TOPIC: The defence

Having witnessed some of the goals we have conceded, now is the time to either invest in a centre half who will organise and put a bit of steel into the back and cut out the horrors. OR we look to bring in a tried and tested centre half like a Derek Mountfield..

Or play Troy, our best CB?!

I think our wing backs need to actually play as wing backs. They did at Mansfield, but in the last 2 games they've played pretty much the entire time in the final 3rd. They are up level with the 2 forwards mostly.

I honestly don't understand KC when it comes to our defence - especially seeing as he has played there at the highest level. He continues to play players out of position across the back and has left the best centre back in the league (when fit) on the bench for 2 games and continues to persist with Brough who in my opinion is nowhere near of the quality to play league football.

I would play Troy but, his days are numbered under KC. We really do need someone to get them organised at the back, solve that and we will be a much better side. We will score goals but, we have to stop conceding them.

Thought yesterday's game was crying out for Troy, don't think we will see much of him this season, poor decision by KC to keep him benched , KC will Mebs be hoping that our triallist ( Leacock?) gets up to speed with his fitness

Totally agree but every team in the bottom 2 divisions would love a player like dereck mountfield problem is finding one

OR was yesterdays problem the midfield as was so often the problem last season.............balls let through which should have been stopped by them

Yesterdays problem was the individual errors from Joyce for the 3rd and then that silly pass from Miller for the 4th.

Mind you for that 4th I think someone has to take their guy out before he makes the pass and take a yellow card.

I also think the wing backs need to help out more defensively. For their first the guy got a cross in unchallenged. Yeah it was bad positioning by Raynes but maybe the 3 CBs would be closer together if the full backs/wing backs were doing their job. Miller had to come wide to try and close down the crosser due to Thompson not being in position.

Maybe the WB's were instructed to press high?

Wasn't at the game yest but looking at the highlights it wasn't desire that was at fault for their goals (as it was far too often last season) but lack of concentration/organisation.

Rather than getting yet more players in I'd rather see the club invest in a specialist defensive coach.

Defensive coaching is mostly drills, drills, drills. Get someone in who can exclusively work with the players on the basics might finally solve our defensive problems

The trouble with Troy is that he is in and out like the hokey cokey, this is because he cannot play 2 games in a row which results in "tinkering". As mentioned earlier stability comes with playing the same players. Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think playing Troy if and when fit benefits the team.

CCU wrote:
I don't think there's any maybe about it. It was more like 3-3-4 formation for most if yesterday. But they still need to get back quicker even if we are playing that way. McQueen did it well on tue night

Our manager was once the most expensive defender in the country when he went to man city, he played for England. He has enough credentials not to need a defensive coach. We need an experienced old head at the back to stop the stupid mistakes!

What was Curle think of against Cambridge? Dicker had a blinder against Chesterfield so he gets dropped and is replaced by a player 6 inches shorter. McQueen is raw but he has pace, he played well against Chesterfield, so he is dropped and Thomson plays. Raynes is fine in the air but his reading of the game is poor, Barry Corr lost him time and time again on Saturday, the first goal was just embarrassing. Troy is slow but so is Corr, Jesus, is this really that hard

Whilst the indivudual errors were awful on the goals, there was a bigger problem. Tactically it was a massive risk.... we effectively played with 3 defenders on saturday... the wing backs were really wingers who rarely tracked back, which seemed tactical rather than down to the individuals. I think the idea was that Grainger and Miller would split wider and Joyce would fill the hole in the centre when they attacked. The reality was very different.... we really played with two fullback's and one centre half, which is a bit suicidal and left Raynes very exposed. It works for teams like Barcelona... but not with defenders who aren't comfortable on the ball. If we are going to persist withn that approach at home then we are going to ship a stack of goals, nomatter who the 3 defenders are.

paddockspark wrote:
I think Curle said in preseason that sometimes he doesn't know until the Friday or Saturday whether Troy can play or not.

That obviously isn't good for planning a team if you have to change your plans at the last minute, it may also lead to resentment from other defended if they are training well then being replaced by someone who doesn't train at all.

As everyone know I'm a big believer in Curle, but this still didn't stop me from pointing out the obvious from last season, goals conceded!!

If we cut out 20-30 goals we will be playoffs at worse, this for me is Curle's job this season. And it's worrying that we are shipping so many again. Conceding first is also not a great trait as you then have to push forward and commit more men forward. It's not often in football you get many points giving teams 1-2 goals head start.

