Jump to content

Should we really be more attacking? Looking at results.


Jayson
 Share

Recommended Posts

A lot of people want us to adapt how we're playing to a more attacking/less direct style & the point of this is to look at whether doing that would actually result in us getting more wins than we have had so far & against who. I want to try to understand whether Pardew simply prefers a defensive strategy, or whether hes doing it based on his idea of what makes us the most effective side possible.

 

Main consideration: Ba

Probably the #1 thing that has influenced our attacking strategy this season has been Ba & his goals. Potentially his ability has ended up influencing Pardews overall tactical approach to games.

Lets look at our goals in games Ba has been available for since he started firing at Bburn, theres been 20 of them.

 

Teams weve scored 2 or more against with Ba in the side:

Blackburn, Wolves, Stoke, Everton, Norwich, West Brom, Bolton, Avilla, Wolves, Spurs, Man utd

Teams we've scored 1 or less against with Ba in the side:

Arsenal, Man city, Man utd, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool, Sunlun, Swansea, Wigan

 

Analysis:

Of those games, only Sunderland (missed pen) & Wigan are real failures for goals scored. The others contain the top 7 & Swansea who went ultra defensive in our game (Their least poss% all season). Ill look at whether we couldve expected more points from those games later, first the games we scored atleast 2 & the resulting points.

 

The games 2 goals was enough to win:

Blackburn, Wolves, Stoke, Everton, Bolton, Avilla, Man utd

The games we scored 2 & drew:

Spurs, wolves

The games we scored 2 & lost:

Norwich, West Brom (0/1 Fit Cb's)

 

Analysis:

Pretty much everytime we score twice with Ba in the side & we have a normal defence, we win the game. The only times we havent managed to do so were the draws against Spurs/Wolves via a penalty/deflected goal respectively. With fit Cb's, our defensive system has made 2 goals enough to win every single time when Ba plays bar individual error.

 

Conclusion

So putting that together. We near always do enough to score twice against anyone outside the top 7 with Ba playing & two goals has always been enough to win the game when our Cb's are fit (Bar pens/deflected goals).

 

Looking at the 9 games we scored 1 or less we failed to pick up points in 5 of them: Arsenal, Man city, Chelsea, Spurs, Lpool. To have gotten just draws from those games, we'd have needed to score 2, 3, 3, 5, 3 respectively. Do people expect that? Realistically of those i only see Lpool as a pot game we couldve affected by trying to pass it more.

The other 4 games we picked up 6 points from a win vs Wigan & draws vs Sunlun, Swansea, Man Utd

 

So would a more attacking/possession based style of play have resulted in more points than Pardews system? Perhaps in recent games against Sunlun, Wolves & a big maybe to the Lpool game. Thats 3 games. Outside of those, his system has worked pretty perfectly in terms of us picking up points from the games we should expect to via conceding few goals in most games & our attack doing enough to win.

I think its been well balanced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Analysis? Conclusion? What is this, GCSE chemistry? :lol:

 

Got to use clever terms man, makes it look all official and that.

 

FWIW based on how his systems worked so far, we should be looking to win 7 of our next 10 games. Thats if Ba's form continues & we dont concede any silly goals due to pens or whatever else. The everton game at the end of the season could be a big game for us. Dunno how HBA will affect things, but if the overall system is the same v Norwich today we should win by 2 or 3 goals today & concede 1 or less.

 

Clearly going to go wrong now like  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify:

 

I don't necessarily believe we should adopt a more attacking approach. Rather we should control possession better through short passing rather than long. There are plenty of European teams who sit back and counter on the break, but they don't hit the ball high and long as a main means of getting the ball forward. I noticed Sunderland did this far better than we did in the derby game much to my disgust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify:

 

I don't necessarily believe we should adopt a more attacking approach. Rather we should control possession better through short passing rather than long. There are plenty of European teams who sit back and counter on the break, but they don't hit the ball high and long as a main means of getting the ball forward. I noticed Sunderland did this far better than we did in the derby game much to my disgust.

