Wolves (a) 1st October

[Monroe Transfer 0]

How they lined up

 

Mick McCarthy would like to think of himself as a no-nonsense, old-fashioned boss, and there was a whiff of straightforward, solid Yorkshireness about the way both Wolves and Newcastle set up in this one. No messing about with 4-3-3 or 3-4-1-2 or false nines with these two - they both began with relatively standard 4-4-2 formations. Honestly, it's like watching football in the eighties.

 

Both sides used fairly physical strike partnerships, supplied by traditional wingers in the shape of Jonas Gutierrez & Gabriel Obertan, and Stephen Hunt & Matt Jarvis. However, perhaps the most interesting battle would be in the centre of midfield - with the impressive partnership of Chiek Tiote and Yohan Cabaye up against Karl Henry and Jamie O'Hara, we were virtually guaranteed a fair few juicy scraps.

 

First half

 

Their formations might be the same, but the approaches of Newcastle and Wolves were very different. While McCarthy's men favour a fairly structured version of the old system, with Karl Henry sitting deep and allowing the rest to attack, Newcastle's approach is much more fluid. Tiote is nominally the holding midfielder, but the rest switch positions and roam almost where they see fit. Much of this is made possible by the massively impressive Yohan Cabaye, who broke forward from midfield through the middle, roved out to the right to try a few crosses and helped out at the back when required.

 

Cabaye also showed the value of a good set-piece taker, fizzing his corners into the box at the ever-dangerous just-above-head-height, whereas the hosts' corners tended to rather limply drift to the far post, not causing any damage at all. Indeed, Newcastle's first arrived via a whipped inswinger from the Frenchman, which combined with some truly ropey near-post marking, allowed Demba Ba to head in.

 

Another difference between the two sides is how they used their full-backs. Stephen Ward and Richard Stearman barely crossed the halfway line, such was their lack of adventure (perhaps slightly surprising given the former has spent time as a winger, and even occasionally as a striker), whereas Danny Simpson in particular spent much of the first half bombing up and down the right flank. This perhaps encouraged the fluid play of the rest - even if their teammates roamed, they could always be sure the side would have width.

 

The problem for Wolves is that, while this defensive caution is presumably designed to create a bit of defensive solidity, but it actually did nothing of the sort - Exhibit A for that one being Newcastle's second. Gutierrez picked the ball up on the left (after an appalling scythe by Karl Henry on Tiote), in the middle of three Wolves men, but shimmied out of trouble with embarrassing ease, then floated past Roger Johnson with a similarly casual air. The signing of Johnson was viewed as a coup by Wolves, but based on his showing on Saturday, his arrival hasn't exactly made Wolves watertight.

 

Second half

 

The second 45 began much as the first had ended, with Wolves scrabbling around for possession and Newcastle hitting them on the break with pace. Under Alan Pardew, Newcastle's success this season isn't based on anything particularly complicated - they are brilliantly organised at the back and defend, if you'll excuse the pundit's cliché, as 'a unit', they have arguably the best central midfield outside the top six and are quick on the counter. It's basics, but basics executed beautifully.

 

It was interesting that almost the biggest cheer of the day from the home fans came as Karl Henry was withdrawn. Henry's mains tasks as a sitting midfielder were to win possession and try to stymie those rapid counters, and he was singularly ineffective at both. McCarthy brought on Adlene Geudioura for Henry, and replaced the similarly ineffective Jarvis with Adam Hammill, presumably in an attempt to give his side a little more impetus and, for want of a better work, more oomph.

 

And, gradually, it worked. Wolves' primary tactic as the second half progressed seemed to be to cram the penalty area with as many players as possible, sling the ball into the area from wide, and hope for the best. Initially, the excellence of Newcastle's defending and Tim Krul's goalkeeping (a double save towards the end was particularly good) ensured this tactic didn't pay off, but it did contribute to them getting back into the game as time ran out.

 

Presumably because of this attempt to overwhelm them, Newcastle's defensive line dropped deeper and deeper, to the point that for the last ten minutes they were basically camped on the edge of their own area. It's incredible how often a bit of late pressure does this to professional football teams, with the psychological impact of an onslaught forcing the defending team to retreat and retreat until they're almost off the pitch. And it almost led to their demise - Steven Fletcher pulled a goal back with an unmarked far post header, then Kevin Doyle forced the ball in after a knock-back from Matt Jarvis, only for the linesman (sporting a rather fetching cap) to incorrectly rule the goal had gone out of play.

