Ipswich 3-4 Leeds - Post Match Debate. UNCUT ANGLES

[AcrossThePondAsh]

Agree! We need to judge the longer standing players on this season's performance under a competent coaching team. We should be keeping James, Gelhardt and a few of the other guys who have been here a while, returning from loans etc.
Let's face it, since Bielsa left, coaching has been as much of a shitshow as anything else, and we had f**kheads like Mckennie come in with a poor work ethic and/or attitude. No squad cohesion

One of the things I look forward to in the coming months is how players develop. Look at Rutter. Today was the first time we've seem him show snippets of the footballer we saw on his highlight reel.

I feel the same way. After seeing what DF and the team have achieved in such a short amount of time and with some significant injuries and issues, albeit with plenty of work still to do, I can't wait to see where we are in another few months.

[weasel]

Isn't criticising a manager tactically OK? Of this was Marsch would he not have been criticised for conceding 3 goals and 20 shots at goal?

Farke built his reputation as a high pressing attack minded possession coach.

Not a defensively sound sit back and counter coach.

His teams cant defend, he can't coach them to defend. His Norwich team controlled games so limited chances etc.

But if you read the forum defensively Farke is poor and today that showed.

He set us up not to press but to keep the high line and make the pitch narrow.

So Ipswich had plenty of time to pick long balls over the top and down the sides whilst there man advantage in midfield meant they had an extra runner who was difficult to track when they got wide and cut back.

We won because of our superior players today in attack (that's fine) .

But Farke should go back to what he has had success with.

Press high and keep the ball.

You wouldn't see Neil Warnock telling his team to play like Brighton.

Farke should stick to what he knows.

It's strange how one of the constant criticisms leveled at Bielsa was his supposed refusal to change tactics. Farke changed tactics and got the win, for me that is job done. Even if to you it seemed like Ali's rope a dope tactic it won the match and perhaps by playing our usual way it would have played into Ipswich's hand and we may have been saying good performance shame about the result. If Farke had got everything tactically spot on the most we could have got was a win, we got a win and to be fair it was a deserved win. We carried more threat and Ipswich got lucky with all their goals.

We played with 4 up top, 4 attacking players of which none are particularly noted for their defensive qualities. You and others are keen to sl@g off roadrunner James who works his socks off both offensively and defensviely, similarly with Harrison, similar with Bamford etc but that is the flip side. Control possesion look less likely to score but more solid and win more possesion or approach the match and say let's see if our bazooka beats your peashooter and try to fire as many rounds off as possible whilst leaving yourself open to getting shot at.

[weasel]

That's not what i asked you, what hell was there today at the game when Willy played ?

Don't waste your time waiting for a response. Go simply changes to another point every time he loses the argument, Trumpism at its best.

[weasel]

I celebrated Sini’s goal by putting my head on my wife’s shoulder & saying “thank f… for that”.
Mind you we still had time to mess it up. Funny game in some ways but entertaining though. Ipswich are a really decent side in fairness

I hope you managed to fool the locals into thinking you were an Ipswich fan by telling them all how s**t Ipswich were and how great Leeds are by comparison.....

[Cjay]

It's strange how one of the constant criticisms leveled at Bielsa was his supposed refusal to change tactics. Farke changed tactics and got the win, for me that is job done. Even if to you it seemed like Ali's rope a dope tactic it won the match and perhaps by playing our usual way it would have played into Ipswich's hand and we may have been saying good performance shame about the result. If Farke had got everything tactically spot on the most we could have got was a win, we got a win and to be fair it was a deserved win. We carried more threat and Ipswich got lucky with all their goals.

We played with 4 up top, 4 attacking players of which none are particularly noted for their defensive qualities. You and others are keen to sl@g off roadrunner James who works his socks off both offensively and defensviely, similarly with Harrison, similar with Bamford etc but that is the flip side. Control possesion look less likely to score but more solid and win more possesion or approach the match and say let's see if our bazooka beats your peashooter and try to fire as many rounds off as possible whilst leaving yourself open to getting shot at.

