• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

The case for the defence

glorygloryeze said:
I agree they aren't Robots btw, certainly when they were physically flagging that was proof they weren't. They needed help from the management at that point (they had proven in the first half they weren't slackers, but probably ran out of steam physically before we even get top what i think are intrinsic defensive issues...)
Click to expand...

Intrinsic defensive aptitude includes timing, aggression and positioning. None of which is tactical
 
metalgear said:
Yes i noticed that in the last few games and credited ange for being able to adapt.

That said...the combo of porro, dragusin, Davies and udogie is not doing well at all, despite the lower defensive line.
Click to expand...
The drop in the defensive line may be partly tactical because VdV isn't there. But I think it's mostly tired legs meaning that we can't press as high as much of t time.

Even against City when we did press high we did so with an imo similar defensive line as we did earlier in the season. Similarly in other games. But we're retreating to a somewhat deeper line earlier and more often because our players can't keep it up.

I think the defenders as individuals are doing fine. And as a unit doing fine. But we struggle defensively when the intensity of the team drops.

Edit: Just as an example. The Roma game. If we know one thing about Paredes it's that if he's given time and space on the ball he'll be pinging passes around brilliantly. If we know one thing about our fairly narrow defensive shape it's that when opponents are pinging switch balls and good medium to long range passes around we'll struggle.

The "solution" to that is intensity from the front line and midfield. Be it in a high press or a somewhat deeper organisation. But we just couldn't get enough intensity.
 
braineclipse said:
The drop in the defensive line may be partly tactical because VdV isn't there. But I think it's mostly tired legs meaning that we can't press as high as much of t time.

Even against City when we did press high we did so with an imo similar defensive line as we did earlier in the season. Similarly in other games. But we're retreating to a somewhat deeper line earlier and more often because our players can't keep it up.

I think the defenders as individuals are doing fine. And as a unit doing fine. But we struggle defensively when the intensity of the team drops.

Edit: Just as an example. The Roma game. If we know one thing about Paredes it's that if he's given time and space on the ball he'll be pinging passes around brilliantly. If we know one thing about our fairly narrow defensive shape it's that when opponents are pinging switch balls and good medium to long range passes around we'll struggle.

The "solution" to that is intensity from the front line and midfield. Be it in a high press or a somewhat deeper organisation. But we just couldn't get enough intensity.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that drop in defence is very deliberate. It shows some smarts from Ange, replacing VDV with Davies. I'm only really recalling one foot race that Davies has found himself in so far in his league starts. It's not as if Udogie would ever be on the cover either, based on the way Ange plays his full-backs.

As you say though, when you drop the defence then you will create the holes elsewhere ahead of it. I remember when Jose allowed Toby to hold the back line almost back on our 18 yard line. Hojbjerg was with him for a lot of the game as well. Everyone was lambasting Tanguy for being lazy but the poor barsteward just couldn't manage the massive gap between midfield and our forwards. He was cream crackered after an hour. He obviously was quite lazy, but even Kulu would have struggled in that system.
 
Muttley said:
I'm hoping that drop in defence is very deliberate. It shows some smarts from Ange, replacing VDV with Davies. I'm only really recalling one foot race that Davies has found himself in so far in his league starts. It's not as if Udogie would ever be on the cover either, based on the way Ange plays his full-backs.

As you say though, when you drop the defence then you will create the holes elsewhere ahead of it. I remember when Jose allowed Toby to hold the back line almost back on our 18 yard line. Hojbjerg was with him for a lot of the game as well. Everyone was lambasting Tanguy for being lazy but the poor barsteward just couldn't manage the massive gap between midfield and our forwards. He was cream crackered after an hour. He obviously was quite lazy, but even Kulu would have struggled in that system.
Click to expand...
It’s starts at the top
The stats of PPDA are all about the press not the high line
Unless I’m wrong
 
Bedfordspurs said:
It’s starts at the top
The stats of PPDA are all about the press not the high line
Unless I’m wrong
Click to expand...

I would think PPDA has a symbiotic relationship with the defensive line though. A high press with a deep defence behind you just leaves more space between for the press to fail. The press just gets passed around and there is no turnover possession. Every time we make a defender hit the ball in the air, we have high percentage of winning back possession. Same as a misplaced pass into a tight space.

The 2 things surely have to be linked.
 
Muttley said:
I would think PPDA has a symbiotic relationship with the defensive line though. A high press with a deep defence behind you just leaves more space between for the press to fail. The press just gets passed around and there is no turnover possession. Every time we make a defender hit the ball in the air, we have high percentage of winning back possession. Same as a misplaced pass into a tight space.

