PDA

View Full Version : Tactical success or just luck?



Hibbyradge
03-12-2012, 10:54 AM
I'd love to hear Pat Fenlon's explanation of our performance last night.

To me, it looked like he set the team up to allow Hearts a lot of possession knowing that we had enough at the back to cope with their feeble strike force (14 goals in 16 league games speaks volumes).

This would bring Hearts out thereby weakening their strongest attribute, their defence (the second best goals against in the SPL). Presumably the plan was to find Griffiths and Doyle plenty room to break against them.

Unfortunately, we were too good at the first part, and hugely lacking at the second. Leigh Griffiths looked well out of sorts, probably still carrying an injury, and Doyle was ineffective.

The second half started much like the second. Hearts created nothing at all although we kept giving them the ball, and when Leigh was taken off injured, the best I thought we could hope for was a draw.

However, Caldwell gave us a bit more movement up front and the flow of the game evened up and I actually thought Sproule changed the game completely. For the first time we were taking the game to them and exploiting the space and their tiredness.

So, for me, Fenlon's substitutions made the difference. The first was forced on him, the second was probably planned, so do we credit the manager with a tactical success or just hope he carries sackfuls of Irish luck?.

Malthibby
03-12-2012, 10:57 AM
Tacticus Maximus.
To be perfectly honest, I was worried when I saw Ivan coming on, didn't know what he would offer, but he was positive & quick(ish)
& helped mess them up on the left.
:pfgwa

Golden Bear
03-12-2012, 11:00 AM
I'd love to hear Pat Fenlon's explanation of our performance last night.

To me, it looked like he set the team up to allow Hearts a lot of possession knowing that we had enough at the back to cope with their feeble strike force (14 goals in 16 league games speaks volumes).

This would bring Hearts out thereby weakening their strongest attribute, their defence (the second best goals against in the SPL). Presumably the plan was to find Griffiths and Doyle plenty room to break against them.

Unfortunately, we were too good at the first part, and hugely lacking at the second. Leigh Griffiths looked well out of sorts, probably still carrying an injury, and Doyle was ineffective.

The second half started much like the second. Hearts created nothing at all although we kept giving them the ball, and when Leigh was taken off injured, the best I thought we could hope for was a draw.

However, Caldwell gave us a bit more movement up front and the flow of the game evened up and I actually thought Sproule changed the game completely. For the first time we were taking the game to them and exploiting the space and their tiredness.

So, for me, Fenlon's substitutions made the difference. The first was forced on him, the second was probably planned, so do we credit the manager with a tactical success or just hope he carries sackfuls of Irish luck?.

Good question.

At the time, the substitution in most folks eyes would have been Sproule for Spoony.

Shows how much we know!

ano hibby
03-12-2012, 11:13 AM
Definitely credit to Pat for the Sproule substitution..as per the Sproule thread he had a good game and clearly enjoyed it.

Tactically i was most concerned about our defensive line up on the right. We gave Novokovas far too much room in first half and with a proper striker on the end of his crosses we could easily have been behind. I assumed it would be fixed at HT but we seemed to give Driver even more space and time to get up a head of steam. It looked like Maybury had been told to stay narrow and Spoony was to cover but it looked very precarious especially as Driver looked reasonably dangerous. Just glad we got away with it. Pleased for Maybury to be on winning team after his mistake last time out (unbeaten derby record against them:greengrin) but will be pleased to see Clancy back methinks.

To answer the OP..tactical success or just luck. Make your own luck..Wotherspoon, who stayed on the pitch thanks to Pats subbing of Doyle, ran at his man, beat him & by gawd did we deserve that deflection:agree::agree::greengrin:greengrin:na na::na na::aok::aok:

Hibercelona
03-12-2012, 11:19 AM
What we need to remember is that Hearts play with a lot of possession. If you look at most of the their game stats through out the season, far more often than not, they have a greater possession ratio over the opposition.

I think Fenlon knew that this would probably be the case yesterday, so he set us up to be solid to break down, with the chance of catching them out on the break.

With Hearts problems up front, chances were always going to be extremely limited for them up against a solid defence.

Thankfully we were solid and thankfully we did get the break we needed.

greenlex
03-12-2012, 11:46 AM
We have played this way all season. Opposition have plenty of the ball but rarely really threaten. I thought Doyle though ineffective in possession put in a great shift dropping off and closing down. Caldwell didn't do this and allowed them more time to lump it forward. Ivan coming on have them something to think about
Out midfield although tenacious is still too wee.

Ozyhibby
03-12-2012, 11:49 AM
Playing with two up front made it hard for us in the midfield where we had 4 against 5. I also felt that their players were a bit hungrier than us for the first hour. It only really balanced out when they brought on Sutton and went with two up front. That help us get on the ball a bit more. It also helped that they have nothing going forward whatsoever.

The_Sauz
03-12-2012, 11:52 AM
Fester knew how Hibs would be set-up before the game (due to lack of squad depth & injuries ) and all he was interested in was playing a for a draw, and that why he had them set-up in a 4-1-4-1 formation. Close us down and stop us from playing, and this worked for 84mins. After our goal, Pat knew that Hearts would throw players forward, and that's why he changed it to a 4-5-1(Spoony & Ivan on the wings and Cairney moving into the middle) just to close the game down, to which he succeeded in doing!

