Jordan Bowery

[supertom]

Hutton & Heskey on the wing was a tactic I still have nightmares about.

Thanks for reminding me mate!
Jesus wept.

[PeterWithe]

Bowery was totally tactical. Height at setpieces and someone to work hard on the wing. He tracked back well and won the ball a few times to set us up on attacks. He probably saw too much of the ball out wide, and had little option with what to do with it - also looked nervous and cautious in possession. Didn't do badly by any means, though.

That was my take on it as well, he didn't do brilliantly as an individual but him and Baker gave us more solidity on the flanks against the diagonal and at set peices. I could have sworn I posted that on here somewhere the other day but cant find it now.

[Drummond]

I maintain it is vanishingly rare that a manager totally out thinks his opposite number and a lesser team wins by dint of formation, asking players to adopt unfamiliar roles and change their general way of play.  The team that wins the league generally has the best 11 players (or squad these days).

Some cracking debate on this thread. Although I disagree with you on the Bowery situation, I think you've touched upon a great point here.

In my opinion, tactics are overrated by fans. The amount of information and statistics available to each managment staff makes it increasingly hard for any chinks in tactics and formations to be found out. I would say that over the course of a season roughly 80% of the season is determined by who has the best players, while the rest can be attributed to the managers tactics/formations/not picking the strongest XI when available and of course some teams may always be slightly more lucky to gain those few extras points that might see them a couple of places higher than their true ability should see them. I'd point to Newcastle last season as a good example here -  their overall goal difference highlights this.

So basically, I believe it all boils down to the fact that the better the players you have, the higher the likelihood that you'll be higher up the league. The reason we've struggled this season can be put slightly down to the fact we've missed first team players such as Dunne all season and Vlaar in a very hectic Xmas period but mainly to the fact we have a lot of young players, who fast forward 5 years down the line will most probably be an 8th-12th standard side. At the moment as they are virtually all still learning the game, which has consequently led us to being a bottom 5 side.

So why is it that the likes of Norwich and Swansea as two examples have done so well? They are punching above their weight when you look at the players they have and have had on their books. It's down to tactics (which incorporates style of football and approach to the game) rather than individuals.

Clearly, if you've a team full of the very best players, you're likely to do better but Southampton stuffing Man City at the weekend is an example of your point being questionable....... :-)

[peter w]

Isn't playing Gabby wide a tactic? Isn't changing from 3 to a back 4 as tactic? isn't playing Benteke up top on his own a tactic? Isn't everything that is done on a professional football pitch the result of  a tactic that's been employed, whether successfully or not? Therefore, starting with Bowery was a tactical decision. There, tactics.

[pauliewalnuts]

With regard to those who are pointing out we only went ahead after Bowery was taken off, and that this suggests we're better without him, why ignore the fact that the 65 minutes he was on the pitch were a contribution, too?

We didn't concede in those 65 minutes - the game didn't randomly start on the 65th minute.

I am not saying we're better without him or with him, just that you can't really divorce his presence on the pitch for most of the game from the fact we looked pretty solid.

[Jockey Randall]

So why is it that the likes of Norwich and Swansea as two examples have done so well? They are punching above their weight when you look at the players they have and have had on their books. It's down to tactics (which incorporates style of football and approach to the game) rather than individuals.

Clearly, if you've a team full of the very best players, you're likely to do better but Southampton stuffing Man City at the weekend is an example of your point being questionable....... :-)

Good point. Regarding Norwich I think it's because Lambert and his predecessors at Norwich bought very well and bought in players that were/are capable of playing to an average to poor standard in the Premier League. All done on peanuts. Obviously tactics also played a part as well but the main thing about Lambert's success in the game is because he knows the right players to sign. Since Hughton has come in and tinkered with the playing staff gradually their overall form appears to be in decline - they haven't won a game since mid December. (I think they're bankers for relegation next year if it doesn't happen this year unless they get some serious investment).

Swansea have done a similar thing, but instead made a better choice when it came to the next manager to carry the process on. He then bought in several first XI players to supplement what they already had (Chico, Michu, Ki, Hernandez and De Guzman) Who have all had a tremendous season I'm sure you'd agree? Why? Because they are talented players.

Southampton beating Man City shows the beauty of football as anything can happen in a one off game. Over the course of a season though, Saints are very unlikely to be higher than Man City as the players are vastly different in quality.

