GoalWatch vs Chesterfield

[Bergen Blade]

Thought our defending was so poor it warranted a one off return of GW.

1-0: Chesterfield astonishingly make 14 consequtive passes befor they score. In general we look sloppy and lethargic, lacking aggression and intensity in our defensive work. Several players deserves a share of the bame here.

In the end, two of our players are too focused on "their men", and this makes them unable to block the shot.

• Flynn, our left midfielder at the time, has taken up a left back position, rather than pushing in central to help our midfield who've been drifting right. He should have been a lot closer to Scougall, and anticipated the chance of a shot. Flynn is usually very responsible defensively, but this is poor.
• Collins is also too late in leaving his man (Chesterfield's only player central in our box) and rushing out to block the shot.

2-0: McCarthy messes up. He had plenty of time and a few options, but takes too long on the ball.

When that happens, his partner Collins is miles away and can't rescue him. Maybe a bit harsh, but you can't afford to take a breather out of position in today's football. Obviously, McCarthy is mostly to blame here, but when errors happen, organisation and focus can help get you out of jail. Roberts isn't very quick, but is allowed to run through unchallenged and score.



3-0: I take it we are playing 4-4-1 at this stage, and Murphy is our left midfielder. Our central midfielders, Scougall and Doyle have been pulled over to the right, without getting close enough to make an interception. The ball is played up to a completely unchallenged Ryan, who can turn and pick a forward pass out wide.

Murphy should have dropped further back and pulled in more centrally, rather than watching the right back.




If Murphy had done that, he could have prevented Ryan from turning (or maybe even getting the ball). Ryan would probably have played the ball backwards and we would have regained our balance. But instead, we're in trouble:




A bit later, as the cross eventually comes in, our defenders panic and rush out to block Johnson who shoots. McCarthy is one of them and that means the man he was marking, Eoin Doyle can knock in the deflected effort completely unchallenged. "Schoolboy defending" is a good description:







To sum up, one common denominator for all the goals were distance between our players. Our wide players need to realise they are required to tuck in when the rest of the midfield have pushed over, not just watch the opposition full back on their side. If we'd been better organised and a bit smarter we could have prevented those goals before they became chances.

Full highlights:

 

[Kenilworth]

Shame the highlights didn't show the non sending off of eh lad that took out Murphy.

Have to say that their rookie goalie gifted us both the goals. Good header from Collins but I reckon Lee would have tipped that around the post. He seemed to pull out of the dive

 

[Punk Blade]

I don't really understand the analysis of the first goal. Scougall is nearest and should be trying to block the shot but is allowing the guy far too much space. If you want a CB to step out, why pick on the one who is actually marking someone? And Flynn is so far away from it he's out of shot. Doesn't look like McEverly is marking anyone so if you want someone to come over from the left wouldn't it make more sense for it to be him?

'Schoolboy defending' definitely sums up the third goal though!

 

[Bergen Blade]

I don't really understand the analysis of the first goal. Scougall is nearest and should be trying to block the shot but is allowing the guy far too much space. If you want a CB to step out, why pick on the one who is actually marking someone? And Flynn is so far away from it he's out of shot. Doesn't look like McEverly is marking anyone so if you want someone to come over from the left wouldn't it make more sense for it to be him?

'Schoolboy defending' definitely sums up the third goal though!

Appreciate the comment! We do try to play zonal marking, which means when the ball switches from right to left, it becomes practical for another player to take over the responsibility of closing down.

Just before the shot, Chesterfield had made their way down to the edge of our (right hand side) box, which meant a lot of players (including Doyle) on both teams had drifted over to that side. Chesterfield then pass it backwards to a player who advances and cuts inside, closed down by Wallace:




At this exact moment Scougall has two main tasks:

• Watch no 5 (between him and Wallace) in case he's given the ball
• Being the second defender, covering behind Wallace, in case the man on the ball skips past him

But the ball is rolled sideways to Ryan (no 8). Despite Scougall's quick feet he's can't move over fast enough. It would have been easier for our left midfielder - if he'd kept a proper distance to Scougall - to read the situation and either intercept the pass or block the shot. The yellow star shows where the shot is hit from.

In my opinion there are no excuses for not being in the right position, this should be drilled to perfection on the training ground. I don't care if Flynn was having a fag on the sideline or marking an irrelevant right back.

As for the centre backs, McCarthy is pretty much unemployed and should have taken over the marking of their striker, enabling Collins to push over. Neither McCarthy or Collins does not block any part of the goal as the shot flies in. That is a sign of poor intensity in our defensive work. McEverley is too central, he should have been about where Flynn is.