PISTOL1875
03-12-2012, 11:58 AM
Having 4v5 in midfield made it so hard for us at times.. So often in the first half a Hertz player found himself with the ball and in acres of space.. This was visible from the first 5 minutes..

I couldn't believe that it took PF nearly 70 minutes to see this.. However , when he took Doyle off and replaced him with Sproule and put CAirney into midfield and matching them 3v3 in the middle of the park , they never got a kick , HIbs came more and more into the game and we got the winning goal..

Jim44
03-12-2012, 12:01 PM
I keep reading criticism of Doyle. I think he did alright yesterday and consider him a valuable member of the team.

The_Sauz
03-12-2012, 12:03 PM
Having 4v5 in midfield made it so hard for us at times.. So often in the first half a Hertz player found himself with the ball and in acres of space.. This was visible from the first 5 minutes..

I couldn't believe that it took PF nearly 70 minutes to see this.. However , when he took Doyle off and replaced him with Sproule and put CAirney into midfield and matching them 3v3 in the middle of the park , they never got a kick , HIbs came more and more into the game and we got the winning goal..
What else could he do :confused: We don't have the players to make a lot of tactical changes early in a game!

Mac
03-12-2012, 12:10 PM
I'd love to hear Pat Fenlon's explanation of our performance last night.

To me, it looked like he set the team up to allow Hearts a lot of possession knowing that we had enough at the back to cope with their feeble strike force (14 goals in 16 league games speaks volumes).

This would bring Hearts out thereby weakening their strongest attribute, their defence (the second best goals against in the SPL). Presumably the plan was to find Griffiths and Doyle plenty room to break against them.

Unfortunately, we were too good at the first part, and hugely lacking at the second. Leigh Griffiths looked well out of sorts, probably still carrying an injury, and Doyle was ineffective.

The second half started much like the second. Hearts created nothing at all although we kept giving them the ball, and when Leigh was taken off injured, the best I thought we could hope for was a draw.

However, Caldwell gave us a bit more movement up front and the flow of the game evened up and I actually thought Sproule changed the game completely. For the first time we were taking the game to them and exploiting the space and their tiredness.

So, for me, Fenlon's substitutions made the difference. The first was forced on him, the second was probably planned, so do we credit the manager with a tactical success or just hope he carries sackfuls of Irish luck?.


???? But Hearts play counter attack football so they sit deep nd hit on the counter attack, doesnt take a genius to work that out.

Celtic scored 4 with all coming from crosses into the box, 1 superbly finished by Stevenson, none the less once again we didnt turn up, Griffiths did turn up it was the midfield and wide players who didnt.

The one player who will probably escape most from the result was Maybury who I never want to see in Hibs shirt as he was their best player.

bingo70
03-12-2012, 12:42 PM
???? But Hearts play counter attack football so they sit deep nd hit on the counter attack, doesnt take a genius to work that out.

Celtic scored 4 with all coming from crosses into the box, 1 superbly finished by Stevenson, none the less once again we didnt turn up, Griffiths did turn up it was the midfield and wide players who didnt.

The one player who will probably escape most from the result was Maybury who I never want to see in Hibs shirt as he was their best player.

Do they? My interpratation of counter attacking football is to almost let the other team have the ball and then hit them once they've committed men forward, hearts game is all about having lots of possession and hoping for the best from a long range strike or something. Almost every game they've lost this season Mcglynn (:tee hee:) has spoken about how much possession hearts had but lack cutting edge, thats not how teams playing counter attacking football play.

Maybury is fine as a squad player as well.

PISTOL1875
03-12-2012, 01:17 PM
What else could he do :confused: We don't have the players to make a lot of tactical changes early in a game!

Would it have been impossible to have put Sparky or Doyle to LM and make it 5v5 in middle ?? The players are most defo there mate...

bingo70
03-12-2012, 01:22 PM
Would it have been impossible to have put Sparky or Doyle to LM and make it 5v5 in middle ?? The players are most defo there mate...

The problem with that though is that would have left either Doyle or Griffiths up fron on there own and that role doesnt suit either of them.

It's the same problem Hearts have which is why they don't score any goals.

PISTOL1875
03-12-2012, 01:25 PM
The problem with that though is that would have left either Doyle or Griffiths up fron on there own and that role doesnt suit either of them.

It's the same problem Hearts have which is why they don't score any goals.


Of course the aren't comfortable playing there but sometimes you have to play players out of position I am afraid..

Baldy Foghorn
03-12-2012, 02:17 PM
???? But Hearts play counter attack football so they sit deep nd hit on the counter attack, doesnt take a genius to work that out.

Celtic scored 4 with all coming from crosses into the box, 1 superbly finished by Stevenson, none the less once again we didnt turn up, Griffiths did turn up it was the midfield and wide players who didnt.

The one player who will probably escape most from the result was Maybury who I never want to see in Hibs shirt as he was their best player.

Was Maybury instructed to tuck in beside centre halves with Spoony to help track Novowhatshisname, because he got far too much time and space for my liking....Put over a couple of decent crosses and clipped post.....Thankfully the have no fire power up front or we could have found ourselves behind....