Moussa Sissoko

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It is a bit. I think you are getting too hung up on the formation. Regardless of the formation, which with us is always a very flexible thing anyway, a player in Sissokos position in that situation should be tracking a runner.

It is clear our players are very well drilled in defending as a unit. As well as attacking as a unit. Players move out of position based on how the game flows - but know to track/intercept/defend based on whatever situation they are in. In this instance I think Sissoko let us down.

City playing with a lot of forwards is hardly news to anyone. And I dont actually subscribe to your view of matching them with defenders either.

Frankly I think it just invites them on and entrenches your team in their own box.

Having players dropping from midfield into defense/defensive positions, and then moving up field in possession of the ball? Seems much more sound to me. Call it 4141/4411/433/451/whatever, I couldnt really care less. Getting past that initial City press is the key, not any given formation. If you can do that you almost certainly attack them with a numerical advantage.

 

[scaramanga]

Do you also apportion blame to Poch for the way he set the team up defensively? You make it sound as if Sissoko should be constantly tracking Sterling, which just seems very weird to me given that Sissoko was playing as a wide midfielder and Sterling as a wide forward. If you're going to ask Sissoko to regularly track Sterling, why not just play a defender to do that instead? Rather than needing a midfielder to constantly be sprinting back into the defensive line to do so?

No, I think that we should keep our shape when we're in front of the ball, but when the ball goes behind us (or if there's a runner heading in behind us) then they need to be tracked. Even Timmeh wouldn't set up a defence to hold its shape and intentionally leave defenders outnumbered regardless of what the opposition does.

Holding shape is useful to present a block and to narrow the gaps through which the ball and players can move. Once that line is broken then players have to be tracked.

 

[scaramanga]

Again, it's fine if you're pointing fingers at specific players, but why haven't I seen you in the Eriksen thread pointing fingers at him for losing his man (KdB)? He just let him have all the space to put a cross in.

I pointed out a few posts ago that Eriksen is doing precisely what every single wide forward/midfielder does in that situation - he's a loose cover for Rose. You can't leave your full back one on one, but two marking tightly is wasteful. So what we do (as well as most other teams) is have him reduce the winger's options, whilst taking up a position that stops De Bruyne running or passing via a straight line into the box.

A cross from where De Bruyne was (no matter how accurate) should never, ever end in a goal. If properly defended, that cross (as with almost all crosses) is easily cleared.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I don't think that not tracking runs into the box would be a part of anyone's defensive plan. I have no issue with Sissoko's position as the play starts, my problem is with the very basic analysis he failed to make and see the danger. From his position he can see who's marking whom, count them one for one and see realise that he's the man spare with a runner heading into the box.

I can forgive losing Sterling for a second and failing to catch up - he's a tricky little clam and has disappeared behind far better defenders than Sissoko. What I can't forgive is steadfastly holding a pointless shape in a pointless position when there is clear danger that needs to be dealt with.

I agree with you.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

XG was basically 3-0, so I think we can safely class it as a dominant win for Man C in terms of chances created.

I do take the point that playing 5 at the back risks ceding possession elsewhere, but personally I'd suggest playing 5-3-2 which I don't think would be ceding possession in the middle - it would be mostly to their full-backs, which IMO is the least of all the evils - certainly moreso than consistently being outnumbered defensively instead.

You say that Gundogan had 'gambled forward' but I think that's a mis-characterisation of City's system. It's inherent in their system that they constantly have five forwards. (In fairness Gundogan does spend more time deep when he's in this role than Silva, and did against us, but he still does and did spend a lot of his time as an inside forward.)

I also don't think their first goal was a 'key moment' that required particular concentration, as such - it was a very standard passage of play, with City in their shape and us in ours, and the ball at their centre-back's feet.

I don't think there's any guarentee that any formation gives us a better chance. The strategy was to crowd out the middle from what I could see, and adjust when needed to the danger that was presented. I don't think Sissoko should have been tracking Sterling all game, but in that moment he should have seen that Gundogan had created an overload and gone to help KWP, and take either man that was appropriate to help stop the goal. It was smart play from City and well executed, so I don't think this nails Sissoko forever more as bad defensively, but I would have liked him to do better in this particular situation. I don't think it was all on KWP - I think City targeted him in that passage.

 

[elltrev]

No, I think that we should keep our shape when we're in front of the ball, but when the ball goes behind us (or if there's a runner heading in behind us) then they need to be tracked. Even Timmeh wouldn't set up a defence to hold its shape and intentionally leave defenders outnumbered regardless of what the opposition does.

