Don't make claim as to the validity, but heard so far;

• More total and completed passes than any game in the championship last season

• 96.3% pass completion for Cullen (79 of 82 completed)

• 70% possession

More possession than the entire past seven seasons. Well seemed like

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:10 pm

Don't make claim as to the validity, but heard so far;

• More total and completed passes than any game in the championship last season

• 96.3% pass completion for Cullen (79 of 82 completed)

• 70% possession

That first one is incredible really

Didn't impress this discerning chap up the m65

That double pivot, man. You want to mark Cullen out of the game? Okay, he'll move twenty yards up the pitch and Bastien will drop deep, and now your midfield has retreated further into your own half.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:13 pm

Screenshot_20220729_231133.jpg


Didn't impress this discerning chap up the m65

From Middlesbrough and supports B*stards?

A double dick head.

Yeah we definitely looked a “predictable, wide open” team tonight. god I know they’re not blessed with the greatest levels of intelligence up the M65, but they never fail to excel themselves

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:13 pm

Screenshot_20220729_231133.jpg


Didn't impress this discerning chap up the m65

I thought people would remember what Boro fans are like from the last time we were in the Championship. I've never known a more blinkered bunch of fans.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:13 pm

Screenshot_20220729_231133.jpg


Didn't impress this discerning chap up the m65

Ha ha. BiroBluePen is crying himself to sleep tonight. Belmtard

I took it to be a Boro fan, you don't get B@^£%@D fans in the Boro, unless you know them of course.

Colburn_Claret wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:17 pm

I thought people would remember what Boro fans are like from the last time we were in the Championship. I've never known a more blinkered bunch of fans.

Was a horse Shagger on the brfcs.com forum.

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:13 pm

Screenshot_20220729_231133.jpg


Didn't impress this discerning chap up the m65

He probably said the same about Fulham last season.

“Unless there is some hidden plan B”

WTF does he mean?

We didn’t need to show a plan B because it wasn’t required, so of course it’s going to be hidden.
We’re not going to change to plan B when plan A is working perfectly

Could anyone work out what formation they were playing and who was playing where?

Everyone in midfield seemed to be popping up everywhere and I couldn't work it out

fatboy47 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:13 pm

Screenshot_20220729_231133.jpg


Didn't impress this discerning chap up the m65

That dandeclaret fella gets about a lot

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:34 pm

Could anyone work out what formation they were playing and who was playing where?

Everyone in midfield seemed to be popping up everywhere and I couldn't work it out

That's it working as designed. Two holding midfielders (double pivot, to use the jargon), two centre midfielders, two forwards, fullbacks joining attacks SIMULTAENOUSLY. That both fullbacks essentially position themselves as midfielders when we're in possession to stretch the pitch is vital to this, and it's why we've targeted two very attack minded fullbacks in Maatsen and Vitinho.

This system massively overloads the midfield. One of the two defensive midfielders covers the space vacated by the attacking wingbacks, kind of making a back three, or rather, playing as shield in front of the centre halves, and the other holding midfielder hovers around the pitch wherever play is, but they rotate at will depending on the action areas, so Cork goes forward and Cullen sits, then if Cullen finds himself able to take up an advanced position, Cork sits, and Bastien and Brownhill move left to right, front to back, and the strikers can drop into midfield or move out wide wherever space is vacated, and the fullbacks are playing as wingers, so we end up with two forwards, two wingbacks, two central midfielders and a holding midfielder — seven players all pushing forward in attack.

It's all built on setting up in a way to minimise the number of defensive transitions, because we're incredibly exposed when we lose the ball, but there's a contingency built in to the system, and it's that if we attack in numbers, we can hunt in packs (and indeed did, many times) to regain possession. It's a risky system that requires a lot of athleticism and requires players with ridiculous technique and composure on the ball, but it's hyper aggressive, and fundamentally, it's incredibly fluid. It's technically a 4222 box, but I look at that only as defining roles, rather than team shape. The system is designed to make the team shape unmanageable to the opposition.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:54 pm

That's a brilliant analysis of the system, Spiral, and if we can sustain that for 46 games and against better sides we'll be laughing.

I too was fully expecting the 4222 but I'm not fully convinced that's exactly what we saw tonight, as young Costelloe was operating very much from the right hand side. I think Kompany might have tweaked things with Jay having been injured to more of a 433/ 4231, perhaps.

.

.

