Vs S'oton: Poor pressing, high defensive line

[Bergen Blade]

What I think we tried to do:

5-3-2 formation, we hoped that Sharp and McBurnie's work rate would give us an effective first line of defence. With mobile midfielders we were going to prevent them finding space in midfield and play through us. Defensive line was going to be high to give us further agression and help us win the ball.

What happened:

Southampton were so comfortable on the ball that they had few problems avoiding Sharp and McBurnie's pressure. They passed it about a little until a man had time on the ball. Then what?

At this point our defensive line was still high, meaning the midfield area was congested. Southampton saw this and realised there were loads of room behind our defence, so hit a number of balls over the top. A few of these were offside, but only marginally and it looked so risky the way our defence played. A few times individual defenders realised we didn't have control of the space in behind, so backed off. I think we were lucky, more than good when we didn't concede in this period.

A general rule of zonal defending is:

When the man on the ball is not well closed down, the defence need to drop deeper to keep control of the space in behind them.

Staying high and hoping for offside is considered very risky on these occasions.

A few examples, notice how unprepared and unaware our defence is regarding the runs in behind them:

















I think our pressing play is very much lacking at the moment. We have to find ways to address that in terms of our shape, maybe two strikers who don't stop much is a luxury we can't afford.

Meanwhile, we (esp our defenders) have to be alert enough to deal better with the situations that happens because of our failure to press.

 

[mattbianco1]

1st.

As comfortable as Southampton were on the ball, I was surprised at how many times they played the long ball over the top of the defenders. Time and time again they did it and we never seemed to expect it.

I think they looked at the back 3 and knew pace would cause us problems.

 

[Bladesman]

I think that play button got in the way and that is why we lost.

 

[Stegosaurus]

Hi, Stegosaurus here,

Third

 

[bakeblade]

What I think we tried to do:

5-3-2 formation, we hoped that Sharp and McBurnie's work rate would give us an effective first line of defence. With mobile midfielders we were going to prevent them finding space in midfield and play through us. Defensive line was going to be high to give us further agression and help us win the ball.

What happened:

Southampton were so comfortable on the ball that they had few problems avoiding Sharp and McBurnie's pressure. They passed it about a little until a man had time on the ball. Then what?

At this point our defensive line was still high, meaning the midfield area was congested. Southampton saw this and realised there were loads of room behind our defence, so hit a number of balls over the top. A few of these were offside, but only marginally and it looked so risky the way our defence played. A few times individual defenders realised we didn't have control of the space in behind, so backed off. I think we were lucky, more than good when we didn't concede in this period.

A general rule of zonal defending is:

When the man on the ball is not well closed down, the defence need to drop deeper to keep control of the space in behind them.

Staying high and hoping for offside is considered very risky on these occasions.

A few examples, notice how unprepared and unaware our defence is regarding the runs in behind them:



View attachment 100521


View attachment 100522

View attachment 100523


View attachment 100524


View attachment 100525


I think our pressing play is very much lacking at the moment. We have to find ways to address that in terms of our shape, maybe two strikers who don't stop much is a luxury we can't afford.

Meanwhile, we (esp our defenders) have to be alert enough to deal better with the situations that happens because of our failure to press.

Great analysis as always. It just highlights how tactically inept we seem to be at the moment.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Good analysis Bergen. Our pressing been shocking all season, we seem to half heartedly press now rather than press as a unit.

I remember early on last season when you'd frequently see the forwards pushed right on, then either Lundstram or Fleck pushed right on and the wing backs in behind them pushed on. I really don't know why we've stopped doing this, you don't need to be a good footballer to press effectively.

 

[Geordie Blade]

In pictures '2' and '4', it's shocking how poor the line is. Stevens (in '2') and I think Jags (in '4') have dropped back on their own with the others five yards ahead of them. That happened multiple times during the game. Schoolkid stuff, really and inexcusable for a professional earning what they earn.

 

[Yogi]

In pictures '2' and '4', it's shocking how poor the line is. Stevens (in '2') and I think Jags (in '4') have dropped back on their own with the others five yards ahead of them. That happened multiple times during the game. Schoolkid stuff, really and inexcusable for a professional earning what they earn.

