And because I enjoy doing stupid postmortem...
What exactly went wrong last Saturday? Firstly, let me just say that our centre back pairing is quite wonky upon a big ass hindsight. I don't have any problem with Andre Bikey being one of the two starting CBs, but George Friend was pretty much a touch and go (Yes, this is me firing the infamous horse back cannon, i.e. 放马后炮).
Actually on a major hindsight, George Friend is a versatile defender able to play either at the leftback or centreback, so I truly hope that Selhurst-gate will be nothing than just a flash grenade. What truly got me worried though is that was Bikey truly comfortable with his Friend? Bikey is a defender who can operate at either rightback or centreback. However he's also prone to an occasional fatal lapse in concentration (don't believe me, just go ask the St Andrews faithful) and I can't be sure whether he was comfortable throughout the 90 mins plus stoppage. Hopefully I'm just thinking too much. But still being a defender having the kind of footballing brain second only to Jonathan Woodgate did ring an almighty fire alarm in this paranoid bastard now.
Simply put, will it for the best to see a Bikey-Woodgate pairing? Maybe I should just say this will be my most ideal centreback pairing. The only problem? Woody is horrendously prone to injury, so such a pairing is not that probable. Unless by some chance delivered from the footballing pantheon, someone is truly able to utilise Bikey's athleticism. Simply put, can adrenaline be the key to a possible shock therapy? Not as in any banned substances of course, but rather increasing the focus through the adrenaline rush (and to be fair, you can't really generate that much adrenaline just by riding a mountain bike). So let's just take a look at a very simple (improbable) equation:
Bikey+Woody=most ideal pairing
Bikey+Woody=a two line based central defensive partnership.
Bikey being the first line of defence with Woody being the second man behind? Using Bikey's athleticism with Woody's superior reading of the game to dictate the central defensive line(s)? I dunno if it's a plausible option to be fair.
And what truly caused Selhurst-gate in the first place?
That 9th minute goal. To me, that's what truly killed us off. Let's take a look at what kind of team is Crystal Palace under the leadership of Ian "Mad Ian" Holloway. A lot has been said on the starting front 3 scoring for fun like a trio of studs. In particular, Wilfried Zaha was hailed as Palace's messiah in black despite the fact that he is now Man Utd's player (read: please start finding a replacement asap, Mad Ian). My own take on Palace's strength? We're talking about the middle 3 instead.
Now the 3 blokes playing in the middle irregular line are what truly make Palace tick as a unit. 3 London studs scoring for fun ain't some coincidence (unless your name starts with John and ends at Terry). In fact, we can't really identify Zaha with Ashley "a certain hot and single Cheryl is my ex" Cole. One is a leftback, the other is... well, a wing forward lol! Okay, jokes aside, I think we need to think a bit about the kind of prolific scoring record the Selhurst faithful are now lapping up with aplomb: Is it truly unlikely that without vital support from the middle 3, we'll never see a free scoring Palace of studs? To me, that's the only reason why we're seeing an attractive football coming from an English gaffer (which is a bloody miracle given how some of the SMBs can afford to call their beloved Sunderland AFC the Barca of England where in fact it's most likely the Beirut of England).
Maybe we should try visualising things this way: a zonal attacking system where more oft than not, the midfielders will end up pushing the ball possession upwards. All the way up to the front 3. Simply put, its all about shifting the focus of possession from the middle to most forefront. By my own estimation, 60% of ball dominance will be bossed by the forward line in no fault due to the midfield pushing upwards behind the frontline in order to create a constant pressure. The only catch?
Palace is a team depending on early impetuous
What if we had never conceded that 9th minute early goal? To me, we would have a decent chance in getting at least a point. Now if only Mogga had started with a three hard man midfield together with McEachran as our creative spark playing from the deep. In short, I'm perfectly fine with either Bailey or Smallwood replacing Haroun since that Belgian could have easily became our ace in the pack (bench).
Simply put, can you imagine the kind of situation where Palace can't even lay a single egg? It's one thing to press the opponent team against the corner and quite another to see the opposing defence staying strong deeply. The former would have presented a decent chance of popping that most vital opener while the latter case is nothing less than a secret recipe for horse sashimi. Have you ever wonder what will happen once Palace start losing steam? It might be far plausible than you think. Because if you can keep yourselves organised at the back, it means that you can actually go one step further and try giving Mad Ian that all too famous atomic wedgie.
And how would you plan to do that?
Counter possession is out of the question, pushing possession beyond the frontal line is the key. Simply put, what would have happened to Palace once we're able to force the ball possession back to the midfield area? Utter chaos if I say so myself. Because the front 3 will be starved of ball supply, they will have to try tracking back the ball or risk turning into their own equivalent of horse sashimi. See what I mean when I say having three defensive midfielders is my preferred starting choice? ;)
Come to think of it, has Leicester City played them yet? Nigel Pearson, hope you're watching this space.