 

Conclusions

 

I'm sure everyone had a coach at school who constantly banged on about this being 'a simple game', when we all wanted to do lollipops and try outrageous shots from 35-yards. It sounded tiresome at the time, but sometimes basics are all that is needed to be successful. As stated, there's not a great deal complicated in Newcastle's system, but it's so perfectly carried out that the results keep coming. As long as they don't defend in such a panicked manner again, they will be fine.

 

One interesting point is where Hatem ben Arfa is going to fit in. Pardew has stated he doesn't believe Ben Arfa can play out wide, suggesting his position will be behind a main striker. However, with Ba and Leon Best performing as they are, is a change sensible? Actually, Ben Arfa's introduction might've helped Newcastle in this game - Peter Lovenkrands was brought on in place of Ba with around 20 minutes to go, but did little. Had Ben Arfa come on instead, he would've offered a pacier attacking outlet, and taken some of the pressure of the besieged defence.

 

For Wolves, perhaps this game will convince McCarthy that Henry is not worthy of an automatic place in the side. If he doesn't break up play, his role is redundant given the way he slows down possession when speed is required. Geudioura is hardly a silky genius, but he at least offered something more incisive. Panic buttons should not be pressed just yet (Wolves were denied a goal and a penalty by some curious decisions from the officials), but lessons must be learned from their late escape last season.

 

Source?

[ChezGiven 0]

http://football365.com/faves/7216440/Tactics365

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Cheers, good read that.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

[Happy Face 29]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

 

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

[Park Life 71]

The point, which you've missed is that a striker can not stop them getting the ball wide at some point and knocking crosses to the back post, whether it happens once and leads to the goal or 15 times and leads to a goal is neither here nor there. The one time it does lead to a goal its got fuck all to do with anyone but the right sided players and the left-back.

 

The stupidity comment relates to that specifically and to anyone entertaining the idea of bringing Santon on for the last 20 minutes yesterday.

 

And that's where we disagree because i think Ben Arfa or Marveaux helping the midfield rather than Lovenkrands up front would have kept more possession which means Wolves getting the ball less, and getting it out wide less. So it does matter because Wolves like every team in the game do not score from every cross, so you reduce the number of crossess, you reduce the likelyhood they score, thats a pretty fair observation imo. I'm not guarenteeing it would stop them i'm saying i think its the best chance we had because they were on top (which is to be expected away) so we had to reduce their chances as best we could.

 

And i wouldn't have brought Santon on either! I would start him next game though, SPurs will be a tough test no doubt, but he's got to get up and running soon and i'd go for it personally.

 

I think the first page of the coaching manual reads something like 'midfield being overrrun? Bring on a midfielder to increase possesion and ball retention'.

 

IMO we would have have been less likely to risk the final result by taking Best and Obi off and bringing Bafra and Marv on.

 

This is the second time Pards has been indecisive when we were clearly under seige for long periods.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

I didn't realise those two subs were such a big deal. Hardly a tragic mistake now is it Parky.

[Park Life 71]

I didn't realise those two subs were such a big deal. Hardly a tragic mistake now is it Parky.

 

Think that they were raining down on our goal for 30 odd minutes is of little concern to you is somewhat postmodern. Well done.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

 

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

 

The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this.

 

Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack?

[ChezGiven 0]

I didn't realise those two subs were such a big deal. Hardly a tragic mistake now is it Parky.

 

Think that they were raining down on our goal for 30 odd minutes is of little concern to you is somewhat postmodern. Well done.

 

I'm just glad we've got some post-match discussion this week, albeit based on the luckiness of the win.

 

[Happy Face 29]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

 

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

 

The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this.

 

Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack?

 

No, but the issue isn't lovenkrands being at fault for anything. It's the fact we were under a shitload of pressure and pardoo didn't make a change that might stop it, when there were options available that could have.

[Park Life 71]

I didn't realise those two subs were such a big deal. Hardly a tragic mistake now is it Parky.

 

Think that they were raining down on our goal for 30 odd minutes is of little concern to you is somewhat postmodern. Well done.

 

I'm just glad we've got some post-match discussion this week, albeit based on the luckiness of the win.

