Against Hull: What we did right
Plenty will have been said about whether we'd lost the match this badly if Señor had not been sacked. As much as I still have doubts over Boro Steve's ability to lead from the base, I have to say such speculation is anything but fair. The counter-argument can easily go like "would we have scored if Señor is still around?"
To put things into proper perspective, there's no difference between a glass half-empty and a glass half-full. Period.
Ultimately, the only thing we did right was scoring. That's all.
Against Hull: What we did wrong
Thirteen times worse than the movie Jason Goes to Hell: Final Friday. Our defending was really that bad. Or was it? There's nothing wrong with Boro Steve going with 4-4-2, this I agreed with Anthony "not the Vicks VapoRub" Vickers. Things only went pear-shaped for us like the Braxit once we drew first blood (nothing to do with a woman's underwear, it's all about Anguished Angelina and Bereaved Brad).
I once said something about Marco "young like a Rubio, wise like a Polo" Silva's four by two. In that post, I said the only way for us to get something out of the match was to throw a spanner between their 4 men in the middle and 2 blokes up front (well, not entirely true, but you get the drift). I won't be surprised if that's how we get the first goal. The only problem? Solo Para Siempre scored too early. In the 4th minute to be exact if I remember correctly.
Ultimately, Boro Steve's comments may have indicated a middle 4 too gung-ho for the back 4. Not their back 4, but our very own back 4. Boro Steve's deep lying approach is reminiscent of what Señor had done, much to his own detriment (I'll have to admit that his stubborn approach may have done his CV plenty of harm. Which may be why O Especial is trying to do something about it if this report is to be trusted). Boro Steve has to make the greatest decision of his career. Will he want to tank it like Señor or dare it like yours truly?
No one is telling him to play ball like Barcelona, no one is telling him to kill the lads in the most physical manner possible. We need to be tactically daring if we're to draw first blood again in the early stage. We need to be more literally daring when it comes to parking the back 4. So how do we do it?
Answer: We do it against Burnley
I have to give it to Sean "still not a douche" Dyche. Of all the English managers I've seen, he's the most exceptional bloke (together with Eddie "The Once and Future Knight" Howe) when it comes to man-motivation and man-management. Firstly, let me just say that we have sent the wrong message to him and his Claret boys. We have told them that it's okay not to sit back. We have told them it's okay to start a fight anywhere in the middle third. In fact, we have told them it's okay to unleash Joey "I got a Joe, I got a baton" Barton so long he doesn't start fightin' round the world.
Let me be this clear. We need to be more literally daring by playing the back 4 further up. If we want to get goals, we have to start from the back. The key reason behind Señor's failure wasn't due to 4-2-3-1. Technically, 4-2-3-1 is also considered as a 2 striker system (that is so long you have a 2nd striker in the hole 9). Problem with Señor's approach is very simple: He was playing his cards too deep near the goal. As a result, Álvaro "solo para siempre" Negredo became... well, Solo Para Siempre. At the same time, whoever playing hole 9 has to run more back and forth. This was also the reason why pairing up Stewart "hope he's not down and out" Downing and Cristhian "never an Arnie on the right" Stuani means less assurance of 3 pts in the bag.
At the same time, we need to be tactically daring. I believe the problem with us against Hull was due to not knowing what to do with an early lead. If we sit back, they will boss the game. If we pour forward... well, we all know what happened by the time the final whistle was blown. Silva has really given Boro Steve a harsh lesson in tactics. Yes, there's a need to throw in the spanner between the four men and two. When he played a 4-4-2, did we know what it means? It means shifting the four-man focus to the back while giving the wide players and strikers more off-ball running in the midfield and attacking 3rd! Tactically speaking, it means either Boro Steve would have to fall back or take a risk in order to disrupt Silva's four by two. He chose the latter, we're duly punished for that. And this is what it means to be tactically daring: Better to send the wrong message early than to do so in the later stage.
I'm not saying it's right to send the wrong message. Rather, I'm talking about choosing between the aforementioned two. After all, no one likes to send the wrong message if the right message is available.
As for Dyche and Clarets
I won't be surprised if they're gonna start this deep and trying to end this on a high. Once the kick-off starts, they're more likely to play this deep. Don't let this fool you in the sense that this won't persist for the entire 90 minutes. We're there for the taking. Somewhere in the game, Burnley is gonna push further up. This team can pose plenty of problems down the width and box to box. I still remember George "not a Kris" Boyd trolling us non-stop down the flank like George "Best of the best in Belfast, some say even in the world" Best. If something can happen once, it can happen again. In particular, our 2nd choice fullbacks are anything but assuring. Trust me when I say Boyd will dribble it like Best.
When it comes to the central mid, I'm pretty sure Dyche won't wield the axe. His choice of attacking wide men is where the game will be won or lost (mainly because a draw means a loss for us). When it comes to the fullbacks, be prepared for many an English artillery coming our way.
P.S: I'm recovering from a wee bout of flu right now. Also, I need to sate my gaming/writing fix until 10 pm (Singapore timezone).
No comments:
Post a Comment