 

[Punk Blade]

Cheers Bergen Blade. My comments were based on the still on your OP, which made it look like like Scougall wasn't doing enough to close him down, but having watched it again you are spot on with Scougall's responsibility as the first guy is running at Wallace. If (and still so far out of shot I have no idea) Flynn is covering an advanced fullback I wouldn't be so hard on him not coming inside to block the shot. If the very experienced trio of McCarthy, Collins and McEveley have only one forward to mark in the box between them, then two of them aren't doing enough to either relieve Flynn of his marking duties so he can push out, or push out themselves, and all three are failing to spot and/or communicate the danger when they are best places to do so. Considering Collins was the one marking Doyle, and the only one to make a move to even try to close down the shot, I'd be looking more at the other two who did virtually nothing as the chance unfolded.

Having said all that, they probably weren't expecting such a good strike from that range. Maybe we don't expect to see good hits from 25 yards, because if it was any one of our players in that position he would have helped it onto the right wing rather than shoot from distance.

 

[Foxy]

In my opinion there are no excuses for not being in the right position, this should be drilled to perfection on the training ground. I don't care if Flynn was having a fag on the sideline or marking an irrelevant right back.

His man only becomes irrelevant in hindsight.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Cheers Bergen Blade. My comments were based on the still on your OP, which made it look like like Scougall wasn't doing enough to close him down, but having watched it again you are spot on with Scougall's responsibility as the first guy is running at Wallace. If (and still so far out of shot I have no idea) Flynn is covering an advanced fullback I wouldn't be so hard on him not coming inside to block the shot. If the very experienced trio of McCarthy, Collins and McEveley have only one forward to mark in the box between them, then two of them aren't doing enough to either relieve Flynn of his marking duties so he can push out, or push out themselves, and all three are failing to spot and/or communicate the danger when they are best places to do so. Considering Collins was the one marking Doyle, and the only one to make a move to even try to close down the shot, I'd be looking more at the other two who did virtually nothing as the chance unfolded.

Having said all that, they probably weren't expecting such a good strike from that range. Maybe we don't expect to see good hits from 25 yards, because if it was any one of our players in that position he would have helped it onto the right wing rather than shoot from distance.

In my opinion the management won't be doing their job if they don't focus on distances between players this week - all three goals can partly be put down to our players not keeping the right distance between themselves. It is absolutely fundamental for a zonal marking system to work, and it means wide men has to do their bit as part of the midfield unit, not look for an uninvolved opposition player as an excuse to bugger off.


Regarding which one of McCarthy and Collins should break out to block the effort, notice that Ryan strikes the ball from the left half of the pitch:



I put the yellow line in to show Ryan's position in relation to the "D", it's not the flight of the ball. So Collins being the left sided centre half has a better chance of getting across to block the shot. I fully agree it was a fabulous strike.

 

[Bergen Blade]

His man only becomes irrelevant in hindsight.

No, players have to make priorities all the time. An unchallenged, forward facing player on the ball 25 yards out is more dangerous than a full back out near the touchline.

 

[Foxy]

No, players have to make priorities all the time. An unchallenged, forward facing player on the ball 25 yards out is more dangerous than a full back out near the touchline.

They make priorities in real time though, not watching a video back.

The forward player on the ball, got the ball from a fairly quick passage of play, after Flynn took up position marking the man who looked a more dangerous outlet at the time (from my memory of my view behind the goal) and had probably 2 if not 3 players closer to him, in a better position to close.

Had Flynn left his man and come inside, then play got switched or crossed to the man he'd left, we'd be having a discussion about Flynn ignoring his responsibilities and straying out of position.

 

[Bergen Blade]

They make priorities in real time though, not watching a video back.

The forward player on the ball, got the ball from a fairly quick passage of play, after Flynn took up position marking the man who looked a more dangerous outlet at the time (from my memory of my view behind the goal) and had probably 2 if not 3 players closer to him, in a better position to close.

Had Flynn left his man and come inside, then play got switched to the man he'd left, we'd be having a discussion about Flynn ignoring his responsibilities and straying out of position.

I agree that it's easier to analyse the situation on video than in real time, but these are basic principles that are especially important to stick to when one or two players are pulled out of position.