It worked because of the quality of our attacking players in spite of Farke's tactics.

His tactics today were a hindrance for the reasons I explained imo.

Pleased with the result but think you are showing your bias tbh.

You'd have given Jesse Marsch criticism for the tactics today despite the result, absolutely 100%.

[Cjay]

Wow, clash of of the titans you two

Asking from ignorance here, cjay, did you see our second half performance and execution of DFs tactics the same but better or actually different than the first? I agree we didn’t press, seems we closed our gaps in the second but still gave up goals

Think we sat back even more 2nd half tbh.

Perhaps a little more organised 2nd half but it was clear that it isn't really our style.

The gaps were still to big, it was still quite easy for Ipswich to get at us.

It isn't Farke's style, it may be him trying to adapt which is a credit to him but its obvious he doesn't really know how to set a team up to play that way.

[weasel]

It worked because of the quality of our attacking players in spite of Farke's tactics.

His tactics today were a hindrance for the reasons I explained imo.

Pleased with the result but think you are showing your bias tbh.

You'd have given Jesse Marsch criticism for the tactics today despite the result, absolutely 100%.

Yes it did but our attacking players are not defensively minded - that is the trade off. It is a gamble/tactic based on their quality.

It is like saying a team can play with Harry Kane as their striker. Kane won't help out defensively and the team won't look as balanced however the team wil create 10 chances for Kane and concede 15 chances to the opposition. Kane being clinical scores 6, the opposition not being as clinical as Kane score 4.

Or ateam plays with Patrick Bamford. He helps out defensively, the team looks more balanced and as a result create 20 chances for Bamford and only concede 10 chances to the opposition. Bamford not being as clinical scores 3, the opposition score 3.

So sometimes you are better playing to your strengths even if it makes part of you weaker.

[LeedsandtheBadSeeds]

Think we sat back even more 2nd half tbh.

Perhaps a little more organised 2nd half but it was clear that it isn't really our style.

The gaps were still to big, it was still quite easy for Ipswich to get at us.

It isn't Farke's style, it may be him trying to adapt which is a credit to him but its obvious he doesn't really know how to set a team up to play that way.

[jindy30]

I thought it was good game to.win roday and i was impressed by the paassing out of defence and going forward.

TBH honest it couldn't really be a better game for all the players. Yes we won but it was team effort, and we responded very well to their opening goal.

Most of all we managed to see out a result which I would say is far better than winning 7-5 which would be more of a one off. Seeing.out results is essential element to winning games,.and not just scoring the most.

I did note certain other teams winning today so not getting excited just.yet.

Hope the travellling fans enjoyed it

[1964white]

This is a good video

Great comrade from Alex with the both sets of fans before the game, the Ipswich family says it all about Leeds & our fans in the final two minutes of the video clip.

[VinnysTattoo]

Good to have some balanced views from the opposition

[The Subhuman]

That really is damning in terms of those who use xg for any level of relevance.

How is our xg measured at 1.5? Am presuming Rutter's goal is measured at the point he received the ball and not the point where he hit the shot. Gnonto's well how is that not marked close to a goal as all he has to do is touch it. Piroe's goal is that measured at the point Sini shot because when it falls at Piroe's feet that's gotta have a fairly high level of likelihood of going in. Sini's goal again at what point is it measured at because it is a 1v1.

Even if you mark all of those goals as just a 50% chance of the goal that would be 2 goals, you then also have to add in all the shots we had which we disn't score.

xG is a really bad stat and by definition one that relies on opinion not fact...

[SG90]

xG is a really bad stat and by definition one that relies on opinion not fact...

Sometimes it works, but others it makes no sense. It essentially rewards tap ins and penalties for the most part.

[The Subhuman]

Sometimes it works, but others it makes no sense. It essentially rewards tap ins and penalties for the most part.

Sometimes it works is no praise for a stat....

[DDB220]

We changed our approach second half and sat deeper.
In my view the reason we did this was we were making a pigs ear of trying to hold a high line.

