And, the remaining five fixtures are all against sides who try and play football for the most part. Which 'should' suit us. But I'd not be going out on a limb by saying we're underdogs in each of those games. It's not negative to say or think that. It's just the way it is. Stoke brought on a player to score the fourth goal who earns 50k a week. They've a player injured in Joe Allen on 80k a week. That's just very very wrong. But we are still in with a chance, despite the tough season we've had. Despite all the odds stacked against us. A squad that's been written off incessantly, yet one that's already garnered 41 points, the same total we went down on in 2018, with a collection of lauded players of quality and experience. Tuesday is huge. I hope we get it right.
Yea i do think we have gone into the season thinking the way forward was quick athletic guys to get us up the pitch and with the step up in class and professionalism this would bode well to counter most other teams. As has been mentioned the lack of physicality and experience in certain areas is screaming at us. With no immediate decent replacement for pinnock or moore we have reaped what we sowed. Stoke could sit in and just pick us off, also anybody notice how many free kicks tbey "bought"....man comes near you, invite the contact and go down. We were out gunned out thought and out played.
On the wages front worth noting that the owners of Stoke are in for £141m. FFP really doesn’t exist in the Championship.
Yes, I did notice how easily Stoke players went down. That is the new age football. It is easier for referees to buy it, rather than face the hassle of stamping it out. One of their players did get booked for a blatant one, but it did not stop him. The ref had a choice. Do I send him off, or do I turn a blind eye. The ref gave him foul after foul with successive Barnsley players claiming they never touched him. Scourge of what used to be a man's game.
I have all our other games since lock down on my computer. I can send you them if you like, but they are not very good for the reasons stated above.
Yea very dissapointing....the guy who was booked.....later in the 2nd half (powell was it?) jumped 3 feet in the air and mowatt was ansolutely no where near him. The ref was 2 meters away at best and gives the free kick....in reality its a 2nd booking and hes walking but as u say its easier tp give it.
In fairness, its often said you learn more from your defeats. In that case, makes more sense to dissect such games in more detail
From a Stoke player - their tactics was to set up to wait for a mistake, by forcing the defender to come out with the ball (as described by R.R.). Apparently they also believed in the fact if they scored first they would win, it was also commented on how little fight we showed.
