Turning the ship around // Part 7: The creative void

[HC Green]

Have you done any analysis on why Argyle played so well against Barnsley and what if anything was different to a game we lost.

 

[NickSS]

Have you done any analysis on why Argyle played so well against Barnsley and what if anything was different to a game we lost.

My take on Barnsley is that they played into our hands. Our greatest weakness is through the middle: running at, through and past our midfield. Oxford demonstrated that perfectly on Saturday; within 5 minutes Henry had jogged past Songo'o and was bearing down on goal for Mackie's opener. The main difference between Oxford and Wimbledon was that the latter did not have the quality of players to exploit that space. Their game (and it very nearly worked) was just to sit deep to reduce our attacking threat and use set-pieces to threaten. Our four best chances came from pretty simple errors: Wimbledon gave the ball away on the edge of their area unnecessarily for two, Ladapo handled for his 1-v-1 and their defence fell entirely asleep to the short corner for Ladapo's winner.
Oddly, Barnsley just played right into our hands. They have quality midfielders (I personally think the best group of CMs in the division) but never really went for Argyle's soft-underbelly. They were far too content to pass the ball simply, sideways and to the wing. I don't know if this was their tactic, the general way they play or just an off day, but the gaps were there to be exploited, but they were too pedestrian in possession. Then, when Argyle had the ball, they didn't press as much as I expected. The reason I'd never advocate Fox playing RCM ahead of CDM is that he is more exposed to the opposition and can be marked or run off the ball easier, but Barnsley just gave him all the space he needed to pass it around in the first half. Second half, they pressed Fox more and got their foot on the ball, but still didn't have the conviction in their play to run at - and past - Argyle's midfield. Nor did they have a CAM to play the ball to and act as a focal point, like Oxford did. So the ball just remained in front of the midfield for most of the game.
All in all, Barnsley bottled it. Wrong system or tactics? Expectation that Argyle would just roll over? Not sure. When I watched it back and saw the expected chasms in midfield, I just expected a player like Potts to charge into them, but he didn't. Decent performance from Argyle, but my biggest take was that Barnsley had simply got it wrong.

 

[HC Green]

Have you done any analysis on why Argyle played so well against Barnsley and what if anything was different to a game we lost.

My take on Barnsley is that they played into our hands. Our greatest weakness is through the middle: running at, through and past our midfield. Oxford demonstrated that perfectly on Saturday; within 5 minutes Henry had jogged past Songo'o and was bearing down on goal for Mackie's opener. The main difference between Oxford and Wimbledon was that the latter did not have the quality of players to exploit that space. Their game (and it very nearly worked) was just to sit deep to reduce our attacking threat and use set-pieces to threaten. Our four best chances came from pretty simple errors: Wimbledon gave the ball away on the edge of their area unnecessarily for two, Ladapo handled for his 1-v-1 and their defence fell entirely asleep to the short corner for Ladapo's winner.
Oddly, Barnsley just played right into our hands. They have quality midfielders (I personally think the best group of CMs in the division) but never really went for Argyle's soft-underbelly. They were far too content to pass the ball simply, sideways and to the wing. I don't know if this was their tactic, the general way they play or just an off day, but the gaps were there to be exploited, but they were too pedestrian in possession. Then, when Argyle had the ball, they didn't press as much as I expected. The reason I'd never advocate Fox playing RCM ahead of CDM is that he is more exposed to the opposition and can be marked or run off the ball easier, but Barnsley just gave him all the space he needed to pass it around in the first half. Second half, they pressed Fox more and got their foot on the ball, but still didn't have the conviction in their play to run at - and past - Argyle's midfield. Nor did they have a CAM to play the ball to and act as a focal point, like Oxford did. So the ball just remained in front of the midfield for most of the game.
All in all, Barnsley bottled it. Wrong system or tactics? Expectation that Argyle would just roll over? Not sure. When I watched it back and saw the expected chasms in midfield, I just expected a player like Potts to charge into them, but he didn't. Decent performance from Argyle, but my biggest take was that Barnsley had simply got it wrong.