You may have noticed that we were trying to play their runners offside. Without VAR it is a dangerous tactic. This for me is evident on the initial goal we conceded and the remonstrations about offside.
It is easier playing possession based football if you squeeze the opposition and thus effectively pen them in. You can then pass the ball around the periphery looking for an opportunity to play an incisive ball.

Ipswich were constantly countering with the ball over the top into the space behind the fullbacks.

Now some cannot wait to blame Ayling for any transgression. But it was the high line not Ayling that wasn’t working.
Although Byram played his side better - however it still need last ditch tackles.
When Drameh came on he was left stranded at least twice with the ball over the top. Ironically this was our undoing with JM tactics last season on a regular basis.
It tends to get exposed when possession is surrendered suddenly ( such as forwards trying a trick in a tight space or a misplaced pass) whatever the level a high line can be exposed unless you have quality defenders who immediately react and have recovery pace to negate the ball over the top.

I think Farke dispensed with this tactic in the 2nd half, sat deep and looked to play on the counter.

Now this tactical pragmatism, not playing the same way and setting the team up according to the opposition is what certain posters on here would preach on a weekly basis when we lost under Bielsa.
Ironic that Farke changes it and he has suddenly got it all wrong.
The couch coaching badge qualification is a petty instrument at times.

Whilst counter attack approach was not pretty and we did seem all at sea at times we did in fact get the three points.
Ironically the points we missed out on are all that mattered when we played dominantly and lost under Bielsa.

Personally, I thought we played well for the most part and we scored nearly 50% of our shots on target. So our conversion rate was quite clinical.

[Jaydog]

I hope you managed to fool the locals into thinking you were an Ipswich fan by telling them all how s**t Ipswich were and how great Leeds are by comparison.....

I did boy. Talked about tractors and everything boy.
They were quite complimentary about several Leeds players apart from Rutter. “He’s done absolutely nothing since he scored. Absolutely nothing “.
He’s ploughed through your boys a few times boy but yes apart from that and bullying your midfield absolutely nothing boy.

[Orange Box]

We changed our approach second half and sat deeper.
In my view the reason we did this was we were making a pigs ear of trying to hold a high line.

You may have noticed that we were trying to play their runners offside. Without VAR it is a dangerous tactic. This for me is evident on the initial goal we conceded and the remonstrations about offside.
It is easier playing possession based football if you squeeze the opposition and thus effectively pen them in. You can then pass the ball around the periphery looking for an opportunity to play an incisive ball.

Ipswich were constantly countering with the ball over the top into the space behind the fullbacks.

Now some cannot wait to blame Ayling for any transgression. But it was the high line not Ayling that wasn’t working.
Although Byram played his side better - however it still need last ditch tackles.
When Drameh came on he was left stranded at least twice with the ball over the top. Ironically this was our undoing with JM tactics last season on a regular basis.
It tends to get exposed when possession is surrendered suddenly ( such as forwards trying a trick in a tight space or a misplaced pass) whatever the level a high line can be exposed unless you have quality defenders who immediately react and have recovery pace to negate the ball over the top.

I think Farke dispensed with this tactic in the 2nd half, sat deep and looked to play on the counter.

Now this tactical pragmatism, not playing the same way and setting the team up according to the opposition is what certain posters on here would preach on a weekly basis when we lost under Bielsa.
Ironic that Farke changes it and he has suddenly got it all wrong.
The couch coaching badge qualification is a petty instrument at times.

Whilst counter attack approach was not pretty and we did seem all at sea at times we did in fact get the three points.
Ironically the points we missed out on are all that mattered when we played dominantly and lost under Bielsa.

Personally, I thought we played well for the most part and we scored nearly 50% of our shots on target. So our conversion rate was quite clinical.

An astute review, however I’ve highlighted two lines.

Someone posted yesterday that playing this way went against Farkes reputation. I don’t care about his reputation, what I care about his how his tactical management affects how we do in games this season. Farke clearly holds his hand up when he gets it wrong, but what’s more important is that he’s not afraid to try and rectify it DURING the game.

The couch coaches (love that description) need to back off and just enjoy the game, warts and all.

