Post-Match Thread and Ratings York City 2, Southend United 3

[Rattus Norvegicus]

Given the unequivocal success of this tactic, I clearly need to employ it again every week.

You are Russell Grant and I claim my strange patterned knitted jumper .............

 

[fbm]

I think Mick means games at York, as opposed to games between us and York.

There was also a 3-3 at home in 1974 which took place on a Sunday... I seem to remember it was something to do with energy, power cuts and a 3 day week. I pestered my Dad to take me as it was the last scheduled Sunday game (there had been a few in the preceding weeks, all of which I had missed) and he had refused, saying he had a Sunday planned to do jobs around the house. I kept asking all the way up to half timeand in the end he broke. We got down there with about 20 mins to go and I think we were winning 3-2 but we arrived just a few minutes before York's equaliser.

 

[SARF]

Deegan, if he stays motivated and fit, will be the man that's gets us out of this league .. Disappointed to see two shipped in at York.. He was excellent at chelts. We need to make these 15 mins spells of domination count with at least one more goal during them.. I appreciate a nervy last ten here n there but in the past two away games we should have been away and clear and nicking more on the break

 

[cerbera45]

3 wins in a row means we can't complain, and that on this occasion it pays to keep faith. It's a shame those few fans who let rip at the players yesterday after we conceded before the break couldn't keep the faith too. Adam Thompson looks much improved on last season - is winning far more headers. JBW on loan from Palace likes to get forward but isn't a solid as Coker defensively. Payne offers something that most centre halves at this level will struggle to cope with. I was surprised with the final substitution too - they'd been all over us since we went 3-1 up, and adding another centre half seemed to be inviting the pressure to continue.

Brown seems to like trying to shut up shop which imo is a dangerous tactic because if the other team scores you have less attacking players to try and score at the other end.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

I am not sure it is Mr. Brown's solo idea; the players too often seem to sit back on a slender lead very often.
The wasting time by taking the ball to the corner is often a poor use of possession.
The "all back" defending with no outlet is also self damaging.

 

[Jam_Man]

You also have to consider that when you are away and 3-1 up the home side are going to throw everything at you, its not necessarily by choice you "sit back".

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

Yes, on Friday 19 December 1997. I was among the 3,215 there.

Adrian Clarke got two and Keith Dublin two too

 

[Jai]

Anyone who has played even park football will know it is human nature for teams drop back when a goal to the good with a few minutes left, no matter how much the manager might swear at you. It is psychological, not a tactic.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Anyone who has played even park football will know it is human nature for teams drop back when a goal to the good with a few minutes left, no matter how much the manager might swear at you. It is psychological, not a tactic.

Bringing on a centre-half for an attacking midfielder is tactical (and sends a strong psychological message).

 

[Cockle43]

Anyone who has played even park football will know it is human nature for teams drop back when a goal to the good with a few minutes left, no matter how much the manager might swear at you. It is psychological, not a tactic.

Bringing on a centre-half for an attacking midfielder is tactical (and sends a strong psychological message).

I think it's always a matter of timing.

If you're cruising and opt to bring on a defender for an attacking midfielder then, yes the chances are the message the oppo get from that is that you're shutting up shop and inviting them on, which, of course, will then result in them attempting to exert that pressure. Sometimes this can also make them vulnerable on the break.

Where the timing gives the intent away is if the change is as above then the obvious intent has been defensive.

However, if the change is after the pressure has started to be applied then the psychology can work either way, the pressing side can be discouraged in that they feel they've been unable to break down the existing defence so will now feel that they have even less chance of breaking down a stronger defence; alternatively they can get a boost from feeling that their pressure has forced changes and that they must be getting somewhere. The deciding factor in what the attacking side feel can then often be decided by the body language from the defending side, if the defending players feel that they've been boosted by the addition and respond with a more positive and robust defensive attitude then the attacking side will read it as a negative for them. On the other hand if the change creates uncertainty in the defence then, obviously, the attacking side will try to up their game more and the nett result can be to boost them.

As I wasn't there Saturday I can't comment on the precise situation, timings and, apparent, psychological changes.

Complicated things, players minds, mostly :winking:

 

[Jam_Man]

Bringing on a centre-half for an attacking midfielder is tactical (and sends a strong psychological message).

Yes but he didnt bring him on till the 86th minute After they got back to 3-2.

The suggestion is we were already dropping back to allow them to score that goal, if anything bringing him on earlier could have helped kept it at 3-1. Will never know.

 

[South Bank Hank]

It's all hindsight after the event. If you're 3-1 up and you lose the game because you brought on a defender, you got it wrong as you should have kept up the pressure. If you'd left it unchanged and went on to lose the game, you'd be roundly criticised for not shoring things up at the back.

Can't win.

Unless of course... you win...

Which we did.

...'played Brown. :happy:

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

In summary, it was 3-1 to us, the team was dropping back; under pressure etc but also as they he'd gone defend, defend, defend with no outlet or threat of counter attack.
York scored.
We went more defend, defend, defend.
The team should have carried on as they were ( when it was 3-1); and gone for four IMO with attack being the best defence.
As stated earlier in the thread it is a mental, perhaps subconscious attitude but it is something I, and others have witnessed.
It has happened at home games too.

 

[South Bank Hank]

What always surprises me is the absolute denial fans sometimes have that there's another team in the game also trying to win it. When you're 3-1 down, the losing team's natural instinct is to attack. When that team is throwing the kitchen sink at you and all hands are at the pump to avoid being overrun, it's all well and good being the armchair supporter who knows that we should be avoiding all of this by simply attacking them more. Well, I mean, it's obvious isn't it...?

 

[Jam_Man]

What always surprises me is the absolute denial fans sometimes have that there's another team in the game also trying to win it. When you're 3-1 down, the losing team's natural instinct is to attack. When that team is throwing the kitchen sink at you and all hands are at the pump to avoid being overrun, it's all well and good being the armchair supporter who knows that we should be avoiding all of this by simply attacking them more. Well, I mean, it's obvious isn't it...?

Indeed, sadly cant rep you.

People think you just have to attack more and you will score more.

The other team disagree and have plans of their own.

How often have we said we are better at Roots Hall when a good team comes and has a go at us rather than a team that comes to nick something on a break. We actually want teams to come and play more attacking as we normally do better against them as they arent as hard to break down.