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:01 am

That's a brilliant analysis of the system, Spiral, and if we can sustain that for 46 games and against better sides we'll be laughing.

I too was fully expecting the 4222 but I'm not fully convinced that's exactly what we saw tonight, as young Costelloe was operating very much from the right hand side. I think Kompany might have tweaked things with Jay having been injured to more of a 433/ 4231, perhaps.

Aye, Costelloe's positioning on the right gave us some of our best moments, I thought. He wasn't in the game as much in the second half — to be fair Huddersfield made it more difficult for us in the second half — but the fluidity of the first half was mesmerising. I think the wide positions he found are totally in line with the functions of the system, but if you were to map the game, it looked like Barnes was playing up top alone a lot of the time insofar as him not having a conventional strike partner within fifteen yards of him, which (deceivingly) makes it look like a traditional 5-1 or a 2-3-1, but you throw Roberts and Maatsen's positioning throughout the game into the mix and a definable shape goes out of the window, which speaks to the fluidity of the system.

I've used the word 'role' above, and I think I'd like to correct/elaborate on that. 'Role' implies specific responsibilities for particular players, and I think that was a clumsy term for me to use and contradicts the fluidity of the system. Hmm, how to put this? I believe that thinking in terms of "situational responsibilities" is a more appropriate way of thinking about the system. So Costelloe (or any other forward we will play in his position), deployed as a striker, takes on the responsibilities within a system that any given passage of play demands based on the passage of play itself. I think he found himself in wide positions not in pursuit of a particular team shape, but because that's where the space was available to exploit. I hope I'm making sense!

Really interesting analysis Spiral and yes, makes sense!

One thing that struck me in the second half re your comment on hunting in packs - going into defense when losing possession, even in our own final third, didn't mean going back into the framework like it has done for so long. It expected and relied on the ability of the players to proactively win the ball back. Perhaps that was easier tonight than it might be in future games, as Huddersfield didn't appear all that, but was a very striking change in approach.

ksrclaret wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:34 pm

Could anyone work out what formation they were playing and who was playing where?

Everyone in midfield seemed to be popping up everywhere and I couldn't work it out

pretty clear

Has anyone seen the film Everything, Everywhere, All At Once?

This is how we play.

Scampi wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:37 am

One thing that struck me in the second half re your comment on hunting in packs - going into defense when losing possession, even in our own final third, didn't mean going back into the framework like it has done for so long. It expected and relied on the ability of the players to proactively win the ball back. Perhaps that was easier tonight than it might be in future games, as Huddersfield didn't appear all that, but was a very striking change in approach.

Yeah, this was really noticeable. The old system worked for us for a long time, so I'm not knocking it or anything, but there's almost this "how bloody dare you dispossess us, that's our ball" approach with this way of playing, rather than the old "right lads, form ranks" mentality whenever we lost possession. This system demands pressure, the old system was about jockeying the ball carrier in non-goalscoring positions and closing gaps. If we could see heat maps of tackle positions for this coming season compared to the average over the last three seasons, I guarantee successful tackle positions will be deeper with the old system that with this system. This system makes heroes of the midfielders, the old system made heroes of the four defenders.

This system is a high risk, high reward system, because we expose ourselves to being undone with a single pass and a bit of pace, whereas two deep banks of four requires a bit more guile to break down. But what we trade away in defensive stubbornness we gain in domination of the ball (every moment in possession by necessity reduces the time spent defending). I like it. It could unravel, we could be a rude awakening some day, but I love what I've seen tonight.

Sensational tonight. Had numerous lads I know who are bas***** supporters who readily admitted off that they are dredding the Turf (more than likely won't come) in November.

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:26 am

.

Thunderstorms in Crawley, Salisbury and Shrewsbury?

It's a good thing we don't have a new manager and that we haven't sold any players, otherwise we'd have been right up against it

Great analysis Spiral.

I’m obviously a football fan but to be explain that in words is impressive. My brother wasn’t with me tonight and I was wanting to explain how we played and you’ve done that perfectly!

Interested to know if you’re educated football coaching? Or is this something you’ve self learnt on Football Manager (no offence intended by that whatsoever…!).

Spiral is spot on, excellent description of how we operate now. I’ll add that when we lose possession the opposition will not necessarily be able to hit us hard quickly on a counter (unless they also play like we did) because they’ll fear us winning the ball back and putting them under immediate pressure again.

