Teams trying to stop our overloads

[Bergen Blade]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.




When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:



An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.



On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.




I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Good analysis, whatever they did certainly stopped us playing the first half. One of the most stop-start first halves we've had for a while. I can't see Pep doing the same but Bournemouth will be out for a point the game after. The main thing for me is to be patient if it's not working from the off, we quite often come out a different team 2nd half with the odd tweak to how we play to counter the oppositions tactics.

 

[Balham]

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

The other thing I'd take from this is that if teams are setting up to stop us it means they are less effective in transitions. We saw a few occasions on Friday when West Ham's box down their right won the ball and shifted it quickly to Anderson on the right wing. He's very, very good one on one (I don't recall Stevens getting beaten so many times) but once Anderson had beaten the first man he had no options as the rest of their side was still in its defensive shape.

 

[awblade]

I noticed this during the first half. They seemed to change their system after the goalkeeper went off injured, as we were doing well until then. I felt they were closing us down really well, but felt our midfield could have done much more to find space against only two midfielders. Then for some reason West Ham reverted to the start of match formation for second half and we just took control. Could not figure out why they did that

 

[pommpey]

Good points, well made.

Thinking on as well, Norwood did have a lot more time on the ball on Friday and made ten or fifteen relly good, well-thought passes which should have set us up better to have a pop down the middle.

The one thing we haven't had in red and white for a while is goals from distance either.

pommpey

 

[Welshblade]

Surely we should be looking to strengthen our squad by signing players who are a threat down the middle, as a tactical option.

 

[Bladezz]

I see a few teams going to 3 at the back against us but the beauty with us we don’t mind pumping it down the line and turning the defenders which in essence avoids the passing play.

The overloads come usually from our central defenders coming forward but players like Anderson were willing to follow JoC forward. Of course if all the defending players are willing to constantly track our runners then obviously there’s no space.

Wolves play with 3 at the back but there more of a solid back 3. West Ham matched our formation and with better technical players still lost.

 

[Jesus_was_a_Blade]

Was I the only one to read the title as "Overlords"?
Was expecting some weird alien conspiracy thread

 

[Champagneblade]

I know this is perhaps a very simplistic view but I find that teams that play 4-3-3 at least partly negate our system.

Whilst not compromising their own set up, there is a natural fit of their 3 forwards to our centre backs and the midfield three matches up 1 to 1.

It does then come down to how disciplined the wider 2 players are at tracking runs but it's far easier to match up than for a team that plays 4-4-2, being at times overwhelmed in the middle 3 vs 2 and out wide with a midfielder, wing back and wide centre back out flanking a winger and full back 3 to 2.

I think Arsenal are more 4-2-3-1 which could see the striker more isolated depending how much of a forward player, rather than midfielder the 3 is made up of.

The fact Arsenal have poor defenders may make this a match we can approach with self belief.

 

[Sabella's Socks]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

Klopp and Liverpool coped by getting Baldock to fall over, scoring an early goal, having the best team in the world who are running away with the League, playing at the top of their game, and not giving us a kick.

Guardiola and Man City coped by getting the ref to play for them.

These aren't challenges we'll face every week.

One benefit of having an unusual system is that even if the opposition do have a plan it will be a plan they haven't implemented very often, with players in roles they are not ideally suited to. It's reactive and may well not be the best use of their resources.

If the opposition don't pay us special attention then we get to play our game.

If the opposition do pay us special attention then they don't get to play their game.

It's a win-win (apart from when we draw or lose).

Add into the mix the phenomenal desire, work rate, self-belief and teamwork the players have, and it's a big test for pretty much anyone to play against. It'll be interesting to see how teams cope second time we play them, but I do think that for now the challenge we pose is different enough for it to cause problems almost no matter what.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I know this is perhaps a very simplistic view but I find that teams that play 4-3-3 at least partly negate our system.

Whilst not compromising their own set up, there is a natural fit of their 3 forwards to our centre backs and the midfield three matches up 1 to 1.

It does then come down to how disciplined the wider 2 players are at tracking runs but it's far easier to match up than for a team that plays 4-4-2, being at times overwhelmed in the middle 3 vs 2 and out wide with a midfielder, wing back and wide centre back out flanking a winger and full back 3 to 2.

I think Arsenal are more 4-2-3-1 which could see the striker more isolated depending how much of a forward player, rather than midfielder the 3 is made up of.

The fact Arsenal have poor defenders may make this a match we can approach with self belief.

