Tommy_Fent Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 At 3-1 yesterday I couldn't help but think about Carlisle and where it went wrong, me and my mate both agreed that it went wrong because we didn't try to keep the ball and Carlisle got the 2nd goal. Yet around where we were sat all we could hear were cries of "get it forward!" My question here is at that point yesterday, which option do you favour? Do you want to see us attack or retain possesion? I felt that the 4th goal was the result of a period of possesion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) At 3-1 yesterday I couldn't help but think about Carlisle and where it went wrong, me and my mate both agreed that it went wrong because we didn't try to keep the ball and Carlisle got the 2nd goal. Yet around where we were sat all we could hear were cries of "get it forward!" My question here is at that point yesterday, which option do you favour? Do you want to see us attack or retain possesion? I felt that the 4th goal was the result of a period of possesion I was nervous at 3-1, because we had sat back. The 4th was generous and entirely Chesterfield's own doing, but as poor as Chesterfield were and despite them creating very little we gifted them 2 goals, that their performance simply didn't warrant. We have a tendency to drop too deep when defending a lead and although you can relax you should still go for the jugular. Thankfully the 4th goal killed them, but like last week at 3-1 I was nervous - just like it used to be under Royle, we can't defend but we score for fun. I have to say though well done to Dickov for sticking with the CB partnership, give them both a run now and its obvious there will be goals on Saturday, let's hope we outscore a struggling Bournemouth. We've scored 17 goals in the last 6 games from us with 12 conceded, suggests there will be goals aplenty Edited November 20, 2011 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP1960 Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Playing square is lovely to watch if you have players like Barcelona's, but at this level the tendancy is for the ball to be given away cheaply under pressure and this can agitate fans, better than hoofing it though IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 I favoured going forwards. Simply because we're better when we're doing that and Chesterfield's front men are no mugs. If we had a back four that worked as a unit I might think different. To be fair, at Carlisle when we were 3-0 up we weren't all over them. I don't think we changed our game at all. I just think Carlisle came at us more. Against Burton we definately adjusted our style of play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futchers briefs Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Keep pressing, keep the shape and keep the ball...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonesyOAFC Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Players at this level don't really have the technical ability or composure to retain possession for long periods. It's too easy for a player to get caught in possession and the opposition go on and score. Attack is definitely the best form of defence at this level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) I was nervous at 3-1, because we had sat back. The 4th was generous and entirely Chesterfield's own doing, but as poor as Chesterfield were and despite them creating very little we gifted them 2 goals, that their performance simply didn't warrant. We have a tendency to drop too deep when defending a lead and although you can relax you should still go for the jugular. Thankfully the 4th goal killed them, but like last week at 3-1 I was nervous - just like it used to be under Royle, we can't defend but we score for fun. I have to say though well done to Dickov for sticking with the CB partnership, give them both a run now and its obvious there will be goals on Saturday, let's hope we outscore a struggling Bournemouth. We've scored 17 goals in the last 6 games from us with 12 conceded, suggests there will be goals aplenty I think it was Kuqi who closed down the easy ball from the right back to the right sided centre half, as Scapuzzi and Black harried the right back. This meant the right back played a ball 40 yards sideways and 15 yards backwards to the other centre-half who's poor back-pass Simpson chased down. Yes it was bad play by them but it was great defending from the front by us. A good centre-forward does that he spots the easy ball and makes it more difficult/impossible. I've seen Reid do it at times and Feeney. But Kuqi yesterday ran about 30 yards to do it. Edited November 20, 2011 by rudemedic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I was nervous at 3-1, because we had sat back. The 4th was generous and entirely Chesterfield's own doing, but as poor as Chesterfield were and despite them creating very little we gifted them 2 goals, that their performance simply didn't warrant. We have a tendency to drop too deep when defending a lead and although you can relax you should still go for the jugular. Thankfully the 4th goal killed them, but like last week at 3-1 I was nervous - just like it used to be under Royle, we can't defend but we score for fun. I have to say though well done to Dickov for sticking with the CB partnership, give them both a run now and its obvious there will be goals on Saturday, let's hope we outscore a struggling Bournemouth. We've scored 17 goals in the last 6 games from us with 12 conceded, suggests there will be goals aplenty Based on