The Nestor Model

[baggieal]

In the article Nestor acknowledges that Corberan had established "an extremely well organized Game Model" that they did not want to "veer too far away from" but needed to add to that "more of an attacking style". He clearly recognizes that most teams would want to be able to control games and be solid defensively first and then be able to "hurt the opposition" but that whilst Albion had generally achieved the first, they struggled with the second.

Nestor seems very aware that fans had been (and continue to be!) very frustrated by the low level of goals scored, particularly at home and appreciates that our possession based style of play then causes the opposition to react in a certain way with a low block response that we have found hard to break through.

So far, nothing in the above that I think anyone would disagree with. He then goes on to talk about the need to bring in players who are capable of managing the transition from defence to offence and back to better meet the challenges of particular games or opposition and the need for more fluidity. He states the importance of our scouting operation to identify players who fit the model and also our budget.

He talks about the importance of lowering the average age of the squad whilst retaining a mix of experience and youth, and of having a game model that carries through from the Academy to senior team so that the transition upwards is easier and that everyone understands their job within the squad.

I don't think that there is anything there that I disagree with and Mason too has echoed a lot of the above and in several interviews has stressed that it is about the team/ squad and not individuals and has spoken about our need to score more goals and not sit back on fragile one goal leads.

So why are we still repeating the failures of last season-particularly in the last regard? Is it Mason not practicing what he preaches-and, if so, why? Is it the players themselves? A combination of both perhaps? Given the above, I can't see that it is a faulty Game Model, just that we are struggling big time to add that "attacking style of play" and "fluidity" to Corberan's initial defensive/ possession based model. Hence the lack of goals still, the too often pedestrian style build ups and the continued frustration amongst fans.

Football is a lot like politics in that, as Harold Wilson said, "a week is a long time" and the achievements or failings of just a few weeks ago are soon forgotten. We may have still struggled for goals in our early games but we did start to show more attacking intent. Things seemed to be moving in the right direction-they may still, despite Saturday's dire performance.

One of the things that (rightly) annoyed fans-and also Mason judging from his post match comments-from the Millwall game was the lack of cohesion and the lack of intent. The Norwich game we were guilty of sitting on a fragile one goal lead again and consequently rode our luck, but few would argue that it wasn't a good team performance with the players all working for each other. Yes, changes were made at Millwall not least because the Championship requires game management and rotation of players, but this cohesion and work ethic was sadly missing at the Den.

The use of AI/ algorithms has increased dramatically in recent years and is seen in all aspects of our work and lives. It can be a hugely useful tool, but what it cannot do is replace genuine human innovation or "thinking outside the box" and it hampers what we might call "flair". None the less, I believe that the club's Game Model -at least as Nestor explained it-is a good base to work from to be able to achieve the 3 year plan. If it is not working, it is because it is not being implemented properly and consistently but then Mason only has the players he has at his disposal. Not all of them (as I'm sure we are all aware!) are fully capable of meeting the requirements of the Model.

As for Matt's comments on Wallace and Mowatt, I think they are pretty spot on. Yes, both lack pace now but they do have experience and that is valuable within the team. Certainly I would start Mikey ahead of Wallace but Jed is a solid back up for him and in recent games has performed well. I could only listen to the Millwall game but it was he and Mikey who seemed to show the most attacking intent in the match.

Sorry for the length of this post, got carried away! I'm sure 68 will appreciate it though 😀

The frustration of many is the switching of key players so there?s a lack of consistency and cohesion. Is that intent to win a match with Wallace and Heggebo? No. For me you don?t chop and change key players. Junior is a race horse compared to Wallace and Maja usually knows where the net is. Three games in X amount of days some might say! My point is don?t tamper with the best key players who should start the match and then bring them off if necessary as opposed to bringing them on to chase a game when it?s lost. There?s no tampering with Phillips or Mepham to make my point clear.

Don?t buy the lots of experience comment either. Hugill and Zohore had lots of experience but they were ****e! Jed is ok to bring on but to start come on? He has no pace and can?t beat a player FFS! You need a real leader for Captain who plays 90 minutes ie Phillips. Shocking Wallace is still the captain.

Take Coventry - they set up to attack and win plus Asante is now playing on the flanks and not a lone number 9 like he was with us! Coventry get the ball forward at pace and don?t dilly dally with 15 sideways passes so the opposition can get back and work out the tactic.

Are Coventry any better than us? Debatable but they do have a manager who is trying to win the game and score goals. We don?t as clearly seen. Heggebo hold the ball up well but not quick enough with his feet and certainly not clinical. At the moment I would play Heggebo with Maja and drop Price because lately he?s been a waste of space.