Mackday Meldrew - Leeds United FC


Not a fan of 3 at the back but it allowed them to pick up their front three well with the wingbacks and forwards rotating to give us that 5 when we needed it.

Compressed space between lines really well and we controlled overloads in the quarters both with a without to pin them and isolate other side quite similar to how Deniz has his sides side up.

Second half we compacted more without the ball but gaps for passing seemed to lengthen so we gave up possession more, but we held shape more rather than overload the quarters like we had first half.

Gave them nowt and suffocated them. Night and day to Mowbray tbh. One of the most astute and organised performances I’ve seen from is in a long time.

For those who don't like three at the back, it's worth factoring in how predictable we had become in recent months. There wasn't much variation in our shape, nothing like what we saw last night.

We probably surprised Leeds a bit, and it might alter the opposition's approach in future.
 
I feel like I might be in the minority here with Ba, I think he was playing the exact role he was being asked to and drifting in the middle wasn't a decision he was making on his own, you could see Dodds actually tell him at times, and it looked like when he was doing that Hume pushed up that little bit more and Seelt slotted in at right back and we shifted as a team, Pritch also was able to come looking for the ball because of it. I also think, like every player tonight, he put an absolute shift in.
Don’t disagree, except in one key sense; he just doesn’t look to me like he reads the pace of the game very well yet. He constantly got bundled off the ball or gave it away And wasn’t as quick thinking as those around him. The weakest link last night, but he’s young and will improve.
 
For those who don't like three at the back, it's worth factoring in how predictable we had become in recent months. There wasn't much variation in our shape, nothing like what we saw last night.

We probably surprised Leeds a bit, and it might alter the opposition's approach in future.

It’s more because you are adding more defensive players and losing players who are either better on the ball or attacking rather than shape but worked well last night for how we wanted to play with the CB’s almost going man for man across their front three in the first half in particular.

Dodds showing he can adjust to opposition and showing he can organise a side that has looked manic for the last year or so off the ball, with that that sort of intelligence in a matter of days is outstanding.
 
I don't think it was quite as revolutionary a SAFC set up as some are inferring.
If you swapped shirts last night, it was like us recently moving the ball back and forward along the back line for most of the game and the oppo staying tight and compact and nicking a point or 3.
Doddsy has obviously been watching our games so far ;) and just switched roles
 
It’s more because you are adding more defensive players and losing players who are either better on the ball or attacking

i would agree, but... Hume and Huggins in their current form are ideal for this shape.

when we don't have the ball, the 3 CBs don't have to worry about any part of the pitch wider than the 18 yard box due to how good they are defensively . and when we do have the ball, its like playing with 2 extra midfielders either through them coming centrally or supporting the wingers due to how good they are on the ball

the two most important players for us at the moment. Hume has been my MOTM two games running
 
I don't usually do a report for mid-week matches that I can't make, however I'll make an exception due to the interim head coach being in charge and the impact that might have had on the win. It'll be brief though!

For anyone who didn't see the game, and after all the speculation about who out of Seelt, O'Nien and Hume would replace Ekwah in midfield, well the answer was none of them. We switched to a back three/five with Seelt and O'Nien as wide centre backs, Hume and Huggins as wing backs, Neil and Jobe in the middle with Ba, Pritchard and Clarke across the front.

In short, we looked as though we'd played like this all season, against arguably the best attackers in the league. Leeds never really had a sniff, and the discipline shown from each player was formidable. Summerville is possibly Leeds' best player, and although he looked a threat at times, he had both Seelt and Huggins to deal with. Leeds only really threatened when Spence joined Summerville and we lost a bit of shape, but it was rare. Then when we lost Seelt and had to reshuffle, it was always going to be difficult with Clarke at wing back against Gnonto, but we coped. We did seem to emphasise their left as a major threat with the way we set up, and it worked a treat.

We played some good football at times, and the pass and move combination between Neil and Pritchard in the build up for the goal was delightful. The whole move was excellent, and it was a really clever touch from Pritchard at the end to set up what was a great run from Jobe. Cracking goal.