many of the goals we've conceded this season, we simply don't know how to defend at the back. I think we do a reasonably good job of the defend-from-the-front doctrine, putting teams under pressure when they're in possession, but, once the ball reaches our backline, we look clueless. In particular the positioning of the fullbacks is often questionable and the marking of the centre-halfs, regardless of which two of the three play, is generally woeful. I am loathe to fall into the 'blame the assistant manager' stereotype but, as a former Prem and international defender, surely Taggart should be able to teach them better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebuckley06 Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Got to keep attacking. Best form of defence an teams generally seem scared of u's when we attack them Like we did against Chesterfield. An if we start scorin 5 or 6 regulary then might encourage fans to come back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Our full backs get very little protection from their midfielders, how many times have we seen 2, 3 men on Taylor when he gets the ball? How many times have we seen Latics players do this to opposition players? We play attacking football, always have done (odd seasons under certain managers excluded), our full backs are often hung out to dry as they get exposed and have to do a lot of their work at best side on to their attacker and needing to make a crucial last gasp challenge. This then exposes the centre backs as they are caught between helping the full back/ closing the man down who has just beaten the full back or staying in the middle to deal with the inevitable cross. Plus this season we have seen more changes across the back line than I can remember in recent seasons, only Lee has been ever present and some of those he was at left back. This has to have had an effect too as it takes time for the CBs to develop a partnership not only with each other but also with the FB on their side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 At 3-1 yesterday I couldn't help but think about Carlisle and where it went wrong, me and my mate both agreed that it went wrong because we didn't try to keep the ball and Carlisle got the 2nd goal. Yet around where we were sat all we could hear were cries of "get it forward!" My question here is at that point yesterday, which option do you favour? Do you want to see us attack or retain possesion? I felt that the 4th goal was the result of a period of possesion I don't think I've ever heard anyone around me cry 'get it forward' unless it's the last minute and we are needing a goal - certainly not at 3-1 in the first half Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pukka Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 At 3-1 yesterday I couldn't help but think about Carlisle and where it went wrong, me and my mate both agreed that it went wrong because we didn't try to keep the ball and Carlisle got the 2nd goal. Yet around where we were sat all we could hear were cries of "get it forward!" My question here is at that point yesterday, which option do you favour? Do you want to see us attack or retain possesion? I felt that the 4th goal was the result of a period of possesion I don't see why these two are mutually exclusive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy_Fent Posted November 21, 2011 Author Share Posted November 21, 2011 I don't think I've ever heard anyone around me cry 'get it forward' unless it's the last minute and we are needing a goal - certainly not at 3-1 in the first half You've clearly never sat near me then because I've heard it tons time, but I guess it's a generation thing I'm firmly one of those people who is very much in the anti long-ball camp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlossopLatic Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Keep pressing, keep the shape and keep the ball...... This Keep to the attacking philosophy its what we do best it might mean that we concede a few goals we shouldn't, but equally doesnt mean we cant still improve our defending overall either. I don't see why these two are mutually exclusive This aswell retaining the ball doesnt mean we cant take a few risks and attack and doesn't just mean passing the ball sideways constantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slystallone Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Ooooooh - liking the fact there are a number of threads going on where people a debating football tactics & not just "X or Y is feckin' :censored:e" type drivel…..magic. I think it's been pretty obvious we've struggled to see out games, with defending across the whole side seeming to struggle at times… That said, I'm firmly in the keep doing what you've been doing to make it 3-1 up - keep the high press & keep attacking. I've never been a fan of tacking off an attacker to bring on a defender - especially when a defender comes on in a holding role. It invites pressure and makes the rest of the team instantly take on a 'sit back / see it out' mentality. What I liked on sat was that we didn't make an unnecessary change at that stage. PD is learning. It wasn't too long ago where Andy Todd was being brought on at stages / instances like that. When we press as a team, close down as a team and play sensible football; playing to our strengths, we actually look a cracking side. It's when we slip into hurried hoofs or sit off and don't have the high tempo, high press attitude where it all goes wrong IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.