Gerard's tactics

[TimTheVillain]

brontebilly we have Ireland but it looks like he is a long way short of starting

A long way off due to lack of fitness or Manager's preference ??

[The Situation]

I've been very pleased with GH's tactics so far though I think he got it wrong today.  Clark was inspired as the holding midfielder but we lacked any creativity forward of this as Downing and Young were both played wide and Blues easily cut off the supply lines from the limited NRC and Sidwell.  As others have said if we get Ireland or Bannan on earlier we start to create problems like the last 20 minutes.  I suppose the pleasing thing about today is GH changed his formation from 4-2-3-1 to 4-1-4-1 and whilst it didn't come off we never looked in serious trouble from them barring Dunne being levered off the ball by Jerome.

The other thing I noticed about ths game and the Chelsea game is that the opposition played their full backs extremely wide and advanced which seems to give space in behind them but results in our wingers having to track back.  It seems to be an effective way of nullifying our threat, maybe a diamond with two up top would have worked better today.  Ah what does it matter, we didn't have enough quality to win.

I agree.

We did play much better in the second-half though and I liked how Houllier changed his tactics and making a couple of good subs in Bannan and Carew. I just watched the 2nd half highlights, and yes I know they're called 'highlights' even from today's match, but we could/should of won with our performance in the second half with the chances we made. Reflecting on it, we completely outplayed them in the second-half having all the posession and making a few chances that could of gone in - all they did is take advantage of a Dunne cock up.

[brontebilly]

brontebilly we have Ireland but it looks like he is a long way short of starting

thought Houllier's quotes about that insufferable idiot were spot on after the game. If he gets his head right and stops acting like a coward on the pitch then he could have a huge future. But his performances have been so diabolical thus far, we have tried to play him into form and it hasnt worked so maybe the stick approach will be better. At his best, he could have provided us with so much today. A three man midfield it was set up for him but due to his sheer ineptitude we had to try a young centre half - Clark and a Scottish u21 player Bannan to provide some creativity. Instead of waiting for GH to create a role for him, Ireland needs to make a role for himself either wide or in the centre.

[wombat]

Gerard's tactics.

in short.

Were shite.

[Monty]

We mustn't forget that when we signed Sidwell we thought we were getting a midfielder who would get forward to support the striker. Add into this NRC's box-to-box drive and fitness and that was a midfield which, while lacking in creativity from the centre (MON's fault, certainly, not GH's), could get forward to support Heskey and the wide forwards IF NRC and Clark had been more decisive with the passing and movement in the middle third. The fact that they weren't is stark - and Bannan really impressed me when he came on, really adding creativity - but in derby game, the one quality you need above all else is solidity. GH knows this - he's now not lost in 14 derbies - and made the right decision in not playing Ireland in my view.

Also there's been a lot of guff about not playing two strikers being "negative". If we'd have played two strikers we'd have ceded the midfield entirely and only been able to play on the counter - in short, a MON away game. How's that for negative.

[KevinGage]

Also there's been a lot of guff about not playing two strikers being "negative". If we'd have played two strikers we'd have ceded the midfield entirely and only been able to play on the counter - in short, a MON away game. How's that for negative.

Well away from home under MON was generally more entertaining/ positive than at home, but agree with the first part.

[Ad@m]

Also there's been a lot of guff about not playing two strikers being "negative". If we'd have played two strikers we'd have ceded the midfield entirely and only been able to play on the counter - in short, a MON away game. How's that for negative.

That's only half the story though.  Playing one up front is the current fashion and plenty of good teams have won things with that formation.  The point though is that if you're going to play one up front you've got to support him.  Where GH got it wrong was by playing one up front and then sticking two defensive midfielders and a centre-half behind him.  Even that could have been saved though if he'd told Ash and Downing to push right on to support Heskey.

But instead, they played their normal roles in midfield, the centre-mids sat on the defenses toes and we either hammered long balls up to a lone Heskey or Heskey dropped deep to stand a chance and left no one in an attacking position whatsoever.

Poor tactics for a home game against a worse team.

[Bosco81]

Playing on the break with pace isn't negative, only getting 1 or 2 players ahead of the ball is negative.

Houllier might be making us solid but that wasn't where our problem was, our defence was pretty good last season, it is that creativity around the box we need, which is a bit trickier to coach, and needs a manager to take a few risks.

