Match Day Thread Sheffield Utd v Norwich City.Sat 7 March ko 15.00hrs

No Sheffield United controlled two periods of about twenty minutes in each half where they had us locked defending. They made one of those dominant periods count and unlocked us. We failed to make our dominant periods count.

This from one of today’s match reports:
“But it was the same old problem for Norwich as they continued to produce nice passing moves and enjoy the majority of possession without creating enough chances.”

Sometimes, Robbie, there’s a guy out there who thinks differently from everyone else and sees something clearly, despite very few believing them, and eventually it turns out they are right. However, for every one of those inspired individuals, there are 99 people arguing madly with the world that black is white and other people just don’t recognise it.

 

Rob, 80% of the action in the game was either in the middle third or at our end. That in itself tells you which team controlled the game. And today was simply another demonstration of how you can enjoy the greater possession without ever dominating the game. My heart sinks when I hear people say "We started brightly and dominated possession", because that tells me we have another case of "same again" tactics and it's just a matter of waiting for us to be caught out and fall behind. I imagine all opposition briefings to be something along the following lines: "Right lads, let Norwich have the ball, just stay solid and wait for them to leave the door open for you, which sooner or later they will."

 

And Rob, I may think differently from most on here, but in the world outside this forum, mine is the majority view. "Play pretty football but can't defend" sums it up.

 

Robbie if you were watching the middle stretch of the first half and most of the second half thinking that we were not dominating (admittedly ineffectually) I am not sure there’s any point discussing I’m afraid. Sorry. We were knocking on their door and it was poor finishing/penultimate ball. The number of times one of their centre halves intercepted.

As the BBC quote makes clear, it wasn’t our defence that was a problem today. I know that doesn’t fit your whole theory, but frankly you’ve had matches where your theory was much more likely (eg Wolves). Picking today as an example makes it sound like you’re beating a drum pointlessly and not actually thinking critically.

 

I just quoted a BBC article which literally begs to differ!

And I’m not saying we can defend well, actually. I think that’s the bit you seem to be missing from everyone responding to you. No-one thinks we’re good at defending, no-one’s claiming that.

But you are at odds with most people by not recognising that our goal scoring has been a problem, pretty much since Man City in August.

 

I clearly am beating a drum pointlessly, but precisely because I am thinking critically. Let me ask you how exactly a team can "dominate ineffectually"? Or "dominate" by knocking on a door that good CB play (and defensive play generally) keeps firmly shut? Dominating a game is about neutering your opponent and you choosing what that opponent is allowed or able to do. Sheffield were perfectly happy to let us have possession; they just kept snuffing out such danger as we posed, mostly before we even got to their penalty area. They are comfortable defending. It was like watching a boxing match in which one fighter controls the bout by evading or blocking the other's punches and then swats him when his guard drops.

 

The only reason we failed to score was because of a couple of wonder saves and some poor finishing. All the match reports talk about how at times Norwich dominated, but failed to make the incisive move that counts. Football is filled with games where one team dominates but fails to win or loses.

You’ve convinced yourself you can’t be wrong and now what your eyes are seeing is only what justifies your narrow viewpoint, rather than reality. Sorry Robbie. You had a point, you’ve now lost it by picking the wrong match to reiterate it. You might have been thinking critically once, but you’ve stopped thinking critically now because you’re not adjusting your opinion with the changing evidence in front of your eyes.

 

No, what I'm missing from everyone responding to me is a recognition that our current approach is flawed. It isn't flawed because we don't score sufficient goals; it's flawed because when we set out to score goals, we leave ourselves wide open at the back. What we need to do is approach every game as if we were playing Man City or Liverpool. They have the quality to impose themselves on other teams; we don't, and things won't improve until we accept that.

 

In the last 300 minutes of play (3 games) we have conceded 2 goals, both headers from balls coming in from wide positions (1 set piece, 1 cross in open play), hardly the sign of a team leaving themselves wide open at the back by recklessly attacking. We have achieved this playing against 3 teams in the top 8 of the best league in the world (Leicester 3rd, Sheffield Utd 6th & Tottenham 8th). We have also reached the quarter finals of the FA cup, something we haven't done for 28 years.