I’m still buzzing this morning…

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 12:26 am

.

Global warming in action!

Champagne football on beer money. And Stan said it couldn't be done.

TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 8:45 am

Champagne football on beer money. And Stan said it couldn't be done.

Champagne football on Dyche money!

It’s a great start from Kompany and very promising. Long may it last.

Swizzlestick wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 29, 2022 11:16 pm

Yeah we definitely looked a “predictable, wide open” team tonight. god I know they’re not blessed with the greatest levels of intelligence up the M65, but they never fail to excel themselves

Yeah I live up in Northumberland and up in the North East its well known that Middlesbrough have an extremely small gene pool with remarkably few brain cells amongst them!

We weren't wide open but the way we play will leave us vulnerable, from time to time, to counter-attacks against stronger opposition.That is the price you pay for playing with full-backs providing advanced width and not playing three centre-halves. Obviously Cullen and Cork have the job of dropping into the back line when full-backs advance but that isn't always going to work -- especially when attacked down the flanks.

We will also need to do much better in the final third. Barnes and Costelloe obviously can't be the strike force for the season. Jay would have put away one or two of those first half chances. But another striker seems a no-brainer for the transfer market.

I worked with a lot of "Teeside Tosspots" ,as I referred to them, and their bigotry was immense. Hated anything and everything from outside the Boro but did save a special hatred for the "Mackems."

forzagranata wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 11:02 am

Jay would have put away one or two of those first half chances.

Frome some of last season's efforts I have my doubts.

He would have buried the two chances that Costelleo made a hash of. But I'd love to see Delap in that side.

Another stat

The two shots we faced in the match were the fewest we’ve faced in a league match since Nov 2011 against Ipswich

Wilson wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:25 am

Great analysis Spiral.

I’m obviously a football fan but to be explain that in words is impressive. My brother wasn’t with me tonight and I was wanting to explain how we played and you’ve done that perfectly!

Interested to know if you’re educated football coaching? Or is this something you’ve self learnt on Football Manager (no offence intended by that whatsoever…!).

Nah, nothing like that, just articles and stuff. Some of them have been posted on this forum! Just trying to match what I saw last night to what I expected based on Kompany's system in Anderlecht.

It didn't look 4-2-2-2 to me more like 4-2-3-1; Costelloe was wider and deeper than a front player.

The midfield is flooded but it would be interesting to see a proper 4-2-2-2 with Barnes and Rodriguez cope with a team that has good wide players in a 4-5-1, which can both flood the midfield and provide a lot of width.

This style looks incredibly difficult to play against. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Luton, and other teams beyond, will be more prepared to face it than Huddersfield were.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:23 pm

This style looks incredibly difficult to play against. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Luton, and other teams beyond, will be more prepared to face it than Huddersfield were.

Well yes the narrowness of the play gave Maatsen a free run on the left but at the same time a team that operate with width would equally leave him open to counter attacks.

The Burnley team of 2016/17 would have just sat in front of all the midfield play, generated a lot of width on the counter through Ward and Lowton with Defour and Gray disrupting the high press.

Mind you - you have to have quality players to play as we did last evening or as we did in 2016/16 I'm not sure how many teams in this division have that quality.

I think goals and keeping the first X1 fit may mean we fall short of promotion.

ClaretPete001 wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:13 pm

It didn't look 4-2-2-2 to me more like 4-2-3-1; Costelloe was wider and deeper than a front player.

The midfield is flooded but it would be interesting to see a proper 4-2-2-2 with Barnes and Rodriguez cope with a team that has good wide players in a 4-5-1, which can both flood the midfield and provide a lot of width.

This passing network is quite interesting and gives reference to the ‘shape’ - where the players circle is, is their ‘average position’

May I ask where you found that, RV? Would love to follow this over the course of the season.

RVclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 2:48 pm

This passing network is quite interesting and gives reference to the ‘shape’ - where the players circle is, is their ‘average position’

Great graphic RV I hadn't seen it but it illustrates the high press and how narrow the formation is with Maatsen's exposure to counter attack. It also shows that VK did not adopt a 4-2-2-2 but Barnes played as a lone striker.

And it also illustrates what you were saying on the other thread about the need for a pacey number 9.

Spiral wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 3:34 pm

May I ask where you found that, RV? Would love to follow this over the course of the season.

