Dick Swiveller
Well-known member
- Sep 9, 2011
- 9,155
If WHU don't have at least one analyst with the same skill level as someone who writes for the press, I would suggest they are a few divisions too high.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Great analysis in today's Telegraph
- Thread starter Smirko
- Start date
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
Right so it’s a good article but the obsession with triangles is absolutely bizzare quite frankly. In pretty much every screenshot he chooses the Watford players are also in a triangle, if there’s 3 players near each other you could literally make a triangle out of every moment on a football pitch, especially playing 3-5-2.
Good article though, nice to see someone actually examine a game, although he clearly hasn’t seen us before if he doesn’t know Dunk can ping it.
Good article though, nice to see someone actually examine a game, although he clearly hasn’t seen us before if he doesn’t know Dunk can ping it.
maltaseagull
Well-known member
West Ham probably think the Telegraph is what you send messages with in morse code
They only read the sun.
In any case GP will switch to a different system just to mess with them !
But we and the Premier League world at large are used to seeing some very very 'flat' triangles, and one that's mahoooosive, from the Albion.
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Hello. I'm not a vocal TeamHughton supporter - I was proud to be TeamHughton and am still there, but have very much been TeamPotter too since the day he was appointed...
so, all the extensive analysis about diamonds. Chris was also a big fan of diamonds and I think this is why the team have taken to this so readily under Potter, they were already doing it. The basics of ball retention, passing amongst the back-line, pivoting off Stephens, Ryan as a sweeper and so on was already integral in the team, this isn't new. So I think that part of this piece doesn't really address the difference between the managers
Whats changed? We've basically switched from a back 6 with wing-backs to a back 5 with wing-backs, with an extra man in the centre of the park. Obviously the back-6 is a bit of a jibe, and in games where we were on the front foot we were able to overload down the wings with overlapping full-backs. However we probably had too much power out wide and the wingers didn't come inside as much as they could have, so we had spare wide-men but not enough in the box. That led to some decent possession at times in the opposition half but little in the way of chances. (It worked better when we had wingers like Izquierdo who wanted to come inside, but he was crocked last year, and maybe that was also the plan for Jahanbaksh). What was apparent in the Watford win was that we still had width and could use it effectively, but also had more men to attack the ball in the box. Andone's goal a case-in point where Dawson had to try and mark two strikers at the near post and failed to do so. Old days would have been just Murray there, perhaps March lurking at the back of the box and Dawson would have cleared the ball.
The other obvious difference was the way we were pressing and marking, dropping off harrying their defenders but marking up all the options in midfield so the defenders had to go long with their passing; and when the ball was in an advanced midfield position the 'spare' centre back was stepping out and attacking the ball - I saw all three of them do that at some point and make the tackle. That kind of play is a huge help for Stephens who often found himself picking up the loose ball after the tackle.
These formation changes are just the way football is going, and Potter embraces it whereas Hughton preferred the old style.
The other thing, there was a confidence there that we haven't seen since the Fulham game, where it was completely knocked out of us. When we play with confidence and verve we are a much better side, regardless of the manager - but well done to Potter for getting it back in there.
Early days though...
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Perhpas, but then Dunk's super pass was able to break two lines of four (incredibly!) which suggests that they were actually more of a parallel 4-4. A diamond shape would have made for less space for a pass like that. In the first half, for our first goal, Stephens intercepted because a ball which could brake our two attackers couldn't get beyond Stephens who covered the space. If Watford had used a similar shape the Dunk's pass would have been able to break one line of four, but not two (or at least it wouldn't have been so easy!).
el punal
Well-known member
True, but then Potter will probably change the formation and tactics and totally mess up the Hammers’ game plan.
el punal
Well-known member
Kick the wasps’ nest? We’ve just kicked the hornets’ nest instead. Hopefully there won’t be a sting in the tail to follow.
el punal
Well-known member
Early days indeed - but filled with optimism.
We're the Stripes
Well-known member
A journo on Monday's Totally Football Show described his pass for the third goal the best through ball he'd seen since Kaka's for Crespo in the '05 Champions League final. A slight exaggeration perhaps but I'm inclined to go with it.'Lewis Dunk's emergence as a Franz Beckenbauer type sweeper...'
GOM
living vicariously
I like the idea that when there are 4 players near the ball this is a diamond, and incredibly when only 3, this then forms a triangle. A fantastic piece of analysis, I hope no one else susses this out. I'm looking forward to the pentagon.
Alba Badger
Well-known member
Brighton in the sky with diamonds... there is a song there!
seagull_special
Well-known member
It is a very thorough analysis which West Ham will be all over but I don’t think Potter will just trot out the same formation week after week and adapt accordingly. West Ham are much stronger in midfield and I think he will look to counter this. Think West Ham will be a much tougher opponent even after the drubbing they received at City.
SockMonster
Well-known member
Under CH we played 4-4-1-1 in first season in Premier and then for first part of second season before switching to a sort of 4-3-3. The switch didn't work and yet CH insisted on pursuing it...........
Garry Nelson's Left Foot
Well-known member
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
4-2-3-1 was pretty much the first season formation wasn't it, which as you say is pretty easily a 4-4-1-1 if the wingers just end up dropping a bit (which invariably they did). Stephens and Propper both holding as a shield in front of the back 4, 2 wingers with Gross then in behind Murray.
Thought we tried to be more attacking (ironically) last season as we tried to release Propper more, with a 4-1-4-1, with Propper going one side to help the flanks, Gross the other. Stephens then forming the point of a triangle behind them, or a pyramid if you include Murray. They just never collectively got going with it.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
As said above, ironically trying to switch to a more attacking approach led us to being less attacking.
5-4-1, Dunk dropped from the matchday squad, Baluta taking his place. Hemed up front, midfield involving AJ and Schelotto