[Chris Smith]

With regard to those who are pointing out we only went ahead after Bowery was taken off, and that this suggests we're better without him, why ignore the fact that the 65 minutes he was on the pitch were a contribution, too?

We didn't concede in those 65 minutes - the game didn't randomly start on the 65th minute.

I am not saying we're better without him or with him, just that you can't really divorce his presence on the pitch for most of the game from the fact we looked pretty solid.

Exactly, it was a pragmatic selection where he was asked to a do a specific job and performed it pretty well. It contributed to us going into the last 20 minutes in a position where if we did score it should mean something.

[paul_e]

for the benefit of pestria and chrisupnorth let me sum it up for you.

Our weakness for large parts of this season has been that our fullbacks have been isolated against an opposition winger and fullback.  Giving them lots of time and space to work chances to cross.  In turn this has led to our central players being drawn out of position, leaving big gaps in dangerous areas.

By starting with Weimann and Bowery out wide we had 2 players who Lambert trusted to put a shift in and stop this from happening.  That proved to be effective as West Ham had no idea how to 'get at' us.

Like any tactic made for defensive reasons though we had to have a point where we decided to be more adventurous and go for the win, we did that and we got the win so the tactic and the timing of the change to it were successful.  PL hasn't got either of those elements right as often as I'd have liked this season so praise where it's due and all that.

[pauliewalnuts]

But, JR, doesn't that point re Swansea effectively amount to a negation of your point re the correleation between quality of players and standing in the league?

As Drummond mentioned, they've done exceptionally well with a bunch of players most of us had never heard of, and not only that, but they've done it while playing some of the best football in the league rather than resorting to the tactics, say, Stoke did to stay up and establish themselves.

Surely that suggests that actually tactics are very important?

Also, although it pains me to say it, look at Albion and how well they are doing. Under Hodgson they did well because they were so solidly organised. At Anfield last night, and at various points this season, they've won games you wouldn't have backed them to win precisely because of their shape and organisation - and surely that is all about tactics, too?

I entirely agree with your point re us this year and too many youngsters thrown in at the same time, and I think that a lot of our recent woes have been directly attributable to the total loss of confidence coming out of that thrashing at Chelsea.

Having said that, though, I don't think there is anythig wrong with buying and using younger, untried players per se - only when you are too reliant on them, and that has been our problem for a lot of this season.

[paul_e]

players and tactics aren't mutually exclusive, if you have the right players to play your tactics then you play well.

Barcelona are the best example, they have a squad full of player who fit their style, can you see Xavi being successful playing for Stoke for example?

[glasses]

My view is that he looks like a guy who will put in a shift for his manager, and try his damned hardest to do the job asked of him. A real tryer.

He doesn't look a good footballer though. Yet.

[Concrete John]

players and tactics aren't mutually exclusive, if you have the right players to play your tactics then you play well.

Barcelona are the best example, they have a squad full of player who fit their style, can you see Xavi being successful playing for Stoke for example?

I great point that can also be applied to Darren Bent in our side.

As I see it, tactics are all about getting the most from your players, but it can't make them better than they are.

[pauliewalnuts]

My view is that he looks like a guy who will put in a shift for his manager, and try his damned hardest to do the job asked of him. A real tryer.

He doesn't look a good footballer though. Yet.

Yep, "yet" being the operative word which a few people don't get.

He might not look brilliant now, but it also isn't anything like enough of a run-out to judge him not good enough, either.

Nobody is claiming he was amazing, just that the writing off of a young player making his home debut in a side full of young players, and young players playing with extremely fragile confidence at that, in a team which hasn't won for ages, and has a dreadful home record, is somewhat harsh.

[Drummond]

Southampton beating Man City shows the beauty of football as anything can happen in a one off game. Over the course of a season though, Saints are very unlikely to be higher than Man City as the players are vastly different in quality.

So tactics do come into play in a one off game but don't over the longer term?

Of course the players at City are better, and better than every other squad in the league, yet they fine themselves 12 points off top spot.

Man Utd have some great players but player against player they aren't as good as City and sometimes you'd argue Chelsea as well, however, their tactics work and have done for years.

[PeterWithesShin]

I'd have thought that Benteke would be the perfect example of not writing someone off based on a few appearances. Look how many said he was shit after 4 or 5 games.

Now i'm also not suggesting Bowery will be anywhere near the player Benteke is (there is a reason one of them cost £6.5mill more than the other) but give the kid a break, and a chance. He's a young lad making his first league start for us.