It’s no coincidence that both those two are high on my list of players for whom the game seems to be moving too fast. For jags I think it’s pretty obviously physical he just can’t cover the ground in the way he used too as he was always a fairly mobile centre half. It’s different if as a centreback you’ve never had that mobility and have always had to compensate through reading the game to an elite level see jake Wright but if you have been mobile and lose it it’s hard to compensate. Enda is very different and in the same category as Norwood for me he doesn’t seem to have dropped off physically and not should they at their respective ages but the game seems to just be moving too fast for them mentally they aren’t processing information and taking action at the same speed they were last year and consequently it’s leading to some serious positional errors and getting caught in possession. What would be interesting if someone had the time to do it would be see look at tape from last year and see if they were doing the same things but were covered for by other players JOC in Stevens case and a fully fit and motivate Lundstram and fleck in Norwoods.

 

[Geordie Blade]

It’s no coincidence that both those two are high on my list of players for whom the game seems to be moving too fast. For jags I think it’s pretty obviously physical he just can’t cover the ground in the way he used too as he was always a fairly mobile centre half. It’s different if as a centreback you’ve never had that mobility and have always had to compensate through reading the game to an elite level see jake Wright but if you have been mobile and lose it it’s hard to compensate. Enda is very different and in the same category as Norwood for me he doesn’t seem to have dropped off physically and not should they at their respective ages but the game seems to just be moving too fast for them mentally they aren’t processing information and taking action at the same speed they were last year and consequently it’s leading to some serious positional errors and getting caught in possession. What would be interesting if someone had the time to do it would be see look at tape from last year and see if they were doing the same things but were covered for by other players JOC in Stevens case and a fully fit and motivate Lundstram and fleck in Norwoods.

I re-watched the Chelsea game from July last weekend (before we played Southampton!), and I was staggered at our intensity. Every time Chelsea had the ball, we'd have three players around them. It looked like we had an extra man all game, whereas it felt like the opposite last Sunday. Whether that's individual players getting older and less mobile, or a general drop in fitness (or attitude), I'm not sure.

It's still interesting that we're top of the table for km covered. We just don't seem to covering the ground wisely.

 

[COYB1988]

Cover lots of ground driving up the wing to realise there's no one to pass to and go back to the keeper he boots it long to the opposition or we put a terrible cross in after playing tika taka at the right side of the box for 5mins and then end up getting run ragged defending for 75%-80% of the match

 

[jono_t2000]

If Wilder really thought Mcburnie and Sharp were our best option as first line of defence, I'm generally worried about his mental health.

 

[Yogi]

I re-watched the Chelsea game from July last weekend (before we played Southampton!), and I was staggered at our intensity. Every time Chelsea had the ball, we'd have three players around them. It looked like we had an extra man all game, whereas it felt like the opposite last Sunday. Whether that's individual players getting older and less mobile, or a general drop in fitness (or attitude), I'm not sure.

It's still interesting that we're top of the table for km covered. We just don't seem to covering the ground wisely.

Agreed the difference in terms of the the eye test is night and day. I don’t think it’s and attitude or a physical thing for most players because like you say we’re still covering the ground. It’s mental for quite a few of them the game just seems to be happening a tick too fast for them and in the prem that’s all it takes. If you’re half a second too slow to react and close down a passing lane then boom someone’s going to fire that ball in their spring the press and it doesn’t matter how many yards you’ve covered all that good work is undone.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I re-watched the Chelsea game from July last weekend (before we played Southampton!), and I was staggered at our intensity. Every time Chelsea had the ball, we'd have three players around them. It looked like we had an extra man all game, whereas it felt like the opposite last Sunday. Whether that's individual players getting older and less mobile, or a general drop in fitness (or attitude), I'm not sure.

It's still interesting that we're top of the table for km covered. We just don't seem to covering the ground wisely.

Where did you find the stat about us being top for distance covered?

I've thought more about our tactics vs Southampton and I think they were trying to address the problem outlined in this post. Although the title of that thread says our wing backs are being forced back, the main problem was that the midfield had too much space to cover, as shown here:



I'll add that we were also probably worried about Vardy's pace in behind. But a main problem was that we couldn't cover enough ground in midfield.

So for Southampton I think we agreed we had to play a higher defensive line to prevent space in midfield. Up front we also picked two hard workers, as mentioned.



