Like so often, the scoreline does not tell even half the story. A one goal loss, and a missed penalty at 2:1 down, and yet Uwe Neuhaus said Union's performance in the opening 70 minutes was the worst at home in the last three years. So what went wrong?
Perhaps Neuhaus himself has provided a clue. On the 70 minute mark, Union had been playing in a 4-1-3-2 for about ten minutes, rather than the 4-1-4-1 they were sent out in. Mattuschka was substituted on the hour mark. Ede replaced him and went out to the left wing. Benyamina, who once again started on the right, moved a little more into the middle alongside Mosquera (though not, you suspect, as much as he would have liked). Brunnemann, who had been lively on the left, tucked in, and Polenz and Kohlmann overlapped from full-back.
(Note: thanks to Mathias in the comments for reminding me that Younga-Mahouni was replaced by Menz at half time. It was a like for like swap.)This 4-1-3-2 formation, while a little lopsided up front, seems to suit the players more. Benyamina said in midweek that he is more comfortable in the middle. He had a troublesome time on the right hand side today. Fürth targeted Union's right back area (both goals came from there), either by diagonal balls or doubling up on their left flank. Benyamina got caught between his attacking instincts and having to track back, and picked up a yellow card for his troubles. But the player 4-1-3-2 must have a bigger influence on is Santi Kolk, who had a very mixed game today, not just because his penalty was saved. Kolk was signed as a playmaker. Neuhaus said in the week that "he can win games with his pasing". But as Riquelme once said, a playmaker can only make the play if there are players in front of him. In a 4-1-4-1, Kolk has fewer options than with two attackers up front and overlapping full backs. Take Kolk's goal today. It came after the formation change. He spread the ball out wide to an overlapping Kohlmann, and then ghosted into the box to pick up the loose cross and slot it into the bottom corner. If Kolk only has one striker to make play for, he has to drop further back to find space and passing options. But this reduces his own goalscoring threat. Kolk had more shots (just), and more shots on target, than any other Union player today. If he had converted his penalty, we might be talking about how he singlehandedly won Union a point. Also, by dropping back, he's likely to be expected to pick up more defensive duties. Is that really his strong point? Today he won only 2 from 13 attempted tackles (although it should be said that no Union player did particularly well in that regard). To free Kolk from defensive duties even more, Union could play 4-2-3-1, with Younga-Mahouni and Mattuschka as defensive midfielders. Two might not always be needed, allowing Mattuschka to get forward and display his own usually accurate, metronomic passing. * * *One issue with the way that Union play, whether it's 4-1-3-2 or 4-1-4-1, is leaving space at full back. Jerome Polenz likes to get forward and, as already mentioned, Fürth targeted that space today:
They made a profit, too. The first goal resulted from a pass behind into space, and the second as Christopher Nöthe came in onto his right foot:
How to overcome this? Well, if the full back is caught out up the pitch the centre back should come across to cover and, in an ideal world, the defensive midfielder (say, Younga-Mahouni) could drop back to fill the gap in central defence. If Union were playing 4-2-3-1, this would provide even more cover, and yet still leave a defensive midfielder (say, Mattuschka) to link up defence and attack if or when Union win the ball back. * * *Whatever formation Union play, it won't compensate for the sloppiness they displayed today. They got what they deserved and a draw would only have flattered them further.As in the first game, Union committed too many fouls. The ref was picky, but should not be blamed. Overall Union committed 29 fouls, almost twice as many as Fürth, almost one every three minutes on average. Six Union players received a yellow card. Obvious discipline issues aside (players getting sent off, suspended for future games), and allowing for the ref, the number of fouls highlights how Union failed to control the game. Although Union had more possession, Fürth broke with more confidence, on occasion bursting straight through the middle. At times in the second half they stroked the ball around with ease on the edge of Union's penalty box. Mercifully for the home fans at the first Alte Försterei game of the season, there were no olés (at least not audible ones). Passing was also patchy -- especially where it mattered. Union did work the