Holding shape is useful to present a block and to narrow the gaps through which the ball and players can move. Once that line is broken then players have to be tracked.

So to be specific to the City game, you think it was the right call to prioritise blocking the gaps through to our outnumbered defence and then chasing back once the gaps were breached, rather than stopping the defence from being outnumbered in the first place? Fair enough if so, we'll just have to agree to disagree. (I can see that maybe that approach could have worked better if the nuances of our positioning and pressing had been better, but in practice they just breached our gaps so easily - it seemed like the worst of both worlds.)

I guess ultimately none of us know exactly what Poch's plan was and how he communicated that to the players, so it's hard to say who's most at fault.

 

[elltrev]

I don't think there's any guarentee that any formation gives us a better chance. The strategy was to crowd out the middle from what I could see, and adjust when needed to the danger that was presented. I don't think Sissoko should have been tracking Sterling all game, but in that moment he should have seen that Gundogan had created an overload and gone to help KWP, and take either man that was appropriate to help stop the goal. It was smart play from City and well executed, so I don't think this nails Sissoko forever more as bad defensively, but I would have liked him to do better in this particular situation. I don't think it was all on KWP - I think City targeted him in that passage.

The thing is, we know by now that those kinds of overloads are exactly what City do, systematically, in virtually every game for the last few years. So it's not like it's a surprise, which is why I'm frustrated that we didn't seem to have a plan to stop it. Maybe it was indeed Poch's plan to cut off passing lanes and have midfielders get back when they were breached, and that Sissoko and co were guilty of not following those instructions for whatever reason. But that still seems like a poor plan to begin with, to me.

Oh well, happy to agree to disagree, especially without knowing Poch's intentions and instructions or what would would have happened if we'd set up differently.

 

[Finney Is Back]

No properly defended cross should ever result in a goal - no matter how accurate.

Had Sissoko bothered to stay within even 5 yards of his man, it wouldn't have been a goal (for the second match in a row).

Hmmmmm..... It is very rare for a winger arriving at the far post to ever be picked up by anyone other than the full back on that side, and if not the fullback then it would only really ever be a centre half challenging if the wide forward was a bit more central. My take on it from the stadium was that KWP got caught ball watching a bit and wasn't aware of Sterling. It looked to me as though there was still time for KWP to adjust and go and challenge for that ball but he was completely unaware of Sterling, which is poor as that is his player. I think KWP can probably learn from Rose here, who is generally very good at ensuring the opposing wide forward never has a free header in the box. Personally though I think you either have to play with 3 centre halves against Emirates Marketing Project, their gameplan revolves around creating numerical overloads out wide and we were not set up to defend against that. Typically our system has our wider midfielders detailed to pick up the opposition's full backs on their runs forward. I think Poch was probably trying to be brave and give us players to get through their press, the problem was that our football was generally nowhere near good enough to get through their press.

 

[Finney Is Back]

It is a bit. I think you are getting too hung up on the formation. Regardless of the formation, which with us is always a very flexible thing anyway, a player in Sissokos position in that situation should be tracking a runner.

It is clear our players are very well drilled in defending as a unit. As well as attacking as a unit. Players move out of position based on how the game flows - but know to track/intercept/defend based on whatever situation they are in. In this instance I think Sissoko let us down.

City playing with a lot of forwards is hardly news to anyone. And I dont actually subscribe to your view of matching them with defenders either.

Frankly I think it just invites them on and entrenches your team in their own box.

Having players dropping from midfield into defense/defensive positions, and then moving up field in possession of the ball? Seems much more sound to me. Call it 4141/4411/433/451/whatever, I couldnt really care less. Getting past that initial City press is the key, not any given formation. If you can do that you almost certainly attack them with a numerical advantage.

I disagree with you..... and this isn't specifically about Sissoko... It is pretty clear to me through watching our play that our wide midfield players defensive job is picking up the opposition's full backs on their runs forward. We didn't adjust our tactics to combat the fact that Emirates Marketing Project look to get 5 forward and achieve 2 v 1 situations out wide on both sides. elltrev has read things very well I think in terms of the problems that City were creating for us and the lack of shape and tactics that we had to be able to defend against that.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I disagree with you..... and this isn't specifically about Sissoko... It is pretty clear to me through watching our play that our wide midfield players defensive job is picking up the opposition's full backs on their runs forward. We didn't adjust our tactics to combat the fact that Emirates Marketing Project look to get 5 forward and achieve 2 v 1 situations out wide on both sides. elltrev has read things very well I think in terms of the problems that City were creating for us and the lack of shape and tactics that we had to be able to defend against that.

