Match Thread: Sheffield Utd v Newcastle

[krully]

They must have been very false 10s!

please go bruce

[Remember Colo]

I didn't have much hope in him anyway, but when I saw that team selection and shutting up shop against the worst team in the league that was it for me. Under Bruce we've hardly won any games at all playing 5 at the back and he keeps doing it regardless of opposition.

Where's Lewis? Where's Manquillo? Why didn't Matty Longstaff play? He was rested v Arsenal on the back of two good performances where he actually injected a bit of energy into our midfield and then he's dropped again and doesn't even come off the bench v Sheffield Utd. It makes no sense. Yedlin was nowhere to be seen for most of the season and is now playing every game, where was he before? His persistence with Joelinton playing most matches. We struggle to score and people like Gayle (admittedly not great but at least offers some threat) rarely play. Almiron in and out of the team and played in a variety of positions. There is no plan at all.

I actually think a few of those are defendable (Lewis and Manquillo weren't in the squad so presumably are injured, and Yedlin has justified his place over Farth. Plus Joelinton hasn't been that bad, even more so in comparison with Frasers contribution).

The problem is even with a couple of players out there's still enough there to not put square pegs in round holes, so to even consider Dummett at wing back in a back five against a s*** team sums the whole thing up before you even start to move forward. He made some lame excuse about letting Longstaff get forward, if that was the case where the hell was Jeff playing? We played with a back 5 with one vaguely attacking player, 3 CMs who clearly didn't know where they were meant to be, Fraser who ended up doing a bit of a Miggy role (i.e. far too much defending) and Wilson 40 yards from everyone chasing long balls.

With Dummett left in a four we could still have played the three midfielders with a bit of actual shape, and had Almiron or Joelinton supporting Fraser (or Matty Longstaff either there or as part of the three) behind Wilson. He's got no faith whatsoever in our defense despite them being very decent (even Schar has recovered his form), which means we end up with our midfield over protecting them, which perversely means we get attacked all game and concede goals if we slip up once in 90 minutes. Against Liverpool we gave them some defending to think about, why the f*** would you not do the same against a team with 2 points in half a season?

I think everyone is making great points in this thread, but this post really nailed a lot of my thoughts too. I think the huge thing that passive managers like Bruce forget or ignore is that no matter how well your individual players can defend, if you concede that much possession, that many chances, inevitably players will make mistakes and concede goals. And it's unreasonable to hope or assume they won't.

[Captain Obvious]

“Point taken. In hindsight, I picked the wrong team. I have to come in front of you (the media) and accept that, and accept that the performance was nowhere near good enough.

“I went along thinking that in the previous three or four games, we had done okay. We hadn’t got the result, or a win, but we’d done okay in some tough games against some big opposition.

“I went exactly the same way, and in hindsight, which is a wonderful thing, then yes, I picked the wrong team and I have to be responsible for that. That’s what I’ll do.”

The previous 4 games being 3 of the top 4, and Arsenal away. Not f***ing good enough from Captain Hindsight.

Hindsight is the foresight of a ****.

[ALF]

He really is clueless.

[overseasTOON]

He really is clueless.

I'm more of a "he really is inept" kind of guy.

[Hjl]

It's ok, he still has Ashley's backing.

f*** me we are sleep walking to another relegation

[bodacious benny]

In what reality do you think, "oh we did okay against City, Liverpool and Leicester so I'll apply the same logic to the team who's bottom of the league"?

He's just confirmed what we've always known. He doesn't plan or set up the team based on the opposition. He'll do one thing and if it happens to work he'll think "oh, I'll just do exactly the same next match and it will work again".

[Speedo]

I actually think a few of those are defendable (Lewis and Manquillo weren't in the squad so presumably are injured, and Yedlin has justified his place over Farth. Plus Joelinton hasn't been that bad, even more so in comparison with Frasers contribution).

The problem is even with a couple of players out there's still enough there to not put square pegs in round holes, so to even consider Dummett at wing back in a back five against a s*** team sums the whole thing up before you even start to move forward. He made some lame excuse about letting Longstaff get forward, if that was the case where the hell was Jeff playing? We played with a back 5 with one vaguely attacking player, 3 CMs who clearly didn't know where they were meant to be, Fraser who ended up doing a bit of a Miggy role (i.e. far too much defending) and Wilson 40 yards from everyone chasing long balls.

With Dummett left in a four we could still have played the three midfielders with a bit of actual shape, and had Almiron or Joelinton supporting Fraser (or Matty Longstaff either there or as part of the three) behind Wilson. He's got no faith whatsoever in our defense despite them being very decent (even Schar has recovered his form), which means we end up with our midfield over protecting them, which perversely means we get attacked all game and concede goals if we slip up once in 90 minutes. Against Liverpool we gave them some defending to think about, why the f*** would you not do the same against a team with 2 points in half a season?