The form guide over the last 12 games shows us as 20th, over the last 6 games it shows us as 16th, so we have improved considerably recently. If we had shown our form over the last 6 games for a whole season we would be in the PL next season. So the evidence seams to show that our current approach (over the last 6 games at least) far from being flawed is effective. Why have we improved ? Well that's debatable (i.e. less CB injuries, DF has tweeked things to set us up more defensively etc.), but what is quiet clear is that we have improved, defensively at least. When you look at the hand DF has been dealt, he has done a great job to make us competitive at this level, especially when you consider that we weren't even expecting to be in the PL at this stage of his, the teams and the clubs development.

You claim to be a critical thinker, are you having a laugh, what you have done in relation to this matter has taken a view many games ago that we are incapable of defending effectively at this level and that this is down to how DF's playing philosophy. Ever since you came to that view you have failed to identify or accept that any improvements have been made and apply confirmation bias to every game.

 

Within my circles that's not the case and no one I know that has seen us play a whole game, rather than isolated highlights has expressed this view.

That may be the case in your circles, but the majority is not always correct just because it's the majority. Normally the majority view is based on very limited knowledge of a club or their season. The majority view was that Liverpool would beat Watford and we all know how that turned out. The incorrect majority view, normally arrived at on flawed evidence is why bookmakers make money.

 

Well argued Canario. The other thing about the last 6 games is that we lost to Liverpool by a late goal and then beat Leicester, neither of which the 'majority' would have predicted. I agreed with Robbie that we were leaving ourselves open early in the season, but DF has tightened things up and we are now playing much more balanced football. We were not wide open yesterday - the Blades managed 10 shots, 4 of which were on target (we had 12/5 and also hit the post). That match could well have gone the other way had our chance gone an inch further into goal.

 

I can only assume that Robbyb doesn't watch many games and just clicks on the stats and invents his own highlights in his head to go along with the narrative that Farke is an idiot and doesn't know what he's doing.

 

Some very good points made backed up by solid evidence.

 

Well your assumption is way off the mark DD; I watch every match, and play most of them back over again, the full match that is, not just the often seriously misleading "highlights".
Nor do I mindlessly just parrot statistics: I actually bother to look into the detail of them -- like noting that, of our 5 shots on target yesterday, 4 came in that one late incident when Henderson saved Godfrey's "header" and the follow ups by Vrancic and Drmic. Our only other shot on target was Jamal's drive. DF didn't mention that, did he, in his post-match interview? Nor, when he claimed the stats showed we were "better" in every respect except the goal, did he mention that, of our 12 shots, 3 were from way out, 2 of them more or less equidistant between the penalty area and half-way line. Compare that with Sheffield's shots, 8 out of 10 of which were within our box, one only just outside, and one inside the arc. Wilder's post match comments were much more accurate. And DF didn't even mention one of the most telling stats, percentages of play in different zones. Less than 25% of the play took place in Sheffield's defensive third! In contrast, close to 40% took place in our defensive third, and the rest in the middle third. Sheffield kept us largely at arm's length except for brief spells at the start and late on. How people can seriously claim that we dominated is completely beyond me. Do they equate possession with domination?

Regarding carrowcanario's quoting the form tables. I take the same view as Rob (in his post a few days ago) when he says that there are several different factors at play, over and above any defensive adjustments, accounting for the "improvement". This is why I have always said that I'm waiting until next season to see what, if any, lessons DF draws from this current one. But this upcoming run of games, which include 5 of Rob's "must wins" against others in the "relegation league", may well prove instructive also. What I don't want to see is more of the same tactically, or hear another chorus of "we started so brightly, and dominated possession" followed by "so **** predictable".

And Mike, you will get a more detailed answer to your question "What exactly will I be looking for next season?" in due course.

 

So basically Robbie, what you're saying is that amongst our little family on here, you are right and EVERYBODY ELSE is wrong.