Mate we’ve been comprehensively battered versus City to the point that we had to switch to 4 at the back midway through the first half. This debate around formation is a bit of a misnomer.

I think Poch wanted to pack the midfield in order to block the middle but also give the defence options to pass out and keep possession for as long as possible. But for us, possession was a defensive tactic rather than an attacking one in this game. When we played 3 at the back, they struggled for options out and we got swarmed that way. I think our 44% possession was a decent haul against a side that wanted to attack us all game, and we slowed their momentum to an extent.

We have played them with 3 and 4 at the back and had relative success with both. It’s about what your strategy is once the players are on the pitch, and it’s about reacting in the moments. In this instance, I don’t think Sissoko helped KWP as much as he could have. KWP probably could have done better too but they targeted him with an overload and he was caught between a lot of players with no help. It was also a flat out excellent cross and well worked.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

I see the usual Sissoko slaters have smelt blood and are out in force... Now I am not saying that Sissoko could not possibly have done better at tracking back but if anything he would have taken Gundogan - not Sterling. The latter was KWP's responsibility and the kid lost him completely. Indeed, if Sissoko would have had any chance of stopping the goal, he needed to be in the right side of box in line with the penalty spot, even deeper than KWP. There were already seven of our players in the box - there is absolutely no way Sissoko would have made it eight, because that would have resulted in the total right side of the midfield being completely exposed and unprotected.

But we have gotten accustomed to the consistent pattern of Sissoko spacegoating... pick an action, manipulate to appear that Sissoko is to solely blame and ignore all the other factors which likely were more important contributory factors. It is the tactics of zealots and ideologues... and it doesn't take a psychologist to see this. Go back to the beginning of this thread. The usual suspects were the ones saying Sissoko was not a "Spurs" type player (whatever that is) and slating him before he even kicked a ball; therefore nothing he can do is right and all he does is wrong. It's not new... we saw it with Parker, Bent and before them Armstrong etc...

No matter what convoluted arguments are brought to pin the blame on Sissoko for the first goal, once the ball left KdB's feet, the goal was unpreventable. Even if Sissoko had tracked Gundogan there was nothing he would have realistically done, not with Sterling's lightning and inch perfect acceleration. The only way the goal could have been avoided was if Winks or Eriksen (two untouchables of the Sissoko slaters) had not been sucked in towards the ball but noticed KdB take a few steps back and cut off that supply avenue by covering the Belgian. But of course it's always easier to frame an spacegoat.

Now if there was goal which was much more avoidable it was the second. There was no overload by Emirates Marketing Project - just a typical one-two-three between Walker, Silva and KdB. However Winks again completely ball watches (and he is our defensive midfielder), ignores KdB, fails to get anywhere near him and allows the Belgian to double up with Silva on Rose. THIS was a much more obviously preventable situation which you could spot a mile away. Yet Winks gets suckered like a novice..




Do you see any of the Sissoko slaters on that thread with their lovely theories? Not a single peep...

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I see the usual Sissoko slaters have smelt blood and are out in force... Now I am not saying that Sissoko could not possibly have done better at tracking back but if anything he would have taken Gundogan - not Sterling. The latter was KWP's responsibility and the kid lost him completely. Indeed, if Sissoko would have had any chance of stopping the goal, he needed to be in the right side of box in line with the penalty spot, even deeper than KWP. There were already seven of our players in the box - there is absolutely no way Sissoko would have made it eight, because that would have resulted in the total right side of the midfield being completely exposed and unprotected.

But we have gotten accustomed to the consistent pattern of Sissoko spacegoating... pick an action, manipulate to appear that Sissoko is to solely blame and ignore all the other factors which likely were more important contributory factors. It is the tactics of zealots and ideologues... and it doesn't take a psychologist to see this. Go back to the beginning of this thread. The usual suspects were the ones saying Sissoko was not a "Spurs" type player (whatever that is) and slating him before he even kicked a ball; therefore nothing he can do is right and all he does is wrong. It's not new... we saw it with Parker, Bent and before them Armstrong etc...

No matter what convoluted arguments are bought to pin the blame on Sissoko for the first goal, once the ball left KdB's feet, the goal was unpreventable. Even if Sissoko had tracked Gundogan there was nothing he would have realistically done, not with Sterling's lightning and inch perfect acceleration. The only way the goal could have been avoided was if Winks or Eriksen (two untouchables of the Sissoko slaters) had not been sucked in towards the ball but noticed KdB take a few steps back and cut off that supply avenue by covering the Belgian. But of course it's always easier to frame an spacegoat.

