This is where I will I'd like to challenge you (because mostly I agree and love your data informed contributions!).
I find it very frustrating that there is a mentality of worrying about the opposition and being sensible (sounds like a Maher word)
It would be great to phrase this (and perhaps because we're not there) "this is what York have to worry about us and what they have to do to stop us".
Genuinely are we that inferior? It seems the general mentality is always how we stop the other team from beating us rather than how do we beat them.
Let's play 5 defenders so we don't lose. What about playing 4 defenders and 3 upfront so we attack and win?
What it also sounds like is we don't have rotation or movement too which makes us static and perhaps is the root of our issues? You'll have the data on that
I'm a glass half full person by nature so it may explain my reaction! Maher a half empty guy which explains my frustration.
First of all, thank you! It’s nice to have a discussion with you!
I’ll try to elaborate my thoughts…
York have had more possession in every single match this season. They’ve played versus back-fours, back-fives, man-to-man presses and zonal presses. Therefore, it’s realistic to expect them to control the possession tomorrow and pin us back for long spells.
They can destroy you through sustained pressure
or in large spaces if you go toe-to-toe with them. They’re very, very good tactically and have the quality to match it. I’ve analysed
a lot of matches this season and, for me, they’re the best side in the division.
After we played them on the opening day, I was disappointed they had as much of the ball as they did, as the away side. However, as I’ve seen them play more and more this season, I believe our approach that day gave us the best possible chance of beating them.
York can use a variety of shapes, making it almost impossible to predict how they’ll line up and how to press them. Then, they have a lot of movement which can be difficult to track. Maidenhead pressed them in man-to-man fashion and got torn apart, for instance:
Why do I believe our set-up at home was the correct one? Because we accepted they were going to have the ball, sat in a compact shape rather than chasing them around the pitch, and went with five ‘proper’ defenders to make us more solid in the last line, which made it easier to track forward runs from deep.
You can still track these forward runs with a back-four, but it’s more difficult to do so and requires the midfielders to work hard and track all the way back.
If we went with a 4-3-3, we wouldn’t be able to do this because we’d play strikers as wingers, who (understandably) lack the ability to do this reliably. And that’s before we consider that we’ve only used a back-four a handful of times since Kev took over, so its subtleties are fairly unfamiliar to the players.
Think back to the opening day. We took our chance when it came (from a set-piece); didn’t allow York to cut us open; and were minutes away from winning, only conceding to a set-piece ourselves.
It’s not how I like to see us play, but if it’s going to give us the best chance of winning in a one-off match, I’m all for it!
York have weaknesses as well which we can exploit (even if we play a ‘proper’ back-five). But setting up to be solid away to a top, top side who are dangerous and are very likely to sustain attacks isn’t necessarily ‘playing for a draw’, for instance.
Of course, York may score early on and the whole game-plan would be redundant but, sometimes, having the best possible chance of winning means trying to nullify the main threats to make sure we’re competitive, rather than going toe-to-toe.
www.examinerlive.co.uk