Looking at things more generally, if we're to use this shape in the future, the obvious benefits are that it makes us stronger at the back numerically, allows us to easily transition into a 3-2-5, with either the wing backs getting forward and the inside forwards cutting in, or the two central midfielders pushing into the half spaces and the wide attackers keeping the width. This would allow the two full backs to play narrower and become our central midfielders, something Hume is familiar with, and also allows them to quickly get back into their defensive shape if needs be.

Both wide centre backs like to be on the ball and this shape allows for that - I think it could really suit O'Nien and Seelt, with Ballard keeping things together centrally. Hume can play there, as can Alese and Cirkin when fit. It also negates that desire to have a singular holding defensive midfielder as it's not necessary in this shape - you can play two central midfielders in there knowing the have the third centre back as cover.

I imagine though that we'd only see it when Dodds felt we were up against it, and that won't always/often be the case. Plus, we've no idea how many games he'll be in charge.

Patterson - one excellent save early on then no other saves to make but was solid. 7

Hume - solid in both positions and back in form. 8

Seelt - gave a few free kicks away early on but grew quickly into the game. He was massively tested this evening and passed Kath flying colours, both on and off the ball. 8

Ballard - just remains vital to us if we're to have a successful season. 8

O'Nien - as said earlier, this role tonight probably suits him better than being in a two, and he excelled in a similar vein to Seelt. 8

Huggins - I love his energy. He can put himself about like Hume, and is all over the pitch as well as being technically good with the ball at his feet. He's becoming an important mainstay of the side. 8

Neil - disciplined, tidy and composed. Excellent for the goal. 7

Jobe - not quite as composed or assured in his decision making on the ball as Neil, but probably more willing to get forward (or more natural) than Neil when they play alongside each other. Should have done better with a header earlier but I love that he's a threat aerially, and timed his run and finish for the goal perfectly. 8

Ba - way off the pace, looked low on confidence and the one player who didn't quite seem to get his role in the team. As he was drifting centrally quite a lot, I actually think Aouchiche could have played that role, although Roberts was the more obvious swap. 5

Pritchard - led from the front superbly, keeping the ball and dictating the game when we had it. Another assist and pretty much 90 minutes under his belt. 8

Clarke - ripped Gray to pieces first half, and despite not impacting the key moment of the game, he got us up the pitch and caused them problems all first half and parts of the second too. 8

Subs - Roberts was a big improvement on Ba, and Ekwah was a welcome and clever addition as it meant we could move Hume and it not affect our game too much. It didn't feel like a game to be bringing on inexperienced foreign players, so the subs were sensible with the game in mind.

I don't think anyone stood out ahead of the rest, it was just a really good job done by the whole team.

Leeds - comfortable on the ball and they have good players for this level, but they were a bit like what we've seen from us on many occasions - plenty of the ball with the opposition in front of them but unable to break down an organised and disciplined defence. Went down like fannies particularly first half, and barely created a thing. When we empty our back pockets tomorrow morning we'll find ten Leeds players tucked away safely. They resorted at the end to throwing all their attackers on which I thought was a bit of blessing, as all it did was congest the space in that area even more and meant they had nobody to really feed them with chances either.

I'll have missed loads no doubt as I only watched on TV, but that's how I saw it.
Good assessment.

Would have to dock Clarke at least one point for nearly throwing the whole game at 0-0 with what would have been a nailed on red card had the Leeds player (Summerville) not strangely decided to be very un-shithouse-like.
 
i would agree, but... Hume and Huggins in their current form are ideal for this shape.

when we don't have the ball, the 3 CBs don't have to worry about any part of the pitch wider than the 18 yard box due to how good they are defensively . and when we do have the ball, its like playing with 2 extra midfielders either through them coming centrally or supporting the wingers due to how good they are on the ball

the two most important players for us at the moment. Hume has been my MOTM two games running

But you can still have them play those roles and have a DM rotate instead of an additional CB which is more fluid and opens more passing lanes to play out.

Worked a treat last night v a side we’ve done our homework on though and great to see a manager able to adapt or to do more than give it to the wingers and hope for the best.
 
Good summary, Was really impressed with our discipline of knowing when to press and not getting sucked in too early.

We seemed to let their centre halfs have it, not press at all but as soon as it went out to a full back or into central midfield we would press hard forcing them back towards their own goal and then sat back off. I also noticed how often we seemed to put pressure on the full backs as soon as they had it meaning they had to try and move the ball through the channels which didn't really suit their players.

Great work from Dodds, Proctor and the players, really impressive.

We do seem to play better against the better sides, We struggle more when have more of the ball so Bristol will be a completely different test and im intrigued to see how Dodds will set us up for this one. Far more exciting than Mowbray of previous weeks, trying the same shite with nothing happening, no impact with subs and then conceding a sloppy goal on the counter.
 
It’s more because you are adding more defensive players and losing players who are either better on the ball or attacking rather than shape but worked well last night for how we wanted to play with the CB’s almost going man for man across their front three in the first half in particular.

Dodds showing he can adjust to opposition and showing he can organise a side that has looked manic for the last year or so off the ball, with that that sort of intelligence in a matter of days is outstanding.

It's easy to transition into a five in attack in the shape we played last night. It doesn't have to be defensive.
i would agree, but... Hume and Huggins in their current form are ideal for this shape.

when we don't have the ball, the 3 CBs don't have to worry about any part of the pitch wider than the 18 yard box due to how good they are defensively . and when we do have the ball, its like playing with 2 extra midfielders either through them coming centrally or supporting the wingers due to how good they are on the ball

the two most important players for us at the moment. Hume has been my MOTM two games running

I think one of the most important aspects that might be getting overlooked is that the shape solves our defensive midfield conundrum.
Good summary, Was really impressed with our discipline of knowing when to press and not getting sucked in too early.

We seemed to let their centre halfs have it, not press at all but as soon as it went out to a full back or into central midfield we would press hard forcing them back towards their own goal and then sat back off. I also noticed how often we seemed to put pressure on the full backs as soon as they had it meaning they had to try and move the ball through the channels which didn't really suit their players.

Great work from Dodds, Proctor and the players, really impressive.

We do seem to play better against the better sides, We struggle more when have more of the ball so Bristol will be a completely different test and im intrigued to see how Dodds will set us up for this one. Far more exciting than Mowbray of previous weeks, trying the same shite with nothing happening, no impact with subs and then conceding a sloppy goal on the counter.

Our 'triggerp press' was much more ball oriented than player. The latter does lead to some dangerous turnovers, but often leaves us vulnerable and exposed. That was never likely to happen last night.
A good summary although giving Neil a lower score than ever other player than Ba, I found very, very strange.

Everyone stood out apart from him. All five defenders were excellent, Bellingham got the only goal of the game, Pritchard ran things and Clarke terrorised them first half. Ba was pony, and Neil just seemed to have a good, solid game.

It doesn't seem strange to me.
 
Last edited:
A big difference I'm noticing is how Dodds has seen out the past 2 games

Doesn't panic just encourages the team to maintain possession to see the game out

Can't recall Mowbray being this composed in tight games but might be wrong on that
 
It's easy to transition into a five in attack in the shape we played last night. It doesn't have to be defensive.


I think one of the most important aspects that might be getting overlooked is that the shape solves our defensive midfield conundrum.


Our 'triggerp press' was much more ball oriented than player. The latter does lead to some dangerous turnovers, but often leaves us vulnerable and exposed. That was never likely to happen last night.


Everyone stood out apart from him. All five defenders were excellent, Bellingham got the only goal of the game, Pritchard ran things and Clarke terrorised them first half. Ba was pony, and Neil just seemed to have a good, solid game.

It doesn't seem strange to me.

I didn't say it had to be defensive. I said you forfeit a player better on the ball or better at attacking for a CB. There's loads of ways to make a front 5 but they don't all involve an additional CB.

It's a personal opinion on why I don't really like a back 3. I'm not even saying it doesn't work. Clearly it did last night.
 
I didn't say it had to be defensive. I said you forfeit a player better on the ball or better at attacking for a CB. There's loads of ways to make a front 5 but they don't all involve an additional CB.

It's a personal opinion on why I don't really like a back 3. I'm not even saying it doesn't work. Clearly it did last night.

If you have two or three good ball playing defenders, you don't necessarily forfeit a player who is better on the ball. You forfeit an attacking option on paper, but the extra defender allows others (such as our full backs and central midfielders) more freedom and expression themselves.
 