Curle's interview after the game was a great PR job, putting a positive slant on it, but he must be scratching his head (Ibehre got him out of jail basically). If Troy get his chance he really has to grab and cement his place.

paddockspark wrote:
Even if TAH cant play 2 games in a row i would be very happy him playing the next 3 tuesday night games and missing saurday

I think the fact that Troy has been available since the end of last season and no one so far has wanted him speaks volumes on whether a defence should be built around him. Curle cant win on here. Last season everyone moaned it was the worst football theyd ever seen now people are moaning that we should hoof it to Jabo all the time. Then someone on another thread is suggesting Jabo shouldnt travel to Plymouth coz he must be knackered after all the work hes done. Whod be a manager eh?

Dancingbear wrote:
It's getting a balance even the best teams have to boot it long sometimes and this constant use of a short goal kick is going to be targetted you need to change it up , the best teams don't play the same way all the time they switch it up .

Happyblue wrote:
Yes i know that. I also know it takes time

Dancingbear wrote: There is a happy medium though Dancingbear. I criticised Curle for the hoofball and absolutely want him to pay passing attacking football.... BUT it has to be passing for a purpose. Rolling the ball out to a fullback who is marked and then playing a square ball across the box to another defender who is marked isn't passing football... it's taking stupid risks. We were passing for the sake of passing on saturday... the defenders had clearly been told that they weren't to clear it and had to try to pass even if they were marked. That is just stupid. The goal should be to pass the ball where possible, but it should be constructive forward passing and should be down to the the player to judge when to pass and when to clear. Rolling the ball around your back four, when you have been closed down, just because of some pre-determed plan is crackers and does not result in good passing football... it just results in pointless sideways passing and then losing it. Why does he have to be so black and white all the time? The aim should be to get the ball down and play football, where possible, and in the right areas of the field... but the onus should be on the players to make a judgement on when that is and when is the best time to clear the ball.

paddockspark wrote:
Totally understand this point of view, but I still keep thinking overall having Troy play even half the games is still better than not playing him at all.

Then again, that's probably based on my thinking from last season when we were desperate for any points we could get. Hopefully we end up in the right half of the table where we don't have to look at it like that.

Its easy the way our defence is playing at the moment we will have conceded the same amount of goals last season by xmas yes all 72 of them but at least we may have scored the same amount at the same time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reason the full backs had to play so far forward was because we were behind almost the entire game. Playing CMW on Corr would have been a start, much faster and more mobile than Corr. Playing Gary Dicker who can thread a pass also gives us an option to go long or go short. All that was good against Oldham and Chesterfield was lost against Cambridge in the defence and build up work

Bump x4 (so far).

Whatever 3 we have at the back, the 2 full backs (wing backs) need to actually defend. We looked solid enough at Mansfield and at times against Chesterfield when playing this way.

Against Cambridge and tonight the "wing backs" have pretty much been wide forwards offering no protection down the sides. This needs to change whether we have Troy or whoever in that back 3.

Northumbrian wrote:
Football is a simple game but I wonder if the players can be over-coached to the degree where they don't know what to do. All instinct has been coached out of them.

It's not f*cking rocket science is it!!! Play your best players!

Defence either:

Miller Troy CMW Grainger Mcqueen or

Miller CMW Troy McQueen!

Think either variation would be solid enough but please for the love of god play your best f*cking players Keith!

crunchblue wrote:
That's not right. At Mansfield Brough was so far forward he could have spent the game corner flag licking and there was an ocean of space between Miller at right wing back and Atkinson.

If we play 3 at the back and include Grainger and Raynes we have to expect to concede goals, the plus is we'll have four up front and with more luck than tonight will score plenty. At least KC will be serving up entertaining games

The Archer wrote:
It is right, I am right. They got forward a lot but they were much more disciplined in getting back, Miller especially.

I watched the full match back the other day and the difference in approach from the wing backs was huge compared to the Cambridge match.

Bluesmad wrote:

We can all pick what we think is the best defence, but how many of us are proffesional footballers/ managers whos' jobs are on the line if they get it wrong.

He's stubborn KC he's going to stick with this formation..

The best way I can think of dealing with the goals against is to play wing backs who sit back more like we did at Mansfield.
I'd go with McQueen and Miller personally.

The funny thing is going forward we always look a threat, could've had the game dead and buried by HT tonight. Only 3 teams have scored more goals than us so far.

RagingBlue wrote:
I would also go with those two as wing backs, but all the young bucks on here expect instantaneous sucess, give KC 10 games at least.

Bluesmad wrote:
CMW has done nothing to suggest he's one of our two best centre halves.

He doesn't need to whilst the likes of Raynes and Grainger are playing...

Curle's mantra before the start of the season was that he wanted the players to be able to switch tactics at the drop of a hat, anyone seen any of evidence of that? If he wants to keep it simple why not 532 away 352 home, just requires the 2 wing backs to interchange. Surely not too difficult

Markovitch wrote:
Well within the last couple of weeks we've switched from a 3-5-2/5-3-2 formation to some sort of crazy 3-1-2-4 formation