Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Barnsley Goal 'Analysis' (I hesitate to use the word)
Chunes
Posts: 17,378
Saw some discussion on the post-match thread about who was at fault for Barnsley's goal and had a look at the highlights (I am desperately trying to avoid a certain freelance project so got some time on my hands!)
Looks like a total collapse and collective failure. I'm no Thomas Driesen but I've taken some screenshots just to highlight how bad our defending really is and how poorly drilled this team is. Hopefully we can get past the: "It's because the midfield have been out" arguments by looking at some solid gameplay.
Looks like a total collapse and collective failure. I'm no Thomas Driesen but I've taken some screenshots just to highlight how bad our defending really is and how poorly drilled this team is. Hopefully we can get past the: "It's because the midfield have been out" arguments by looking at some solid gameplay.
Looks like the goal could've been easily avoided at a few different points.
1) Cullen dives in and gets nowhere near the ball, leaving their man free to run at the defence. (Stay with your man, pull his shirt, pull him down if you have to).
2) Now it's a 3-on-3. Should have been manageable but for some reason Lockyer has left his man and got sucked to the ball. Pearce is pointing for him to get back over and cover the left-side-forward. But he doesn't.
3) Instead Lockyer runs straight to the ball (!?), and leaves their left-side forward now in with a clear one-on-one goalscoring chance. I think their midfielder takes the wrong option here and rolls right instead when he could slip him in. At which point Lockyer has a chance to take him down but he doesn't, he's already on a yellow.
4) Now it's Sarr's turn to get sucked to the ball. Presumably he doesn't trust Pearce in a one-on-one with this guy who's running down the pitch with him, leaving space out wide.
And we know what happened from there.
I hesitate to blame anyone in particular because our defending as an entire team is TRAGIC. Do we run defensive drills on the training ground? Do they know who they should be picking up in a counter-attack? I certainly don't buy that our defensive record is down to our midfield. For months we have failed to do even basic things right, front to back.
There are people on this forum with more football experience than me, so interested to know what others make of it all.
There are people on this forum with more football experience than me, so interested to know what others make of it all.
17
Comments
-
"our defending as an entire team is TRAGIC".
No9 -
Locker gets it wrong - agree
Sarr gets it wrong as he should stay with his man HOWEVER he’s used to playing an a 4 at the back so that’s likely why he deserted the winger as he instinctively covered at centre back.
the issue here is the unfamiliarity of the 3 at the back there to this formation. Bowyer said himself that we’ve hardly played this formation with these bodies.
to be fair it was a decent break and a tidy finish but hardly TRAGIC defending.7 -
Thanks for this Chunes, enjoyed reading your view. I do appreciate deeper analysis of the games, and would be nice to see more of that here.
One thing I think posters need to err on the side of caution on is concentrating to much on 'what we did wrong', and not looking at what Barnsley and in particular Luke Thomas did right on that counter attack.
For instance everyone is saying Sarr got sucked in to the centre and was then out of position. But I don't buy that myself. The speed and skill Thomas showed on that break after he got past Cullen was impressive. If you watch it in real time if Sarr does not come over to cover, Thomas such as the quality of his dribbling, would have easily managed to get into the space between Pearce and Sarr and would probably have had a chance on goal anyway.
10 -
I think we could go back further to where the ball was lost. Forster Caskey received the ball but was crowded out quickly. He had Doughty totally free on the left but hadn’t recognised this. Instead he got tackled and then the attack began.10
-
This doesn't show how bad our defending 'is' as we defended pretty well for the rest of the game, especially towards the end when under pressure, and have generally looked much more solid of late, unlike quite a few Championship teams, whose recent defending can't be seen as TRAGIC so much as straight-up apocalyptic.
This was a one-off in the match: a fast break where our entire midfield sold themselves completely, our two wing-backs were caught high up, and it was left to the three CBs to stop three mobile forwards. If Charlton were attacking in that situation you would demand that a good chance be created. Their ball-carrier did everything right. I don't especially blame Lockyer or Sarr for trying to do something about it, and Pearce clearly didn't trust himself to do anything except play the percentages. In the end it required an excellent finish and got one.
This repeated tendency to blame our defenders for everything is bordering on the pathological at this point. Cullen was the most culpable here, the rest was good forward play. But I guess you can show anything with still images.9 -
Very much how you want to interpret it.
Yes, Lockyer shouldn’t have been the one to go forward and close him down, but someone had to engage and force the play because otherwise he would still have been running towards the goal now. In the end, Lockyer making that decision was okay as Matthews was on the cover outside and he actually forced them wide.
Throughout the whole passage of play, Pearce retreats, almost keeping the same body shape throughout. Why has he not taken control of the situation and engaged?
