WHO KNEW?
So I was merrily playing along when I got the usual request to assign first team players for potential slots in the Reserve side for their imminent match. The first thing I did, of course, was check the ‘Next first team match’ info...
...then I checked it again. And again. Then I went to the schedule page.
So it seems that the Danish game takes a winter break, and not just your two or three week break like the Germans or French. Who knew?
OK, so probably everyone except me, but still.
I guess it makes sense, given the likely severity of the Scandinavian winters, but it had never occurred to me. My first instinct was ‘oh no, how do I get through that?’ but then I got to thinking, and realised that this could be a good thing. Really good.
Most of the time I get swept up in the momentum of the next game, and the next game, and the next one after that – the habitual need to get to just one more fixture. Even in the ‘usual’ closed season there’s transfers and squad reviews to do, there’s always something and the summer break zips by really quickly. This break might be different though. I’ve got over 4 months before our next competitive match and we’re halfway through the season.
Half way, and looking really good.
It would be great to spend plenty of those 4 months playing friendlies, and looking at tweaks in our tactics, but of course the squad get a long holiday so I’ll only get a month to get them back up to speed. Even so, having that long a break in mid-season allows me to relax a bit, and spend some time concentrating on things.
With that in mind I decided to take a look at our past games, specifically those where we fielded the 5-3-2 formation, and take a look at what we can do to improve. It’s relatively easy to look at what’s gone well, it’s no surprise that most of my ‘analysis’ is around the moves that have worked for us, but what about the areas that have been less successful? The obvious starting point was to take a look at goals (and significant chances) that we conceded and, taking a leaf out of Jambo98’s book, try and identify which ones were down to tactical issues and which could be written off as individual errors.
Once I’ve done that I can then look for patterns in the former, and decide how we go about addressing them.
A SURPRISING SET OF STATISTICS
Rather than post a whole load of ‘match stats’ screens, I pulled together some very basic data in an Excel spreadsheet. Not only does this give a single overview, but it also enabled me to look at some pretty simple analysis. The table below reflects all of the games we played from the point of adopting the 5-3-2 formation.
13 games in total; 9 wins a draw and three defeats. Not a bad return by any but the highest standards. We’ll ignore the Brabrand game for now (the only one not played with the formation). Potentially we could leave out the ‘outlier’ of the Brøndy match too, given the gulf in class, but we’ll keep it in for now.
The areas that I want to specifically look at are the opposition goals scored, and possibly - if I have time to trawl through the highlights, the chances created. I’m aware that CCCs are a little bit of a grey area in Football Manager, so I don’t put too much weight on those numbers, but it might be interesting to look at some instances where heroic goalkeeping has spared our blushes.
Before I dive into that though, take a quick look at the figures that I pulled together at the bottom of the table.
Based on @RTHerringbone’s original rationale, which is also what my plans are built around – tactical changes notwithstanding – the intention is to play football that has a patient build-up, and favours good scoring opportunities over speculative efforts. Quality over quantity, if you will. The stats appear to bear that out.
It’s a small sample size but it would appear to be evident that we’re creating quality scoring opportunities, and not to the detriment of attacking play either. That despite applying the Team Instruction of ‘Work Ball Into the Box’ and Player Instructions of ‘Shoot Less Often’ throughout (where available).
Even with those ‘restrictions’ in place we’re averaging more shots per match than our opponents, maybe not a statistically significant difference, but we’re certainly not suffering from our combination of Team and Player instructions – nor for a formation that has only a single ‘Attack’ role.
Not only are we on favourable footing with our opponents, but our ‘shots per goal’ count is almost half that of the teams we’re facing. We’re scoring a goal for roughly every 5 shots we take, and better than a goal for every 3 shots on target; our opponents need nearly twice as many chances to find the net.
I was genuinely surprised by these figures when I saw them, but it reassures me that we’re doing something right. Either our tactical instructions around attacking play are working really well, or our defensive shape is restricting our opponents to a lot of hopeful efforts – our compact defensive and defensive-midfield lines making it difficult for them to find space in and around our box; maybe it’s a combination of both.
A fairly casual look at the shot-maps for our matches shows that we’re getting a good number from inside the box, although long shots are still present. It’s mainly our strike partnership, as they drop deep in support roles, who are guilty here. I’ve tried to look at training them with the ‘Less Long Shots’ Player Preferred Move (PPM) but the coaches are doubtful that either would be receptive – I have, however, set them both up to try and work on the ‘Placed Shots’ PPM which may help.
As for the opposition, they do seem to have a decent percentage of their shots coming from long range, but by no means all of them. Time to take a look at the goals they’re scoring then, and maybe a few more chances, to try and assess what can be put down to tactics and what I can make other excuses for.
DON’T JUST GET ANNOYED, GET PERSPECTIVE.
JAMMERBURGT
I’m not concerned with the Jammerburgt game. No goals for them, no Clear Cut Chances, and a shot map that looks like this...
