The Working Class v The Posh | Page 4 | Vital Football

The Working Class v The Posh

king_dezeeuw06 said:
The first 45 mins showed Maloney at his best and he completely killed Peterboroughs game with his tactics. But the second did feel like Maloney was again trying to be too clever for his own good tinkering with what was working.
Click to expand...
I get the point you're making KDZ, but don't you think it was because he was trying to anticipate what changes Posh might make at half time?. Being a goal behind, they surely wouldn't/couldn't keep on doing the same stuff that wasn't working in the first half. So, he gambled .... then saw it wasn't working, so made changes, ,... and then, when even that wasn't working, he made further changes which (eventually) did work.
 
Individually

Tickle - made a couple of good saves, took pressure off his back line collecting crosses and composed on the ball.

Sessegnon - ok in the first half on the left side but once he switched to the right defensively he was superb. Stopped so many crosses in 1 on 1s late in the game.

Rekik - out of position at full back for a large part of the game and looked uncomfortable. Was good when asked to do more standard centre back defending but his attempts to play out and run with the ball but often ended up getting himself into trouble.

Hughes - was excellent and nearly scored before McManaman scored a nearly identical chance.

Morrison - another string game, not flashy but does his job very well.

Jones - got a good assist, unlucky to not get a goal and was looking a big threat in the first half. Probably struggled a bit defensively dealing with Peterboroughs strong right hand side. After half time the formation change defensively exposed him as he struggled to prevent crosses and we stopped getting him the ball before he was subbed.

Smith - worked very hard and was always willing to pick up the ball from the defenders under pressure and get us moving up the pitch. Loved the way he was showing for the ball to give Tickle a line breaking pass through the Peterborough press.

Shaw - felt he was immense in his work rate and was non stop all over the pitch. I think we're a better team with him in the side.

Godo - nice cool finish for his goal, always a threat running with the ball and tremendous work rate defensively. In the second half threatened to score a couple of sensational solo goals but I think he was running out of gas before going off.

Lang - he works hard and had 1 good attempt but I think he is still struggling to find his form. Was guilty of losing the ball a lot unfortunately.

Humphrys - every time he picks up the ball it looks like something could happen, but we struggled to get the ball to him in the second half and subbed off.

Sze - took a little while to find his feet and see the ball but by the end did very well. Showing a lot of promise in his cameos this season and nearly scored a late break.

Pearce - initially struggled as he was defensively exposed as a wing back but managed to work his way into the game. One crucial clearance off the line and another assist fir the winner - even if it maybe wasn't exactly what he had planned when he put the ball in.

McManaman - besides his winning goal he made a huge impact for us defensively late on. He was tracking runners, pressing, making tackles and trying to offer the protection Pearce needed.

Stones - came on and battled, probably didn't see as much of the ball as he'd like but did a job for thr team defending from the front.
 
moonay said:
I get the point you're making KDZ, but don't you think it was because he was trying to anticipate what changes Posh might make at half time?. Being a goal behind, they surely wouldn't/couldn't keep on doing the same stuff that wasn't working in the first half. So, he gambled .... then saw it wasn't working, so made changes, ,... and then, when even that wasn't working, he made further changes which (eventually) did work.
Click to expand...

At 1-0 down I don't think there was anything Peterborough could do tactically that would've made switching away from what we were doing to what we did a better option.

Peterborough are a side that thrive on space and we just weren't giving them an inch of it. But then switched to a formation that gave them a lot more and unsurprisingly let them back in the game.

If it was 0-0 or we were losing 1-0 i could see the logic in trying something different but since we were already winning and on top I just thought it was completely counter intuitive.
 
moonay said:
You don't think it's a bit ungracious toward those like Shaw? Second half, those two weren't doing much at all. Ironically, Sessesgnon was poor in the first half, but was in a different class in the second.

It was certainly ungracious toward the manager, who made match winning substitutions ... an assister and a scorer.

One day maybe ... one day.
Click to expand...
We won that despite the substitutions and not because of the substitutions. Maloney must have had a get out of jail free card to escape dropping pointslast night but yes it did take a massive team effort and a poor attacking effort from Peterborough.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
First half Maloney got his tactics spot on we kept our shape, packed midfield to deny them the space to play through us and let their defenders have the ball in non dangerous areas. We pressed intelligently in the right areas funneled them into places we were comfortable. It wasn't the sexy football we've seen at times, but it was very well planned, executed and effective. It was a bit like we were the away team coming and doing a job on the home side, absorbing pressure and punishing them on the break.

It reminded me of what Barnsley and Blackpool did to us earlier in the season - denied us space to play our game, stopped us using our pace and just frustrated us. We lacked a physical presence or target man as we didn't play an out and out striker, so at times we did struggle for an out ball but it also gave us more pace, movement and fluidity that Peterborough found it hard to pick up when we broke. By half time Peterborough probably had good posession stats and a decent number of shots, but most of the posession wasnt threatening and most of their chances were speculative long shots. We on the other had had worked very hard off the ball and been very economic with it, to the point we could've been 2 or 3 up.

