[Albion] Fabian Hürzeler - A fab thread on our manager and his tactics

[singing4seagulls]

Ok, let's get into a good sensible discussion following that.

My takeaways:

• It's Villa, we shouldn't be that surprised by the result
• We lost Webster and with that our solid defence partnership. Likewise Georginio up front. That was always going to make this game hard, as less regular players get up to speed and build partnerships.
• Not going to dig on the starting lineup, as we were the better team in the first half
• We had a very close free kick, a penalty shout denied + a few harsh decisions.

Some important context. Sometimes football is unfair.

That said, my question's re the manager:

• Pedro was best player on the pitch. Felt like he should have stayed on to support Welbeck.
• We always seem to concede from counter attacks. Watching Rashford on a couple of attempts, you could see he was a threat. How can we learn to deal with that better.
• With the above in mind, was taking Dunk off really needed? Whilst he doesn't have pace he's got experience and positioning. Cashin coming on when they had pacy threats felt wrong and was proven so.
• The subs more generally didn't get the reaction we needed. If anything it felt we were more in control before them.

I'm sure there's more as I digest, but interested to hear others views.

We're not going to win them all and Villa are a very good team with some very classy players, so some perspective needed. But that scoreline is disappointing for what was a game it felt at half time was winnable.

 

[singing4seagulls]

On a positive front, a bunch of players like Minteh should be well rested to really take it to Palarce.

I do wonder if Fab was preserving people (even Dunk) for that as he knows how important it is.

 

[Weststander]

The brief version.

Seeing Webster and Rutter’s injuries on Saturday at the time, was season changing.

It broke up a brilliant defensive unit and we lost our talismanic forward who turns up every game.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

This game is less about the manager or tactics and more about the number of players we have out and the number of minutes played at the weekend.

There have been matches this season where the manager royally buggered it up, but not this one

 

[macbeth]

Ok, let's get into a good sensible discussion following that.

My takeaways:

• It's Villa, we shouldn't be that surprised by the result
• We lost Webster and with that our solid defence partnership. Likewise Georginio up front. That was always going to make this game hard, as less regular players get up to speed and build partnerships.
• Not going to dig on the starting lineup, as we were the better team in the first half
• We had a very close free kick, a penalty shout denied + a few harsh decisions.

Some important context. Sometimes football is unfair.

That said, my question's re the manager:

• Pedro was best player on the pitch. Felt like he should have stayed on to support Welbeck.
• We always seem to concede from counter attacks. Watching Rashford on a couple of attempts, you could see he was a threat. How can we learn to deal with that better.
• With the above in mind, was taking Dunk off really needed? Whilst he doesn't have pace he's got experience and positioning. Cashin coming on when they had pacy threats felt wrong and was proven so.
• The subs more generally didn't get the reaction we needed. If anything it felt we were more in control before them.

I'm sure there's more as I digest, but interested to hear others views.

We're not going to win them all and Villa are a very good team with some very classy players, so some perspective needed. But that scoreline is disappointing for what was a game it felt at half time was winnable.

pretty much every tactical decision i saw tonight seemed to me to be made with palace in mind. would that be the case had we not lost 3-1 to them at home earlier, who knows, imo probably not.

defensive issue really is something that needs to be addressed in the summer, webster has been brilliant but much like lamptey can’t be relied on. and everyone else in the LCB position is just too slow. unfair to criticise cashin after about fifteen minutes, but i do wonder, having watched him at derby, why we thought a slow centre back who isn’t really that good in duels would be someone who could improve us defensively, even if his build-up data is sky high.

not that it would ever be acceptable for a manager to ‘throw’ a game with one eye on the next match, but everything really does boil down to sunday now. win, and it’s probably worked out how i’d want it to, lose and all of a sudden it’s three defeats on the bounce and the negativity resumes again.

 

[singing4seagulls]

pretty much every tactical decision i saw tonight seemed to me to be made with palace in mind. would that be the case had we not lost 3-1 to them at home earlier, who knows, imo probably not.

defensive issue really is something that needs to be addressed in the summer, webster has been brilliant but much like lamptey can’t be relied on. and everyone else in the LCB position is just too slow. unfair to criticise cashin after about fifteen minutes, but i do wonder, having watched him at derby, why we thought a slow centre back who isn’t really that good in duels would be someone who could improve us defensively, even if his build-up data is sky high.

not that it would ever be acceptable for a manager to ‘throw’ a game with one eye on the next match, but everything really does boil down to sunday now. win, and it’s probably worked out how i’d want it to, lose and all of a sudden it’s three defeats on the bounce and the negativity resumes again.