The three closest to the goal were all headers from corners, and the save from close to the penalty spot was a tame effort from a player under pressure from his marker. Nothing to concern me from a tactical perspective, except perhaps our defence of corners (see comment on the Odder goal, below).
Their flat 4-4-2 formation relied on crosses, with the vast majority coming from their left flank through a combination of the winger and fullback. Those two attempted 43 crosses between them, completing just 6 (and people wonder why I prefer to avoid a crossing game). By contrast their counterparts on the right attempted just 13, and completed not a single one.
There’s not a great deal to learn here, except maybe that our defensive shape works really well against crosses. Did I say there was nothing to learn? How about a strategy of trying to encourage our opponents to play down the flanks in future?
ODDER
The Odder game looks like a different prospect entirely. Despite their relatively poor stature, at least in the eyes of the FM media, they came to our place and carved out more and better chances than us. Employing the same sort of 4-4-2, they too attempted a decent number of crosses (and failed to complete more than 5), yet they created a number of chances inside our danger zone.
There’s not a lot to say about the goal itself, a header from a corner; I think this was probably before I’d adopted tweaks to our set-piece defence based on the piece by @MerryGuido that I linked last time out.
It’s a good job that their players were having a bad day at the office though. I’ve numbered up the missed chances from inside our area (black circles), and can summarise them as follows:
#1: A poor header from a corner, with a defender goal-side of the player.
#2: The right winger attempts a cross (according to the commentary) which comes back off the woodwork. The keeper is beaten but the player coming in can’t get the ball under control and it ricochets off him and out of play.
On the bright side, when the cross came in we had four defenders goal-side of two Odder players in the box, and another two in the area ready to pick up rebounds. The guy who the ball came back two had a man on each shoulder.
#3: Direct pass from the halfway line to one of the two Odder strikers, who are both sat along our back-four line – our left wingback having dropped into defence (he has a less attacking role/duty combination). Our wingback on the right had stepped out to pressure their ML. Our DCL is caught ball-watching, and the ball over the top gives the striker his chance...
He controls it nicely on his chest, but our keeper closes down and goes to ground – the shot actually ricochets off his legs rather than being a genuine miss.
For the defender to be caught out like that is annoying, but I have to put that down to player error rather than tactics. He’s on a Limited Defender/Defend combination for Role and Duty, and he held the line with his teammates well until that momentary lapse. The player himself has Positioning 12 and Anticipation 11, however a Concentration rating of 6 is likely to be the main factor here.
#4: This is an interesting one, Odder work down the left channel with one of their strikers, before switching the ball out to wide-right with a raking cross-field ball. Their winger runs onto it, with our WB-L closing him down...
We have plenty of bodies back, our central defensive trio have the other Odder striker surrounded, but our WB-R also retreats deep allowing a lot of space for the striker who delivered the pass – along with their ML – to run into...
This feels like it should be a tactical thing, although the way that *everyone* chases back with an eye on the ball may be a player quality issue. I had a chat with a couple of people about it, and @RTHerringbone came up with the following.
I tend to agree, and it’s probably the lesser of two evils, but I’ll keep an eye on it in the longer term.
#5: A through-ball to a central midfielder who is arriving late in the box. Marking could be tighter, and the guy tracking the runner was a bit casual – although he is our ‘Central Winger’. Plenty of men back in defence though, enough to make the Odder player try a first-time shot which goes wide, in fact wide enough that it would’ve missed another goal next to the real one.
THE REST
If I go through every match and chance in detail we’ll be here all day, but by way of a quick summary...
Middelfart (Flat 4-4-2 again)
Most chances coming from crosses into the box (one corner, two from open play), with players well marked for their headers. We have a decent core of tall defenders who are good in the air, and even when the opposition wins the header they’re not getting free-headers very often.
Hillerød (4-1-2-3 DM WIDE)
Barely got a decent chance, Keeper didn’t look worried by any of the saves he had to make – closest was from a corner into a crowded box.
Kolding BK (4-4-1-1)
Goal was a 25-yard screamer in the Andy Gray “you don’t stop those!” tradition, WB-R had stood the scorer up well but missed his tackle. DC line were all well placed on the edge of the 18-yard box.
Their only two chances in the box were headers from crosses, both shortly after set pieces and with the box well defended.
Brabrand
We fielded a different formation, so I’ll leave that one for now.
Varde (4-2-3-1 Wide)
Their shape, whilst putting a lot of pressure on our back line(s), afforded us lots of opportunities to capitalise on their lack of DM presence. All of our shots came from inside 20 yards.
Their goals come from a penalty, and a poor bit of defensive play from a throw-in. They have their striker challenging our keeper, we have him marked by one of our strikers. The ball comes out to a man wide on their right who puts in a lofted pass/cross. Our striker plays theirs on-side but then, as he’s a striker, comes charging out as the ball is in the air – result is their striker free and behind our line to slot home.