 

This is pretty much the post I wanted to make :thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify:

 

I don't necessarily believe we should adopt a more attacking approach. Rather we should control possession better through short passing rather than long. There are plenty of European teams who sit back and counter on the break, but they don't hit the ball high and long as a main means of getting the ball forward. I noticed Sunderland did this far better than we did in the derby game much to my disgust.

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify:

 

I don't necessarily believe we should adopt a more attacking approach. Rather we should control possession better through short passing rather than long. There are plenty of European teams who sit back and counter on the break, but they don't hit the ball high and long as a main means of getting the ball forward. I noticed Sunderland did this far better than we did in the derby game much to my disgust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Itd be nicer to watch yeah, but it probably wouldnt have had much affect on the points we've picked up so far. Thats the point of the post.

 

The current attacking system has been pretty efficient against anyone youd expect to pick up points against & our defence also.

 

Plus to play possession based attacking football you've gotta allow your central mids to get more advanced. Ours are more based around covering our defence atm.

You've more chance of scoring playing that way sure, but you need a decent defence to cover for it also. With Williamson/Simpson/Santon i dont think we have that atm. The better sides do & can allow for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Itd be nicer to watch yeah, but it probably wouldnt have had much affect on the points we've picked up so far. Thats the point of the post.

 

The current attacking system has been pretty efficient against anyone youd expect to pick up points against & our defence also.

 

Plus to play possession based attacking football you've gotta allow your central mids to get more advanced. Ours are more based around covering our defence atm.

You've more chance of scoring playing that way sure, but you need a decent defence to cover for it also. With Williamson/Simpson/Santon i dont think we have that atm. The better sides do & can allow for it.

 

Pards don't want it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption that Ba can keep up his outstanding form, and play every game of the season like a super-elite striker seems quite a big one (especially considering his knee and his release clause).

 

Even with that assumption though, what you prove is that we could play awful football, lose heavily against the 'top 6' and still finish upper-mid table. The Stoke model.

 

The replacement of Hughton with 'Percentage' Pardew shows that the risk averse board likes this compromise, but 1) it's horrible to watch at times; 2) the border of the European places is the ceiling of its effectiveness; and 3) there's little scope for evolving the strategy into something more progressive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its not an assumption, as the manager id assume you take it on a game by game basis. If your strikers doing the business & your defense is weak, you create balance by covering your weakest link & leave the rest to your strikers. Noticably after Ba went off to ACON, we ended up placing more emphasis on a possession based attack v Fulham.

 

Your 2nd line makes no sense. Stoke are 14th, we're 6th. They dont seem like similar models being achieved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Itd be nicer to watch yeah, but it probably wouldnt have had much affect on the points we've picked up so far. Thats the point of the post.

 

The current attacking system has been pretty efficient against anyone youd expect to pick up points against & our defence also.

 

Plus to play possession based attacking football you've gotta allow your central mids to get more advanced. Ours are more based around covering our defence atm.

You've more chance of scoring playing that way sure, but you need a decent defence to cover for it also. With Williamson/Simpson/Santon i dont think we have that atm. The better sides do & can allow for it.

 

I think being nice to watch is a massively underrated aspect of football at the moment, it's arguably the most important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep and use the ball better and we won't have to score so many to pick up points. It's not about being more attacking, it's about setting out a framework that allows our creative attacking players to be more influential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Itd be nicer to watch yeah, but it probably wouldnt have had much affect on the points we've picked up so far. Thats the point of the post.

 

The current attacking system has been pretty efficient against anyone youd expect to pick up points against & our defence also.

 

Plus to play possession based attacking football you've gotta allow your central mids to get more advanced. Ours are more based around covering our defence atm.

You've more chance of scoring playing that way sure, but you need a decent defence to cover for it also. With Williamson/Simpson/Santon i dont think we have that atm. The better sides do & can allow for it.

 

If our defenders aren't good enough to allow us to play a short passing game then why are we offering them new contracts? Raylor has just signed one and Simpson has a deal on the table. I suppose the response will be we need back up players, but why do we want back up players who don't fit the system we play? Unless of course they DO fit the system we play and Pards is indeed a hoofball merchant as the evidence would suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...