GoalWatch vs Port Vale

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Bergen Blade

Bergen Blade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
6,852
Reaction score
17,252
Location
Bergen, Norway
1-0: Port Vale break away after Baxter loses possession high up the pitch. They go forward quickly and attack down our right where Freeman is caught upfield. This means it is Edgar who has to pull out to challenge Ebo Andoh. Ebo Andoh's cross is won in the air by Daniel (marked by Collins). Howard saves, but Daniel picks up the rebound, finds More (marked by Wallace) who scores.

For those who are after people to criticise, there are five names mentioned already.

What about our organisation? By the time the cross comes in we have managed to establish 1st defender and 2nd defender. We have enough people back. From a difficult situation it looks like we've recovered and are in a decent position to deal with the counter attack. Phew!

But when you've got the 1st and 2nd defender in place, the former has to challenge the man on the ball. Edgar stands off far too much and this enables Ebo Andoh to pick out Daniel in the box with a driven cross.

Ideally, we would have liked Freeman to be the first defender and Edgar covering as the second defender. Freeman is quicker and better at handling nippy wingers, but there was no time to swap roles. If Edgar had tried to put a challenge in - and missed out - it would probably have been easier for Freeman to challenge a player who would have needed a little bit of time to adjust his balance, etc.

What followed is more or less panic defending. Collins and Wallace will be disappointed with themselves. Maybe Baxter could have done something too.

0-1 vs Port Vale.jpg
* Edgar is the first defender and should get closer to the crosser


2-0: Port Vale throws in down our right. Ikpeazu, challenged by Collins, comes short for the ball and is able to turn and run into the box. Collins and Basham's challenges don't stop him and he fires into the net past Howard.

Again we can talk about weak challenges, but I'm more interested in our organisation. On this occasion we have no 2nd defender, nobody covering behind Collins. This is poor!

Collins' partner Edgar is (rightly) marking a player, so someone else has to help out. Freeman will be having Ebo Andoh on his mind, Coutts will be watching their left back Dickinson. One of our central midfielders should have pulled down to become the covering 2nd defender behind Collins. It would have given Ikpeazu another fully focused man to beat.


0-2 vs Port Vale.jpg
* No 2nd defender behind Collins

Failure in getting 1st and 2nd defender properly organised lead to some early goals against us this season, and judging by these two goals there are still things to work on.

 

Appreciated as ever Bergen. On the second goal there's a comical attempt from Basham to get a last gasp tackle in but he ends up falling over like a soft toy with his stuffing knocked out of him. One of the CMs should have been covering and was clearly daydreaming. Baxter was also very slow to react on the first and stood watching.
 
robbiez666 said:
Appreciated as ever Bergen. On the second goal there's a comical attempt from Basham to get a last gasp tackle in but he ends up falling over like a soft toy with his stuffing knocked out of him. One of the CMs should have been covering and was clearly daydreaming. Baxter was also very slow to react on the first and stood watching.
Click to expand...

Yes. Basham comes into the situation when Collins is desperately trying to keep up with their strong striker. Basham was maybe unsure if he should leave it to Collins or try to get a foot in. Most likely he's also afraid of giving away a penalty. His original position was the main problem though.
 
Bergen Blade said:
Ideally, we would have liked Freeman to be the first defender and Edgar covering as the second defender.
Click to expand...

If the roles were reversed, I'd be disappointed that Edgar wasn't picking someone out in the box, and in this situation Freeman surely needed to do that as soon as Edgar went to cover for him. Instead he's left covering nobody, and would only become of use if the Vale player lost Edgar.

The Sky highlights didn't include the bit where Howard charged out of the box – he seemed to get the man, but did he get any of the ball?
 
Adkins has brought Edgar in on loan to address the CB situation, but unfortunately it still appears we need two to sort the problem. Edgar isn't the answer imo
 
Thanks, as always. Do you have any insight into the overall performance?

At the time I thought it was our weakest game overall by far, and I couldn't really put my finger on one reason.

A few thoughts:

We started quickly, and I thought we were trying to do to them what Colchester had done to us. (WHF Jr Sr strongly disagrees with this.)

They scored against the run of play, and that seemed to knock the stuffing out of us.

(There was one very brief passage, I think after their first, where we broke quickly down the right with Freeman and Coutts but Billy miskicked his finish. Is this speed of play something we could attempt to replicate?)

We rallied but the game was basically even.

The combination of their second and the save from Billy - which looked extremely fortunate at the time - practically finished us off, and after that we posed no real threat.

When we initially went 4-2-4 play became very unstructured and "despite" (ie because of) us launching it forwards, as many vocal fans seemed to want, this was our least productive period of a very unproductive game.

We reverted to playing across the back four, retained some control and began to appear in midfield with decent possession. Not that it came to anything.

I'd be interested in anything you have to say on the game - do you agree it was particularly poor, and if so: why.