Application of postmortem come Tuesday
Burnley will be our greatest acid test yet. A lot of our final fortunes will boil down the how we can shoot that damned March Hare and we'll be seeing that damned rabbit hopping by soon enough. Scarily enough, whatever could have been utilised against Palace CAN be used at Turf Moor. Why?
Our 4-5-1 is not your 4-5-1
In short, having 5 big blokes parked across the midfield is just like imagining 5 five tonners being parked across the CTE. Sound nightmarish? I know because CTE kenna jam=****ed up peak hour period. But crude digression aside, Burnley will be out to set up shop. To mass disrupt the entire middle park, to unsettle us right from the start, and perhaps the most dangerous of them all, seeing set pieces flying all over like Saddam Hussein's Al Hussein (no joking there because Saddam did indeed use that potent shit during his military career as the president of Iraq. O.o).
Now a lot of our defeats thus far 2013 wasn't down to an unlucky Boro 13. It's far more of a fatal lapse coming from our back 4 especially in terms of set piece defending. Ironically somewhat, that's the reason why we didn't deserve to lose against Cardiff at away back then (only shot on target=GOAL!!!! But srsly guys, WTF man?!).
Simply put, Burnley will be relishing this fight. Not only because it's all about 3 points being their's to lose, but above all our morale might have plummeted down to Ground Zero. Try imagining how to shoot a dog while it's down. It's truly that serious, it's truly that dire.
Now I've seen Burnley's match approach vs Bolton last Sat. Apparently, if Dougie Freedman is someone best known as a 4-5-1 master, then it wouldn't make any sense for Sean Dyche to say "okay, let's be a douche and let us play 4-5-1 againstTop Doug's 4-5-1" unless it's truly something Burnley is now used to match in, match out.
How Burnley's 4-5-1 works by my own estimation is this: A compact back 4 supporting a compact middle 5. This is your most basic WMD, i.e. Weapons of Mass Disruption. Coupled with a big centre forward and you'll have Saddam Hussein's greatest envy completed. Interestingly enough, Sean Dyche is capable of creating a 4-2-3-1 variation. That was during Turf Moor's 1-0 win over Mad Ian's lads. However, it's also noteworthy to see that Mad Ian also opted for a 4-2-31. Yet, that will only mean playing around with personnel. When comes to basic approach, there HAS to be a common focal point. And to me, it's very likely that should Burnley pull off a 4-2-3-1 variation, that will only mean pushing the midfield line upwards. Simply put, I can still easily envision a flat 4-5-1 style WMD due to 4-2-3=4-5. No prizes for guessing correctly why I left out The Final One (sorry to Mr Ken Lim. That's intended as a parody if by any freak case you're reading this).
So how should we go about approaching the match? Burnley's 4-5-1 is totally different from Martin O'Neill's failure 4-5-1 last time round. MON is a master of counter attacking from the deep via two speeding out and out wingers and a big ass centre forward/two striker system. Sean Dyche's approach will be very likely to be far more up in your face. I truly doubt they will be content in sitting back because if there's anything to go by via his 4-2-3-1 variation, it can be very likely that he does have a couple of hardworking wingers or four. Simply put, what he has are players capable of going forward and tracking back. However, I truly doubt this is a team based on a passing football philosophy. In short, how will we deal with that post 6 ft fellow? Whoever he is, it is vital to look out for those BEHIND him rather than just staring at him slack-jawed.
Final climax (because I need to sleep soon now)
Which means we might need to know how an anvil-hammer system works. Anyone who have played the Warhammer Fantasy Battle should know this very well. Especially since 8th Ed has now gone officially gay for ranked warfare. And why I'm invoking the existence of something seemingly unrelated is this: Can we create our very own anvil-hammer system?
Try to see things this way: If our back 4 can hold firm with our middle 4/5 compacting themselves into our defensive third (yes, 1/3 and not 1/2 for all you fractional idiots out there), what will happen next? Remember what I've said on that post 6 ft bloke? Once he gets the ball, it'll be time to shoot on sight. No questions asked, no prisoners taken. Cut that fella adrift before his merry Dingles joined him up front. Because once shit happens, there will be NO turning back. Ideally, we might need two lads gunning forward in advance with the rest staying back as a contingency. Once we manage to frustrate them, it will be time to truly gun forward. In short, we really need Haroun, we might really need a bloody 4-5-1 this time round.
The only problem? We'll just have to hope McEachran won't be chucked aside from the starting line up this time round.
No comments:
Post a Comment