I think everyone is making great points in this thread, but this post really nailed a lot of my thoughts too. I think the huge thing that passive managers like Bruce forget or ignore is that no matter how well your individual players can defend, if you concede that much possession, that many chances, inevitably players will make mistakes and concede goals. And it's unreasonable to hope or assume they won't.

Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.

With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.

The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:

<fernandez>
<hayden> <mongstaff> <lewis>
<saintmaximin>

Subs: <darlow> <yedlin> <clark> <fraser> <gayle>

Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.

[Colly]

In what reality do you think, "oh we did okay against City, Liverpool and Leicester so I'll apply the same logic to the team who's bottom of the league"?

He's just confirmed what we've always known. He doesn't plan or set up the team based on the opposition. He'll do one thing and if it happens to work he'll think "oh, I'll just do exactly the same next match and it will work again".

The thing is, even that argument fails at the first hurdle. The only one of those games that we actually got a result in didn't have Dummett as a wing back, and had two central midfielders (one of which was Matty Longstaff who didn't even make the 3 against Sheffield Utd) and three attacking players. So he actually made us more defensive against the shittest team in the league, even after Dummett had shown he can't play that position against Arsenal in the cup.

[biggeordiedave]

I think everyone is making great points in this thread, but this post really nailed a lot of my thoughts too. I think the huge thing that passive managers like Bruce forget or ignore is that no matter how well your individual players can defend, if you concede that much possession, that many chances, inevitably players will make mistakes and concede goals. And it's unreasonable to hope or assume they won't.

Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.

With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.

The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:

<fernandez>
<hayden> <mongstaff> <lewis>
<saintmaximin>

Subs: <darlow> <yedlin> <clark> <fraser> <gayle>

Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.

3-4-3-9 against Arsenal might give us a chance

[ALF]

I think everyone is making great points in this thread, but this post really nailed a lot of my thoughts too. I think the huge thing that passive managers like Bruce forget or ignore is that no matter how well your individual players can defend, if you concede that much possession, that many chances, inevitably players will make mistakes and concede goals. And it's unreasonable to hope or assume they won't.

Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.

With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.

The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:

<fernandez>
<hayden> <mongstaff> <lewis>
<saintmaximin>

Subs: <darlow> <yedlin> <clark> <fraser> <gayle>

Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.

I think we did still concede a lot of chances under Rafa, part of the reason Dubravka was able to impress so much was because he was busy. But it was still far, far more organised and there was a clear structure to the defending. You just feel like Rafa was stopping every 5 minutes in training and telling players 'when the ball is here, you need to be here' etc. whereas Bruce thinks 'more bodies = better defence'.

Whether the players like a back 5 or not, we need to use the formation which gets the best out of the team. Without attention to detail it just won't work. Like you say, the players need to be playing in the correct position to start with. We struggled a lot under Rafa, at times we looked good on the counter but for a lot of it we carried minimal threat going forward.

It won't happen any time soon but I'd love to see a team that presses the opposition high up the pitch. Get the Longstaffs and Almiron playing and try and pin the opposition back. It's painful seeing us play, the opposition get well into our half before seeing any pressure whereas we look lost for options before we reach the halfway line.

[originallad]

Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.

With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.

The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:

<fernandez>
<hayden> <mongstaff> <lewis>
<saintmaximin>

Subs: <darlow> <yedlin> <clark> <fraser> <gayle>

Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.

3-4-3-9 against Arsenal might give us a chance

[Remember Colo]

Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.

With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.

The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:

<fernandez>
<hayden> <mongstaff> <lewis>
<saintmaximin>

Subs: <darlow> <yedlin> <clark> <fraser> <gayle>

Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.

I think we did still concede a lot of chances under Rafa, part of the reason Dubravka was able to impress so much was because he was busy. But it was still far, far more organised and there was a clear structure to the defending. You just feel like Rafa was stopping every 5 minutes in training and telling players 'when the ball is here, you need to be here' etc. whereas Bruce thinks 'more bodies = better defence'.

Whether the players like a back 5 or not, we need to use the formation which gets the best out of the team. Without attention to detail it just won't work. Like you say, the players need to be playing in the correct position to start with. We struggled a lot under Rafa, at times we looked good on the counter but for a lot of it we carried minimal threat going forward.

It won't happen any time soon but I'd love to see a team that presses the opposition high up the pitch. Get the Longstaffs and Almiron playing and try and pin the opposition back. It's painful seeing us play, the opposition get well into our half before seeing any pressure whereas we look lost for options before we reach the halfway line.

To Speedo's first point, I agree not all conceded possession is the same, and I apologize it came off as if I thought that. But I'm also with you that we still conceded plenty of chances with Rafa in charge, though were less prone to complete blowouts. Rafa simply wouldn't release players from the strict structure he deployed that was meant to keep the score low.

I guess my overall point was that it's really hard to have consistently good defensive results if you don't apply a modicum of pressure and some attacking intent.