When you look at picture 2, the danger is clearly in the huge space behind the line of our back three. In that moment they have a decision to make, track the runners or play for offside. You also can’t see it but Phillips is almost stuck on his line. If the defence knows he’s out and anticipating play, it makes their decision a lot easier. Instead, he’s protecting his goal meaning the space is there, they have to track their runners by this point.
Doughty also took a long time to get back into some form of position. But again, the danger is in behind and between the posts, there’s no way Sarr can do much else because in this situation, he’s stuck between covering the centre and out wide where Doughty should be. In the end he’s too far away from Woodrow to make a block on the shot.
Ultimately, it was a quick counter-attack where they caught our midfield completely out the game as they were all beyond the ball and phase of play. It happens in football, but in no means was the defending tragic. It looked to me as though it was a defence that was worried of the threat over their shoulder as they don’t have a lot of pace about them, so backed off and had too much space to cover.14 -
You miss the key aspect of it @Chunes and that was the trigger which led to the possession turnover.
JFC made the wrong decision and was too cumbersome to react. Fine, that happens, but our reaction to possession turnover was poor. We conceded from a turnover in the opposing final third and could have done again in the 1st half from that silly free kick. There’s also been a lot of times this season we have ended up nearly conceding from our own corner.
So our second phase shape, reaction to final third turnover is definitely something that could be improved imo, particularly on Saturday. The whole point of the sub was to consolidate us in midfield.11 -
Watch the highlights of Championship matches each week and you will see goals from West Bromwich at the top to Barnsley at the bottom where defenders could do better but the skill of the forwards are outstanding. West Brom gave away 2 set pieces to Cafc where Sarr and Lockyer won the first headers ( good crosses for a change)
When we had to play a reserve midfield and forward line for 6 weeks, our defense stood strong despite some wobbled. How did we concede only 2 goals in so many of those matches. A fantastic effort.
Tragic, no way.
5 -
I didn't mean to imply the defending for the goal was tragic, more that in general our team defending is tragic. This above incident for example. Pearce's "slide tackle" stops a yard away from the ball and takes out our player which leads to all players being pulled out of position - and they hit the bar and have the follow-up cleared off the line. That's tragic. Comedic, in fact.
(Anyway, rather talk about defending in general and not argue other whether it's 'Tragic' or not).
If you look back on our goals conceded: poor pass backs (Lockyer did it again on Sat), clearances going along the floor, not marking your man, ducking the ball at a corner... I counted 6-7 times on Saturday we dived into a tackle, missed it and put ourselves instantly in trouble. We do it every week.3 -
When you desperately need to stop the rot and get a win on the board the only analysis that is needed after the game is Charlton got 2 goals, Barnsley got 1 goal. How and why and who did or did not do something doesn’t matter, we didn’t lose and we didn’t draw. It wasn’t a day for perfection. Build on that win with another win...and repeat.3
-
Sponsored links:
-
Analysis of the Leeds and Brentford home matches will look very similar to your detective work on the Barnsley goal.
The difference is neither side could finish on that day.
Agree Lockyer doesn't seem to have learnt his lesson after the shocking attempt at a back pass against West Brom. Only good fortune saved another goal being conceded.
0 -
Some intelligent and insightful analysis.
Just a shame the OP was so OTT in the language used and the generalisations drawn from one example because otherwise it was something we read too little of on here and in football media in general.
The point about the OP ignoring what Barnsley did well is particularly valid IMHO. It is easy to focus on what our side did well or badly but this overlooks the fact that the other side are trying to thwart our strengths and exploit our weaknesses/ mistakes.
Would be good to read similar for goals we scored.
For example, both came from set pieces suggesting we are well drilled in that aspect of the game or perhaps Barnsley are just "shite" : - )3 -
Correct. If does dither on the ball far too much for my liking.sirjohnhumphrey said:I think we could go back further to where the ball was lost. Forster Caskey received the ball but was crowded out quickly. He had Doughty totally free on the left but hadn’t recognised this. Instead he got tackled and then the attack began.0 -
I have been critical of our defence, but this isn't the sort of goal we have been conceding regularly.
Just from the pictures posted it looks like Matthews never gets back the "right side" of his man either.
This is the sort of goal that would be the fault of the "non defenders" as you shouldn't be left with a 3 v3. To be totally harsh Cullen should have made sure he stopped it in thier half, it's what Man City would have done.
It is good attacking football from Barnsley and if we were in that position I would be fuming if we didn't at least have a clear chance in goal.
There isn't a howler in this one. It's not one mistake but Cullen, Matthews, all 3 center halves, Alfie, as mentioned above even Phillips could have made better choices that MAY have provented it (that's just off these pictures BTW). But what do you expect in the lower half of the championship?