Interesting that you give Argyle no credit, and that it was all down to the other teams mistakes. Was that the same when we beat Wimbledon and Bristol City?

 

[moles40]

Have you done any analysis on why Argyle played so well against Barnsley and what if anything was different to a game we lost.

My take on Barnsley is that they played into our hands. Our greatest weakness is through the middle: running at, through and past our midfield. Oxford demonstrated that perfectly on Saturday; within 5 minutes Henry had jogged past Songo'o and was bearing down on goal for Mackie's opener. The main difference between Oxford and Wimbledon was that the latter did not have the quality of players to exploit that space. Their game (and it very nearly worked) was just to sit deep to reduce our attacking threat and use set-pieces to threaten. Our four best chances came from pretty simple errors: Wimbledon gave the ball away on the edge of their area unnecessarily for two, Ladapo handled for his 1-v-1 and their defence fell entirely asleep to the short corner for Ladapo's winner.
Oddly, Barnsley just played right into our hands. They have quality midfielders (I personally think the best group of CMs in the division) but never really went for Argyle's soft-underbelly. They were far too content to pass the ball simply, sideways and to the wing. I don't know if this was their tactic, the general way they play or just an off day, but the gaps were there to be exploited, but they were too pedestrian in possession. Then, when Argyle had the ball, they didn't press as much as I expected. The reason I'd never advocate Fox playing RCM ahead of CDM is that he is more exposed to the opposition and can be marked or run off the ball easier, but Barnsley just gave him all the space he needed to pass it around in the first half. Second half, they pressed Fox more and got their foot on the ball, but still didn't have the conviction in their play to run at - and past - Argyle's midfield. Nor did they have a CAM to play the ball to and act as a focal point, like Oxford did. So the ball just remained in front of the midfield for most of the game.
All in all, Barnsley bottled it. Wrong system or tactics? Expectation that Argyle would just roll over? Not sure. When I watched it back and saw the expected chasms in midfield, I just expected a player like Potts to charge into them, but he didn't. Decent performance from Argyle, but my biggest take was that Barnsley had simply got it wrong.

Interesting that you give Argyle no credit, and that it was all down to the other teams mistakes. Was that the same when we beat Wimbledon and Bristol City?

He is Anti Adams anyway and wants him out.Even last seasons amazing run was down to luck according to him,and no credit was given for that big turnaround either.

So it’s all down to other teams mistakes if Argyle dare to win a game.

It easy to see what’s wrong with Argyle,but even in his huge essays,he can’t seem to offer a decent explanation to how Adams turns it all around.

Be interesting to see his take on things if we win Saturday,most probably luck or Burton failing to turn up for a game :lol:

 

[Nobby]

Be really good to know about passing stats of the defence as I think we are really missing a ball playing CB..

That won't be covered but I can for your right now. In short, we're not.
Last season, Bradley, Vyner and Edwards all had passing % in the low 60s. Vyner and Bradley collectively averaged about 45 passes per game, roughly split 25-20 Bradey:Vyner.
However, CBs generally don't need to be good at passing, especially at this level, for a team to succeed. It's the midfield that needs to be able to pass. Bradley and Vyner had Fox in his best position - the one that Songo'o has been in most of this season - and he virtually always presented himself for a pass to receive the ball and move it into another player in space. Songo'o doesn't do that.

With Vyner, a simple pass completed stat doesn't do him justice in my opinion. Firstly, his passing helped to start attacks, whereas Bradley's was often long, sideways or to Fox. Vyner would often pass direct (on the floor) forward through the midfield and helped the ball transition quicker. Likewise, he - like Curtis Nelson years before - would carry the ball himself very comfortably and this helps to draw players towards him opening space for our midfield to operate in. None of our current centre backs look anywhere near able to carry the ball forward. Nelson would sometimes run 20/25 yards with the ball and beat a man. Vyner was not too dissimilar and I think it is something we are missing. Not to mention he was a bloody good defender.

