|
Post by Hobhead on Jun 11, 2020 11:26:53 GMT
There’s a lot of talk online about looking forward to watching McCall’s attacking brand of football but am am I the only one who thinks this is a bit of a myth?
I’ve no idea how to get hold of the stats as far as chances created goes but if anyone can it’d be much appreciated.
As far as I’ve seen when watching a McCall team play it’s more ‘possession obsessed’ than the free-flowing, easy on the eye, attacking football that a lot of fans seem to believe we get. There’s lots of pointless triangles, a high number of passes with a high completion rate and we almost always dominate possession but without creating the number of chances that would ordinarily follow.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s nicer to watch than Parky’s and infinitely better than turgid Bowyerball but is it really genuinely attacking? I’m not convinced.
After-match interviews are punctuated with McCall being astonished at how we didn’t win even though we had far more of the ball than the opposition (seemingly believing that possession in and of itself entitles a team to win a match) and his pre-match ones are all about the dangers the opposition pose - hardly the mark of a gung-ho tactician - especially when he seems capable of finding danger in the poorest of opposition. Further to this, an attacking manager would be more decisive with substitutions, whereas McCall regularly procrastinates, locked in discussion with Kenny Black, until there’s barely enough time for any change to have an effect. When they do come, his substitutions themselves are more often like-for-like than they are attacking switch and when he does make a formation change he often changes it again shortly after. This is more the mark of a man unsure of his tactical philosophy than one committed in principle to any particular style.
For me the idea that McCall is an attacking manager is based partly on wishful thinking and partly on misinterpreting what is happening on the pitch. Dominating possession, completing a high number of six yard passes and giving players a little more licence (Marshall) than previous managers isn’t enough in itself to qualify a manager as being of attacking philosophy.
How many times has McCall’s brand of attacking football trounced a team? Given his supposed commitment to attacking football and the number of chances he’s had as City manager it’d be fair to expect a decent number of drubbings along the way no? McCall's teams keep the ball but aren’t particularly effective with it. We might well win the possession stats but we don’t convert it into many clear cut chances never mind goals. It might be easier on the eye but it’s the same as knowing a pretty girl that won’t let you fuck her despite your long history of mutual love and respect: nice to look at but desperately frustrating
If such a thing exists, McCall is a possession manager and possession =/= attacking.
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Jun 11, 2020 11:40:44 GMT
There's always a nag with his teams that we look nice but we lack that player to unlock the door. Would he have got more out of Payne for example?
|
|
|
Post by Lethal Jizzle on Jun 11, 2020 11:47:13 GMT
There's always a nag with his teams that we look nice but we lack that player to unlock the door. Would he have got more out of Payne for example? if we hadn't had 11 number 10s and a shitty owner and 4 shitty managers that squad should have been pushing for the title. But hey ho I'm just glad we're not Bury or something
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jun 11, 2020 11:48:28 GMT
How will he play attacking football with our expected line up for next season?
Going back, I remember quite a few games from his second spell where we would absolutely dominate possession but had very little to show for it in terms of goals / chances created. For some reason I remember one of the early games at Millwall that we absolutely bossed, should have been 4 up at HT but ended up desperately hang on for a 1-1. Then there was Oxford where were on top all game then lost in injury time. It was around then we gave Nicky Law the nickname 'Crab'.
McCall's sides have never been ruthless, never been cynical or nasty - not that you need it, but sometimes that bit of arrogance, certainly up top (like what Wells had) works in your favour. He seems too honourable to let any players act in that manner. First and second spell - we always looked soft and in danger of being bullied, even when we were winning comfortably.
PP had the dire hoof, but it was effective to some extent - probably more a reflection of the quality you're up against in L2 though.
For me, attacking quality in L2 all about a quality forward and playing to his style across the whole team when going forward. If you can get a partnership up top as well that's even better. Why did Wells score 25+ goals that season? Because we set up around him and let him play to his strengths, and Hanson knew what to do to get him the ball. Then we did the complete opposite for Doyle last season.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jun 11, 2020 11:56:27 GMT
I’d like to add, before Ricc reads this, that I’m not saying McCall’s brand of football is poor, just that I’m not convinced it qualifies as genuinely ‘attacking’.
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Jun 11, 2020 12:21:18 GMT
I’d like to add, before Ricc reads this, that I’m not saying McCall’s brand of football is poor, just that I’m not convinced it qualifies as genuinely ‘attacking’. Scared of getting beats from Ricc. Strange comment but to be expected ?.
|
|
|
Post by Nice boy on Jun 11, 2020 12:32:57 GMT
When I look back at the Wembley season and a midfield consisting of Law Vincelot Cullen and Marshall I’m not really surprised it was more possession oriented as few of them are actually known for being clinical in the final third. Throw Billy Clarke into the mix and you have yet another player who was good at the technical stuff but was generally incapable of unlocking a defence and putting the ball into the back of the net. The only one that was capable of doing so, Marshall, was given full license to attack, created and scored plenty and was very direct. You also have to account for the very average strike force we had for most of that season. Play the fancy triangles etc but make it count when it matters and suddenly it becomes a non issue.