That's not knocking anyone but that's the fine margins between player that play for us and players we can't get or keep.4 -
For me, a big part issue is that you have to make quick defensive decisions in this situation and the main failure was the midfield for letting the player through at pace down the middle. For instance, Sarr getting sucked into the ball. He made a decision that the biggest threat was the player running down the middle. I don't think you can criticise that. Defending is all about making these sort of decisions and sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong and sometimes whatever you do you don't stop a goal.2
-
Its football. Players move all over the pitch & pull players out of position. If you dont like the ebb & flow then watch netball.
5 -
Their manager was fuming post match about thier defending against our set pieces, said they knew it was coming and practised in the week and still couldn't cope.Henry Irving said:Some intelligent and insightful analysis.
Just a shame the OP was so OTT in the language used and the generalisations drawn from one example because otherwise it was something we read too little of on here and in football media in general.
The point about the OP ignoring what Barnsley did well is particularly valid IMHO. It is easy to focus on what our side did well or badly but this overlooks the fact that the other side are trying to thwart our strengths and exploit our weaknesses/ mistakes.
Would be good to read similar for goals we scored.
For example, both came from set pieces suggesting we are well drilled in that aspect of the game or perhaps Barnsley are just "shite" : - )1 -
The best form of defence is attack. Get mobile forwards on & attack them.....not defensive players who sit back so we invite teams on. Yes...we gave away a goal by attacking but it could have gone the other way, scored a 3rd & put the game to bed. I suggest if you are going to take off Taylor & William's you replace, as much as possible, like for like. Mcgeady would run with the ball so will be an outlet & with no Bonne on the bench I would have put Dougherty up front so he could chase clearances. Hemed was about as much use as a fart in a handbag. He doesnt win headers, doesn't harry defenders & is not mobile enough so the ball doesn't stick up top enough & is soon being used against us.5
-
Good insight! Proper analysis. (Along with some others on here.) We definitely don't seem like a team who will press in the final third and win the ball back. We have the lowest tackle rate in the league. Our strategy seems to be more conservative and letting them move into areas we want them to move in (like shooting from distance, which @Callumcafc pointed out that we seem to allow the opposition to do).AFKABartram said:You miss the key aspect of it @Chunes and that was the trigger which led to the possession turnover.
JFC made the wrong decision and was too cumbersome to react. Fine, that happens, but our reaction to possession turnover was poor. We conceded from a turnover in the opposing final third and could have done again in the 1st half from that silly free kick. There’s also been a lot of times this season we have ended up nearly conceding from our own corner.
So our second phase shape, reaction to final third turnover is definitely something that could be improved imo, particularly on Saturday. The whole point of the sub was to consolidate us in midfield.
1 -
46% of how goals scored have been from dead ball situations, including penalties.Henry Irving said:Some intelligent and insightful analysis.
Just a shame the OP was so OTT in the language used and the generalisations drawn from one example because otherwise it was something we read too little of on here and in football media in general.
The point about the OP ignoring what Barnsley did well is particularly valid IMHO. It is easy to focus on what our side did well or badly but this overlooks the fact that the other side are trying to thwart our strengths and exploit our weaknesses/ mistakes.
Would be good to read similar for goals we scored.
For example, both came from set pieces suggesting we are well drilled in that aspect of the game or perhaps Barnsley are just "shite" : - )
Taking away the penalties, it drops to 36% of our goals have come from a set-piece situation.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Ah, a comment by Golfie I agree with, and shows he does have an understanding of how football works.golfaddick said:Its football. Players move all over the pitch & pull players out of position. If you dont like the ebb & flow then watch netball.
golfaddick said:
Oh...The best form of defence is attack. Get mobile forwards on & attack them.....not defensive players who sit back so we invite teams on. Yes...we gave away a goal by attacking but it could have gone the other way, scored a 3rd & put the game to bed. I suggest if you are going to take off Taylor & William's you replace, as much as possible, like for like. Mcgeady would run with the ball so will be an outlet & with no Bonne on the bench I would have put Dougherty up front so he could chase clearances. Hemed was about as much use as a fart in a handbag. He doesnt win headers, doesn't harry defenders & is not mobile enough so the ball doesn't stick up top enough & is soon being used against us.5 -
To be honest I agreed with those parts that Golfie mentionsFishCostaFortune said:
Ah, a comment by Golfie I agree with, and shows he does have an understanding of how football works.golfaddick said:Its football. Players move all over the pitch & pull players out of position. If you dont like the ebb & flow then watch netball.
golfaddick said:
Oh...The best form of defence is attack. Get mobile forwards on & attack them.....not defensive players who sit back so we invite teams on. Yes...we gave away a goal by attacking but it could have gone the other way, scored a 3rd & put the game to bed. I suggest if you are going to take off Taylor & William's you replace, as much as possible, like for like. Mcgeady would run with the ball so will be an outlet & with no Bonne on the bench I would have put Dougherty up front so he could chase clearances. Hemed was about as much use as a fart in a handbag. He doesnt win headers, doesn't harry defenders & is not mobile enough so the ball doesn't stick up top enough & is soon being used against us.