Remember that positions in a zonal marking system is decided by the position of the ball. Flynn has to pull inside when the entire midfield do so, the rest of them are all on the opposite side of the pitch. The play went down our right back area with Doyle tracking a run. As we are struggling to regain our ideal balance and positions Flynn has to ignore the right back and help out with the most immediate danger - an unchallenged forward facing player 25 yards out.

I would have defended Flynn if your mentioned scenario had happened.

 

[SandyMcBlade]

Are we saying here that the goalkeeper has no responsibility in this ? five shot on target three goals this week, one shot on target one goal last.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Are we saying here that the goalkeeper has no responsibility in this ? five shot on target three goals this week, one shot on target one goal last.

I admit I tend to leave them alone, I've never been too focused on goalkeepers. The point of analysing is finding things we need to improve on, aspects of our tactical organisation that's not working 100%, etc.. When goalkeepers make mistakes, there's often not a whole lot to do, apart from more goalkeeper training.

 

[Rodley]

I admit I tend to leave them alone, I've never been too focused on goalkeepers. The point of analysing is finding things we need to improve on, aspects of our tactical organisation that's not working 100%, etc.. When goalkeepers make mistakes, there's often not a whole lot to do, apart from more goalkeeper training.

What's your preferred line up Bergen? Where can we improve and where are we falling short?

 

[Foxy]

I agree that it's easier to analyse the situation on video than in real time, but these are basic principles that are especially important to stick to when one or two players are pulled out of position.

But, even taking into consideration zonal marking, I don't understand the principle that Flynn should leave the man:

• Who would have likely been free to nod in at the back post had a cross come in when they had possession on their left
• Who would have been free for the first or second player who had possession on the edge of the area to simply square the ball to him

When Scougall, Collins and McEveley were all better suited to close the space he was afforded as soon as they come back in field.

At that point, when they pull back instead of crossing/squaring the ball, should Flynn really be sprinting towards the man? and if he had, wouldn't we have just seen another similar one to the Collins/McEveley mix up at Swindon?

In a text book play, yes, he'd have tucked inside earlier in the move and McEveley would have taken care of anyone advancing down that side, but that doesn't take into consideration the initial direction of the ball, runners and the split second decision he had to make.

Remember that positions in a zonal marking system is decided by the position of the ball. Flynn has to pull inside when the entire midfield do so, the rest of them are all on the opposite side of the pitch. The play went down our right back area with Doyle tracking a run. As we are struggling to regain our ideal balance and positions Flynn has to ignore the right back and help out with the most immediate danger - an unchallenged forward facing player 25 yards out.

Yes, in ideal conditions, but it's very easy to turn into playground football and every man, regardless of their surroundings, sprint at an area as soon as the ball is moved towards it. As I say, at the time they brought the ball back inside, I considered the back post/right hand side more at danger... from my view immediately behind. We had two, possibly three players more central without men (Collins would have probably been fine stepping up, as his was already in an offside position) who could have closed the space (restricting the angle of the shot) or the player.

I would have defended Flynn if your mentioned scenario had happened.

Whilst I'd like to think so, I'm not convinced many people would

 

[SandyMcBlade]

And yet had the goalkeeper saved them, would we be analyzing any the three ?
Don't get me wrong, every thing you've said is spot on, but at some time in every game some one is going to make a mistake and there's going to be a shot on goal no matter how well the defense do or don't play. even for us.
But we do seem to be contenders for the long range cracking shot goal against award a little too often of late....

 

[Bergen Blade]

But, even taking into consideration zonal marking, I don't understand the principle that Flynn should leave the man:

• Who would have likely been free to nod in at the back post had a cross come in when they had possession on their left
• Who would have been free for the first or second player who had possession on the edge of the area to simply square the ball to him

When Scougall, Collins and McEveley were all better suited to close the space he was afforded as soon as they come back in field.

At that point, when they pull back instead of crossing/squaring the ball, should Flynn really be sprinting towards the man? and if he had, wouldn't we have just seen another similar one to the Collins/McEveley mix up at Swindon?

In a text book play, yes, he'd have tucked inside earlier in the move and McEveley would have taken care of anyone advancing down that side, but that doesn't take into consideration the initial direction of the ball, runners and the split second decision he had to make.

Agree with your last paragraph, if the right back had looked to make his way into the box for a back post header he would have been in McEveley's zone, and he should have challenged him. Flynn should have tucked inside when the other midfielders drifted over.