[Victor_OTT_17]

We headed out at 5 last night for a family birthday meal (only 29 of us) so never got to add to this thread (or read it). I don't I have anything other to add that hasn't already been written but...

THAT WAS FUN!!!

PS: I'm talking about the win not the meal...

[Finnatic]

It's strange how one of the constant criticisms leveled at Bielsa was his supposed refusal to change tactics. Farke changed tactics and got the win, for me that is job done. Even if to you it seemed like Ali's rope a dope tactic it won the match and perhaps by playing our usual way it would have played into Ipswich's hand and we may have been saying good performance shame about the result. If Farke had got everything tactically spot on the most we could have got was a win, we got a win and to be fair it was a deserved win. We carried more threat and Ipswich got lucky with all their goals.

We played with 4 up top, 4 attacking players of which none are particularly noted for their defensive qualities. You and others are keen to sl@g off roadrunner James who works his socks off both offensively and defensviely, similarly with Harrison, similar with Bamford etc but that is the flip side. Control possesion look less likely to score but more solid and win more possesion or approach the match and say let's see if our bazooka beats your peashooter and try to fire as many rounds off as possible whilst leaving yourself open to getting shot at.

Exactly this.
Farke said afterwards he wanted a confidence building win and he went for it knowing our firepower would be enough.
The flip side is you lose out defensively sometimes.
There will be games where it doesn’t work but they should be few and far between because he will revert to possession based attacking once everyone is bedded in and knows their role.

[weasel]

We changed our approach second half and sat deeper.
In my view the reason we did this was we were making a pigs ear of trying to hold a high line.

You may have noticed that we were trying to play their runners offside. Without VAR it is a dangerous tactic. This for me is evident on the initial goal we conceded and the remonstrations about offside.
It is easier playing possession based football if you squeeze the opposition and thus effectively pen them in. You can then pass the ball around the periphery looking for an opportunity to play an incisive ball.

Ipswich were constantly countering with the ball over the top into the space behind the fullbacks.

Now some cannot wait to blame Ayling for any transgression. But it was the high line not Ayling that wasn’t working.
Although Byram played his side better - however it still need last ditch tackles.
When Drameh came on he was left stranded at least twice with the ball over the top. Ironically this was our undoing with JM tactics last season on a regular basis.
It tends to get exposed when possession is surrendered suddenly ( such as forwards trying a trick in a tight space or a misplaced pass) whatever the level a high line can be exposed unless you have quality defenders who immediately react and have recovery pace to negate the ball over the top.

I think Farke dispensed with this tactic in the 2nd half, sat deep and looked to play on the counter.

Now this tactical pragmatism, not playing the same way and setting the team up according to the opposition is what certain posters on here would preach on a weekly basis when we lost under Bielsa.
Ironic that Farke changes it and he has suddenly got it all wrong.
The couch coaching badge qualification is a petty instrument at times.

Whilst counter attack approach was not pretty and we did seem all at sea at times we did in fact get the three points.
Ironically the points we missed out on are all that mattered when we played dominantly and lost under Bielsa.

Personally, I thought we played well for the most part and we scored nearly 50% of our shots on target. So our conversion rate was quite clinical.

Well said. The ability to adapt is key and we have seen this a few times already with Farke making changes at half time to make things better. Like you say without VAR it is hard to know about the first goal, looked well offside but hard to tell given the tv angles. I wouldn't be surprised if Farke and the players said at half time, 'Let's drop the offside as we are getting nothing.' As such it makes the whole tactics less effective as you say as to press effectively you need to minimise the space the opposition have, having a deeper defensive line simply allows too much space.

We certainly looked the more likely team to score. Any argument to the other is like saying Bielsa deserved to win his last match for Leeds - when we lost 4-0 to Spurs in his last match we had more shots and more possession than Spurs. Spurs played to their strength knowing that they were more clinical than us - they took the chance that if they got a few chances they would score whereas we needed a lot of chances to score.

The only alternative to yesterday is to drop at least a couple of our front 4 and play players that aren't as good attacking but will help us out more defensively.