That's the case with any three at the back system. The natural counter historically is 4-3-3 as it allows the wide forwards to play inside your wingbacks and behind the wider centre backs. The positioning of our wide centre backs is different to the orthodox three at the back, however, so it can result in the wide forwards dropping too deep to mark them or the opposition getting swamped in the middle of the park as our three in the middle becomes a five.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

Great analysis. I often think, you just need one player to do something out of the ordinary to break a system like that. It's where "mavericks" and "wild cards" have their value. You might not want them in the team every week, but to have one on the bench that you can throw into the mix against sides like that who have set up very methodically is a real bonus.

 

[Need4speed]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

Excellent analysis. I think the counter to this tactic is in the middle Clearly if teams do this they are more stretched and venerablein the middle of the field This is where we need to have some driving runs. Either pick the ball off the centre backs, usually Eagan or let the centre backs Basham particularly drive inside rather than outside. Norwood isn't suited to this and this is an area where I think we lack a little bit.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Was I the only one to read the title as "Overlords"?
Was expecting some weird alien conspiracy thread

Was going to say the same. I only clicked on the thread to see who our overlords are.

 

[blackydog]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

Tactically naive myself so like to see a bit of Bergen Blade analysis.

 

[Rollerball]

Personally I believe the only way to have a chance to negate these lads is
A. Have an equal desire to run you arse off and leave everything on the pitch.
B.have the ability to implement a similar tactic to the one we used, which as shown by West Ham and a few others this season is not that easy as we play it week in week out so that also helps our cause.
C. Have the players with an extra modicum of skill above and beyond the Blades players, again sounds easy but when trying to play a similar system, we have an advantage of experience of the system.
D. Have a tactically great/brilliant manager.

 

[Rudders]

Great analysis. I often think, you just need one player to do something out of the ordinary to break a system like that. It's where "mavericks" and "wild cards" have their value. You might not want them in the team every week, but to have one on the bench that you can throw into the mix against sides like that who have set up very methodically is a real bonus.

Spot on, I was saying during the first half how we could have done with Duffy as the wildcard to create something in the central 'pockets' of space.
He would also have improved our throw ins which are a glaring weakness at this level (Duffy being the go-to player at receiving our throw ins over the last few years).
Hey Bergen Blade do you fancy doing some throw-in analysis of this for us? To me it seems an area we can improve markedly.

 

[SwissBlade]

Bergen Blade Brilliant analysis and its interesting that you chose screen shots from the early part of the first half, 22 mins being the latest one.

I don't think the only reason for the poor first half was the way West Ham set up, even when we weren't under pressure we seemed nervy and misplaced passes, but its another example of teams trying to counter us by changing their own formation to match us. Apparently West Ham set up this way against Gillingham.

It didn't work though and Moyes didn't really have an answer when it failed as they weren't disciplined enough to keep the formation. I think it was later in the first half when it started to unravel, i seem to remember a big tackle from Lunny which got the crowd going and Wilder also alluded to this post match.

What i also love is that Wilder didn't change the approach throughout the game, as you said, second half before we scored we had two chances fall to fleck in very familiar territory coming to the box late after an attack down the right. Its worth noting that the strikers played a slightly different way against west ham, looking to support the wing backs more in the first half and often when the Wing backs had the ball in crossing positions either McBurnie or McGoldrick weren't in the box or we didn't have enough bodies in the box.

We also didn't make a change of personnel until 60 mins, which as after we scored and Mousset made yet another immediate impact but we then reverted to a more familiar set up with Mousse playing off McBurnie.

 

[tyke1889]

Bergen Blade was there any sign of the players trying to resolve this on-field before half time?

You'd think the leaders would spot something and make adjustments accordingly, and not wait until half time for instructions.

 

[BushBlade]

Bergen Blade Brilliant analysis and its interesting that you chose screen shots from the early part of the first half, 22 mins being the latest one.

I don't think the only reason for the poor first half was the way West Ham set up, even when we weren't under pressure we seemed nervy and misplaced passes, but its another example of teams trying to counter us by changing their own formation to match us. Apparently West Ham set up this way against Gillingham.

It didn't work though and Moyes didn't really have an answer when it failed as they weren't disciplined enough to keep the formation. I think it was later in the first half when it started to unravel, i seem to remember a big tackle from Lunny which got the crowd going and Wilder also alluded to this post match.

What i also love is that Wilder didn't change the approach throughout the game, as you said, second half before we scored we had two chances fall to fleck in very familiar territory coming to the box late after an attack down the right. Its worth noting that the strikers played a slightly different way against west ham, looking to support the wing backs more in the first half and often when the Wing backs had the ball in crossing positions either McBurnie or McGoldrick weren't in the box or we didn't have enough bodies in the box.