Yes, in ideal conditions, but it's very easy to turn into playground football and every man, regardless of their surroundings, sprint at an area as soon as the ball is moved towards it. As I say, at the time they brought the ball back inside, I considered the back post/right hand side more at danger... from my view immediately behind. We had two, possibly three players more central without men (Collins would have probably been fine stepping up, as his was already in an offside position) who could have closed the space (restricting the angle of the shot) or the player.

Again, there was one potential target, not even in the box at the time they could have crossed it. If they had McEveley would have had to challenge him.

Why not Collins? Members of the back four shouldn't be relied on to break out of the back four if there are midfielders in front of them who could do it. They have to do it as a last resort, but they often leave a gap behind them which nippy or clever strikers often exploit. It actually happened when we scored our first:



Scougall slightly overhit his through ball and it took a gk mistake for us to score, but good tendencies.

 

[Foxy]

Why not Collins? Members of the back four shouldn't be relied on to break out of the back four if there are midfielders in front of them who could do it. They have to do it as a last resort, but they often leave a gap behind them which nippy or clever strikers often exploit.

So that excuses Collins, even though at that stage, it would have been the better option to do so (the nippy or clever man had already strayed offside and beyond him anyway), what about Scougs and McEveley?

It actually happened when we scored our first:

It did, but was a completely different scenario, as the passage of play and the positioning of our players was entirely different. Their winger needn't worry about a man, as he didn't exist and at no point did we have the opportunity to cross the ball to this non-existent man. Nor did they have as many players behind the man that scored, in the centre of the box.

Chesterfield's right hand side are tucked in, and could be, because there was absolutely no distraction out wide, nor had we spread the play/passed it around on the edge of the box.

 

[Bergen Blade]

What's your preferred line up Bergen? Where can we improve and where are we falling short?

I think it's really difficult at the moment, and whatever I try, there's always a thought of "hope it'll work with him in that role".

I think it should be the main priority to find some sort of attacking rhythm.

- - - - - - - - - Howard
Alcock McGahey McCarthy McEveley
JCR Baxter Wallace Scougall Murphy
- - - - - - - - - McNulty

Potential weaknesses:

• Baxter - will he be fit enough to do a box to box role?
• Wallace - will he be responsible enough defensively to do the holding role?
• Full backs - ideally should be a bit better going forward. Chose McEveley rather than Harris because the rest of the side looked a bit small
• Striker - Will he suffice as our main striker?
• Centre half - Only a momentary solution with McCarthy not staying

Otherwise I think it looks a pretty exciting team.

 

[Bergen Blade]

So that excuses Collins, even though at that stage, it would have been the better option to do so (the nippy or clever man had already strayed offside and beyond him anyway), what about Scougs and McEveley?

I don't agree it would have been the better option for Collins to be the first defender, he could have pushed up/over quicker than he did though in the hope to get his body in the way if nobody else did. I said that Scougall tried, but just couldn't get close enough to Ryan in post #4, he needed help from someone else. McEveley should have held his left back position, ready to push out left, if Ryan (closed down by Flynn) had managed to pass the ball out wide.

It did, but was a completely different scenario, as the passage of play and the positioning of our players was entirely different. Their winger needn't worry about a man, as he didn't exist and at no point did we have the opportunity to cross the ball to this non-existent man. Nor did they have as many players behind the man that scored, in the centre of the box.

Chesterfield's right hand side are tucked in, and could be, because there was absolutely no distraction out wide, nor had we spread the play/passed it around on the edge of the box.

I'm not saying the scenarios were similar, I'm saying it's preferable to have your midfielders closing down, rather than members of your back four breaking out to do it.

Summary of what I think should have happened:

• Flynn first defender, closing down Ryan - intercepting, blocking shot, or forcing him to pass it backwards/sideways
• Collins second defender, moving over more quickly to get his body in the way if Flynn fail
• McEveley, third defender - challenging their right back if he gets involved

 

[Foxy]

I'm not saying the scenarios were similar, I'm saying it's preferable to have your midfielders closing down, rather than members of your back four breaking out to do it.

As I said, on paper, it's obviously preferable, but we aren't talking ideals, we're talking live football... with the passage of play leading up to it, it became a better option for one of two defenders (a centre back and a left back with no man) or a central midfielder to close the goalscorer, leaving Flynn correctly nullifying the potential threat on the right. I think there are one or two culpable before we even begin to look at whether or not Flynn was in the wrong.

At that point, any of the three closing quicker and being tighter (as Clough has been asking of them), *could* have resulted in either a lack of a shot, a blocked shot or even potentially a tackle. As soon as they've worked the ball to the left wing, Flynn moving inside to nullify the goalscorer would have simply opened up the cross to the back post or square ball to that man, Leaving the other three standing near, but not close enough to a single runner who was offside anyway.

