Side for Swansea

[Sheff de party]

Not so. He’s one of the best we’ve ever had at changing formations, tactics and personnel mid-game. Very difficult to achieve but he has a lively mind and thinks on his feet, admirably aided by One Knill.

“Awful at substitutions” is yet another fans’ fallacy along with ‘tactically inept’, ‘lost the dressing room’ and ‘hopeless at corners”

Shooooooooooooooooot.

Presenting an opinion as fact doesn't make opposing opinions fallacies. A few of examples of what I mean are:

Stoke 1-1 - the team was absolutely terrified and no one wanted to hold onto the ball. He brought a defender on and we conceded.

Wednesday 1-1 - playing against a team that were knackered and sitting back, he just brought Clarke on. No impact.

Ipswich 1-1 - struggling to break down a very poor team, all he did was bring Clarke on at 69 minutes. No impact.

In fact, for many games this season, once Clarke has come on you know that's it when it comes to subs. That's a player who often looks lost or disinterested when he comes off the bench and whilst I appreciate he got the winner at Brentford, very rarely looks like changing anything.

He's a fantastic manager and his best strength for me is not only getting the best out of players (which he certainly can), it's developing this bizarre system of working it wide and overlapping centre halves that teams just cannot seem to defend against. It's fantastic to watch.

But he's the club's manager and he's not immune to all criticism. For me, his subs are poor. I accept he's held back by a fairly mediocre set of options, but he did have at least some input into who those are.

 

[madeinsheffield]

He's got big Gaz as an alternative to Leon now, I agree he rarely changes a game when he comes on

 

[BushBlade]

Presenting an opinion as fact doesn't make opposing opinions fallacies. A few of examples of what I mean are:

Stoke 1-1 - the team was absolutely terrified and no one wanted to hold onto the ball. He brought a defender on and we conceded.

Wednesday 1-1 - playing against a team that were knackered and sitting back, he just brought Clarke on. No impact.

Ipswich 1-1 - struggling to break down a very poor team, all he did was bring Clarke on at 69 minutes. No impact.

In fact, for many games this season, once Clarke has come on you know that's it when it comes to subs. That's a player who often looks lost or disinterested when he comes off the bench and whilst I appreciate he got the winner at Brentford, very rarely looks like changing anything.

He's a fantastic manager and his best strength for me is not only getting the best out of players (which he certainly can), it's developing this bizarre system of working it wide and overlapping centre halves that teams just cannot seem to defend against. It's fantastic to watch.

But he's the club's manager and he's not immune to all criticism. For me, his subs are poor. I accept he's held back by a fairly mediocre set of options, but he did have at least some input into who those are.

How do you know we wouldn’t have lost those games if he hadn’t made those substitutions? Why are you sure there were better options he could have chosen that would have had a greater impact?

As far as I’m aware, there’s no definitive measure for being good or bad at substitutions, it’s subjective, as are your comments above.

 

[Silent Blade]

Wednesday 1-1 - playing against a team that were knackered and sitting back, he just brought Clarke on. No impact.
.

I must have missed both goals!

 

[SUFC Guy]

I must have missed both goals!

Yeh, it was in fact the most one sided 0-0 defeat that we have suffered. Damn you Clarke!

 

[Sheff de party]

I must have missed both goals!

Serves me reyt for copying and pasting 1-1!

 

[Sheff de party]

How do you know we wouldn’t have lost those games if he hadn’t made those substitutions? Why are you sure there were better options he could have chosen that would have had a greater impact?

As far as I’m aware, there’s no definitive measure for being good or bad at substitutions, it’s subjective, as are your comments above.

Of course. Just an opinion. But if you take a course of action and it doesn’t work, it stands to reason that you look at what you could have done differently.

There’s no guarantee we would have won them. We could have lost them.

But it’s evidence of my original viewpoint that his subs aren’t great. He does so much right though, I don’t want to lay it on too much.

 

[Balham]

I’d guess the plan is called ‘Baldock instead of Freeman’.

Baldock played in the Lane match: https://www.skysports.com/football/sheff-utd-vs-swansea/teams/392550

https://www.swanseacity.com/media/33706

Baldock did more than play, he scored our goal!