[Monty]

Adam, like I said, the midfield could have been a more positive one had we played better. We've lost our best ball-player in deep midfield in Petrov, and MON's distrust of style and technique is being shown up in our squad options. With Albrighton out, the other option would have been to play either Bannan, who did well when he came on but you'd worry for his ability to impose himself from the start at his age, and Ireland, whose problems are well documented.

Either way, it's no vindication of playing two up front because of the problems with that system I mentioned above. A 4-3-3 can be negative, but a 4-4-2 these days almost automatically means being either negative or direct, neither of which would be particularly effective at home against Blues. Also, playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics, surely, because to do it effectively you have to get men behind the ball, thus becoming negative.

[Merv]

GH didn't do a lot wrong yesterday tactically IMO. He knew Blues would pack the midfield and try to stifle the game and a lot of us had talked in the week about needing to beef up the midfield - some even suggested Collins as defensive central midfielder. That he went for Clark in that role surprised me, but it made sense in hindsight. He's good on the ball, technically sound. So, that worked. Personally, with Clark in that anchor role I think he could have been slightly riskier and gone for Ireland over Sidwell...

Then he switched things around later on to try and win the game - Bannan nearly did it, and then Carew nearly set Clark up for the winner. We finished 4-4-2 with Downing and Young flanking Bannan and Clark in midfield and the two big men up front, which is hardly negative. Not overly concerned at this stage, though we do badly miss Gabby.

[KevinGage]

Also, playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics, surely, because to do it effectively you have to get men behind the ball, thus becoming negative.

In general, yes.

But the Nottingham Forest teams of mid 80's to early 90's were an attractive counter attacking side and Arsenal early to mid noughties were as entertaining a side as I've ever seen - suck teams in and hit them with pace as Henry, Cole, Perez all hared forward. To the point that you almost wouldn't want to gain a corner against them for fear of being torn apart on the counter.

It's a method that -when used properly- has plenty of merit. In purely simplistic terms, when done right there is more space to exploit in the opposition half and it opens the game up. We played a more agricultural version of it than Arsenal, but at our most effective -between say Nov 2007 - Feb 2009 teams and opposition supporters alike were wary of us.

I recall a number of games v Blackburn, Pompey and Sunderland away when there were audible groans from the home fans when either Gabby or Ash got the ball in space -as if they expected a goal to inevitably follow.

Our major falling was not building on that. Both in the shape of getting even better personnel to play that system and not having players patient enough to keep possession better -particularly at home. That might sound a contradiction -why would you need to be good in possession and keeping the ball if you're only focus is to attack at full pelt when the opposition surrender the ball. But you need to have more than just a handful of players technically competent -or else the ball just keeps on going straight back to the opposition or out of play.  As we witnessed countless times.

[Monty]

There is nothing at all wrong with being good on the counter - indeed, in today's game it's a crucial weapon to have in your arsenal. The point is, though, that all those teams that you've mentioned (apart from us) were also capable of plan A: control the game, keep possession and break teams down. The point with tactics being negative is that they rely on the opposition to do something, and if the opposition don't do what you want them to do, you're screwed. This is exactly what happened to us under MON - teams no longer attacked us but sat back, waiting for us to inevitably give the ball away and for them to break. If you play on the front foot, you have to be able to keep the ball in midfield, and to do that these days you really need three players in there, even if one of those three is a second striker dropping deep.

[KevinGage]

Agreed Monts.

I just didn't agree with you earlier assertion that playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics. It clearly isn't.

[Monty]

Agreed Monts.

I just didn't agree with you earlier assertion that playing on the break is the definition of negative tactics. It clearly isn't.

I'll clarify, I think. It's clearly not a negative thing to, if you go a goal up, sit back a bit and exploit space on the counter as the opposition come forward looking for an equaliser. It is, however, negative to go into a game and play this way from the beginning, as it is relying on the opposition making mistakes.

[Bosco81]

Sitting back after going a goal up is one thing, sitting back before kick off is another.

When your striker is Emile Hesley you need goal threats from elsewhere in the team, I can't see where the goals are going to come from the way we set up yesterday, especially as the set piece goals have dried up, must be all that practice they are doing.