It was from scrolling twitter, just a random account of someone who’s into data it seems

https://twitter.com/spartans62/status/1 ... cNTjtAe8Ew

Looking at the graphic confirms what I thought I saw in real time, namely that we set up in more of a 4231 and not with two forwards as I'd expected. The way Kompany and the players adapted it though to slightly shift to the right with Brownhill operating very close to Costelloe allowing space for Maatsen on the counter attack was very clever.

mybloodisclaret wrote: ↑

Sat Jul 30, 2022 1:49 am

Sensational tonight. Had numerous lads I know who are bas***** supporters who readily admitted off that they are dredding the Turf (more than likely won't come) in November.

That's just bad manners after letting them have all the stand

Random additional stat.

According to Radio 5 there were 8 Championship managers in attendance last night to watch Burnley. Presumably because they had no idea of how we would play. Hope they are suitably worried now.

At the risk of sounding like a crazy person denying the evidence in front of my eyes, even though Costelloe's average position was far out wide I'm still not totally sold on this being a deliberate 4231, and I think what we saw is totally consistent with a 4222 setup. I know that sounds ridiculous looking at average positions, but I'd make the argument that a box formation authorises Costelloe to use the space he found out wide for reasons outlined a bit further up the thread. I think there's a valuable distinction to be made between in-game positioning and the setup of a system, because a setup implies certain duties and positional expectations for individual players in accord with the roles they're given within that system, and those roles, when done right, are apparent. I think as fans it's useful for us to intelligently understand what's being attempted, because this will inform our judgements as to how well we're playing as a team, and the performance of individual players, and if we start from a position of fundamentally misunderstanding what is being attempted, we run the risk of demanding things from players they aren't expected to do. Essentially, clarity makes us better critics. I stand to be corrected about everything I'm posting, and quite obviously I defer to the manager and coaches and players, so rather than looking at this in terms of declarative statements, for me it's about interpretation. So then, to defy what I see with my own eyeballs...

Based on his positioning a case can be made for Costelloe playing as a winger in the traditional sense within a 4231, but where do Bastien and Brownhill fit into this? If a case is to be made for a particular setup being deployed, then every part of the system is usually identifiable in a coherent way (this is why systems exist, to provide a coherent tactical approach), and this is where identifying it as a 4231 breaks down for me a little bit. The reason for this is that for it to be coherently identified as a 4231 you'd need to make a case for Bastien being utilised as a winger (the left side of the 3), and Brownhill as a no10 (behind the striker). But aside from being a central midfielder by trade and not a winger, Bastien found himself waaaay further inside than you'd ever expect a winger, and Brownhill a little bit further wide than you'd expect a no10, not to mention the fact that you'd expect Brownhill to get a bit closer to Barnes were he playing in the middle of the 3. You'd also need to make a case for Costelloe being the one tasked with providing width: fair enough, he did that, making a few by-line runs, but he also found himself in central positions more times than you'd expect a winger to be. Roberts did a proper wingback job up and down the right hand side: but why would you play a wingback alongside a winger? Costelloe looked to receive crosses a few times within or nearly within the width of the goalposts — this is where you'd usually find forwards positioning themselves.

So going back to systems being coherent, and the apparentness of the roles being taken up, when looking at Costelloe in isolation his average position map (and also what we all saw with our eyes) might suggest him being utilised as a winger in the traditional sense (which he can play and has done for the U23s), but to be considered a winger within a 4231 would require us to interpret Bastien and Brownhill as taking up positions not typically seen within that system. Could it be argued as being a lop-sided 4231? This seems contrived, because it suggests a game plan to set up to create width on the left from Maatsen alone, but to use two players to create that width on the right hand side with Costelloe and Roberts. If we are to look for an explanation for the setup, the freedom allowed within a 4222 box provides all the answer without having to pat an asterisk next to a 4231. Was our system a system played with a right winger, or a system played with a free-roaming forward playing to his strengths and the opponent's weakness? Like I mentioned above, I think Costelloe found himself on the right because that's where the space was, but this does not necessarily suggest we set up with a winger. A 4222 allows the forward to find those wide positions. So personally I interpret it as Costelloe being a forward in a 4222, rather than a winger in a 4231. This might seem like a distinction without a difference, but go back to my first paragraph and the bit I said about clarity and understanding allowing us to make better critiques.

There's also the fact that on the club's official match report, it said this:

"Kompany handed out six debuts including to academy graduate Dara Costelloe who started up front."