Playing a back 4 allowed us to double up defensively and stop overloads on either side although Peterborough were still getting some good balls in down our left. That was probably the only thing we needed to address at half time but otherwise you'd expect us to be doing more of the same. We were smothering them in midfield with our numbers advantage, not giving them any time or space and it felt like we had their number. So I found it absolutely baffling that we decided to change formation and tactics for the second half.

The switch to wing backs meant we couldn't double up defensively in wide areas and Peterborough were immediately able to get their tricky wingers loads more time and space to get balls in. They were able to isolated Jones defensively who we all know isn't a natural defender. The change in shape also saw the midfield press fall apart as we were just all over the place. We went from snuffing them out completely to them being all over us due to our changes.

It was no suprise at all to see Peterborough exploit our wide area's with them getting the cross in from one wing and their goal scorer arriving unmarked from the other wing. It felt like it was coming and Peterborough were finding openings constantly.

We made a couple of changes taking off Jones and Humps for Sze and Pearce and it didn't really seem to help, we obviously lost the creativity and goal threat of 2 of our better attacking players and it didn't really seem to help address the issues. The side looked unbalanced, struggled to keep the ball and we continued to largely be under pressure and hanging on. But when we brought on McManaman and Stones it felt like we regained some balance and threat and their energy and intensity helped get us back into the game.

We took the lead in the last 10 through a superb McManaman strike and saw it out for a big 3 points. Our game management wasn't great, it was just sheer desperation and commitment to throw ourselves in front of everything and thankfully we got over the line.

It was overall a mixed bag for us, great result, first half was tactical master class in controlling the game, professional, diciplined and well planned. The changes for the second half were the exact oppositeand nearly cost us dearly, but fortunately we managed to weather the storm and find a way to grind out a win regardless against a good side in good form.

The first 45 mins showed Maloney at his best and he completely killed Peterboroughs game with his tactics. But the second did feel like Maloney was again trying to be too clever for his own good tinkering with what was working. Fortunately we got away with it this time but I think he is guilty of over thinking things and i know he's trying to outsmart the oposition managers but sometimes even if it is predictable, sticking with what is working well can still be the best option. Nothing wrong with being tactically flexible and taking the odd risk but sometimes you can over do it.

But at the end of the day it's an impressive 3 points and further proof that we are a good side and shouldn't be fearful of anymore in the division. We are still a work in progress but I think there's a lot of good things developing in our play and we've got a lot of potential to be even better as time goes on. I'm not sure if we'll be able to overcome the points deduction to crash the play offs this season but after we've played 46 games I don't think we'll be too far away.
Click to expand...
If I could have been so articulate with my words then that's how I would put it. Well said.
 
jocklatic said:
That cud have been me Runcorn....I was perplexed with the subs n thot SM had balls'd up again, but what the hell do I know, good job I'm not on the sidelines, I'd just carry on with the players who are doing well....didn't realise they were running out of gas.....that's why I'm in the stands I guess 😉
Click to expand...
Apologies for any offence Jock. I'm in E6. My thinking as well on the matter is with yet another game this coming Saturday, he was taking them off to rest them for that game. Same also with Godo who had run himself into the ground.

As much as we all get frustrated by these international breaks, it might come as a welcome relief to rest folk.
 
runcornfan1978 said:
Apologies for any offence Jock. I'm in E6. My thinking as well on the matter is with yet another game this coming Saturday, he was taking them off to rest them for that game. Same also with Godo who had run himself into the ground.

As much as we all get frustrated by these international breaks, it might come as a welcome relief to rest folk.
Click to expand...

No offence taken & you can probably hear me in E6 despite me being all the way down in E2. I try not to get too shouting but then I get caught up in the game & can't help myself 😉
 
To think we achieved this result without arguably our first choice midfield pairing of M Smith and Adeeko is impressive. Who now are our first choice middle two? M Smith and Shaw?
 
jeffs right said:
We won that despite the substitutions and not because of the substitutions. Maloney must have had a get out of jail free card to escape dropping pointslast night but yes it did take a massive team effort and a poor attacking effort from Peterborough.
Click to expand...
You just can't give Maloney any credit at all can you?
People don't seem to appreciate there are two teams out there and the other one was in 4th position in the league, play-off finalists last year and on a 9 game unbeaten run with players and a manager vastly more experienced in L1.
It may not have been that we "let them play" rather it was that they imposed themselves a bit more on our young team.
They were causing us problems down the flanks and Maloney, rightly, thought Ferguson would try to exploit this more in the 2 nd half, so changed things around a bit. I must admit I thought it odd at the time but having takena step back and thought about it then i can understand it.
We were fading going forward as players tired with so many games together. What SM tried to do didn't quite work out but that doesnt mean it was the wrong thing to try.
Bringing on the new forward players did exactly what it was intended, gave us more outlet going forward to take pressure off our defence.
Overall a very enjoyable game, and if you had asked me before the start I would have been happy with a point.
Well done to almost all of the players and SM for a fantastic effort.
Lang does need to get himself sorted out though, the only surprise is that he wasn't subbed off earlier, a shaddow of his former self but possibly parrly due to the different role he is being asked to play
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
At 1-0 down I don't think there was anything Peterborough could do tactically that would've made switching away from what we were doing to what we did a better option.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate but I couldn't disagree more. Turn the game around, and if we're losing 1-0, I'd like to think that the manager would have options for how to better penetrate how the opposition were defending against us.