Okay, fair enough!

 

There's so much uniformity of thinking and attitude on here Dave, that I've sometimes wondered if everybody in this "little family" apart from yourself and Cromer isn't actually just one poster with multiple user names! But whatever, would it help if I changed my user name to "Black sheep"? Or I might even, in the end, turn out to be "the prodigal son" -- if DF allays my doubts next season

By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how exactly those action zone figures can be squared with the claim that we dominated yesterday's game.

 

The action figures can be misleading. Our approach is to build slowly, sometimes very slowly from the back, not every minute attributed to our defensive 3rd reflects that we were actually defending at the time. I'm not saying that this evens these stats up, but it adds a layer of uncertainty that it is so cut and dried.
On the otherhand, you are not fully on your own, I still doubt Farke's abilities to produce a balanced side, certainly with current resources. He got it right in the championship by out scoring the opposition and it was quite brilliant management/coaching to get us promoted, though anyone who thinks we could defend even in victory is probably a little silly.
This season of course we started by looking good going forward and that we had goals in us, but were terrible at the back. Clearly injuries had an influence on that but the balance was also not right. I think the single biggest reason we no longer score in open play is because the balance has gone the other way. We do not play nearly as many chancey balls to break the press, we rarely seem to have the overloads up the pitch that made us so dangerous, but also so vunerable. It probably comes as much down to personnel as any thing. To even have a fighting chance of keeping the scoring down we now have Tettey and McLean, not Lietner, Vrancic and Trybull, I think thats basically indicative that we do ont have the players to play how we want and that this is a compromised more defensive version.
I think someone said they thought Vrancic and Trybull played well vs Spurs, I must have been watching a differnt game, both looked rusty and for me poor relative to what I think they can do. McLean made a clear impact and improved us quite obviously when he came on.

Bah!

 

The day BBC reporting becomes solid evidence!
DD's comment is a semi-insulting cheap shot at someone just because he disagrees with his opinion.
It's hard to argue with these last 3 games having been better defensively, I agree we appear to have improved though at a cost to our attack. but those 3 games could still be rather misleading.
A bang out of form Leicester shorn of Vardy. Spurs shorn of of not only Kane but Son too, also very out of form. Only lose by 1 to Sheff utd, are we counting that as good?. Then that ignores games preceeding that. On face value only losing by 1 to Liverpoo looks great, but look at how liverpoo have been struggling of late. Did we defend well against Wolves?
A load of if's but's and maybe's later, we have what we have. It is very subjective as to whether you think that is miracle work or very good inspite of being ahead of schedule and not being suported enough to do any better, or we have been caught out with a naive coach who hasn't learnt or adapted quickly enough.
I think it's somewhere in the middle. He's done OK this season, he probably hasn't got the players needed to stay up, certainly not in the style he has doggedly clung to. Could someone else have done better? Short term I believe so, someone like Pearson who knows the British game and the PL a good deal better might have done better, might have kept us up, but then where would we be, is he and his football the way forward? I'm not so sure.
I'd stick with Farke, he should be better for this seasons learning, though I think there is plenty he could have done better this season.

Bah!

 

Melchett’s right - action zones don’t tell the full story. It’s not like rugby where being inside the 22 really counts. They just tell one small part of the story.

You have to have actually watched the match to see that we dominated for one patch in the first half and for a significant stretch of the second half, and they dominated for a significant stretch in the first half.

Robbie I think you are twisting what people are saying - no-one’s pretending we dominated the whole match, Farke included. No amount of stats will show that, you need to watch it. We dominated parts of it. And as I said above, of the top five chances of the game, three fell to us (I think the sixth best chance too, incidentally). Our let down was the slide rule passing for the assist - I’d be interested to see how many interceptions their CBs made. And of course the finishing, as shown by us not scoring out of three good chances and them scoring from two. I know you cannot agree to that because it contradicts your opinion, but if you’d watch the match, you would see that was the problem. We couldn’t have defended any better than we did on Saturday.

 

Exactly what I said the other day