 

[Pinchy]

My interpretation of the home game was one of admiration of the way Swansea set their team up. They played with a 4-3-3 formation with young, athletic front players. Their intention was to play in the spaces vacated by our right sided and left sided centre backs and behind the wing backs. This was particularly effective when they brought on an orthordox wide player in Montero. These wide players stayed up the pitch all game, nullifying our ability to move the centre backs forward without defensive conseqences. Although we could have got something from the game, it was the best example of a team beating us due to tactics this season. Possibly the only example. It's a feather in our cap, though, as a parachute payment club had to set their team up perfectly to beat us in a coin toss game.

Wow! No wonder they got enough points to win the league by Christmas!

Look out Brentford. They’re after your crown...

 

[nopigfansintown]

Wow! No wonder they got enough points to win the league by Christmas!

Look out Brentford. They’re after your crown...

View attachment 48262

It was just one game in isolaton, Pinchy, but I'm guessing you know that.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Tufty rarely changes the team unless he has to and after another win and clean sheet, why change anything ?

 

[SittingontheBall]

My interpretation of the home game was one of admiration of the way Swansea set their team up. They played with a 4-3-3 formation with young, athletic front players. Their intention was to play in the spaces vacated by our right sided and left sided centre backs and behind the wing backs. This was particularly effective when they brought on an orthordox wide player in Montero. These wide players stayed up the pitch all game, nullifying our ability to move the centre backs forward without defensive conseqences. Although we could have got something from the game, it was the best example of a team beating us due to tactics this season. Possibly the only example. It's a feather in our cap, though, as a parachute payment club had to set their team up perfectly to beat us in a coin toss game.

I agree that sometimes it’s about what the opponents do but we were pretty dire those first two games.
The team for the game against Swansea had no Ollie, no Duffy, and no Billy.

I also recall the team we actually fielded did okay until Montero came on so maybe it wasn’t so much about Swansea’s 4-3-3 as the pace on the left when he came on.

 

[HeCanDoMagic]

Same team but I envisage Madine making an early appearance (ie from the 60 minute mark).

 

[nopigfansintown]

I agree that sometimes it’s about what the opponents do but we were pretty dire those first two games.
The team for the game against Swansea had no Ollie, no Duffy, and no Billy.

I also recall the team we actually fielded did okay until Montero came on so maybe it wasn’t so much about Swansea’s 4-3-3 as the pace on the left when he came on.

There's a lot of truth in that, re personnel, however most teams either match our formation up (zzzz); play 4- 5- 1; or, alternatively, employ one of the other commonly used stifling systems/general approaches. Packing the midfield, while maintaining a low defensive block is a particularly droll favourite of mine that almost always fails against United. It was a novel experience to see a team have a go at us, and see some tactical benefits from the choice of system: the use of pace in the wide areas, - especially on that left - being a deliberate ploy that was successful throughout the game ( the winning goal being a good case in point). We are much more cohesive now, though, and probably would have found a way to break them down (their defense is pretty poor, and the midfield doesn't like tracking runners). Our ball retention has also improved since bringing in Norwood, so these counter attacking opportunities will hopefully continue to be in increasingly shorter supply. In my view, it's the only game that we have lost due to superior opposition tactics on the day: we almost always win the tactical battle, which is born out both metrically and in the creation of quality chances. It's the execution that occasionally lets us down: not getting the goals our play merits, or creating enough chances to reflect the balance of play (Bristol, Stoke, Derby/West Brom first halfs Wendy, Leeds, Ipswich).
My overall assessment of Swansea's season, and tactical approach is far less flattering; believe me.
Would I change our tactics on Saturday: no way.

 

[BushBlade]

Baldock did more than play, he scored our goal!

My memory is declining rapidly. All I remember from that game is a sense of disappointment.

 

[nopigfansintown]

My memory is declining rapidly. All I remember from that game is a sense of disappointment.

My memories going too mate. I'm more William Dorrit than Uriah Heep tbh.

 

[BushBlade]

My memories going too mate. I'm more William Dorrit than Uriah Heep tbh.

Bloody hell, I can’t remember the Swansea game from six months ago and you expect me to remember Dickens characters.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Bloody hell, I can’t remember the Swansea game from six months ago and you expect me to remember Dickens characters.

There's enough of them. You're bound to remember some, but not necessarily the right one in the right order.