Have I ever mentioned how annoying I find the game engine and how it chooses to transition players from their ‘defending a set piece’ position to their normal playing position? Not really sure it’s a tactical issue here – at least not one that can be handled by tweaks to our formation etc.
KJELLERUP (4-2-2-2 DM)
A lot of chances close in for them, predominantly with them playing early crosses that are swung in from the right. Two or three examples of these that we got away with. Generally, as with the Odder #3 chance above, our defence is well placed but someone gets caught napping and allows their man to run off their shoulder, whilst they ‘re watching the ball.
What’s generally noticeable on all of these is our WB-L (set to ‘Automatic’ duty) giving their MR too much time and space to cross, there’s a real lack of closing down on his part. His Player Instructions are empty, other than ‘Shoot Less Often’, so adding ‘Close Down More’ may be a fairly simple response. Beyond that, as per the Twitter discussion above, maybe man-marking is required.
In terms of goals, one comes from a similar situation to the above, and another from a corner where we’re focussing on marking players/zones in and around the six-yard box. This allows the scorer, who comes from a deeper position, a bit too much time to angle his header. It’s a difficult one, as it’s the whole ‘checks and balances’ game of defending corners – with no specific instructions available to mark that space it’s whether you want to put more players on man-marking duties and less on ‘positional’ instructions.
The third goal is a real beauty, and one I’d love if we'd scored it. A long goal-kick from us, which they win the header on – twenty yards inside their own half. Their support striker receives the ball and plays a first-time angled through-ball to his partner who chases into the gap between our DC-R and DC-C. Five of our guys track back with him but, like the Odder chance #4 above, too many are focussed on the ball-carrier – who is left with an easy square ball to the support striker,gifting him a near-open goal.
SKOVBAKKEN (Flat 4-4-2)
Few efforts from inside the area for our hosts. The first goal is a beauty of a direct free-kick, the Keeper beaten on the near post from 20 yards out. The second comes from a corner, the ball finding its way to the edge of the area where their guy rifles in from 18 yards – again on the Keeper’s near side. Neither gives me cause for concern about our overall tactical approach.
Elsewhere there’s another cross from the right side, with our wingback not putting a lot of pressure on the crosser – so it’s definitely looking like that is an area to tweak. I’m just mindful, if I do go with the ‘Close Down More’ instruction, to monitor how we perform if there are overlapping runners on our flank.
There’s also a couple of balls through the middle of the park; one is a through-ball which should be easily dealt with, but two defenders conspire to almost trip over each other – leaving the Keeper to win the one-on-one. The other is a hopeful ball over the top that our DC-R doesn’t anticipate quickly enough, letting his man get a yard on him.
We’ll skip Brøndby for the time being, accepting that their massively superior players are the key factor, and quickly look at the other goals scored against us.
Næsby (Flat 4-4-2) grab the win with a chipped ball from the left channel – their player heading the ball past two defenders and the Keeper. As usual we have plenty of players back, and it’s hard to blame our overall shape.
Svendborg (Flat 4-4-2) grab an 89th minute consolation, after we’ve dominated them throughout. Again it’s an early cross swung in from the right, with our WBL doing no closing down, and their scorer showing good composure to head home under pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
I’m by no means an expert at reading the game, but there are a few things that I can take away from this fairly limited exercise.
- On the whole our formation is working well in defensive terms, and we regularly have plenty of men available at the back.
- We’re rarely opened up through the middle, instead teams generate their best chances from playing out wide and swinging in crosses. Given the generally low completion rates of crosses, I’m comfortable in encouraging them to take this approach.
- Our wingback(s) need to be encouraged to ‘Close Down More’ and this will be my first tweak. It should help us to reduce some of those crossing opportunities, by putting the crosser under pressure to put the ball in earlier. We do, however, need to be mindful that a wingback closing down can leave space for overlaps or runs out wide by opposition strikers.
- Despite the ‘Push Higher Up’ team instruction we’re rarely caught too high up the pitch. It’s happened once or twice, but it’s very rare that we don’t have defenders behind the ball to provide cover. I do play on Standard for the most part, where @RTHerringbone leans towards Control. Control, as a mentality, will further exaggerate a high defensive line and I’m not sure that I’d want to go that far with players who lack the high-end mental attributes (not as a default setting, at least).
I’m not nearly naïve enough to believe that the tactic has no defensive weaknesses, however I’m generally happy with how it’s performing so far and I’d like to get a few games under our hat with the new Wingback instructions before making further judgements.
In the meantime, it’s perhaps a chance to look at some of our attacking play and stats, but I’ll leave that for next time...
So that'll do for now, there's a lot to take in with all of that waffle about our defensive shortfalls. Just to reiterate that we're doing plenty of good stuff as well though.
Remember what I said about wanting to create a well-crafted chances - primarily through the centre of the park? Well here's the sort of thing that we can do, when we're on our game...
As ever folks, thanks for reading, and feel free to drop me a comment in the box below on anything connected to the save or the blog. Alternatively catch up with me on Twitter : @flipsix3_FM
No comments:
Post a Comment