Motherwell F.C. Analysis Report


Published on

Published in: Entertainment & Humor, Travel
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Motherwell F.C. Analysis Report

  1. 1. Motherwell Football Club Team and Player Analysis Max Rogers
  2. 2. Contents1. Introduction2. Motherwell F.C. Statistics3. General Playing Style4. Formation5-6. Crossing against Celtic (A)7-9. Weaknesses10. Set-Pieces – Defending Corners11. Conclusion
  3. 3. IntroductionThe purpose of this report is to highlight Motherwell F.C.’s strengths and weaknesses inboth attacking and defensive situations. The three games that have been analysed will lookat how Motherwell conceded and scored goals, their set piece set-up and general system ofplay. 1
  4. 4. Motherwell F.C. Statistics o After 7 games they are 3rd in the table having taken 13 points from a possible 21. o Their last five games are as followed (most recent first): LWWLW. The two defeats coming against Celtic and Rangers respectively. o 66.7% win rate at home. 58.3% win rate away. o Most common result is 1-0. o Average goals scored: 1.286 per match. Average goals concede: 1.286 per match. o Average time they score their first goal: 26th minute. o Average time they concede their first goal: 14th minute. Team Played Points Rangers 6 16 Celtic 6 15 Motherwell 7 13 Home Form Away Form Won Drawn Lost Won Drawn Lost 2 0 1 2 1 12
  5. 5. General Playing StyleMotherwell like to use patient build-up play transferring the ball through defence andmidfield, even though they possess a strong and physical striker who can win the ball in theair (Higdon No. 9.) and bring their midfield players into the game. Their defenders are braveon the ball and both centre backs (Craigon No. 5 & Hutchison No. 15) are willing to receivepasses and initiate attacks or indeed retain possession if there are no opportunities to playthe ball forward. The fullbacks (Hammell No. 3 & Clancy No. 33) are very important in their system asthey provide all the width and often overlap Motherwell’s wide midfielders to cross the ballfrom advanced positions. In midfield they play with two players in the middle of the pitch (Law No. 4 & LasleyNo. 14) and one supporting the striker (Jennings No. 8) although they can interchange roles.They all contribute to Motherwell’s patient build-up by offering to take the ball from thedefence and link up in midfield. Often they receive the ball with their back to theopponent’s goal. Motherwell’s lone striker requires support to be quite close if they want towin any balls he flicks on. Both wide players (Hateley No. 6 & Murphy No. 11) are moreinclined to move inwards and act as inside forwards. The lone striker (Higdon No. 9.) is strong but doesn’t have much pace. He makes upfor this however with good technical skills and is able to flick the ball on with his head orchest should Motherwell need to play a long pass. He is the main target in the box. Their goalkeeper (Randolph No. 1) is also involved in this patient build-up playalthough they defenders prefer not to pass the ball back to him if they are under pressure.He will quite readily take goal kicks short to either fullback. 3
  6. 6. Formation o A triangle in midfield is a key factor in their ability to maintain possession of the ball as many teams in the league play 4-4-2 which allows Motherwell’s central midfield to have an extra man. o Two holding midfielders allow the fullbacks to have the freedom they need to charge forward and create width across the pitch. o Every player is aware of the system of play and when substitutions are made the style remains the same.4
  7. 7. Crossing Against Celtic (Away)First Half Origin of Crosses Total Crosses 1st Half 2.50% Successful 3 4 Unsuccessful 97.50 % 1 2 Blue – Highest Success Yellow – Most Crosses Orange – Both Zone Crosses Successful Unsuccessful % Successful 1 0 0 0 0% 2 1 0 1 0% 3 2 1 1 50% 4 5 0 5 0% 5
  8. 8. Second Half Origin of Crosses Total Crosses 2nd Half 17.00 % Successful Unsuccessful 3 4 83.00 % 1 2 Blue – Highest Success Yellow – Most Crosses Orange - Both Zone Crosses Successful Unsuccessful % Successful 1 0 0 0 0% 2 0 0 1 0% 3 2 2 0 0% 4 4 1 3 25%Against Celtic Motherwell were pinned back for long periods but refused to play long ballsfrom deep. They instead stuck to their system of passing patiently and moving the ballforward to advanced positions before crossing. Even against Celtic they continued to pushtheir fullbacks forward and into positions were they could cross. 6
  9. 9. WeaknessesThe following weaknesses have been picked up from Motherwell’s games against Hearts,Rangers and Celtic.Centre Backs against Hearts From a long ball played out of the Hearts box by their goalkeeper, both centre backs show different weakness. In the first image, Saunders firstly uses the wrong foot to try and clear the ball – should use his left – which secondly results in him missing his interception. In the second picture, the ball is already past Craigan before he can turn and accelerate fully.In the games againstRangers and Celtic,Motherwell’s defensivefrailties were highlightedonce again. Both teamscreated chances andscored goals by playing quick link up passes on the edge of their box before passing the ball 7
  10. 10. into one of the defensive channels. This tactic isolated Motherwell’s slower defenders andbecause of their poor reaction time exposed the goal.Counter AttackCeltic used their wide players and strikers to swiftly counter attack Motherwell’s defencethrough the middle. As mentioned earlier Motherwell’s fullbacks like to attack which meansthere is a huge responsibility on the two holding midfielders to provide cover. They justcould not do this against a counter attack. The situation below came from a Motherwellthrow-in on the left hand side of the pitch. Hooper is able to receive the ball and turnbetween the lines of midfield and defence. He is supported by Ledley and Kai – the scorer –who both sprint up the pitch as Hooper turns on the ball.They seem to struggle to adapt to a ‘False 9’ who will drop deep into the space betweendefence and midfield. On occasions against Celtic when this happened neither defender feltcomfortable stepping forward, but also didn’t get a mid-fielder to drop back. 8
  11. 11. Lack of Creativity in Mid-FieldWith reference to their game against Celtic, Motherwell had a lot of possession in front ofCeltic’s defence but could not find a way through. This resulted in them playing a lot ofpasses sideways. Although this ensured they kept the ball this distinct lack of penetrationmeant they were unable to create any significant chances.Celtic nullified Motherwell’s passing game by playing with two very disciplined banks of fourwho rarely ventured from their position to close the ball down. 9
  12. 12. Set Pieces – Defending CornersAgainst Hearts at home Motherwell defended corner kicks as shown below. They preferred not to station defenders on each post but rather protect the area in front of the goalkeeper. Three man markers are used on the edge of the six-yard box. This offers very little protection at the back post and with so many bodies around the goalkeeper hemay find it difficult to come and collect the ball.Their set-up was similar againstRangers (below) and Celticalthough sometimes they placeda player on the back post. Thedefenders always mark man toman and never zonally. 10
  13. 13. Conclusion o Possession orientated style. o Patient build, happy to play the ball backwards if there are no options further up the pitch. o Fullbacks are very attack minded and provide the width. o Strong target man who has good technique. o Defence can be exposed through counter attacking. o Slow defenders, the team in general have a poor defensive transition. o May find it difficult to break a well organised defence.11