 

[davie nine]

Nelson was capable of carrying the ball forward at pace, but, from my recollection, his final pass was not that accurate.

 

[Pogleswoody]

Nelson was capable of carrying the ball forward at pace, but, from my recollection, his final pass was not that accurate.

He used to make me laugh cos he would ghost out of our area with the ball and slide past three or four players at pace but, when he got near their box with one to beat, he would always look to pass/lay it off which he wasn't great at. Did he ever get free into the box and have a poke? possibly score? I don't remember any tbh.

I never worked out if he ran out of puff … or confidence!!?? :lol:

 

[davie nine]

Zackly!!

 

[NickSS]

Have you done any analysis on why Argyle played so well against Barnsley and what if anything was different to a game we lost.

My take on Barnsley is that they played into our hands. Our greatest weakness is through the middle: running at, through and past our midfield. Oxford demonstrated that perfectly on Saturday; within 5 minutes Henry had jogged past Songo'o and was bearing down on goal for Mackie's opener. The main difference between Oxford and Wimbledon was that the latter did not have the quality of players to exploit that space. Their game (and it very nearly worked) was just to sit deep to reduce our attacking threat and use set-pieces to threaten. Our four best chances came from pretty simple errors: Wimbledon gave the ball away on the edge of their area unnecessarily for two, Ladapo handled for his 1-v-1 and their defence fell entirely asleep to the short corner for Ladapo's winner.
Oddly, Barnsley just played right into our hands. They have quality midfielders (I personally think the best group of CMs in the division) but never really went for Argyle's soft-underbelly. They were far too content to pass the ball simply, sideways and to the wing. I don't know if this was their tactic, the general way they play or just an off day, but the gaps were there to be exploited, but they were too pedestrian in possession. Then, when Argyle had the ball, they didn't press as much as I expected. The reason I'd never advocate Fox playing RCM ahead of CDM is that he is more exposed to the opposition and can be marked or run off the ball easier, but Barnsley just gave him all the space he needed to pass it around in the first half. Second half, they pressed Fox more and got their foot on the ball, but still didn't have the conviction in their play to run at - and past - Argyle's midfield. Nor did they have a CAM to play the ball to and act as a focal point, like Oxford did. So the ball just remained in front of the midfield for most of the game.
All in all, Barnsley bottled it. Wrong system or tactics? Expectation that Argyle would just roll over? Not sure. When I watched it back and saw the expected chasms in midfield, I just expected a player like Potts to charge into them, but he didn't. Decent performance from Argyle, but my biggest take was that Barnsley had simply got it wrong.

Interesting that you give Argyle no credit, and that it was all down to the other teams mistakes. Was that the same when we beat Wimbledon and Bristol City?

He is Anti Adams anyway and wants him out.Even last seasons amazing run was down to luck according to him,and no credit was given for that big turnaround either.

So it’s all down to other teams mistakes if Argyle dare to win a game.

It easy to see what’s wrong with Argyle,but even in his huge essays,he can’t seem to offer a decent explanation to how Adams turns it all around.

Be interesting to see his take on things if we win Saturday,most probably luck or Burton failing to turn up for a game :lol:

Many responses to this. Firstly, the answer regarding Barnsley in relation to Wimbledon and Oxford was only a brief one. I could write several thousands of words describing how each was slightly different etc. When I watch a game (live or as a replay), I ignore the result and focus on the style of play of each side, how the styles of play interacted, how the sides responded to the other's style of play, and therefore which side was in most control of the match and consequently performed the better.
Given that Argyle lined up with the same side (and, most importantly, the same midfield) in each match, and tried to play the same way. I chose to briefly focus on why three different opponents produced three different styles of match resulting in three different results.
The Wimbledon match in particular was heralded as a new dawn by many because of the result rather than any consideration of the performance, which was very poor. If you're interested, I can go into far more detail - please just ask - but for now I'll leave it at that.