Yes, we were great in the first half, but we had to expect something different - however subtle - in the second half. Thankfully, twice the manager saw the changes weren't working and did summat about it.
 
jeffs right said:
We won that despite the substitutions and not because of the substitutions. Maloney must have had a get out of jail free card to escape dropping pointslast night but yes it did take a massive team effort and a poor attacking effort from Peterborough.
Click to expand...
I genuinely despair.
 
I thought we sat much too deep from minute 1 and let them stroll to the half way line unchallenged...In contrast they hounded our back line also all night. We rode our luck at times 2nd half but what does anybody expect against a very good side.

Since Morrison was reinstated we have tightened up no end.
 
king_dezeeuw06 said:
At 1-0 down I don't think there was anything Peterborough could do tactically that would've made switching away from what we were doing to what we did a better option.

Peterborough are a side that thrive on space and we just weren't giving them an inch of it. But then switched to a formation that gave them a lot more and unsurprisingly let them back in the game.

If it was 0-0 or we were losing 1-0 i could see the logic in trying something different but since we were already winning and on top I just thought it was completely counter intuitive.
Click to expand...
Maloney switched formation at half time because after about 35 mins Posh switched from a back 4 to a back 3 (5) and created a couple of half decent chances just before half time. We then switched to the same formation presumably to match them up. Seemed fair enough to me even though it may not have worked completely.
 
moonay said:
Sorry mate but I couldn't disagree more. Turn the game around, and if we're losing 1-0, I'd like to think that the manager would have options for how to better penetrate how the opposition were defending against us.

Yes, we were great in the first half, but we had to expect something different - however subtle - in the second half. Thankfully, twice the manager saw the changes weren't working and did summat about it.
Click to expand...

We have identically been on the other end of it with Barnsley and Blackpool, we were 1-0 at half time and they stuck with the tactics we used in the first half last night and we continued to struggle no matter how many men we tried to pile forward we just couldn't find the space or use our pace.

In those games I'd have loved them to have changed the tactics that were killing us they kept on with what was working for them and we kept getting more frustrated and they kept hitting us on the break.

Our half time changes last night were far more helpful to Peterborough than us on paper and in reality, letting their winger go one on one against Jones for example, as it just opened up space they previously didn't have and that's their game - it was just counter intuitive.

Maloney got it completely right in the first half but completely wrong with half time changes and created our own problems that didn't need to be made. Maybe Peterborough would've found a way to play through our packed midfield and press, but they hadn't at that point, so why move away from what is working until they at least started to show they could do that?
 
Last edited:
Roy Race said:
Maloney switched formation at half time because after about 35 mins Posh switched from a back 4 to a back 3 (5) and created a couple of half decent chances just before half time. We then switched to the same formation presumably to match them up. Seemed fair enough to me even though it may not have worked completely.
Click to expand...

They were switching but they were still struggling to find space and we were pretty comfortable.

Their only penetration was coming from our left hand side but we had Jones and Seggesgon doubling up. So moving Sessegon over to the other side and leaving Jones, who's the weaker of the pair defensively to go one on one with their dangerous winger was asking for trouble. If anything at half time i was expecting us to try and get an extra man to help cover that area when defending rather than take one away.
 
Kenny Morris said:
You just can't give Maloney any credit at all can you?
People don't seem to appreciate there are two teams out there and the other one was in 4th position in the league, play-off finalists last year and on a 9 game unbeaten run with players and a manager vastly more experienced in L1.
It may not have been that we "let them play" rather it was that they imposed themselves a bit more on our young team.
They were causing us problems down the flanks and Maloney, rightly, thought Ferguson would try to exploit this more in the 2 nd half, so changed things around a bit. I must admit I thought it odd at the time but having takena step back and thought about it then i can understand it.
We were fading going forward as players tired with so many games together. What SM tried to do didn't quite work out but that doesnt mean it was the wrong thing to try.
Bringing on the new forward players did exactly what it was intended, gave us more outlet going forward to take pressure off our defence.
Overall a very enjoyable game, and if you had asked me before the start I would have been happy with a point.
Well done to almost all of the players and SM for a fantastic effort.
Lang does need to get himself sorted out though, the only surprise is that he wasn't subbed off earlier, a shaddow of his former self but possibly parrly due to the different role he is being asked to play
Click to expand...

To be fair though we didn't let them play in the first half at all. Our shape, press, discipline, etc meant once they crossed the half way line they were struggling to find a decent forward pass. It wasn't Peterborough were bad - we just didn't give them any time or space.

Second half we changed that and it opened up a lot of space and gave them more time on the ball in our half that they previously didn't have. I think it's fair to say we did let them play a lot more in the second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.