 

 

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

 

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

 

The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this.

 

Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack?

 

No, but the issue isn't lovenkrands being at fault for anything. It's the fact we were under a shitload of pressure and pardoo didn't make a change that might stop it, when there were options available that could have.

'Might have' but i doubt it, Ben Arfa doesnt strike me as a player you can knock it long too, he 'might have' dazzled with some silky skills and beat a few players to carry the ball down field or he might have been clattered from the side and not be able to find a man to release to. Given the context of the game, the latter is more likely. Apart from him, i have no idea who else would have offered more with any certainty. As i said, i would have preferred someone else but unless you can say when Lovenkrands fucked up its a bit ridiculous to attribute the Wolves pressure to this substitution.

[Happy Face 29]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

 

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

 

The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this.

 

Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack?

 

No, but the issue isn't lovenkrands being at fault for anything. It's the fact we were under a shitload of pressure and pardoo didn't make a change that might stop it, when there were options available that could have.

i

'Might have' but i doubt it, Ben Arfa doesnt strike me as a player you can knock it long too, he 'might have' dazzled with some silky skills and beat a few players to carry the ball down field or he might have been clattered from the side and not be able to find a man to release to. Given the context of the game, the latter is more likely. Apart from him, i have no idea who else would have offered more with any certainty. As i said, i would have preferred someone else but unless you can say when Lovenkrands fucked up its a bit ridiculous to attribute the Wolves pressure to this substitution.

 

Did you see us hold posession against blackburn when barfa came on? No-ones blaming lovenkrandsfor owt. But we clearly needed to put .our foot on the ball pass to feet and hold onto it. If you were sat watching and thought "champion, this will setlle it down" when lovenkrands came on you were infuse minority id guess.

[ChezGiven 0]

The point about the defensive line dropping deeper as the second half went on does more to pinpoint the issues than the choice of substitutes too.

 

But given that was happening, how did the choice of lovenkrands do anything to aleviate the pressure or provide outlets from defence that retained posession?

 

The 365 writer reckons Ben Arfa coming on would have alleviated more pressure, not sure either would have made any difference but its a pov. Wolves were working our flanks, targeting the weakness of Simpson (getting the ball into the box) and Taylor (defending the far post). Us dropping deeper was allowing them to do this.

 

Can you say when the ball went forward to Lovenkrands and his inability to hold the ball up led to turnover of possession and a Wolves attack?

 

No, but the issue isn't lovenkrands being at fault for anything. It's the fact we were under a shitload of pressure and pardoo didn't make a change that might stop it, when there were options available that could have.

i

'Might have' but i doubt it, Ben Arfa doesnt strike me as a player you can knock it long too, he 'might have' dazzled with some silky skills and beat a few players to carry the ball down field or he might have been clattered from the side and not be able to find a man to release to. Given the context of the game, the latter is more likely. Apart from him, i have no idea who else would have offered more with any certainty. As i said, i would have preferred someone else but unless you can say when Lovenkrands fucked up its a bit ridiculous to attribute the Wolves pressure to this substitution.

 

Did you see us hold posession against blackburn when barfa came on? No-ones blaming lovenkrandsfor owt. But we clearly needed to put .our foot on the ball pass to feet and hold onto it. If you were sat watching and thought "champion, this will setlle it down" when lovenkrands came on you were infuse minority id guess.

You've missed my whole point then if you can even entertain a comparison of beating Blackburn at home to being in the lead away at wolves with them looking at a 4th defeat in a row.

 

However, you do have me sat watching it down to a tee, nearly soiled my pants in excitement when Lovenkrands came on, i think my posts in this thread should be enough to have deduced that.

[Happy Face 29]

Thought you said to papa your point was only about Santon...who I don't see any reason to have brought on either.

 

Seems to have morphef into defending an ineffective substitution on the grounds that bringing on a better player might have been ineffective too. odd.

[ChezGiven 0]

Thought you said to papa your point was only about Santon...who I don't see any reason to have brought on either.

 

Seems to have morphef into defending an ineffective substitution on the grounds that bringing on a better player might have been ineffective too. odd.

Wrong on all counts and i cant be arsed to go over it again.