Regarding Bristol City, that's an example of Adams getting everything absolutely right. I don't think I'd have changed a single member of that line-up. Spot on tactically, rode our luck a bit but we were playing a side who are quite evidently much better than us. After the line-up last season, I believe I spent an hour swearing, calling him an idiot and claiming that we were going to be thumped 5-0. At the time I thought I was exaggerating a bit but still mostly correct (expecting 3-0 or 3-1), but proved to be pretty accurate. This time around, Argyle deserved the win I thought. Perfect example of how to play a much better side who were going to dominate possession. Starting that side against Coventry however... I believe I was swearing again.

Regarding the follow up comments:

Firstly, I'm not Adams out. I'm borderline, and have been for a while, and that's down to his very poor team selection throughout the season. The series of articles are mostly designed to articulate why his team selection has been bad. I.e. focusing on why starting Songo'o over Fox is the wrong thing to do.
I don't even want him to go! I want him to turn it around. I love what he is doing for the wider club. I am very supportive of the DoF role he was granted and, more than anything, I'm frustrated that it's not working out. Even when I do get to Adams out levels, I hope that - like last season - the board ignores the fans and Adams eventually turns it around. He has all the pieces required to do so. His recruitment wasn't bad, but his tactics have been. In fact, rather than just tweeting Adams out I'd say that I've done a reasonably good job of describing my issues with how things currently are.

Second and third:

It was this kind of tactical genius that helped to elevate a series of relatively average individuals – each with their own flaws – into one of the best midfields in the division. Adams put together a unit that accentuated each other’s strengths and minimized their weaknesses.

THAT is how Adams turns it around. Part two, three and four all have one overriding message: sort out the midfield and it will sort out the performances! Not entirely, obviously, there are lots of other areas that could be perfected, but the midfield is the biggest individual factor in Argyle's poor start. Fox back in CDM with Sarcevic & Ness ahead of him will allow Argyle to control possession better (Part 2), Sarcevic starting will increase the solidity of the midfield's defensive line (part 3 & 4), Sarcevic will also provide more attacking movement to help Argyle create chances (part 3).
Ideally, it'll be Fox, Sarcevic and one of Ness, O'Keefe or Conor Grant. I actually think Argyle will perform well this weekend. They might not win, but - assuming Adams doesn't go for a radical change in formation - I think that, with Songo'o suspended, Fox back in his best position and Sarcevic restored, Argyle will at the very least perform well.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Or just stick the ball in the back of the net more times than the other team!

 

[HC Green]

Have you done any analysis on why Argyle played so well against Barnsley and what if anything was different to a game we lost.

My take on Barnsley is that they played into our hands. Our greatest weakness is through the middle: running at, through and past our midfield. Oxford demonstrated that perfectly on Saturday; within 5 minutes Henry had jogged past Songo'o and was bearing down on goal for Mackie's opener. The main difference between Oxford and Wimbledon was that the latter did not have the quality of players to exploit that space. Their game (and it very nearly worked) was just to sit deep to reduce our attacking threat and use set-pieces to threaten. Our four best chances came from pretty simple errors: Wimbledon gave the ball away on the edge of their area unnecessarily for two, Ladapo handled for his 1-v-1 and their defence fell entirely asleep to the short corner for Ladapo's winner.
Oddly, Barnsley just played right into our hands. They have quality midfielders (I personally think the best group of CMs in the division) but never really went for Argyle's soft-underbelly. They were far too content to pass the ball simply, sideways and to the wing. I don't know if this was their tactic, the general way they play or just an off day, but the gaps were there to be exploited, but they were too pedestrian in possession. Then, when Argyle had the ball, they didn't press as much as I expected. The reason I'd never advocate Fox playing RCM ahead of CDM is that he is more exposed to the opposition and can be marked or run off the ball easier, but Barnsley just gave him all the space he needed to pass it around in the first half. Second half, they pressed Fox more and got their foot on the ball, but still didn't have the conviction in their play to run at - and past - Argyle's midfield. Nor did they have a CAM to play the ball to and act as a focal point, like Oxford did. So the ball just remained in front of the midfield for most of the game.
All in all, Barnsley bottled it. Wrong system or tactics? Expectation that Argyle would just roll over? Not sure. When I watched it back and saw the expected chasms in midfield, I just expected a player like Potts to charge into them, but he didn't. Decent performance from Argyle, but my biggest take was that Barnsley had simply got it wrong.