IF McCall has the right players available to him I don’t personally believe his attacking football is a myth, but we all know McCall can’t recruit a player...
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jun 11, 2020 13:04:52 GMT
When I look back at the Wembley season and a midfield consisting of Law Vincelot Cullen and Marshall I’m not really surprised it was more possession oriented as few of them are actually known for being clinical in the final third. Throw Billy Clarke into the mix and you have yet another player who was good at the technical stuff but was generally incapable of unlocking a defence and putting the ball into the back of the net. The only one that was capable of doing so, Marshall, was given full license to attack, created and scored plenty and was very direct. You also have to account for the very average strike force we had for most of that season. Play the fancy triangles etc but make it count when it matters and suddenly it becomes a non issue. IF McCall has the right players available to him I don’t personally believe his attacking football is a myth, but we all know McCall can’t recruit a player... Fair points and definitely something to consider. Only trouble is, next year’s not going to be the year to prove or disprove the theory. It’s not like our recruitment’s going to good enough or deep enough to settle it. It could be though. Imagine if Rupp’s decided, shrewdly, that this is the year to make good and McCall’s output in the papers is to distract from our real intention. Don’t mind me, I was bitten by a gomper and the full moon approaches.
|
|
|
Post by Lofty on Jun 11, 2020 13:35:10 GMT
An attacking manager wouldn't have posessioned his way to a Wembley play off final defeat. Millwall were there for the taking but we preferred to play keep ball whilst they picked us off.
|
|
|
Post by benitocarbone on Jun 11, 2020 13:53:24 GMT
I agree on the confusion between possession count and attacking intent. However, I do think that a clinical goal scorer would make a big difference in a McCall team. Hence why keeping Vaughan is so important.
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jun 11, 2020 15:14:07 GMT
An attacking manager wouldn't have posessioned his way to a Wembley play off final defeat. Millwall were there for the taking but we preferred to play keep ball whilst they picked us off. Worrying about the opposition - McCall's biggest managerial weakness. Remember we lost at home to bottom of the table Plymouth, and he rambled on afterwards about changing our set up because of their threat from headers or some bullshit? It was then you realised he hadn't actually changed that much since his first spell.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jun 11, 2020 15:16:31 GMT
I agree on the confusion between possession count and attacking intent. However, I do think that a clinical goal scorer would make a big difference in a McCall team. Hence why keeping Vaughan is so important. A clinical striker would make a big difference but I’m still not convinced we create enough chances for the amount of the ball we see. My worry is that our poor quality forward line coupled with tactics that create too few chances is going to see us have a shocking return in goals. In all honesty, even with plenty of chances created we’d have a low goal return. I’m worried we might be creating the perfect storm of chances being at a premium and relying on piss poor strikers to make the most of what little they get. Without Vaughan we’re fucked. Let’s hope there’s no takers.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jun 11, 2020 15:17:48 GMT
An attacking manager wouldn't have posessioned his way to a Wembley play off final defeat. Millwall were there for the taking but we preferred to play keep ball whilst they picked us off. Worrying about the opposition - McCall's biggest managerial weakness. Remember we lost at home to bottom of the table Plymouth, and he rambled on afterwards about changing our set up because of their threat from headers or some bullshit? It was then you realised he hadn't actually changed that much since his first spell. That was the infamous low crosses tactic. He and Kenny had watched videos and noticed that their centre backs were really really good at headers so they decided to cross low. It didn’t work.
|
|
|
Post by Lethal Jizzle on Jun 11, 2020 15:40:58 GMT
Worrying about the opposition - McCall's biggest managerial weakness. Remember we lost at home to bottom of the table Plymouth, and he rambled on afterwards about changing our set up because of their threat from headers or some bullshit? It was then you realised he hadn't actually changed that much since his first spell. That was the infamous low crosses tactic. He and Kenny had watched videos and noticed that their centre backs were really really good at headers so they decided to cross low. It didn’t work. With shit like that you drag it back to a late rushing midfielder to hammer it towards goal, but he couldn't get that tactic right. McCall is good as a manager when things don't require change. When it comes to having to think and adapt he can't do it, that's why his team's go on shit streaks
|
|
|
Post by benitocarbone on Jun 11, 2020 16:18:24 GMT
I agree on the confusion between possession count and attacking intent. However, I do think that a clinical goal scorer would make a big difference in a McCall team. Hence why keeping Vaughan is so important. A clinical striker would make a big difference but I’m still not convinced we create enough chances for the amount of the ball we see. My worry is that our poor quality forward line coupled with tactics that create too few chances is going to see us have a shocking return in goals. In all honesty, even with plenty of chances created we’d have a low goal return. I’m worried we might be creating the perfect storm of chances being at a premium and relying on piss poor strikers to make the most of what little they get. Without Vaughan we’re fucked. Let’s hope there’s no takers. Those last two sentences are absolutely my worry. Relegation fodder.
