Birmingham City FC v Brentford FC Review - 15/02/20

A brief look at Passing Networks and Average Positions from Saturday’s match at St. Andrews.

The player circle size corresponds to the number of touches.

Lines only show passing combinations of more than 3 in any given direction.

The differing styles of the two sides are immediately apparent.

Birmingham - 4-4-2

Brentford FC - 4-3-3

Brentford, through what we will call the back 5, set out with the plan of controlling the game through possession.

The strongest network for the West London side runs between Pinnock, Jeanvier and Dalsgaard.

Those 3 players, with Raya backing them up in a very deep sweeper role, form not only the main defensive structure, they attempt to provide the base for which everything further forward is built from.

Birmingham, in contrast, are less focussed on control in this sense and happy to bypass this deep area altogether. Control for Birmingham is having the ball away from their own goal for as long as possible, making the most of their passes higher up the pitch. The volume of passes is not particularly important, the key is removing the risk around where they’re occurring.

There is a passing link between Goalkeeper Lee Camp and Jutkiewicz, plus ties in the wider areas between wide forward Bela and Ex-Bee Colin on the right and also Pedersen and the talented youngster Bellingham on the left.

The middle third network for Birmingham looks noticeably sparser than that of Brentford’s which further highlights how the two sides want to play. Clotet mainly wants his side to make the most of their possessions, not have the most possessions.

We mentioned the Birmingham GK and CF network, it is only fair to identify the line between Raya and Watkins. An interesting feature this season and a key part of Brentford's success so far has been the option to go long when pressed or use direct play as a viable way of getting the ball forward. They now have the element of surprise and more variety when progressing the ball.

The two forward lines provide interesting viewing. Benrahma is mostly categorized as a winger playing from the left hand side, yet the average position he finds himself performing his on ball actions is almost as central and advanced as centre forward Watkins. Describing Benrahma’s role more accurately would be to say he operates as a second striker and Brentford’s shape closer to a front two.



Birmingham City’s forward line works in a different way entirely. Hogan, (another ex-Bee) is not expected to link up with his hid midfielders and plays as far up the pitch as he can. Combinations with his strike partner are also not in the script, with Hogan and Jutkiewicz passing to each other just once. When the two receive the ball, it is hoped that the next action is running in on goal or shooting.

Triangles are important and abundant when looking at tactical supremacy within football. Both for controlling space defensively, to attacking and punishing the opposition with goals, the strongest shape in nature and the perfect physical structural frame is heavily influential.

We can see small triangle networks trying to take shape within the Birmingham team structure, mainly on the side of Jude Bellingham, but as an overarching identity, it is hard to make out many organised passing routes of this shape directed towards goal.

If we look at the geometry of the Brentford network, we could almost place the players into a large right angled triangle, with it’s tip pointing towards the opposition goal. Almost like an arrow trying to hit a target while still being concerned with what is going on behind it.

Have Brentford managed to figure out how to position the entire team to behave in a way that reaps all of the mathematical benefits of the triangle.

On the day, the game finished 1-1 for its struggles, with Birmingham giving up most of the possession yet still finding a way to create the best chance. The highest value effort coming from a situation from which they scored their goal, with Jutkiewicz managing to isolate himself on the back post with left-back Rico Henry, which may not have developed into the mismatch it was had Birmingham opted to not play with two centre forwards.

Birmingham City Goal

If looking for negatives within the two strategies, it could be suggested that Brentford spend too much time moving the ball between centre-backs. Could the ball be moved forward sooner or is this comfort within an overall plan. For Birmingham, questions around giving up so much of the possession are key.

In the long term, how easy is it to sustain a high level of efficiency in front of goal while preventing others from maximising their greater number of possessions.

How do you consistently balance relinquishing so much of the ball while still remaining vibrant enough to produce when you do finally receive it. Nottingham Forest are currently bucking this passing trend with few backing it as a sustainable method.

As a long term strategy, one does seem superior to the other. Although, if you subscribe to the view that football is a game of mistakes, the less mistakes you make, and more to the point, the less on ball mistakes you make in close proximity to your own goal, you should eventually concede less than your opponents.

We then go back to our giving up of possession and those triangles, and how they are behind the consistent attacking output we rely on to win games. Or is that now circularity?



Tactical Coffee?