Interesting that you give Argyle no credit, and that it was all down to the other teams mistakes. Was that the same when we beat Wimbledon and Bristol City?

He is Anti Adams anyway and wants him out.Even last seasons amazing run was down to luck according to him,and no credit was given for that big turnaround either.

So it’s all down to other teams mistakes if Argyle dare to win a game.

It easy to see what’s wrong with Argyle,but even in his huge essays,he can’t seem to offer a decent explanation to how Adams turns it all around.

Be interesting to see his take on things if we win Saturday,most probably luck or Burton failing to turn up for a game :lol:

Many responses to this. Firstly, the answer regarding Barnsley in relation to Wimbledon and Oxford was only a brief one. I could write several thousands of words describing how each was slightly different etc. When I watch a game (live or as a replay), I ignore the result and focus on the style of play of each side, how the styles of play interacted, how the sides responded to the other's style of play, and therefore which side was in most control of the match and consequently performed the better.
Given that Argyle lined up with the same side (and, most importantly, the same midfield) in each match, and tried to play the same way. I chose to briefly focus on why three different opponents produced three different styles of match resulting in three different results.
The Wimbledon match in particular was heralded as a new dawn by many because of the result rather than any consideration of the performance, which was very poor. If you're interested, I can go into far more detail - please just ask - but for now I'll leave it at that.

Regarding Bristol City, that's an example of Adams getting everything absolutely right. I don't think I'd have changed a single member of that line-up. Spot on tactically, rode our luck a bit but we were playing a side who are quite evidently much better than us. After the line-up last season, I believe I spent an hour swearing, calling him an idiot and claiming that we were going to be thumped 5-0. At the time I thought I was exaggerating a bit but still mostly correct (expecting 3-0 or 3-1), but proved to be pretty accurate. This time around, Argyle deserved the win I thought. Perfect example of how to play a much better side who were going to dominate possession. Starting that side against Coventry however... I believe I was swearing again.

Regarding the follow up comments:

Firstly, I'm not Adams out. I'm borderline, and have been for a while, and that's down to his very poor team selection throughout the season. The series of articles are mostly designed to articulate why his team selection has been bad. I.e. focusing on why starting Songo'o over Fox is the wrong thing to do.
I don't even want him to go! I want him to turn it around. I love what he is doing for the wider club. I am very supportive of the DoF role he was granted and, more than anything, I'm frustrated that it's not working out. Even when I do get to Adams out levels, I hope that - like last season - the board ignores the fans and Adams eventually turns it around. He has all the pieces required to do so. His recruitment wasn't bad, but his tactics have been. In fact, rather than just tweeting Adams out I'd say that I've done a reasonably good job of describing my issues with how things currently are.

Second and third:

It was this kind of tactical genius that helped to elevate a series of relatively average individuals – each with their own flaws – into one of the best midfields in the division. Adams put together a unit that accentuated each other’s strengths and minimized their weaknesses.