Its the bit about Hemed I dont agree with - He doesnt win headers, so we shouldnt be lumping the ball up to him
Play to his strengths, play it to feet where he can use his strength to hold the ball up and bring others in play - Difficult at the moment I know but the alternative is to use him with Taylor; Lyle is our best striker to pull the defence out of position, do that and Hemed will have acres of space to exploit rather than being closely marked as Taylor's replacement
Putting Purrington on and pushing Doughty forward would have given us the pace to counter attack towards the end
But thats relying on Doughty not being bloody exhausted as each bursting run will take its toll1 -
That goal will be analyzed this morning at Sparrows lane. Every goal conceded by Championship sides will be analyzed at their training grounds this morning.
I got my reputation for having a soapbox by asking a question of Matthew's (Cafc coach) why when we are 2-1 up at Brighton with time nearly up do 5 Charlton players rush towards the ball which give Lewis Dunk a free run and header which ends up a goal and we snatch a draw out of the jaws of victory. This was when Igor Vetokele had scored a brace. Being a successful coach/manager at the time I tried to answer my own question !
Unless you have like for like subs you lose shape because JFC is no Williams and vice versa. A tiring Cullen and Pratley with a one paced JFC was an accident waiting to happen in midfield.
Thankfully we have brought Davis and Smith to give more options in midfield and McGeady to share the 95 odd minutes with the frail but mesmeric Williams.
3 -
we look so much more solid with a flat back 4, say it every time we try and play with 3 CB's and wing backs, just don't think it works for us.2
-
Losing the ball cheaply in midfield isn’t good for defensive solidity. Missing tackles (in this case Cullen) the same. But there is no escaping how far below Championship standard are our 3 CH’s and we only have 3. Sarr is prone to howlers and as agile as a tanker in force9. Pearce is slow and, if the ref objects to his kind of physicality, virtually impotent. Lockyer is smallish for the job which limits him against some opposition but, as exemplified in the OP, he is error strewn and naive in open play added to which his passing is consistently dreadful.Pratley is our best CH. If our surfeit of midfielders are all fit and on form We could afford to trade DP’s imperious control of the midfield for the coolness and intelligence he could add to the back line.I would be seriously concerned if a couple of CH’s weren’t top of the list in this last window. If we stay up then 3 quality stoppers have to be recruited in the summer. If we don’t then the current troika is proven adequate for 3rd division duty3
-
Great idea for future posts I think - no to dig players or the team out but good bit of tactical discussion. 100% Brett Shaw, Bowyer and Jacko do this every week.
For me I think we commited too many men forward when you consider we were 2-0 up. Both pratley and JFC were in advance position I believe leaving Cullen as the only one in the middle to protect the counter attack. If he wins that tackle then no problem. But we lose it and the attacker is past our midfield. He has to slide in because he is initially tracking the guy who won the ball same as JFC. He shifts the ball to our right which changes Cullens standing position and passes to the midfielder who is running with pace. Cullen is side on to him so has to slide in.
Also there seems to be a big distance between Cullen and the back 3. Shouldn't they be a bit closer, or one of them step in? Not commit to the tackle but try to slow the run down. Or do a man city and take they guy out on the half way line.
I think in summary it comes from being a little to gung ho as a team and commiting to many forward for a 3rd goal rather than keeping shape and trying to see it out.5 -
This is exactly the type of goal we don't concede many of. We might ceed chances like this but not actually many goals.
I think small amounts of blame could be given to at least 8 different players. It's unlikely that all 8 would be at fault, in the same way, at the same time again.
Without looking it up, we have probably lost at least 10 points this season due to total avoidable "cock ups".
I would file this one under "could have been prevented (as all goals can be) and good play by Barnsley" forget about it and move on.
0 -
Given the fact we had a two goal lead, I think you can say that Cullen was a bit too far advanced as the Barnsley player had free rein to drive into the area he had vacated or possibly Pratley should have been there given Cullen was higher up the pitch. But nothing wrong with looking for the third which would have put the game to bed.0
-
Barnsley were losing two nil so left more men up, one reason they were able to break on us so effectively.2
-
Agreed, it is what teams will do when they are chasing a game. When an opponent changes tactically, you have to decide how to react whether you are 1 up or 3 up. We did react to be fair, which was defensively. You can look at it two ways - after all we did keep them out after the goal, but also maybe we relied a lot on luck. Maybe when a team opens up, you have to see it as an opportunity to catch them out defensively and I think this is where we possibly got the balance wrong. But Taylor's return is clearly being managed and Williams too so changes had to be made. I could see how maybe Oztumer or McGeady could have replaced Williams but Bowyer knows things we don't about fitness and nobody could replace Taylor.2