I think the difference in defensive line is telling in those two images. We tried to be more compact and give the midfielder trio a bit less area to cover, as again we were reluctant to do anything about the formation. Despite us being awful, this had an effect. Southampton did not find a lot of space in midfield early on. I think this was what Wilder referred to when he commented on the team's structure in the first half.

I'll add a comparison between Leicester and Southampton's passes in our half during the first 45 minutes of each match:


Both opposition teams dominated possession, but Leicester (blue) made more passes in our half, partly because we made the midfield area more congested vs S'oton.


Sadly, Southampton realised that we left a lot of space in behind, and they played a lot of balls in behind us. Ings, Adams and Walcott made numerous runs in behind and we struggled to deal with them.

In part I think there's a positive to take from this. I think the management saw what I (and many others) saw regarding our problems at Leicester. So they identified a problem and tried to counter act it in the next match. The high line, Ampadu back in midfield to challenge more at DCM, Jags in to add organisation, Sharp in to add work rate and hold up play, win free kicks, coupled with the latter two's mental importance.

Again, it didn't work as Southampton saw a new weakness with our shape. We changed our plan at half time, this time changing to a back four. Wilder confirmed he thought it was something we had to do and he thought it had an effect. So to those who are getting frustrated about Wilder being too stubborn and not seeing what fans seem to see - I think that is probably not quite correct. I think they are considering a lot of options, but so far they've deciding against changing the formation.

I will also add that while everybody are seeing we have big problems, there's no real consensus among us fans regarding what we think we should do tactically. I've seen many suggestions that I think would make our problems even bigger.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Where did you find the stat about us being top for distance covered?

Sky showed it before the game on Sunday. We were top, followed by Leeds. I don't remember who was third, but they were quite a long way behind us and Leeds.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Sky showed it before the game on Sunday. We were top, followed by Leeds. I don't remember who was third, but they were quite a long way behind us and Leeds.

That is food for thought. We know that we've had little possession, so it shows we are probably spending a lot of energy trying to cover enough space.

As that's a struggle I think it's got to affect what we do in possession.

It may excuse our players quite a bit. We have to look at our shape to make sure we're using energy more effectively.

 

[blades14]

Sky showed it before the game on Sunday. We were top, followed by Leeds. I don't remember who was third, but they were quite a long way behind us and Leeds

Yeah we are top in distance covered however i think that just reflects how much our team runs around like headless chickens, chasing long balls and midfield just being run ragged.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Where did you find the stat about us being top for distance covered?

In fact, I've just re-watched it (thanks for that ), and the data they showed was:

Average distance covered (2019-20)
1. Brighton (112.6 km)
2. Sheff Utd (112.0 km)
3. Norwich (111.2 km)
4. Bournemouth (110.9 km)

Average distance covered (2020-21 so far)
1. Sheff Utd (114.1 km)
2. Leeds (113.8 km)
3. Burnley (110.6 km)
4. Arsenal (110.4 km)

 

[kevreedy]

The high defensive line is no good. that just condenses the game and does not have room for centre backs to overlap etc. and I think this one of the things causing us problems.it does not work so they are hoofing it hope for a flick-on from Macburnie. also dunt work.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Similar problems tonight with Man Utd's two first half goals coming after balls played in behind a defence that was positioned too high up the pitch. There were a few scares before this as well and it certainly looked a poor way to defend a lead.



Although Jagielka struggled, this is Egan's main responsibility. Although we wanted to push the team higher, it's got to be dynamic and when the man on the ball is not closed down the defence have to drop deeper, especially with fast forwards like Man Utd's.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Similar problems tonight with Man Utd's two first half goals coming after balls played in behind a defence that was positioned too high up the pitch. There were a few scares before this as well and it certainly looked a poor way to defend a lead.



Although Jagielka struggled, this is Egan's main responsibility. Although we wanted to push the team higher, it's got to be dynamic and when the man on the ball is not closed down the defence have to drop deeper, especially with fast forwards like Man Utd's.

View attachment 100752


View attachment 100751

We were shit at pressing as a unit again as well.

The forwards press and then Pogba or Fernandes just dropped into CDM and picked the ball up because they weren’t being pressed. Man Utd have then just passed through the ‘press’ and we’ve 3 forward players out of position.