[Happy Face 29]

i would have preferred those players to come on too

 

End off

[The Fish 10682]

Chez, I was thinking about what you've said, that they were putting a lot of pressure down the flanks. Would you not think putting Guthrie out wide for Obertan (who had lost interest in the 2nd half) and give him the job of protecting Simpson?

 

We didn't make 2 of the changes until after their goal, the pressure came well before it. I'm not a fan of Guthrie, but he's certainly more likely to provide defensive cover for our suspect fullback. (saying that he can be prone to slipping inside)

 

Cabaye wasn't taken off because he was exhausted, it was a time-wasting tactic, which is fair enough, but when the centre of the park is so vital and the game was on a knife edge, why fuss with it?

[Ayatollah Hermione 13766]

Guthrie doesn't have the discipline to stay wide. Nolan would have been a good defensive minded sub I'd have got Marveaux on to try the counter on them.

[AgentAxeman 169]

I didn't realise those two subs were such a big deal. Hardly a tragic mistake now is it Parky.

 

Think that they were raining down on our goal for 30 odd minutes is of little concern to you is somewhat postmodern. Well done.

 

 

'Postmodern' Classic phrase!

[ChezGiven 0]

Chez, I was thinking about what you've said, that they were putting a lot of pressure down the flanks. Would you not think putting Guthrie out wide for Obertan (who had lost interest in the 2nd half) and give him the job of protecting Simpson?

 

We didn't make 2 of the changes until after their goal, the pressure came well before it. I'm not a fan of Guthrie, but he's certainly more likely to provide defensive cover for our suspect fullback. (saying that he can be prone to slipping inside)

 

Cabaye wasn't taken off because he was exhausted, it was a time-wasting tactic, which is fair enough, but when the centre of the park is so vital and the game was on a knife edge, why fuss with it?

Obertan was poor but every time i've seen Guthrie on the right he's been terrible defensively.

 

The tide had turned in the game, they had pinned us back, the crowd were behind them, they were firing on all their cylinders and desperate to end their bad run of results. We were nervy, dropping too deep and a bit naive. The idea that the influence of all this could have been solved if Pardew had decided to bring someone else on instead of Lovenkrands is daft to me.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Chez just likes being tendentious. Clearly he's not played football at any sort of competitive level.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Park Life 71]

This but with Jonas instead of Obi

 

[The Fish 10682]

Chez, I was thinking about what you've said, that they were putting a lot of pressure down the flanks. Would you not think putting Guthrie out wide for Obertan (who had lost interest in the 2nd half) and give him the job of protecting Simpson?

 

We didn't make 2 of the changes until after their goal, the pressure came well before it. I'm not a fan of Guthrie, but he's certainly more likely to provide defensive cover for our suspect fullback. (saying that he can be prone to slipping inside)

 

Cabaye wasn't taken off because he was exhausted, it was a time-wasting tactic, which is fair enough, but when the centre of the park is so vital and the game was on a knife edge, why fuss with it?

Obertan was poor but every time i've seen Guthrie on the right he's been terrible defensively.

 

The tide had turned in the game, they had pinned us back, the crowd were behind them, they were firing on all their cylinders and desperate to end their bad run of results. We were nervy, dropping too deep and a bit naive. The idea that the influence of all this could have been solved if Pardew had decided to bring someone else on instead of Lovenkrands is daft to me.

Well, I think that's odd, you know as well as I do that a tactical shift (which Pardew has been so far quite shrewd with) could have negated the impetus that the Wolves team took.

 

I'm not saying that bring on Guthrie and we'd have walked it* I'm just saying that, of all the possibilities, Lovenkrands was going to have the least difference to our game.

 

We still had a target man (and a mobile one at that) but Lovenkrands hasn't the pace, nor endeavour to harrass their back line. He's not big and strong like Ba, he's not clever enough on the ball to act as an outlet. At the very least Ameobi MKII would have unnerved their back line and harried and harassed them.

 

I agree that regardless of our team they'd have built in momentum, their nature and their fans would see to that, but I disagree that our team hadn't the flexibility to better handle that shift in momentum. A 4-5-1 with Sammy and Guthrie on for Obertan and Ba would, imo, have been better placed to handle the increased pressure.

 

It's a bit of a pointless debate I know, because we got the points, but I'd far rather discuss this than the owner. It's nice to be concerned with things on the pitch, for a change.

 

 

*I know you've not accused me of that either, it's there for rhetoric