Good post.

That's also how I'm seeing it.

Palace is always a big game, but it feels like it is coming at a pretty critical part of the season.

Let's hope the players are rested enough and we give it everything.

 

[tigertim68]

I thought he picked the wrong team , too many light weights on the pitch ,

 

[tigertim68]

Ok, let's get into a good sensible discussion following that.

My takeaways:

• It's Villa, we shouldn't be that surprised by the result
• We lost Webster and with that our solid defence partnership. Likewise Georginio up front. That was always going to make this game hard, as less regular players get up to speed and build partnerships.
• Not going to dig on the starting lineup, as we were the better team in the first half
• We had a very close free kick, a penalty shout denied + a few harsh decisions.

Some important context. Sometimes football is unfair.

That said, my question's re the manager:

• Pedro was best player on the pitch. Felt like he should have stayed on to support Welbeck.
• We always seem to concede from counter attacks. Watching Rashford on a couple of attempts, you could see he was a threat. How can we learn to deal with that better.
• With the above in mind, was taking Dunk off really needed? Whilst he doesn't have pace he's got experience and positioning. Cashin coming on when they had pacy threats felt wrong and was proven so.
• The subs more generally didn't get the reaction we needed. If anything it felt we were more in control before them.

I'm sure there's more as I digest, but interested to hear others views.

We're not going to win them all and Villa are a very good team with some very classy players, so some perspective needed. But that scoreline is disappointing for what was a game it felt at half time was winnable.

My question is why does he keep picking Gruda , he might have potential but we let 2 better players go out on loan , when Gruda should be the one out on loan , I really can’t see what he does for the team attacking wise , has never looked like scoring, needs to bulk up , find some pace from somewhere , never seen a youngster been given some many chances in the Premier that Produces so little on the pitch

 

[Seasider78]

The starting 11 was to rest players who were clearly knackered from the international travel and weekend slog and the subs were to rest the remainder who were knackered and protect against further injuries. There were very few what looked like tactical changes. 45min in looked like we might get away with it but eventually difference in quality showed.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

The unbeaten streak came as a result of a few things.

1) Adam Webster’s form
2) The tactical decision to use Minteh as a hybrid winger/wingback.
3) The tactical decision to play more direct - going long to Welbeck/Rutter/Pedro early and playing for second balls if the first pass didn’t come off.
4) Playing with greater intensity and on the counter press, which ties in with point 3.

Unfortunately, none of those 4 things were noticeable tonight (some for obvious reasons).

If FH is looking to continue with the same tactics that have served us during the good run, we are heavily reliant on a Welbeck/Pedro combination up front and Minteh in his hybrid role. Otherwise the direct football and counter pressing simply will not work with the other players we have.

Realistically, FH is going to have to display some tactical ingenuity again because we haven’t got the patterns of play to unlock sides. We are relying on individual moments of magic and they’ve dried up - certainly in open play - only 1 goal from our last 6 games has been from open play. There’s also a case that there’s now a blueprint to stop this system we’re currently playing.

There’s not enough time between now and the Palace game to deploy a new system so for Saturday it has to be back to Welbeck and Pedro with Minteh on the wing. After that, FH might have to try something new.

 

[chickens]

Ok, let's get into a good sensible discussion following that.

My takeaways:

• It's Villa, we shouldn't be that surprised by the result
• We lost Webster and with that our solid defence partnership. Likewise Georginio up front. That was always going to make this game hard, as less regular players get up to speed and build partnerships.
• Not going to dig on the starting lineup, as we were the better team in the first half
• We had a very close free kick, a penalty shout denied + a few harsh decisions.

Some important context. Sometimes football is unfair.

That said, my question's re the manager:

• Pedro was best player on the pitch. Felt like he should have stayed on to support Welbeck.
• We always seem to concede from counter attacks. Watching Rashford on a couple of attempts, you could see he was a threat. How can we learn to deal with that better.
• With the above in mind, was taking Dunk off really needed? Whilst he doesn't have pace he's got experience and positioning. Cashin coming on when they had pacy threats felt wrong and was proven so.
• The subs more generally didn't get the reaction we needed. If anything it felt we were more in control before them.

I'm sure there's more as I digest, but interested to hear others views.

We're not going to win them all and Villa are a very good team with some very classy players, so some perspective needed. But that scoreline is disappointing for what was a game it felt at half time was winnable.