The main feeling around us was that in possession we were too slow at the back.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
If the roles were reversed, I'd be disappointed that Edgar wasn't picking someone out in the box, and in this situation Freeman surely needed to do that as soon as Edgar went to cover for him. Instead he's left covering nobody, and would only become of use if the Vale player lost Edgar.
Click to expand...


But Freeman being there to cover behind Edgar is what dictates what Edgar should do. If there was no 2nd defender Edgar would be right to be stand offish. He'd basically be there to win time and uphold the attack, with the biggest danger being getting dribbled by Andoh.

As I see it we had enough people back (including in the box), but we gave the crosser time and room to look for his teammate, cross with his best foot completely unchallanged.
 
Bergen Blade said:
1-0: Port Vale break away after Baxter loses possession high up the pitch. They go forward quickly and attack down our right where Freeman is caught upfield. This means it is Edgar who has to pull out to challenge Ebo Andoh. Ebo Andoh's cross is won in the air by Daniel (marked by Collins). Howard saves, but Daniel picks up the rebound, finds More (marked by Wallace) who scores.

For those who are after people to criticise, there are five names mentioned already.

What about our organisation? By the time the cross comes in we have managed to establish 1st defender and 2nd defender. We have enough people back. From a difficult situation it looks like we've recovered and are in a decent position to deal with the counter attack. Phew!

But when you've got the 1st and 2nd defender in place, the former has to challenge the man on the ball. Edgar stands off far too much and this enables Ebo Andoh to pick out Daniel in the box with a driven cross.

Ideally, we would have liked Freeman to be the first defender and Edgar covering as the second defender. Freeman is quicker and better at handling nippy wingers, but there was no time to swap roles. If Edgar had tried to put a challenge in - and missed out - it would probably have been easier for Freeman to challenge a player who would have needed a little bit of time to adjust his balance, etc.

What followed is more or less panic defending. Collins and Wallace will be disappointed with themselves. Maybe Baxter could have done something too.

View attachment 13797
* Edgar is the first defender and should get closer to the crosser


2-0: Port Vale throws in down our right. Ikpeazu, challenged by Collins, comes short for the ball and is able to turn and run into the box. Collins and Basham's challenges don't stop him and he fires into the net past Howard.

Again we can talk about weak challenges, but I'm more interested in our organisation. On this occasion we have no 2nd defender, nobody covering behind Collins. This is poor!

Collins' partner Edgar is (rightly) marking a player, so someone else has to help out. Freeman will be having Ebo Andoh on his mind, Coutts will be watching their left back Dickinson. One of our central midfielders should have pulled down to become the covering 2nd defender behind Collins. It would have given Ikpeazu another fully focused man to beat.


View attachment 13798
* No 2nd defender behind Collins

Failure in getting 1st and 2nd defender properly organised lead to some early goals against us this season, and judging by these two goals there are still things to work on.

Click to expand...

Bergen Blade said:
Port Vale break away after Baxter loses possession high up the pitch
Click to expand...

You should copyright this without the Port Vale bit ,you would be a rich man.
 
I'm wondering whether they're being told to stay with their man wherever they go? Neither CB should have been pulled out there in the first place.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
The Sky highlights didn't include the bit where Howard charged out of the box – he seemed to get the man, but did he get any of the ball?
Click to expand...

No, he didn't touch the ball. The ref may have reasoned that Andoh shot/finished before he was fouled? This was our backline as the ball was played through:

Uneven back line Port Vale.jpg
 
robbiez666 said:
I'm wondering whether they're being told to stay with their man wherever they go? Neither CB should have been pulled out there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Warnock and Blackwell put more emphasis on man marking, but zonal marking is the norm in modern football. Centre halves will usually be happy to leave strikers to full backs if they move down the channels. If a full back isn't there, a centre half may have to move out.

In Edgar's case there was nobody else to close down Andoh, so he had to do it (in terms of men in the box we still matched them).

From the throw in, Collins' main task was to prevent Ikpeazu from winning a header or turning on the ball. Collins would have been happy with a pass back out of the box, and may then have left him to go defend in his normal zone.
 
Agree with that Bergen..sounds a bit harsh on Baxter though losing possession..the ball was dropping over the defender when he was about to control it when he got it nicked away from a quick strong challenge from behind...can't really apportion to much blame there for me,and he was high up the pitch and it could have been dealt with after that as the attack progressed.
 
Edgar has to do more to stop that cross, he knows he aint in the middle, so we are obviously short there

poor effort

Although thinking about it, I wonder if it did occur to Edgar that the ball going in there was a no no
 
For their 2nd goal Basham's attempt at a tackle/block is ridiculously crap and fairy-like. He waves his foot at the ball like it's a magic wand or something - he should have definitely got a block in = shit defending. (Basham one of my fave players and IMO we need him badly in the side, just to add balance)
 
Dnblade said:
Agree with that Bergen..sounds a bit harsh on Baxter though losing possession..the ball was dropping over the defender when he was about to control it when he got it nicked away from a quick strong challenge from behind...can't really apportion to much blame there for me,and he was high up the pitch and it could have been dealt with after that as the attack progressed.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, his job description implies that he'll take some risks trying to get the ball down and it wasn't an easy challenge to hold off.
 