ball down their flanks more than the first game, and won six corners, but only three of sixteen crosses were successful. What's the point of getting to the byline if you're not going to find someone with the cross? * * *For the brief period when Union were properly in the game, after the change in formation and before the penalty miss deflated them momentarily, they played with a lot of energy and pressed well high up the pitch, forcing Fürth into mispasses. It's not a tactic they could carry out for an entire game, but if they had started the game in the same way, it might have disrupted Fürth and not allowed them to settle into their own rhythm. It's what Union should be doing at home. And we all know who's next for them to try it on.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here, although "They got what they deserved" doesn't come close to my ranting on the way home. The entire midfield formation wasn't working well. Younga-Mouhani, Mattuschka, Kolk and Mosquera were playing in a nearly straight vertical line a lot of the time, with Brunnemann and Benyamina the only ones providing any width, so it seemed like a 4-1-3-1-1 with a strange cross-shaped midfield (bundesliga.de shows what I mean at the 30th minute positioning map). Younga-Mouhani was also playing very deep with no real connection to the players further up thus leaving huge gaps in the centre of midfield. To make matters worse his age is really showing now, his lack of pace and timing put him in constant danger of getting booked/sent off. The centre-backs had to leave their position to cover this space more than once, most notably Madouni right before the first goal. So whereas you would want them to cover up for the attacking full-backs (and be covered up for by a holding midfielder in turn) they kind of had to cover for both. Madouni more than Göhlert because Polenz's positioning was far worse than Kohlmann's. I totally agree with your conclusion regarding a 4-2-3-1 with Mattuschka as the more offensive-minded of two holding midfielders which we seem to need badly to stabilize our game. This way the wingers could get more support without opening up too much and in turn put more pressure on the opponent's defence creating more space and time for the striker. Still a lot to do. It's gonna be a tough season and if we don't get a grip soon I fear the worst.
Oops there is a pretty obvious flaw in my reasoning with Younga-Mouhani not on the pitch anymore for the second goal... Still, Madouni did come out to (badly) clear a ball right before the long pass to Müller. Polenz's positioning awful here as well.
@keanofcu I wasn't paying that much attention to Younga-Mahouni, but will bear in mind what you say next time. Certainly, if he's struggling as the sole defensive midfielder, it would make sense to bring in somebody alongside him.
The friendly next weekend (against SV Babelsberg 03) would be a great opportunity to try 4-2-3-1 and see how it goes.
The entire midfield formation wasn't working well. Younga-Mouhani, Mattuschka, Kolk and Mosquera were playing in a nearly straight vertical line a lot of the time, with Brunnemann and Benyamina the only ones providing any width, so it seemed like a 4-1-3-1-1 with a strange cross-shaped midfield (bundesliga.de shows what I mean at the 30th minute positioning map). Younga-Mouhani was also playing very deep with no real connection to the players further up thus leaving huge gaps in the centre of midfield. To make matters worse his age is really showing now, his lack of pace and timing put him in constant danger of getting booked/sent off. The centre-backs had to leave their position to cover this space more than once, most notably Madouni right before the first goal. So whereas you would want them to cover up for the attacking full-backs (and be covered up for by a holding midfielder in turn) they kind of had to cover for both. Madouni more than Göhlert because Polenz's positioning was far worse than Kohlmann's.
I totally agree with your conclusion regarding a 4-2-3-1 with Mattuschka as the more offensive-minded of two holding midfielders which we seem to need badly to stabilize our game. This way the wingers could get more support without opening up too much and in turn put more pressure on the opponent's defence creating more space and time for the striker.
Still a lot to do. It's gonna be a tough season and if we don't get a grip soon I fear the worst.
The friendly next weekend (against SV Babelsberg 03) would be a great opportunity to try 4-2-3-1 and see how it goes.
But apart from that I find this analysis totally convincing.
And there I am talking about sloppiness. Ein Esel schimpft den anderen Langohr usw. ...