The Eddie Howe ‘out’ camp are strangely quiet… | OneFootball

The ‘Howe Out!’ camp (strangely quiet at the moment) has a favourite criticism and that’s ‘Eddie Howe has no plan B when plan A isn’t working!”

This is, and has always been, utter cobblers.

If I’m being charitable (which I rarely am, truth be told) I can sort of see how it might be that an observer, a casual one with very little actual knowledge of how the football match dynamics play out, might think that there isn’t a plan B.

If you think that a plan B has to entail some radical and ‘bleeding obvious’ change in formation ie from 4-3-3 to 4-4-2 then you probably, might, maybe would conclude that there isn’t one.

But this simply isn’t how a modern, tactically astute coach operates and directs his squad. And here’s why.

Firstly, you have a Plan A because it’s your best plan.

It’s the most effective one and the one that you win games with. You’ll train with this plan and you’ll focus on it in that way that modern elite athletes do i.e. you focus totally. This plan will have two main components: with the ball and without the ball. Further subdivisions of these components are attacking, defending and transitions. These variations can be emphasised and minimised according to the situation. You can ramp up the attacking and tone down the defensive side as the circumstances dictate.

This brings us to the second point. When is a Plan A variations actually a Plan B?

You can raise the defensive component so much that you shape seems to be different and ‘Plan B’ like in its operation. One reason, probably the main one, that managers like to use the 4-3-3 formation is because it is the most flexible, most able to accommodate these variations.

I think a lot of the confusion about plan B comes from a rigidity in understanding formations and how they work on the pitch when the first whistle blows. For a start, teams will have an in-possession and an out of possession formation. With the ball we tend to be 2-2-5-1 and without it 5-4-1 but it’s so much easier to think 4-3-3.

I’d probably better explain what I mean with that bunch of ‘with the ball’ numbers. Against Man Utd and Spuds first half in attack/moving forward we would have the two CBs and then next up the ‘opposite to play’ full back and the pivot/defensive midfielder ie Tonali or Guimaraes – and I’ll explain why Sandro isn’t a number six in another article/rant – and in front of them would be the play sided or ‘overlapping’ full back, the number eight midfielder ie Tonali or Guimaraes and Joelinton, Gordon and Murph.

And, finally, ahead of them is Mighty Isak. So, for example v Spurs it might have been Botman, Burn – Hall, Tonali – Gordon, Joelinton, Bruno, Murphy, Tino – Isak.) This effectively gives us plenty of attack while also allowing us a decent ‘rest defence’.

An interesting way to help understand how formations work is to reimagine them in the horizontal rather than the vertical (Or is it the other way around?). Anyway, think of a 4-3-3 as a 2-6-2. Just an idea!

It’s important to remember that an enormous amount of time and effort goes into getting players to understand their roles and responsibilities in the system they play. To operate a formation at the level of a Premier League team is no mean feat. Hours and hours and hours goes into it.

Bemoaning the lack of an obvious plan B is all very well but you must realise that to implement any plan it must be understood, rehearsed and practiced to the required level, otherwise you end up five nil down after 25 minutes, like Spurs at our place that time they changed formation at the back on a whim.

Now, with this in mind, having a plan B which is a variation on the main theme, makes way more sense than a wholesale, very obvious change

One moving from 4-3-3 to 3-4-3. Getting your squad to understand a totally different formation from your A Game simply may not be possible or advisable. Just look at the success Amorim is having at Man Utd so far? 3-4-3, it turns out, is a very different kettle of fish to 4-3-3.

I guess what I’m trying to say here is that the Eddie Howe ‘Plan B’ just isn’t sometimes obvious to the observer, to the fan, to the geezer or geezeress in the stands.

Obsessive tactics geeks like me might be jumping up and down in their seats shouting and pointing “Look! Look! Lewis Hall has inverted!” but ‘normal’ fans won’t notice this stuff, (and I’m not normal, I know this – insert smiling emoji here) especially in a modern, elite, super fast game.

And why should they? I study this stuff because I’m semi-retired and have the inclination and time. There’s nowt wrong with just wanting to watch in your own way and enjoy it. No, really. I have literally missed goals because I’ve been looking at what our centre-backs are doing when we’ve been attacking, ffs!

(So, this is me trying to not be some snobby, tactics aficionado. At the Gunners home game, second half, I just had to blurt out my tactical analysis to the fella next to me. I spouted off my nonsense for a minute and then the fella smiled and said “If you say so, bonny lad.” It was class patronisation and I’d totally asked for it.)

So…..Perhaps an example might help explain what I’m getting at?

At Spurs we had two very different halves in a similar way to the Man Utd game before it. First half we had attacking domination and second half we basically held off a screaming toddler while we patiently waited for it to get over its tantrum. In both games we had a very different approach in each half which, I would argue, was basically a plan A and a plan B.

How this panned out against Spurs was in the covering of the half space in our own final third (Patronisation warning – the half space, in case you didn’t know, is the channel between the wide and the central ie not quite ‘out wide’ and not ‘down the middle’ either. Just sayin’ – apologies if you know this stuff).

So, on the right, for example, Tino moved into the half space channel and Murph dropped into a more traditional full back role. Sven and BDB held the middle and Lewis Hall shuffled across towards the back post. This completely sexually intercoursed (yeah, I know – no swearing) the Tottenham short game in the half space that they have used to very good effect. In fact, their best chance from this came from Maddison running into Botman and somehow being awarded a free kick and a booking for Sven (which was far and away the most egregious refereeing call of the game IMO). Maddison had his usual shot from the edge following a delay in attention from the Toon defenders but he was closed down quick enough for him to hit it wide.

This change in tactics works very well, only because it is drilled and drilled and drilled into the squad. It scares the hell out of us Toon fans watching it, mind. Thing is, though, I watched the Spuds second half with a neutral (a Wolves fan) and he said several times that I should calm down because, to him, Tottenham don’t really look like they’re going to actually put the ball in the net.

It’s that emotional connection we have to our team that drives our anxiety and has us expecting the worst. In actual fact, neither Man Utd or Spurs really had many what I’d call, proper chances, such was the efficacy of Eddie Plan B. Of course, they had some chances, but that’s to be expected as no plan in perfect.

So, to conclude, Eddie Howe does have a plan B.

It’s just not a total change in formation that’s obvious to a casual observer. In this sense I’m sure he has a plan C and D and E. The reason we don’t make wholesale formation changes is that it’s just not a good idea to mess stuff up too much at this level. Stick to your A game as much as possible.

I can’t think of a team that regularly employs two very different formations. I’m sure they are out there but I can’t think of any. Let me know if you can, though.