If you have two or three good ball playing defenders, you don't necessarily forfeit a player who is better on the ball. You forfeit an attacking option on paper, but the extra defender allows others (such as our full backs and central midfielders) more freedom and expression themselves.

They can still do that in a back 4 with a DM rotating which is also fluid enough to progress through a 325 to a 235. All achieved through rotations but more often than not with players more comfortable with the ball or awareness to do it. Full backs can still have freedom with triangle supports inside either of them. With an additional CB you can just lose a player who can either play facing their own goal to receive or on the turn, can play in tighter areas under pressure to progress or lose an extra player between the lines or you can end up too flat.

We had a few nervy moments last night playing short from Patterson to the CB's under high pressure. Player with more composure would help progress the ball better. We don't really have that sort of player yet though - certainly not one that gives enough defensive structure as well being decent progressing. Ekwah is arguably the closest but his awareness isn't there yet and he's not disciplined enough tbh.

Again, just reasons why I'm not personally a fan of back 3's. There's no formation that trumps all others. Nowt groundbreaking. bAck 3 last night however did an excellent job of killing their front three and using overloads in the quarters was getting us that space to counter them. First half in particular but Ba was wasteful.
 
Good assessment.

Would have to dock Clarke at least one point for nearly throwing the whole game at 0-0 with what would have been a nailed on red card had the Leeds player (Summerville) not strangely decided to be very un-shithouse-like.

Then you can give Clarke the point back for the tracking back he did from their penalty area all the way back to ours and doing enough to stop their player scoring a goal. Massive contribution to our three points.
 
I don’t think Ba was THAT bad, I just felt he was too weak and got bullied off the ball far too often. Needs to put some beef on and bulk up.
He gave the ball away a number of times, was bullied by their defenders and basically never really got into the game. Supporters support their players though so some of the elation on herebis just wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SR7
They can still do that in a back 4 with a DM rotating which is also fluid enough to progress through a 325 to a 235. All achieved through rotations but more often than not with players more comfortable with the ball or awareness to do it. Full backs can still have freedom with triangle supports inside either of them. With an additional CB you can just lose a player who can either play facing their own goal to receive or on the turn, can play in tighter areas under pressure to progress or lose an extra player between the lines or you can end up too flat.

We had a few nervy moments last night playing short from Patterson to the CB's under high pressure. Player with more composure would help progress the ball better. We don't really have that sort of player yet though - certainly not one that gives enough defensive structure as well being decent progressing. Ekwah is arguably the closest but his awareness isn't there yet and he's not disciplined enough tbh.

Again, just reasons why I'm not personally a fan of back 3's. There's no formation that trumps all others. Nowt groundbreaking. bAck 3 last night however did an excellent job of killing their front three and using overloads in the quarters was getting us that space to counter them. First half in particular but Ba was wasteful.

Aye, all shapes should be fluid enough to transition into either a 2-3-5 or 3-2-5 - this was kind of the point I was trying to make which is why I don't think a back three necessarily loses out on a ball player, if you have the right players.
 
Then you can give Clarke the point back for the tracking back he did from their penalty area all the way back to ours and doing enough to stop their player scoring a goal. Massive contribution to our three points.

The single most dangerous thing anyone did yesterday was that shirt-tug. I’m still giving him 7. He was our best player first half.
Aye, all shapes should be fluid enough to transition into either a 2-3-5 or 3-2-5 - this was kind of the point I was trying to make which is why I don't think a back three necessarily loses out on a ball player, if you have the right players.
I like it.

I think it suits the strengths and weaknesses of our squad very well. Particularly if we get Pembele back.
 
Seen Leeds a few times this season and if you play an open game, giving their front 4 space, then you are asking for trouble. Dodds changed the shape and starved their attackers of the oxygen of space.

Was slightly worried at 60 minutes as I thought our intensity dropped but that only lasted a couple of minutes - was amazed they could maintain their levels for the full 90 especially after the WBA game only three days earlier.
 
Everyone stood out apart from him. All five defenders were excellent, Bellingham got the only goal of the game, Pritchard ran things and Clarke terrorised them first half. Ba was pony, and Neil just seemed to have a good, solid game.

It doesn't seem strange to me.
It's very strange. He held the team together and got man of the match from at least one professional journalist.
 

Back
Top