Yup, I thought we’d managed to pen Villa back for the most part in the first half. It was clear that Villa’s game plan was to break on the counter attack, but in the first half we managed to mop up the breaks that Villa did manage. In the second half we didn’t, and luck played a part, as did individual errors. A tough match for Cashin to get his first minutes in, but he has to find his PL legs at some point, and at least now he understands what’s involved.

Hürzeler’s preference is to push everyone forward and compress the space in which the game’s being played. Emery knows this and Villa (to be fair to them) largely soaked up the pressure without allowing us much in the way of clear chances, and managed to break successfully three times.

If we intend to continue playing this way, I don’t see an alternative to having pace in our back line and midfield to be able to recover and reset when we lose possession and the break is on. Once we’d conceded FH was urging everybody up the pitch, which played a part in us conceding our second and third.

In the PL, a well-set defence can largely negate even a good attacking side, and reduce them to half-chances. Tonight demonstrated that admirably, unfortunately to Villa’s benefit. As an aside, I also dislike putting more than two subs on at a time, as it means a significant percentage of the team on the pitch are trying to find the rhythm of the game at the same time.

This felt to me like FH trying to move back toward his original ideas on how we should play, I fear with the same results as before, leaving us vulnerable on the break. We (along with most other teams in the PL) look toothless in the face of a well-organized and “in position” defensive unit, and if we continually throw our entire team forward, then we inevitably leave space in behind. There’s no way of balancing that short of pegging back up the field towards our own goal, or alternatively not compressing the space as much, leaving us unable to maintain the desired intensity.

TLDR:- A bit of everything, Villa soaked up the pressure and sprung the trap successfully three times, I like to think that FH will reflect on this. It’s really tough to weave through a crowded penalty area, and the real chances in the PL come when the opposition defence haven’t been allowed to organize. I don’t like Villa, but despite our all-round play being pretty good tonight, they gave us a lesson in effectiveness.

 

[AstroSloth]

That said, my question's re the manager:

• Pedro was best player on the pitch. Felt like he should have stayed on to support Welbeck.

Pedro picked up a knock slightly before being taken off, so I think that played a part.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Yup, I thought we’d managed to pen Villa back for the most part in the first half. It was clear that Villa’s game plan was to break on the counter attack, but in the first half we managed to mop up the breaks that Villa did manage. In the second half we didn’t, and luck played a part, as did individual errors. A tough match for Cashin to get his first minutes in, but he has to find his PL legs at some point, and at least now he understands what’s involved.

Hürzeler’s preference is to push everyone forward and compress the space in which the game’s being played. Emery knows this and Villa (to be fair to them) largely soaked up the pressure without allowing us much in the way of clear chances, and managed to break successfully three times.

If we intend to continue playing this way, I don’t see an alternative to having pace in our back line and midfield to be able to recover and reset when we lose possession and the break is on. Once we’d conceded FH was urging everybody up the pitch, which played a part in us conceding our second and third.

In the PL, a well-set defence can largely negate even a good attacking side, and reduce them to half-chances. Tonight demonstrated that admirably, unfortunately to Villa’s benefit. As an aside, I also dislike putting more than two subs on at a time, as it means a significant percentage of the team on the pitch are trying to find the rhythm of the game at the same time.

This felt to me like FH trying to move back toward his original ideas on how we should play, I fear with the same results as before, leaving us vulnerable on the break. We (along with most other teams in the PL) look toothless in the face of a well-organized and “in position” defensive unit, and if we continually throw our entire team forward, then we inevitably leave space in behind. There’s no way of balancing that short of pegging back up the field towards our own goal, or alternatively not compressing the space as much, leaving us unable to maintain the desired intensity.

TLDR:- A bit of everything, Villa soaked up the pressure and sprung the trap successfully three times, I like to think that FH will reflect on this. It’s really tough to weave through a crowded penalty area, and the real chances in the PL come when the opposition defence haven’t been allowed to organize. I don’t like Villa, but despite our all-round play being pretty good tonight, they gave us a lesson in effectiveness.

Yup, I thought we’d managed to pen Villa back for the most part in the first half. It was clear that Villa’s game plan was to break on the counter attack, but in the first half we managed to mop up the breaks that Villa did manage. In the second half we didn’t, and luck played a part, as did individual errors. A tough match for Cashin to get his first minutes in, but he has to find his PL legs at some point, and at least now he understands what’s involved.

Hürzeler’s preference is to push everyone forward and compress the space in which the game’s being played. Emery knows this and Villa (to be fair to them) largely soaked up the pressure without allowing us much in the way of clear chances, and managed to break successfully three times.

If we intend to continue playing this way, I don’t see an alternative to having pace in our back line and midfield to be able to recover and reset when we lose possession and the break is on. Once we’d conceded FH was urging everybody up the pitch, which played a part in us conceding our second and third.