Bergen Blade said:
Well, yes, his job description implies that he'll take some risks trying to get the ball down and it wasn't an easy challenge to hold off.
Click to expand...

I've just subscribed to BladesPlayer and watched the first half again. Baxter is constantly in motion, always asking for the ball, not hiding - I noticed this at the end of the game when he came over to take the corner we scored from.

Yesterday he seemed to have energy even at the end of the game - and wasn't hiding. It'd be interesting to track his completion rate but initially it looks high.

(Coutts otoh had a bit of a mare imo. Tired from Tuesday or the mobility issue? I'm not sure.)
 
William Henry Foulkes said:
Thanks, as always. Do you have any insight into the overall performance?

At the time I thought it was our weakest game overall by far, and I couldn't really put my finger on one reason.

A few thoughts:

We started quickly, and I thought we were trying to do to them what Colchester had done to us. (WHF Jr Sr strongly disagrees with this.)

They scored against the run of play, and that seemed to knock the stuffing out of us.

(There was one very brief passage, I think after their first, where we broke quickly down the right with Freeman and Coutts but Billy miskicked his finish. Is this speed of play something we could attempt to replicate?)

We rallied but the game was basically even.

The combination of their second and the save from Billy - which looked extremely fortunate at the time - practically finished us off, and after that we posed no real threat.

When we initially went 4-2-4 play became very unstructured and "despite" (ie because of) us launching it forwards, as many vocal fans seemed to want, this was our least productive period of a very unproductive game.

We reverted to playing across the back four, retained some control and began to appear in midfield with decent possession. Not that it came to anything.

I'd be interested in anything you have to say on the game - do you agree it was particularly poor, and if so: why.

The main feeling around us was that in possession we were too slow at the back.
Click to expand...

Agree with your comments. We struggled first half. We probably wanted to use the big pitch and control the game by spraying the ball about and dominating possession. Playing out from the back we tried to pass it until we found an opening, but we rarely managed to do it. Most of the time it ended with a full back playing hopeful balls down the channels. Sharp and Sammon lacked support and struggled to do anything with those long passes.

In general I think our starting line up lacked pace and movement, maybe especially on such a big pitch. Port Vale had quick wingers on both sides and a mobile, strong front two (a poor man's Deane & Agana?). Well done to Page who's spotted the ability of Ikpeazu after some mediocre loan spells. He really was a handful. Grant is a great holding midfielder, who should be disappointed to have spent his entire career in the lower divisions. When we introduced more pace and movement Vale dropped deeper and were more cautious going forward.

The attack you mentioned was one of very few where one of our attacking/wide midfielders (Flynn) found space between their midfield and defence:

Flynn finding space.jpg
It was a good chance, but Sharp couldn't get a clean strike of the ball.
 
Page knew exactly what we didn't have and how it could be exploited. They had pace out wide and big, strong athletic players up front and they bullied us to be honest. By bullied I don't mean in a bad way either, they were just too strong for us.

Why we are persisting with a rigid 4-4-2 when we probably had one player on the pitch who is quicker than me is beyond me. Our central midfield isn't mobile enough to play this way, meaning we end up with Sammon and Sharp isolated in the middle because they can't get up there quick enough. The defence were deep because of their pace and we couldn't work the counter attack because we're not quick enough to get out before they get men behind the ball.

We're also moving the ball far too slow because we don't have a forward pass to play. The team isn't giving the man on the ball enough options so we're being forced back where the opposition are happy to let us pass it around in front of them. As soon as you inject a bit of pace you get the defence worried because you have the option to play the ball in behind them and get them facing their own net. That's why we had more joy when Adams came on at half time. Although, that was nullified when Done was brought on after the decision to play Sammon wide and Adams down the middle. Why Sammon didn't stay with Sharp in the middle with Adams and Done wide baffled me.
 
Bergen Blade said:
Freeman? Sammon? I think Sammon is faster than many think, although maybe not great at making use of it.
Click to expand...

Freeman.

Funnily enough, I said the same about Sammon to my mate on Saturday. When he gets going he's quite quick, certainly quicker than Sharp.
 
DazBlade88 said:
Freeman.

Funnily enough, I said the same about Sammon to my mate on Saturday. When he gets going he's quite quick, certainly quicker than Sharp.
Click to expand...

As others have mentioned several times over the.past few.months, it's often a different game when you watch it over. Sammon played very well first half, and wrt his speed there was one incident down our right where he headed the ball inside ran across the defender and very nearly played Sharp in. Surprisingly pacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom