Positive Tactics

There has been a lot of talk on here about Malky's negative tactics not being able to help us stay up when relying on set pieces and counter attacks, but do the stats back this opinion. Well how about looking at a few other games played this weekend :-

Tottenham v Newcastle - Newcastle won 1 - 0, yet Spurs dominated with 65% possession, 31 shots (14 on target) to 8 (4 on target) and 11 corners to 4.

Sunderland v Man. City - Sunderland won 1 - 0, yet Man, City dominated with 63% possession, 24 shots (4 on target) to 5 (2 on target), and 14 corners to 0.

Man. Utd. v Arsenal - Man. Utd. won 1 - 0, yet Arsenal dominated with 60% possession, 10 shots (2 on target) to 5 (2 on target), and 6 corners to 5.

Chelsea v West. Brom. Chelsea only drew 2 - 2 after a late soft penalty yet dominated with 68% possession, 17 shots (7 on target) to 11 (3 on target), and 9 corners to 4.

C. Palace v Everton Everton only drew 0 - 0, yet they dominated with 73% possession, 15 shots (2 on target) to 9 (2 on target), and 7 corners to 4.

The stats. show that it is hard to break down teams down and you don't get points from dominating games, but you do get points from playing Malky's so called negative tactics letting the opposition have the ball, defending in numbers and scoring from counter attacks and set pieces. These tactics bring positive results so I would call them positive tactics.

There has been a lot of talk on here about Malky's negative tactics not being able to help us stay up when relying on set pieces and counter attacks, but do the stats back this opinion. Well how about looking at a few other games played this weekend :-

Tottenham v Newcastle - Newcastle won 1 - 0, yet Spurs dominated with 65% possession, 31 shots (14 on target) to 8 (4 on target) and 11 corners to 4.

Sunderland v Man. City - Sunderland won 1 - 0, yet Man, City dominated with 63% possession, 24 shots (4 on target) to 5 (2 on target), and 14 corners to 0.

Man. Utd. v Arsenal - Man. Utd. won 1 - 0, yet Arsenal dominated with 60% possession, 10 shots (2 on target) to 5 (2 on target), and 6 corners to 5.

Chelsea v West. Brom. Chelsea only drew 2 - 2 after a late soft penalty yet dominated with 68% possession, 17 shots (7 on target) to 11 (3 on target), and 9 corners to 4.

C. Palace v Everton Everton only drew 0 - 0, yet they dominated with 73% possession, 15 shots (2 on target) to 9 (2 on target), and 7 corners to 4.

The stats. show that it is hard to break down teams down and you don't get points from dominating games, but you do get points from playing Malky's so called negative tactics letting the opposition have the ball, defending in numbers and scoring from counter attacks and set pieces. These tactics bring positive results so I would call them positive tactics.

Our counter attacking is piss poor tho, we have no pace out wide and can't score up top

Against the big teams it works as your examples show.

Against teams around us its infuriating.

We don't counter attack though. We just pass it around between Turner, Marshall, Taylor and Medel/Whitts and then it either goes back to Turner or Marshall before getting lumped up field. I'd be all for Malky''s tactics if we actually counter attacked and posed a true threat. We don't. Thats what some need to accept.

Against the big teams it works as your examples show.

Against teams around us its infuriating.

The teams around us that we've played have all been away games though.

What you've shown is smaller teams against bigger teams. It is expected that the lesser team will be deeper and won't have many chances but drag up the stats from Norwich and Villa and you'll see how negative we are.

There is nothing wrong with being hard to beat but you need to balance it out with intent in the final third. If you do not, then you'll be dominated and you will lose or just scrap a draw (see Norwich)

We create very few chances in games and it is costing us. Playing a flat 5 midfield against the likes of Aston Villa is pathetic.

If we're going to play counter attacking football we need pace on the flanks and someone who can hold the ball up (which hopefully will be Cornelius)

I lost count of the number of times yesterday that we went down the left with Taylor, Bellamy and Odemwingi passing the ball 4, 5 or 6 times between them right up to the edge of the penalty area and beyond. With one up top and that one player also moving wide to join in the passing spree, that left nobody in the box. So back we came again, sometimes all the way back to Medel or Turner.

Obviously this extended passing (without getting the ball into the arc in front of goal where most chances are put to bed) often leads to us losing the ball.

What was most frustrating yesterday was that after 15 minutes myself and everyone around me were convinced it was a match we could genuinely win. Didn't turn out that way because we are shy of strikers under this one up front policy. May be we do make it hard for the opposition midfield and forwards to score but Premier League defences must relish playing against our lone striker and nobody really coming at them down the middle. Villa had half a dozen shots from just outside our area and directly in front of goal. We had just one shot on goal, from a direct free kick and that despite having the lions share of possession. The only time we had them rattled was after they were 2-0 up and we pushed bodies forward in a belated attempt to grab a goal.

I lost count of the number of times yesterday that we went down the left with Taylor, Bellamy and Odemwingi passing the ball 4, 5 or 6 times between them right up to the edge of the penalty area and beyond. With one up top and that one player also moving wide to join in the passing spree, that left nobody in the box. So back we came again, sometimes all the way back to Medel or Turner.

Obviously this extended passing (without getting the ball into the arc in front of goal where most chances are put to bed) often leads to us losing the ball.

What was most frustrating yesterday was that after 15 minutes myself and everyone around me were convinced it was a match we could genuinely win. Didn't turn out that way because we are shy of strikers under this one up front policy. May be we do make it hard for the opposition midfield and forwards to score but Premier League defences must relish playing against our lone striker and nobody really coming at them down the middle. Villa had half a dozen shots from just outside our area and directly in front of goal. We had just one shot on goal, from a direct free kick and that despite having the lions share of possession. The only time we had them rattled was after they were 2-0 up and we pushed bodies forward in a belated attempt to grab a goal.

The problem is that most of the premier teams flood the midfield and have only one striker. When Chelsea go with two strikers they only have three at the back, then as soon as they score they revert to one striker and four at the back. It is a gamble to have two strikers as defensive cover is lost or possession is lost through less numbers in midfield. Liverpool are doing well with two strikers as they have two of the best so that they feel that they will score more than they concede. When Cornelius is fit, then if he lives up to expectation all will be well as our style of play and transfers were obviously based around him (as he was our first signing and for a club record).

Malky only knows one way to play home or away,top 4 or bottom 4 .That's his way we just have to get used to it and if it keeps us up then it's fine by me.I don't think its as bad as some people make out but i will admit it can be frustrating to watch and could be a bit better.