THAT is how Adams turns it around. Part two, three and four all have one overriding message: sort out the midfield and it will sort out the performances! Not entirely, obviously, there are lots of other areas that could be perfected, but the midfield is the biggest individual factor in Argyle's poor start. Fox back in CDM with Sarcevic & Ness ahead of him will allow Argyle to control possession better (Part 2), Sarcevic starting will increase the solidity of the midfield's defensive line (part 3 & 4), Sarcevic will also provide more attacking movement to help Argyle create chances (part 3).
Ideally, it'll be Fox, Sarcevic and one of Ness, O'Keefe or Conor Grant. I actually think Argyle will perform well this weekend. They might not win, but - assuming Adams doesn't go for a radical change in formation - I think that, with Songo'o suspended, Fox back in his best position and Sarcevic restored, Argyle will at the very least perform well.

I don’t believe that you start your analysis from a neutral position but are looking for stats to back up your prejudices either good or bad about individual players or the management.

 

[NickSS]

With Vyner, a simple pass completed stat doesn't do him justice in my opinion. Firstly, his passing helped to start attacks, whereas Bradley's was often long, sideways or to Fox. Vyner would often pass direct (on the floor) forward through the midfield and helped the ball transition quicker. Likewise, he - like Curtis Nelson years before - would carry the ball himself very comfortably and this helps to draw players towards him opening space for our midfield to operate in. None of our current centre backs look anywhere near able to carry the ball forward. Nelson would sometimes run 20/25 yards with the ball and beat a man. Vyner was not too dissimilar and I think it is something we are missing. Not to mention he was a bloody good defender.

I agree - Vyner or Nelson would probably be better individual centre backs than any of the current four we have. No disputing that. And those are simple stats, you're quite right, as I was only responding to someone's request about the passing stats. Any answers I provide to questions on PASOTI are going to be less detailed than the ones I write in my articles.
You're also right that none of the current lot have the ability to carry the ball forward as either Nelson or Vyner did, but my short response to that is it's not what Argyle are missing. You can always find improvements to any side. A knowledgeable Wigan fan could probably point out a handful of areas to you in which they could have improved (marginally) their side's overall performances last season, despite accumulating 98 points. No sides are perfect, and there are always improvements to be made, but re-signing Nelson or Vyner would make a marginal difference to this current side. The midfield is, and remains, THE problem area. Sorting that will be the biggest step towards turning the season around.

 

[davie nine]

Your post at 2:24 sounds logical, Nick providing Ness and Sarcevic are back to full fitness.

I hope that you are right.

 

[NickSS]

I don’t believe that you start your analysis from a neutral position but are looking for stats to back up your prejudices either good or bad about individual players or the management.

I'm just going to cut the rest of that off to save this ballooning!
That's fair enough - if you believe that then there's little chance of me persuading you that I'm not.
There is probably some of that involved - none of us are entirely objective, even if we would like to be seen as such.
What I would say in response is that my opinions probably aren't entirely right. However, I have spend a long time watching back every game from the last two seasons (most of them twice, many of them - unfortunately, including, including Scunthorpe 4-0, Bristol C 5-0 and Doncaster 3-0 - more than twice) and trying to understand what works, what doesn't and - most importantly - why. I pay an awful lot of attention to detail when doing this to record the most accuracy stats possible.
My views weren't always this way. Believe it or not, until roughly December 2017, I actually supported Songo'o starting ahead of Fox in the 4-3-2-1! In this way, I do try to analyse matches fairly to determine how Argyle truly performed and why. I'm not just trying to be a downer.
In fact, I like to think they're positive. The main starting point for these articles is to consider why a side, which retained most of its lineup from last season, improved it's backups, has started so poorly. It's all framed in the context of how to get back to performing like that amazing side from last season. This isn't just a diatribe against Adams. It's meant to be a thought provoking and analytical take on the current situation.
I am, of course, liable to be wrong, but I do try to self-critique my ideas, and feedback like this is useful for informing me about opinions on my writing style and how I present my ideas, so thank you.

 

[Lesley Somerville]

https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sport/ ... g2sLwY5Mx8

Looks like DA didn't get the memo - but maybe being forced to play without Songo'o will bring about the epiphany