Reflecting on the game on Saturday and our season as whole, I was trying to think of times when the team looked coherent and there was evidence that Puel’s plan (if he has one) might be working. I thought that we looked good in times during the 2nd half against Huddersfield after a relatively poor first half.
Thinking further back I thought there were times against Liverpool when we looked decent, albeit without much evidence of end product - in the 2nd half when chasing the game. Manchester United was almost a carbon copy of Liverpool: decent, no end product, but already chasing the game.
At Southampton we conceded first and looked poor before coming back. Wolves was a difficult one to assess due to Morgan’s sending off, but we started slowly and looked very poor before establishing any control. Even against Bournemouth we won the 2nd half purely on goals scored.
Puel has now stated that it’s a concern how we start games, but I was wondering if this might be directed attributable to the style he’s trying to impose. Our previous style was one of high press, defensive discipline, quick break and controlled aggression. The new style is about controlling the game by retaining possession, quality on the ball, patience and effective movement and precision.
What occurred to me is that the previous style is much better for making quick starts. You can imagine players chomping at the bit to be in the faces of the opposition as soon as the whistle is blown. The new style is more: “let’s control this and pass it around", which is better during a game when you’ve established some authority and you’ve drawn the sting out of the opposition. Man City are maybe the only team who can assert authority by simple ball retention and patience because of their quality to hurt the opposition at any given time.
Is it as simple as Puel telling his players to play in the old way for the first 15 minutes, before establishing some control and patience with the new style? The team who currently do this most effectively are, maybe, Liverpool.
A game of two halves (and slow starts)
posted on 24/9/18
I cant agree we where poor the whole of the first half just dealing with the long throws early doors and i do not like him using zonal marking we new what was coming and did not defend against it.
Our kick off routine was a fast start. I wonder now because we keep conceding early that the players have got themselves into a mindset even last season Puel was saying they need to start quicker but once they cross the line its down to them!
posted on 24/9/18
Perhaps the best instructions would contain elements of the old way rather than an outright demand. If pundits are to be believed, away managers will often instruct their teams to see the home team off for 15 or 20 minutes in order to silence the crowd. What might be a good thing to implement would be for the team to concentrate on keeping its shape for this time, before opening up an becoming more dynamic later on.
On Saturday, I thought the team looked a bit sluggish even coming out onto the pitch. While that's not a crime in itself, it fitted with the way we always tend to start so slowly. Being a softly-spoken sort, I can't imagine that Puel will gee the team up in the way that other managers would, instead relying on the team staying calm and putting into practice what they've been doing on the training pitch. I'm not whether we need to play with blood and thunder from the start, although perhaps a bit of that would help against certain teams. But being switched on from the start is something I'm sure he could implement and something we seem to be lacking right now.
posted on 24/9/18
The thing is that we’ve seen in the past how the team can change its intensity like flicking a switch: think great escape or Shakey taking over from Claudio.
I can’t help thinking that if we can get this right it might help Claude in his game management. Too often we make slow starts and are left chasing games. In those situations plans go out the window so it makes it harder to see what the discernible plan was it the first place.
Small changes/quick wins are often the triggers for effective change. Just a thought.
posted on 24/9/18
Maybe the plan is to let the opposition score early so that they're more tempted to back off and allow us possession?
Great way of getting the stats up.
posted on 24/9/18
"Maybe the plan is to let the opposition score early so that they're more tempted to back off and allow us possession?"
-------------------------------------
Should you have put a after that remark?
posted on 24/9/18
I don’t think we solve this by having a different approach to the first 15 to the rest of the game Joby.
For me it’s simple. We either get better at playing the Puel way for 90 minutes, or we change the way we play altogether.
Personally, I’m still an advocate of a possession based approach playing in between the lines and controlling the ball if (a BIG IF) it’s combined with a more pressing style up front.
However, I also believe that Puel should be willing to leverage the clear suitability of our players to play more fast based counter attacking football.
I think he should pick the right one for each game and stick to it.
But his problem. Plan A is also his plan B C and D now. He seems to be refusing to play any other way at any point.
So quite simply, we need to get better at plan a. If Luel can’t achieve this, he’ll go. If he can, well he’ll have proved a few of us wrong and well played to him for that.
posted on 24/9/18
I still find it difficult, more so after Saturday, to judge what Puel’s plan is. It’s quite hard therefore to attribute success or failure at the doorstep of the manager and his plan. What worked well because it was muscle-memory and something already ingrained? What worked well because it was Puel initiated? What worked well because it, simply, just worked well?
It is the last pondering question that I was left thinking about on Saturday/Sunday and actually linked to my general thoughts over the game: I don’t actually think I care anymore what Puel’s original plan was/is/has changed to....I don’t care how much of Saturday was pre-planned/down to the opponents/or happenchance... It actually, I thought to myself, doesn’t matter or at least doesn’t matter to me.
What did happen was Puel was proactive and whether that resulted in positives as a fortunate consequence rather than being premiditated...well he deserves that for looking to make some changes to something that wasn’t working.
There are still things that need work - but based on Saturday, there is some sort of vision and a plan a and b with Maddison left or CM and Iheanacho and/or just Vardy.
I think starts to matches are often affected by confidence and momentum so I’m not going to be too damning and suggest that Puel is actively making us sluggish.
Onwards now, with some clear path of where we could go. Perhaps not a path Puel specifically intended but such is life.
The only backwards step I could envision is for Ricardo to come straight back in and bombing forward again without Albrighton to cover, and going back to this narrow 3 up and behind Vardy.
However, I think Saturday will have given Puel a way of changing things/reverting to things that worked - without any egg on his face...or maybe Saturday was part of the plan anyway