6 responses

  1. Chris
    16 August 2021

    Interestingly, Leeds had 23 tackles for 9 fouls, MU 6 tackles for 11 fouls.

    2 yellows against Leeds, 1 against MU

    Then my guess would be that Leeds ‘lost’ the ball more often then MU, making tackles unnecessary.
    As for Leeds, they had to go much more after then ball carrier especially after being behind, which had to make them more aggressive.

    Reply

  2. Mike T
    16 August 2021

    Does anyone not think like me that the number of tackles stat is suspect ?

    The range is far too big and the % of successful tackles varies so much.

    For instance Arsenal according to the numbers made 9 tackles of which just 3 were successful meaning 6 were unsuccessful . So one tackle every 10 minutes but only a successful tackle every 30 minutes.

    Whereas Brentford made 20 tackles of which 12 were successful and 8( only two less than reported in respect of Arsenal) were unsuccessful.

    Then you look at Man Utd supposed 6 tackles of which 4 were said to be successful so from those 2 failed tackles they , Man Utd were said to have conceded 14 fouls.

    I know that there are other reasons why fouls are given but bad or unsuccessful tackles surely are the prime reason for fouls aren’t they ?

    Reply

  3. Nitram
    16 August 2021

    As I said elsewhere, when I played as a full back my aim was to stand on my feet and not commit myself. Putting in a tackle is committing yourself. Yes you may win the ball, that is the advantage. But you can also not win the ball and end up out of the game, or as is the thrust of this debate, end up with a yellow card, or worse, if your tackle is particularly over zealous or late. Tackling should always be a last resort or at least as a result of your opponents bad touch or loss of control. More ‘nicking’ the ball than a tackle in fact.

    The thing with staying on your feet is it is harder work. The amount of times I’ve yelled at the telly when one of our guys goes in for a tackle around, or indeed inside the box, and gives away a free kick or a penalty. To me it’s just lazy defending.

    Of course we are not the only team with players that take the ‘lazy’ option, but I don’t care about them.

    In the end this notion of ‘Don’t commit yourself’ ‘stay on your feet’ or ‘don’t dive in’ is nothing new. And in addition my era was back in the day when ‘full blooded’ tackling was de rigueur, but even then staying on your feet was still the the way to play.

    I think the current trend is probably about adapting to a more vigilant style of refereeing.

    Having said that, I watched the last 30 minutes of the Spurs Man City game and thought the tackling was, shall we say, robust. Though some of the tackles were very good they seemed never the less very close to the edge. On another day, or maybe another team would not of got away with such a ‘robust’ approach ?

    Not sure if the ref was one of the lenient ones as highlighted in Tony’s article of a few weeks ago, but he seemed to offer a lot of latitude to me.

    Suffice to say, the commentators loved it.

    Reply

  4. Macy
    16 August 2021

    Does possession play a part in your analysis? A team in possession doesn’t need to make tackles. In most games we seem to have 60-70% possession.

    Reply

    • Tony Attwood
      16 August 2021

      Macy we’ve not done possession, but it is an interesting point. I’ll see if we can get reliable possession figures and compare them with results to see if there is a link.

      Reply

  5. Nitram
    16 August 2021

    That is a good point.

    Perhaps a good starting point would be looking at whether there was a dramatic increase in our possession at the same time our tackling decreased last year?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top