In the PL, a well-set defence can largely negate even a good attacking side, and reduce them to half-chances. Tonight demonstrated that admirably, unfortunately to Villa’s benefit. As an aside, I also dislike putting more than two subs on at a time, as it means a significant percentage of the team on the pitch are trying to find the rhythm of the game at the same time.

This felt to me like FH trying to move back toward his original ideas on how we should play, I fear with the same results as before, leaving us vulnerable on the break. We (along with most other teams in the PL) look toothless in the face of a well-organized and “in position” defensive unit, and if we continually throw our entire team forward, then we inevitably leave space in behind. There’s no way of balancing that short of pegging back up the field towards our own goal, or alternatively not compressing the space as much, leaving us unable to maintain the desired intensity.

TLDR:- A bit of everything, Villa soaked up the pressure and sprung the trap successfully three times, I like to think that FH will reflect on this. It’s really tough to weave through a crowded penalty area, and the real chances in the PL come when the opposition defence haven’t been allowed to organize. I don’t like Villa, but despite our all-round play being pretty good tonight, they gave us a lesson in effectiveness.

Agreed. FH likes to compress high and win turnovers in a counter press. It’s extremely high risk - especially with the personnel we had starting tonight. It’s reliant on physical dominance, positional intelligence and an element of luck in the bounce of the ball. The more physically dominant and intelligent you are the less concerning the luck element is. It’s also a system which burns your players out, particularly if you’re not getting into winning positions and able to ‘cruise’ games out.

Injuries and fatigue have left us looking weaker on this front. It’s why I said above that FH needs to add another string to our tactical bow, otherwise we are going to drop off.

 

[Mo Gosfield]

Too little physicality on the pitch for 70 min. Subs too late. Missed Rutter..Webster..Minteh and for 70 min...Baleba.
Starting line up far far too lightweight.

 

[Oh_aye]

We were rhe better team despite injuries.

2 schoolboy errors did for us.

We didn't have the nous or mentality to come back from those errors.

Villa pushed on and punished us.

 

[CheeseRolls]

Anyone remember Spurs coming down earlier in the season?

Ange set them up for an agressive pressing game, on the back of a tricky midweek European game. Spurs were the better side in the first half and constantly caused us problems with their aggressive pressing. The second half they were knackered and despite throwing on fresh subs, we wound up comfortable winners.

Anyone else see a pattern here?

 

[singing4seagulls]

Ok, so with benefit of hindsight:

• What do we think the manager got right?
• What should we have done differently?

My take:

1. The starting 11 I think he probably got about right.
A goal up at halftime probably validates that.

At right back, Lamptey/Veltman just back from injury, so not fit to start and didn't look as effective once they came on. Good to get them some minutes though.

Ayari scored a worldie last game, but I think was right call for him not to start (although a harsh one from his perspective). I know a lot on here were wanting him to start.

That said, I think Gomez might have been more effective on the pitch from the start, or earlier in the subs.

2. We don't have much firepower up front ATM.
Felt like that was our main undoing this game, which I can't blame the manager for.

This is so frustrating though, as at points this season our attack has looked immense including bench options, but we've had no defenders. We're now in the opposite situation.

Welbeck wasn't having his best day, but nobody to replace him with. We look lightweight now in attack for people who can pull the trigger without Mitoma, March, Pedro, Rutter, Ferguson, Enciso (these last two on previous season form).

3. Looking more defensively sound.
Not sure if this is manager playing a less high line, or just solid partnership again, with Dunk getting back up to speed and JP back in the squad.

But, it looks to me like in possession we went more to a 3 with Wieffer, Estupinan often further up the pitch than Adringa. I guess a benefit of Wieffer at right back. But in most situations Dunk and JP not being exposed halfway up the pitch. Baleba also stepping more into defence when we are higher to give some extra pace. Feels like we're learning.

4. Subs
Gruda and Gomez subs very nearly worked. The subs gave us a huge opportunity in the final minutes they were on. So fair play.

Also, Gruda's delivery on free kicks and corners is repeatedly immense btw.

But, I think Ayari didn't quite work out. I know before the game lots were calling for Ayari to start, but outside of the handball (let's ignore that) I didn't think he added much today. Gave the ball away a few times, but also like that he will run the whole pitch and win it back. Thought it was right to take off Hinshelwood, but Gomez on at that point to add some bite and take the game to them would have been better in hindsight.