 

[Bergen Blade]

As I said, on paper, it's obviously preferable, but we aren't talking ideals, we're talking live football... with the passage of play leading up to it, it became a better option for one of two defenders (a centre back and a left back with no man) or a central midfielder to close the goalscorer, leaving Flynn correctly nullifying the potential threat on the right. I think there are one or two culpable before we even begin to look at whether or not Flynn was in the wrong.

At that point, any of the three closing quicker and being tighter (as Clough has been asking of them), *could* have resulted in either a lack of a shot, a blocked shot or even potentially a tackle. As soon as they've worked the ball to the left wing, Flynn moving inside to nullify the goalscorer would have simply opened up the cross to the back post or square ball to that man, Leaving the other three standing near, but not close enough to a single runner who was offside anyway.

We are talking ideals and principles to stick to, to minimise confusion and need for panic back up plans. The purpose of an analysis is for the management to meet the players the following monday and tell them:

• This is what went wrong
• This is what we would like you to do

It serves little constructive point to go much more into it than that, like "This is what we would like you to do if Flynn decides to man mark the full back! And then this is what we want you to do if McEveley.... randomly decides to drift in centrally!" Tactics meeting would just be a mess and confuse everyone.

The whole basis of this analysis, and I'm glad you agree with the ideal of it, is that Flynn should have been tucked in, keeping a distance to the side of Scougall that would have enabled him to step in, if required.

(I'm sorry mate that I won't go along with your scenario, although, let's say if Flynn was suddenly injured and couldn't take part in the defending at all. It would then have been McEveley who would have had the best chance of challenging Ryan. That's the best I can do!)

 

[Sheff de party]

Appreciate the comment! We do try to play zonal marking, which means when the ball switches from right to left, it becomes practical for another player to take over the responsibility of closing down.

Just before the shot, Chesterfield had made their way down to the edge of our (right hand side) box, which meant a lot of players (including Doyle) on both teams had drifted over to that side. Chesterfield then pass it backwards to a player who advances and cuts inside, closed down by Wallace:


View attachment 9582

At this exact moment Scougall has two main tasks:

• .

You have to factor in that it's what they call a 'reyt strike' though. Not all goals are preventable.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Shame the highlights didn't show the non sending off of eh lad that took out Murphy.

Have to say that their rookie goalie gifted us both the goals. Good header from Collins but I reckon Lee would have tipped that around the post. He seemed to pull out of the dive

It looked a clear red. You're probably right on their young goalkeeper.

 

[Bergen Blade]

You have to factor in that it's what they call a 'reyt strike' though. Not all goals are preventable.

This thread turned out to focus a lot on Flynn's positioning, but I think Clough will be maybe more disappointed with their 14 consecutive passes, where we were just a little too far off their players to be able to make a challenge every time.

Agree it was a fantastic strike though.

More credit to Chesterfield, watching the game at the moment, I think they look a good side. Good ability, lots of movement and enthusiasm, and well organised. Maybe it's time to stop saying what an awful division this is. There aren't many big clubs, but a lot of teams are putting decent first elevens together and the general standard of football seem to be improving from what I've seen.

 

[DazBlade88]

It looked a clear red

Can we see a photo/video of that foul?

 

[Bergen Blade]

Can we see a photo/video of that foul?

Ok, here you go:

 

[DazBlade88]

Ok, here you go:

Top stuff Bergen. Needed it to settle an argument with a deluded Chesterfield fan.

 

[bristolboy]

Maybe it's time to stop saying what an awful division this is. There aren't many big clubs, but a lot of teams are putting decent first elevens together and the general standard of football seem to be improving from what I've seen.

Agree with this. Many teams attempting to pass the ball, even some insisting on trying to pass out from the back. The poorest side I have seen so far is Scunthorpe, but they had a few injuries the day we played them. Fleetwood were a neat, footballing side. MK Dons excellent in possession. Rochdale attacked us with gusto and we needed a brilliant, late save to not lose. It's a competitive league with little regard for reputation or "size"

 

[Silent Blade]

Top stuff Bergen. Needed it to settle an argument with a deluded Chesterfield fan.

Where have three Skidmarks and that young wannabe reporter gone to?

 

[Small Mendonca]

Great analysis Bergen! It'll be interesting to see if we make the same mistakes on Saturday - which we probably will seen as we're still making the same mistakes now as we did in pre-season!