by Speedo » Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:29 pm
Remember Colo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:26 pm
Colly wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 12:37 pm
I actually think a few of those are defendable (Lewis and Manquillo weren't in the squad so presumably are injured, and Yedlin has justified his place over Farth. Plus Joelinton hasn't been
that bad, even more so in comparison with Frasers contribution).
The problem is even with a couple of players out there's still enough there to not put square pegs in round holes, so to even consider Dummett at wing back in a back five against a s*** team sums the whole thing up before you even start to move forward. He made some lame excuse about letting Longstaff get forward, if that was the case where the hell was Jeff playing? We played with a back 5 with one vaguely attacking player, 3 CMs who clearly didn't know where they were meant to be, Fraser who ended up doing a bit of a Miggy role (i.e. far too much defending) and Wilson 40 yards from everyone chasing long balls.
With Dummett left in a four we could still have played the three midfielders with a bit of actual shape, and had Almiron or Joelinton supporting Fraser (or Matty Longstaff either there or as part of the three) behind Wilson. He's got no faith whatsoever in our defense despite them being very decent (even Schar has recovered his form), which means we end up with our midfield over protecting them, which perversely means we get attacked all game and concede goals if we slip up once in 90 minutes. Against Liverpool we gave them some defending to think about, why the f*** would you not do the same against a team with 2 points in half a season?
I think everyone is making great points in this thread, but this post really nailed a lot of my thoughts too. I think the huge thing that passive managers like Bruce forget or ignore is that no matter how well your individual players can defend, if you concede that much possession, that many chances, inevitably players will make mistakes and concede goals. And it's unreasonable to hope or assume they won't.
Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.
With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.
The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:
Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.
[quote="Remember Colo" post_id=883506 time=1610659596 user_id=108]
[quote=Colly post_id=883500 time=1610627835 user_id=125]
I actually think a few of those are defendable (Lewis and Manquillo weren't in the squad so presumably are injured, and Yedlin has justified his place over Farth. Plus Joelinton hasn't been [i]that[/i] bad, even more so in comparison with Frasers contribution).
The problem is even with a couple of players out there's still enough there to not put square pegs in round holes, so to even consider Dummett at wing back in a back five against a s*** team sums the whole thing up before you even start to move forward. He made some lame excuse about letting Longstaff get forward, if that was the case where the hell was Jeff playing? We played with a back 5 with one vaguely attacking player, 3 CMs who clearly didn't know where they were meant to be, Fraser who ended up doing a bit of a Miggy role (i.e. far too much defending) and Wilson 40 yards from everyone chasing long balls.
With Dummett left in a four we could still have played the three midfielders with a bit of actual shape, and had Almiron or Joelinton supporting Fraser (or Matty Longstaff either there or as part of the three) behind Wilson. He's got no faith whatsoever in our defense despite them being very decent (even Schar has recovered his form), which means we end up with our midfield over protecting them, which perversely means we get attacked all game and concede goals if we slip up once in 90 minutes. Against Liverpool we gave them some defending to think about, why the **** would you not do the same against a team with 2 points in half a season?
[/quote]
I think everyone is making great points in this thread, but this post really nailed a lot of my thoughts too. I think the huge thing that passive managers like Bruce forget or ignore is that no matter how well your individual players can defend, if you concede that much possession, that many chances, inevitably players will make mistakes and concede goals. And it's unreasonable to hope or assume they won't.
[/quote]
Agree with what Colly's saying, not sure I agree with you though RC - we conceded a lot of possession under Rafa, but we were organised enough and structured enough that, in a lot of games, it never felt like we were conceding a lot of chances. The opposition would just be passing the ball around in front of us, without penetrating the 2 deep, tight (har har) defensive lines. The difference here being, there's so much more space between the lines, the defence is so much less well drilled, and there's not great central midfield cover.
With regards to the back 3 - that seems to be coming from the players. Bruce referenced a meeting with senior players after Brentford, and has spoken about a meeting last season where the team expressed the preference for a back 3. The real problem is Bruce has no idea how to play that system without being defensive. Paul Dummett at LWB being the absolute prime example.
The way Rafa was playing was totally different here - it was deep and conservative at times, but it was much more well-drilled and effective at counter-attacking (chances created as well as goals and general excitement). We could easily play:
[centre] <dubravka>
<schar> <fernandez> <lascelles>
<murph> <hayden> <mongstaff> <lewis>
<saintmaximin> <wilson> <almiron>
Subs: <darlow> <dummett> <yedlin> <clark> <longstaff> <ritchie> <joelinton> <fraser> <gayle> [/centre]
Defensive solidity and so much pace on the flanks in that team. Dubravka over Darlow for distribution and communication/organisation of defence, even if Darlow is a great shot stopper.