• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

CB issues and three/five at the back.

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
mark1975

mark1975

Moderator
Moderator
When I saw the line-up yesterday I kind of expected us to struggle, while the three at the back set up has worked in some games allowing us to swamp the midfield, yesterday it just served to highlight our flaws at centre back, regardless of the absence of Soto and Agger. I think we really miss a commanding centre half and the three at the back set up, while a decent option, seems no more than a ploy to make the most of what we've got at the back, utilising our strengths, but more obviously, trying to cover up our deficiencies.

West Ham dragged us wide and stretched the backline, and we struggled. While their tactic to attack with pace down the flanks to then drill the ball in low across the backline was a perfect example of exploiting our weakness with dealing with balls delivered from wide positions. We just don't deal with it well enough. We lack the height to challenge consistently well in the air (at both ends of the pitch), while we lack the commanding figure in there to snuff out any danger on the deck, our deficiencies at fullback and our inability to cut out the ball first time is another big worry.

I've been heavily impressed with Kelly going forward, but I think like any young fullback, he lacks positional awareness at times, while we saw the same issue with Wilson, tenfold. Johnson has done a great job on the left but again has moments where he's caught too high up the pitch and is often to sluggish and hesitant in his ability to get back.

Whether we've got two at the back or three, if the fullbacks aren't in tandem defensively then the centre backs will become stretched and gaps will appear, players will become isolated, mistakes will happen and we'll concede.

I don't think the three at the back ploy is here to stay and nor should it be in the longterm, it's just making the most of what we've got at present and yesterday was one of those days that served to remind us that what we've got isn't enough.

Hopefully over the Summer we'll have a long look at our defensive setup and look at shaping a settled back four like the ones we've seen in past years.

We might lack a winger but our Achilles heal for the past two years (near enough) has been our defensive vulnerabilities. Our lack of a creative edge only serves to magnify our flaws at the back, because without putting teams to the sword, lacking the defensive foundation to keep things tight in these type of games is doing us in.
 
The defence has been over-performing if anything, but yesterday I was shocked and awed by two of the most accurate finishes I've seen in ages. The fact that they had to be so effing good is testament to the improvements. Wilson is just a kid and hasn't played for ages. Skrtel isn't and won't ever be good enough. I think we already knew that, didn't we?
 
[quote author=Krump link=topic=44382.msg1292560#msg1292560 date=1298888716]
The defence has been over-performing if anything, but yesterday I was shocked and awed by two of the most accurate finishes I've seen in ages. The fact that they had to be so effing good is testament to the improvements. Wilson is just a kid and hasn't played for ages. Skrtel isn't and won't ever be good enough. I think we already knew that, didn't we?
[/quote]

I think it's fair to say the defence has improved of late, but that's just through good organisation, in stark contrast to whatever the fuck Hodgson was doing. We still look vulnerable and we could have conceded a few more. Every time the ball was played in from wide we looked shite, and have done all season. The only difference between yesterday and the last few games is that before we were cutting out alot of the initial play outwide, yesterday West Ham were able to get at us and exploit our weaknesses.
 
Three at the back is great at hiding the deficiencies of our players while bringing their best abilities into use. For example a trio of Carra(organisation), Soto(aerial ability) and Agger(on the ball skills) works well in this sense as they complement each other very well and when it's working it also gives support for Lucas, who isn't otherwise suited for his role at DM. However, when we put in a trio who mostly don't bring anything to the side we were always going to struggle. I don't think there are too many magic tricks to solve this though, we were even worse with a back four after Kelly went off. The only solution is to sign better players and I really am shocked if some people still don't consider CB a priority come next summer.
 
Our problem yesterday was our CM. I said in a thread a few weeks ago, away from home in potentially scrappy/physical games like yesterday's we need someone who can scrap in CM, the best person we have to do that is Spearing, I realise he's not the greatest player in the world, but for a game like yesterday's he was well suited. As well as Lucas has done lately, he's lost in a game like yesterdays. I saw a stat about how we won the ball back 7 times yesterday through tackles/interceptions, and I wasn't at all surprised.

We lost the game in CM yesterday, plain and simple.
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=44382.msg1292565#msg1292565 date=1298890310]
Our problem yesterday was our CM. I said in a thread a few weeks ago, away from home in potentially scrappy/physical games like yesterday's we need someone who can scrap in CM, the best person we have to do that is Spearing, I realise he's not the greatest player in the world, but for a game like yesterday's he was well suited. As well as Lucas has done lately, he's lost in a game like yesterdays. I saw a stat about how we won the ball back 7 times yesterday through tackles/interceptions, and I wasn't at all surprised.

We lost the game in CM yesterday, plain and simple.
[/quote]

I think that's simplifying it a bit, though I did post the same point in the match thread, I think yesterday just highlighted our big gaping holes. We need a centre back, we need a defensive midfielder and we need another creative player.
 