The 2 things surely have to be linked.
Click to expand...
As understand it, it’s about how many passes a team makes before being engaged by a defender… so the press in our terms
I may be wrong though
 
so bournemouth beat us and attained their highest xG record at home in the same game.

not just goals but this defence isn't tight enough.

alternatively it is about the whole team helping the defence out - then there will be questions around angeball and how it is oversimplistic in valueing attack over defence.
 
Other than the goal, which was a massive mistake from a corner and really should be avoidable, they didn't create all that much in the first hour.

0.5 xG against or there abouts other than the goal in the first hour. But then another 2.0ish xG against for the last half an hour when we looked completely disjointed.

Back to a lot of our defensive trouble stemmed from losing the ball and really struggling to play out through their press.

I don't think Romero on his own changes that game, but we sure did miss him. When we then also lost Davies who is quite good at playing it out from the back and got increasingly desperate and tired it all went pear shaped.

If we're without Romero, VdV and Davies for the upcoming games... that's... not the best...
 
braineclipse said:
Other than the goal, which was a massive mistake from a corner and really should be avoidable, they didn't create all that much in the first hour.

0.5 xG against or there abouts other than the goal in the first hour. But then another 2.0ish xG against for the last half an hour when we looked completely disjointed.

Back to a lot of our defensive trouble stemmed from losing the ball and really struggling to play out through their press.

I don't think Romero on his own changes that game, but we sure did miss him. When we then also lost Davies who is quite good at playing it out from the back and got increasingly desperate and tired it all went pear shaped.

If we're without Romero, VdV and Davies for the upcoming games... that's... not the best...
Click to expand...
And we will be
Ange has mismanaged the squad this year and that’s on him
But the obscene scale of the injuries we’re getting is mental
Some of that is course down to how we play but the scale of luck or bad luck involved is madness
 
braineclipse said:
Other than the goal, which was a massive mistake from a corner and really should be avoidable, they didn't create all that much in the first hour.

0.5 xG against or there abouts other than the goal in the first hour. But then another 2.0ish xG against for the last half an hour when we looked completely disjointed.

Back to a lot of our defensive trouble stemmed from losing the ball and really struggling to play out through their press.

I don't think Romero on his own changes that game, but we sure did miss him. When we then also lost Davies who is quite good at playing it out from the back and got increasingly desperate and tired it all went pear shaped.

If we're without Romero, VdV and Davies for the upcoming games... that's... not the best...
Click to expand...

I don't think teams have to create much against us, as you say, if we make one loose pass in building up then the opposition get a free run at our backline, it happened time and time again last night and a couple of times before Davies went off. On days where players are pinging it to absolutely nobody / out of play or just straight up to the opposition, it's a real tough watch.

I'll also say the conceded goal was incredible. When the corner was taken, I happened to be watching the lad who scored it for his whole run. I've seen people going on a jog in the park who encountered more opposition in the way of walkers / dogs than the Bournemouth player did in pur box, it was actually astounding.

Plus a few times when Maddison was the deepest midfielder out of the 3, I can understand Sarr being box to box and moving up the field but not Bissouma if he is in theory meant to be the defensively minded one. I think Sarr is a special player and would step up if he can get a proper midfielder sitting in front of the defense. Whilst I loathe using the terms as it's an oversimplification, the "8" options masquerading as 6s are offering us no stable footing. Does it really matter whether we put Bissouma or Bentancur in there? It's a punch in the face or a kick in the groin. Then we've got a 40m kid who you can't possibly expect anything from for 5 years in that position, or Bergvall who tbf looked alright but isn't going to be a gamechanger. Defense starts at the front and we've got some hard workers there, but even if we had our 1st choice CB pairing, the midfield is still where the issues lie.

It's probably been said but Bournemouth should have had 4 or 5, without really having to create much themselves - is it absurd, or is it absurd to be surprised by that at this stage, I honestly don't know anymore!
 
I was almost starting to feel a bit embarrassed for some of their forwards after they were constantly gifted chances but just kept spraying shots high and wide... They should have put the game to bed comfortably
 
Bedfordspurs said:
And we will be
Ange has mismanaged the squad this year and that’s on him
But the obscene scale of the injuries we’re getting is mental
Some of that is course down to how we play but the scale of luck or bad luck involved is madness
Click to expand...
We only have 3 official CBs injury problems were somewhat predictable especially with the one who has fairly obvious hamstring issues. Like you said mis managed and no excuses accepted.
 
Bishop said:
We only have 3 official CBs injury problems were somewhat predictable especially with the one who has fairly obvious hamstring issues. Like you said mis managed and no excuses accepted.
Click to expand...
In focussing more on the full backs and the lack of any rotation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back