Now if there was goal which was much more avoidable it was the second. There was no overload by Emirates Marketing Project - just a typical one-two-three between Walker, Silva and KdB. However Winks again completely ball watches (and he is our defensive midfielder), ignores KdB, fails to get anywhere near him and allows the Belgian to double up with Silva on Rose. THIS was a much more obviously preventable situation which you could spot a mile away. Yet Winks gets suckered like a novice..

View attachment 7109


Do you see any of the Sissoko slaters on that thread with their lovely theories? Not a single peep...

Agree with you on almost all of that. I just think on the first goal, if Sissoko tracks Gundogan, Kyle is more certain in who he sticks to, and is probably closer to Sterling as a result.

But that’s the ploy of City’s system, and it’s also fair to say that I think we shut them down for decent periods in the game. So we did a lot right, they are just a great team and got to us in a couple of moments.

 

[scaramanga]

Hmmmmm..... It is very rare for a winger arriving at the far post to ever be picked up by anyone other than the full back on that side, and if not the fullback then it would only really ever be a centre half challenging if the wide forward was a bit more central. My take on it from the stadium was that KWP got caught ball watching a bit and wasn't aware of Sterling. It looked to me as though there was still time for KWP to adjust and go and challenge for that ball but he was completely unaware of Sterling, which is poor as that is his player. I think KWP can probably learn from Rose here, who is generally very good at ensuring the opposing wide forward never has a free header in the box. Personally though I think you either have to play with 3 centre halves against Emirates Marketing Project, their gameplan revolves around creating numerical overloads out wide and we were not set up to defend against that. Typically our system has our wider midfielders detailed to pick up the opposition's full backs on their runs forward. I think Poch was probably trying to be brave and give us players to get through their press, the problem was that our football was generally nowhere near good enough to get through their press.

KWP was already positioned to take a free runner more central, can't remember who it was.

Formations and set shapes are fine for starting points, but if you're looking down the line towards the ball, defending 101 says you take a man in turn. Sanchez was holding a good starting point and controlling the area near the front post. Alderweireld had Aguero. KWP patrolled the rear post area and (rightly) took the next man along running from midfield.

He should be able to do that safely, in the knowledge that any of the 5 behind Kane will track runners in behind him. Sissoko was on the right and it was clearly his man to track.

 

[scaramanga]

So to be specific to the City game, you think it was the right call to prioritise blocking the gaps through to our outnumbered defence and then chasing back once the gaps were breached, rather than stopping the defence from being outnumbered in the first place? Fair enough if so, we'll just have to agree to disagree. (I can see that maybe that approach could have worked better if the nuances of our positioning and pressing had been better, but in practice they just breached our gaps so easily - it seemed like the worst of both worlds.)

I guess ultimately none of us know exactly what Poch's plan was and how he communicated that to the players, so it's hard to say who's most at fault.

It's easy to say who's at fault for that goal. No matter what the initial plan, we're clearly in a breakdown situation. In which case, you use the two nearest the wide player to make sure he doesn't get into a cut back position as that's the danger play from there. Done. You block the run or through ball from De Bruyne straight into the box as that's the next most dangerous. Done.

Then the opposition is restricted to passing the ball deep and around the block, or chucking in a low value cross. Neither of those should be a worry for us. City chose the cross, and at the point Silva receives the ball, our back 4 are in the perfect positions. There's already a chance of an overload and plenty of time to see it. Sissoko doesn't. When the ball comes in, Sanchez and Alderweireld are pretty much where they should be. Given more time, I'd expect them to all drop a little further from the ball and across a little, but Sanchez would have to lead that as the first man and he can't see the danger there. Alderweireld takes Aguero as he should and KWP drops Aguero (who could have peeled off to the back post) for thean running into the box (his man).

All well and good to that point.

Regardless of normal tactics, regardless of starting positions, it's the job of the next man along to mark the next man. Sissoko just doesn't do that.

That's now two matches in a row where he just hasn't tracked the danger when he has both the strength and pace to snuff it out.

 

[scaramanga]

I see the usual Sissoko slaters have smelt blood and are out in force... Now I am not saying that Sissoko could not possibly have done better at tracking back but if anything he would have taken Gundogan - not Sterling. The latter was KWP's responsibility and the kid lost him completely. Indeed, if Sissoko would have had any chance of stopping the goal, he needed to be in the right side of box in line with the penalty spot, even deeper than KWP. There were already seven of our players in the box - there is absolutely no way Sissoko would have made it eight, because that would have resulted in the total right side of the midfield being completely exposed and unprotected.

But we have gotten accustomed to the consistent pattern of Sissoko spacegoating... pick an action, manipulate to appear that Sissoko is to solely blame and ignore all the other factors which likely were more important contributory factors. It is the tactics of zealots and ideologues... and it doesn't take a psychologist to see this. Go back to the beginning of this thread. The usual suspects were the ones saying Sissoko was not a "Spurs" type player (whatever that is) and slating him before he even kicked a ball; therefore nothing he can do is right and all he does is wrong. It's not new... we saw it with Parker, Bent and before them Armstrong etc...

No matter what convoluted arguments are bought to pin the blame on Sissoko for the first goal, once the ball left KdB's feet, the goal was unpreventable. Even if Sissoko had tracked Gundogan there was nothing he would have realistically done, not with Sterling's lightning and inch perfect acceleration. The only way the goal could have been avoided was if Winks or Eriksen (two untouchables of the Sissoko slaters) had not been sucked in towards the ball but noticed KdB take a few steps back and cut off that supply avenue by covering the Belgian. But of course it's always easier to frame an spacegoat.

Now if there was goal which was much more avoidable it was the second. There was no overload by Emirates Marketing Project - just a typical one-two-three between Walker, Silva and KdB. However Winks again completely ball watches (and he is our defensive midfielder), ignores KdB, fails to get anywhere near him and allows the Belgian to double up with Silva on Rose. THIS was a much more obviously preventable situation which you could spot a mile away. Yet Winks gets suckered like a novice..

View attachment 7109


Do you see any of the Sissoko slaters on that thread with their lovely theories? Not a single peep...

Between Winks, Eriksen and possibly Sanchez, one of them should have been doubling up on the wide player to stop that precise move.

Thing is, none of them fudged up in the last match to let an easily avoidable goal in.

 

[wiziwig]

Im unread from page 325... that's some 60+ posts back...

Should I ?

 

[Yiddo]

He done well last season but I wouldn’t be against him being sold. He has the burst of pace and the power but does not chip in with enough goals or assists for a box to box midfielder and we had our highest amount of losses under Poch last season and didn’t exactly look solid at the back. He literally ran around abit last season.

 

[elltrev]

It's easy to say who's at fault for that goal. No matter what the initial plan, we're clearly in a breakdown situation. In which case, you use the two nearest the wide player to make sure he doesn't get into a cut back position as that's the danger play from there. Done. You block the run or through ball from De Bruyne straight into the box as that's the next most dangerous. Done.

Then the opposition is restricted to passing the ball deep and around the block, or chucking in a low value cross. Neither of those should be a worry for us. City chose the cross, and at the point Silva receives the ball, our back 4 are in the perfect positions. There's already a chance of an overload and plenty of time to see it. Sissoko doesn't. When the ball comes in, Sanchez and Alderweireld are pretty much where they should be. Given more time, I'd expect them to all drop a little further from the ball and across a little, but Sanchez would have to lead that as the first man and he can't see the danger there. Alderweireld takes Aguero as he should and KWP drops Aguero (who could have peeled off to the back post) for thean running into the box (his man).

All well and good to that point.

Regardless of normal tactics, regardless of starting positions, it's the job of the next man along to mark the next man. Sissoko just doesn't do that.

That's now two matches in a row where he just hasn't tracked the danger when he has both the strength and pace to snuff it out.

You didn’t answer my question... oh well, probably my fault for talking about Poch and formations in a Sissoko thread.

 

[scaramanga]

You didn’t answer my question... oh well, probably my fault for talking about Poch and formations in a Sissoko thread.

I think Poch probably did get it wrong defensively. It's understandable though, because that formation with Son/Moura/Alli in for Sissoko is the best we have offensively.

My point is that the defensive formation doesn't really matter in that scenario. The very basics of defending tell us to look down the line and take the next man. That means we're always goal side, we don't have to watch the area in behind us and it's fairly easy to take up a position in something resembling a straight defensive line.

Sterling started his move early enough to be seen by Sissoko, there was nobody wider for either team, he's the obvious candidate to take him.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I disagree with you..... and this isn't specifically about Sissoko... It is pretty clear to me through watching our play that our wide midfield players defensive job is picking up the opposition's full backs on their runs forward. We didn't adjust our tactics to combat the fact that Emirates Marketing Project look to get 5 forward and achieve 2 v 1 situations out wide on both sides. elltrev has read things very well I think in terms of the problems that City were creating for us and the lack of shape and tactics that we had to be able to defend against that.

As Bol and Scara have said upthread, its not about the formation or even the tactics - its about that specific point.

And at that specific point, Sissoko is at fault.

And I suspect were you to sit with Poch and show him that still and say "But this isnt Sissokos job because of your tactics, right?!" - he would disagree with you.