As said, think the subs we needed were in attack and we only had an unplayed U21 player as an option up front, and Lamptey the only option for a winger. When we're selecting our 2nd/3rd choices for our front positions it's always going to be hard against the top teams.

Summary
Overall I think a point is probably fair, but outside of a threadbare squad, I felt I saw signs of a better defensive setup.

I would really like to see the manager get Adringa his confidence back - he doesn't even take a shot these days. Not sure what has happened to him as we know the quality is there. With Mitoma's back troubles he's potentially got a few games to show he's still got it.

 

[Johnny Byrne superstar]

Ok, so with benefit of hindsight:

• What do we think the manager got right?
• What should we have done differently?

My take:

1. The starting 11 I think he probably got about right.
A goal up at halftime probably validates that.

At right back, Lamptey/Veltman just back from injury, so not fit to start and didn't look as effective once they came on. Good to get them some minutes though.

Ayari scored a worldie last game, but I think was right call for him not to start (although a harsh one from his perspective). I know a lot on here were wanting him to start.

That said, I think Gomez might have been more effective on the pitch from the start, or earlier in the subs.

2. We don't have much firepower up front ATM.
Felt like that was our main undoing this game, which I can't blame the manager for.

This is so frustrating though, as at points this season our attack has looked immense including bench options, but we've had no defenders. We're now in the opposite situation.

Welbeck wasn't having his best day, but nobody to replace him with. We look lightweight now in attack for people who can pull the trigger without Mitoma, March, Pedro, Rutter, Ferguson, Enciso (these last two on previous season form).

3. Looking more defensively sound.
Not sure if this is manager playing a less high line, or just solid partnership again, with Dunk getting back up to speed and JP back in the squad.

But, it looks to me like in possession we went more to a 3 with Wieffer, Estupinan often further up the pitch than Adringa. I guess a benefit of Wieffer at right back. But in most situations Dunk and JP not being exposed halfway up the pitch. Baleba also stepping more into defence when we are higher to give some extra pace. Feels like we're learning.

4. Subs
Gruda and Gomez subs very nearly worked. The subs gave us a huge opportunity in the final minutes they were on. So fair play.

Also, Gruda's delivery on free kicks and corners is repeatedly immense btw.

But, I think Ayari didn't quite work out. I know before the game lots were calling for Ayari to start, but outside of the handball (let's ignore that) I didn't think he added much today. Gave the ball away a few times, but also like that he will run the whole pitch and win it back. Thought it was right to take off Hinshelwood, but Gomez on at that point to add some bite and take the game to them would have been better in hindsight.

As said, think the subs we needed were in attack and we only had an unplayed U21 player as an option up front, and Lamptey the only option for a winger. When we're selecting our 2nd/3rd choices for our front positions it's always going to be hard against the top teams.

Summary
Overall I think a point is probably fair, but outside of a threadbare squad, I felt I saw signs of a better defensive setup.

I would really like to see the manager get Adringa his confidence back - he doesn't even take a shot these days. Not sure what has happened to him as we know the quality is there. With Mitoma's back troubles he's potentially got a few games to show he's still got it.

Great post - nailed it

 

[singing4seagulls]

One other thing to add, I'm still not fully convinced on all the long balls from the keeper.

At the end where they went defensive and we still went for it (which I loved) trying to get the winner, Bart was hoofing the ball up to our attackers and Burn was just leathering it right back lol.

It's probably just the years of buying into Potter then doubled down to a ridiculous level with RDZ, but I do still feel playing out quickly from the back just makes more sense. I can't help but watch the back and forwards feel wasteful and often we lose possession.

My preference would be 80%/20% out from the back. Means we can do both, so unlike RDZ we keep teams guessing and get goals like "that Mitoma one", but more often than not we're passing it up the pitch.

 

[jcdenton08]

One other thing to add, I'm still not fully convinced on all the long balls from the keeper.

At the end where they went defensive and we still went for it (which I loved) trying to get the winner, Bart was hoofing the ball up to our attackers and Burn was just leathering it right back lol.

It's probably just the years of buying into Potter then doubled down to a ridiculous level with RDZ, but I do still feel playing out quickly from the back just makes more sense. I can't help but watch the back and forwards feel wasteful and often we lose possession.

My preference would be 80%/20% out from the back. Means we can do both, so unlike RDZ we keep teams guessing and get goals like "that Mitoma one", but more often than not we're passing it up the pitch.

It was a clear tactical decision, probably data driven, because for the last 5-10 minutes of each half it was the same. They’ve probably used data to work out a higher percentage of mistakes occur at the back later in the half, or perhaps more attacking first and second balls are won from direct passing.

It was a clear tactical decision