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Jun 11, 2020 17:14:01 GMT
A clinical striker would make a big difference but I’m still not convinced we create enough chances for the amount of the ball we see. My worry is that our poor quality forward line coupled with tactics that create too few chances is going to see us have a shocking return in goals. In all honesty, even with plenty of chances created we’d have a low goal return. I’m worried we might be creating the perfect storm of chances being at a premium and relying on piss poor strikers to make the most of what little they get. Without Vaughan we’re fucked. Let’s hope there’s no takers. Those last two sentences are absolutely my worry. Relegation fodder. And we'll be actively looking to push him out of the door.
|
|
|
Post by badbeatbob on Jun 15, 2020 12:29:12 GMT
McCall's the best man to have in charge. Doesn't mean it'll be any good. Under him the football and results have been much better than anything else since Parkinson
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Jun 15, 2020 21:13:15 GMT
McCall's the best man to have in charge. Doesn't mean it'll be any good. Under him the football and results have been much better than anything else since Parkinson Ricc m8, is that you peeping through?
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ade on Jun 18, 2020 12:12:43 GMT
I had three questions when McCall was reappointed and these were:
1) Can he change around a losing mentality? 2) Can he build a successful team from scratch? 3) Can he stop the brain farts?
In answer to 1) it’s a no from me, we started off looking a bit better but we quickly reverted back to norm. This might be a little unfair due to him not having that much time with the squad but I don’t think it’s that harsh to say that he didn’t.
For 2) its still to be seen and he will have one arm behind his back with recent events but to be honest, we won’t be the only ones struggling financially and if anything I think we could be in a better position because we don’t rely as much on match day sales.
And 3) is a resounding no from me, Newport is an example coming to mind....hadn’t won in fuck knows how long and we decided to try to sit out a 1-0 lead. Shite!
In regards to is he attacking, Hob makes a valid point about possession being mistaken for attacking when the real indicator is chances created. In the playoff final year, I think we managed to create 5/6 decent chances a game with one to two of them being clear goal scoring opportunities. He was let down by the strikers he had available to him (Bargefeet and a pirouetting Clarke), things did start to upturn when Wyke came in. Now I don’t know how many chances/clear chances normally happen in games but if I am right in the 5/6 chances, I would say that should be enough.
This third spell, I saw nothing like the amount of chances from his second spell but I think his style is good enough for League One/Two and that it’s more down to the personnel being the issue. He will live and die by his strikers like most managers do, it’s the reason why he has made the recent comments about Vaughan.
|
|
|
Post by benitocarbone on Jun 18, 2020 14:12:03 GMT
I had three questions when McCall was reappointed and these were: 1) Can he change around a losing mentality? 2) Can he build a successful team from scratch? 3) Can he stop the brain farts? In answer to 1) it’s a no from me, we started off looking a bit better but we quickly reverted back to norm. This might be a little unfair due to him not having that much time with the squad but I don’t think it’s that harsh to say that he didn’t. For 2) its still to be seen and he will have one arm behind his back with recent events but to be honest, we won’t be the only ones struggling financially and if anything I think we could be in a better position because we don’t rely as much on match day sales. And 3) is a resounding no from me, Newport is an example coming to mind....hadn’t won in fuck knows how long and we decided to try to sit out a 1-0 lead. Shite! In regards to is he attacking, Hob makes a valid point about possession being mistaken for attacking when the real indicator is chances created. In the playoff final year, I think we managed to create 5/6 decent chances a game with one to two of them being clear goal scoring opportunities. He was let down by the strikers he had available to him (Bargefeet and a pirouetting Clarke), things did start to upturn when Wyke came in. Now I don’t know how many chances/clear chances normally happen in games but if I am right in the 5/6 chances, I would say that should be enough. This third spell, I saw nothing like the amount of chances from his second spell but I think his style is good enough for League One/Two and that it’s more down to the personnel being the issue. He will live and die by his strikers like most managers do, it’s the reason why he has made the recent comments about Vaughan. What recent comments has he made about Vaughan? I thought word was that we were trying to move him on.
|
|