We also didn't make a change of personnel until 60 mins, which as after we scored and Mousset made yet another immediate impact but we then reverted to a more familiar set up with Mousse playing off McBurnie.

‘even when we weren't under pressure we seemed nervy and misplaced passes’

Could that be because once you press and pressure players they’re expecting it and try to do everything quickly, which leads to more errors?

 

[Kev Gee]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

Good analysis.
If teams play to stop us down the flanks then we should revert to playing an AMC between the midfield and strikers.

 

[SwissBlade]

‘even when we weren't under pressure we seemed nervy and misplaced passes’

Could that be because once you press and pressure players they’re expecting it and try to do everything quickly, which leads to more errors?

Thats why i said when we weren't under pressure.

I certainly agree that we were making basic errors when under pressure (like liverpool) but i think we had an "offday" (TM every other Premier League club) at times as well

 

[SwissBlade]

Good analysis.
If teams play to stop us down the flanks then we should revert to playing an AMC between the midfield and strikers.

And we certainly do that!

 

[Brian Deane]

Was going to say the same. I only clicked on the thread to see who our overlords are.

Overlord Wilder and Sith Knill of course

 

[BushBlade]

Thats why i said when we weren't under pressure.

I certainly agree that we were making basic errors when under pressure (like liverpool) but i think we had an "offday" (TM every other Premier League club) at times as well

I’m not sure you understood my point. I can’t really explain it any better as I don’t have the words, other than the ones I’ve used. It’s not really important anyway.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

I really noticed the 4 players on each side stopping the attacks down the flanks.

It was also noticeable immediately that Mousset came on that we caused problems with long balls down the middle as they weren’t as able to battle for second balls.

Right now it seems that as fast as teams adapt, we’re able to switch to another plan.

The other thing it made me think was that if we had a player in Lunny’s position who could beat a man and surge with it that it would really create problems for teams who set up like West Ham.

 

[SUFC Guy]

Excellent analysis as always

It would be really interesting to compare our results with who tried to nullify us and who didn't and what the actual scoreline and result was for those games.

Did Burnley tried to nullify us?

Did Arsenal?

What did Leicester and Liverpool do?

 

[Trafford]

The one thing we haven't had in red and white for a while is goals from distance either.

I was thinking the same thing when Goal of the Month came on MOTD - I don't think that we have featured all season or did they include Mousset's brilliant goal against Man U?

 

[SUFC Guy]

Good analysis.
If teams play to stop us down the flanks then we should revert to playing an AMC between the midfield and strikers.

Which Fleck did and can do?

 

[Bladesman]

West Ham was another example of teams trying to stop our overloads down the wings. Both Klopp and Guardiola commented on the importance of getting that right recently. Over the past few seasons loads of teams have changed their formation on the day when they play us. West Ham lined up in a 3-4-3 formation, as shown below. Note how wide their wing backs are, trying to occupy our wing backs and preventing them from joining in with our midfield when pressing.

View attachment 68478


When we were in possession they tried to prevent space down each side. Two sets of four players (highlighted below) seemed to be instructed to stop our overloads:

View attachment 68479

An example down their left, Cresswell (LCB), Masuako (LWB), Price (LCM) and Lanzini (L10) making it hard to get our usual neat passing going. With Cresswell and Masuako both starting they had two players who both are experienced as left full backs.

View attachment 68480

On the other side Balbuena (RCB), Zabaleta (RWB), Noble (RCM) and Anderson (R10), and on this occasion even Haller is down there. Zabaleta is usually an orthodox right back and it looks a defensive move when he's played at wing back.

View attachment 68483


I think it worked pretty well for them in the first half. We had less of the neat combination play down the sides than normal, and Basham and O'Connell couldn't find the opportunities to join up with our attacks. Our pressing play suffered as we were more pegged back than usual and this affected our attacking play as well. What we created was mostly from set pieces.

We made adjustments in the second half, pressed higher, made more tackles and played with more enthusiasm and higher tempo. The game became more stretched and this suited us more than them. We also tried to switch play inside - naturally when they focus a lot on stopping us down the sides, they may be vulnerable in the central areas. Just before we scored Fleck had two central efforts from outside the box, and we had a great attack where Lundstram and Norwood won tackles and Norwood, McGoldrick and Fleck combined centrally before finding space on the left.

The game opened up even more after we scored.

So I think we'd better get used to teams finding ways to stop us, but there are ways to deal with that as well. What was said at half time worked and we showed we could adapt; later also helped by substitutions.

Agreed, if we press teams higher up the pitch then it is much harder for them to counter our overloads. Our problem has always been teams sitting very deep such as Newcastle and Wednesday.