In my eyes 3 at the back should only be used when the players involved are competent and composed passers.

Its never been a formation ive liked... Packing the midfield has always made more sense to me as it allows the opposition less time on the ball and sets up better counter attacking opportunities.

I worry that with Carroll upfront we will see more and more hoofing.. i guess the only plus is he has ability to bring the ball down and trouble the defenders in the air. The tactics against WH were piss poor.
 
[quote author=Krump link=topic=44382.msg1292560#msg1292560 date=1298888716] Skrtel isn't and won't ever be good enough. I think we already knew that, didn't we?
[/quote]

Skrtel is the opposite of what a good centre-back should be. He's a jittery bundle of nerves and he doesn't read the game. I think Skrtel's panic communicates itself to the other defenders.
 
when we went on that 4 game winning run we didn't suddenly become a great team and losing this game we suddenly haven't become the worst team. the game didn't show us anything we didn't know about certain players and the usually consistent players had a bad day at the office. 'meh'.

sometimes games that like may actually benefit us in the long run as it will show the owners what a massive task of rebuilding the squad they have on their hands. winning 4 games on the bounce whilst giving us confidence shooting us up the table and giving us a 'glimmer' of hope with regards to european places also papers over cracks that absolutely exist in the team.
 
West Ham sussed our tactics early on and pushed their wide players into the gap between the wingbacks and the CB's. Wilson was horribly exposed on several occasions where he didn't know whether he had to take the man or whether Johnson did.

His positioning was suspect and his passing was not up to it in the first half, although he was slightly more composed when we went to an orthodox 442 in the second half and he was LB.
 
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=44382.msg1292562#msg1292562 date=1298889336]
[quote author=Krump link=topic=44382.msg1292560#msg1292560 date=1298888716]
The defence has been over-performing if anything, but yesterday I was shocked and awed by two of the most accurate finishes I've seen in ages. The fact that they had to be so effing good is testament to the improvements. Wilson is just a kid and hasn't played for ages. Skrtel isn't and won't ever be good enough. I think we already knew that, didn't we?
[/quote]

I think it's fair to say the defence has improved of late, but that's just through good organisation, in stark contrast to whatever the fuck Hodgson was doing. We still look vulnerable and we could have conceded a few more. Every time the ball was played in from wide we looked shite, and have done all season. The only difference between yesterday and the last few games is that before we were cutting out alot of the initial play outwide, yesterday West Ham were able to get at us and exploit our weaknesses.
[/quote]

i have noticed this too and there's only one way i can make sense of it. namely i think part of it is down to your heart rate. when you watch another team you watch them objectively and you're relaxed. so the game looks like a game of football should look. it goes by and there's usually not much to worry about.

however when you watch us it's different.. the other team gets the ball around our box or outwide. and that sets your heart racing and you feel afraid and panic and expect the worse. and even though the actual football is no different to another game, the fact you are in a heightened emotional state makes you think our defence is vulnerable.

on the other hand when we have the ball around the other teams box, the opposite happens. you resign yourself and expect kuyt or ngog to fuck it up. nothing will happen and you're mental state slips into a temporary depression. so again even though the actual objective football we put together in attack is no different to that of most other teams, our emotional state makes us view it as being boring and shit.
 
Fear stems from a lack of faith.

And faith can only be rewarded to to players who have proven themselves good enough.

Two years ago I knew we were going to a match weeks in advance.
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=44382.msg1292565#msg1292565 date=1298890310]
Our problem yesterday was our CM. I said in a thread a few weeks ago, away from home in potentially scrappy/physical games like yesterday's we need someone who can scrap in CM, the best person we have to do that is Spearing, I realise he's not the greatest player in the world, but for a game like yesterday's he was well suited. As well as Lucas has done lately, he's lost in a game like yesterdays. I saw a stat about how we won the ball back 7 times yesterday through tackles/interceptions, and I wasn't at all surprised.

We lost the game in CM yesterday, plain and simple.
[/quote]

i go with that, surely kenny plays 3 cb's to cope with the fact none of our central midfielders can offer much in the way of cover for the defence

better 3 at the back with lucas in front than 2
 
I was hugely disappointed by our performance against West Ham. They're a decent(ish) side and they really rose to the occasion, whereas we came up short in almost every department. There's little else to be said on the matter.

Gerrard, Lucas and Meireles was truly humbled by Parker and Noble; Kelly aside, our attacking play from wide areas is predictable, slow and inadequate; Reina looked like he couldn't give a fuck; Wilson doesn't look like a fullback in the making, even an emergency one, and; Suarez struggled, but did produce reassuring moments of quality.

I'm glad we've got United next week. Whatever the result, we need a big, confidence boosting performance, and there's nobody better to bounce back against then the Mancs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom