Irritating development

[CroJack]

From one of the best defences in the Chanpionship to one of the worst, if not the worst. From a good counter-attacking team to one who concedes plenty of goals from counter-attacks.

I'm trying to understand what is going on.

There has been a clear change in our attacking approach in the last couple of months. We play significantly more in the opposition third, but at the same time we are wide open defensively. We are leaking goals from left and right, from corners, and we make many defensive errors.

Interestingly enough, we've lost the majority of the games where we played most in the opposition third. We are scoring goals now, but we are conceding more than we score.

The question is should we go back to defensive and counter-attacking football? Or should we continue to play attacking football and try to fix the defence in the process?

Any thoughts?

 

[The Blobster]

With Declan John & Leroy Fer ambling back from attacking positions we will always be susceptible to counter attacking football.
If defenders don't get tight and allow attackers to turn we will always struggle with crosses.
If we don't tackle in midfield , attackers will stroll straight through us.
Whilst English refs control our matches we will always suffer from poor decisions.
If we don't leave a player up field when defending a corner we invite pressure onto our defence.
Zonal marking isn't working , it leaves us open to mismatches in the 6 yard box.

 

[Jackflash]

From one of the best defences in the Chanpionship to one of the worst, if not the worst. From a good counter-attacking team to one who concedes plenty of goals from counter-attacks.

I'm trying to understand what is going on.

There has been a clear change in our attacking approach in the last couple of months. We play significantly more in the opposition third, but at the same time we are wide open defensively. We are leaking goals from left and right, from corners, and we make many defensive errors.

Interestingly enough, we've lost the majority of the games where we played most in the opposition third. We are scoring goals now, but we are conceding more than we score.

The question is should we go back to defensive and counter-attacking football? Or should we continue to play attacking football and try to fix the defence in the process?

Any thoughts?

Difficult to put your finger on it, but as you say CJ there's little point in scoring one if it leaves you open to conceding two, initially I think Rangel should have stayed, also the Mawson monies, (or at least some of it) should have been put back into the back four to give it back some semblance of strength. Can't really see any overnight answers to our plight at the moment as the vultures have cut the squad to the bone, one injury affects the team. It wouldn't surprise me if the Jan window works against us by bringing in revenue that will once again disappear.

 

[Behindthegoal]

IMO the problem is that we haven't "got" counterattack since Michu.
We see them every day, don't we? Ball out to wideman who hares down the wing and negotiates a two on one with his team mate who has hared down the middle.
We have lost the art, so when our wideman hares down the wing he's on his own at the 18 yard line and when he looks around all he can see is a forest of defenders who HAVE hared back.

 

[Jackflash]

The Michu days seem like a distant dream now BTG, but yes your right. I was always taught to forward pass unless impossible. if you play a forward pas then there's every likelihood you have taken a midfielder or defender momentarily out of the game, play a square or back pass and you give them chance to re-organise. Hull proved that to our detriment yesterday.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

On corners and similar free kick scenarios, if we are playing Routs, Dyer or James ... forget McKay ... then one of them should be left high on the filed to receive the ball from an immediate clearance and retain two defenders back deeper than they otherwise would be.

Fer had a weak game yesterday, but he and Grimes or Fulton and Grimes should be the two holding midfield players unless we are 3 at the back. Celina has to start at #10 .... to start McKay in that role is utter nonsense. Two games now Celina has come on and contributed immediately. He is an offensive threat and knows how to tackle.

 

[Jackflash]

Totally agree about Celina Yankee, why Potter doesn't see it in the same light is puzzling.

 

[Behindthegoal]

Totally agree about Celina Yankee, why Potter doesn't see it in the same light is puzzling.

Perhaps he hasn't got 90minutes in him atm?

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Perhaps he hasn't got 90minutes in him atm?

And Mckay has 1.

A flip comment, but better to have sub-90 at 100% with all tools on-line than McKay ... a one shot wonder that either doesn't know how to tackle or is afraid to. There was one play in the first half down our right side where the Hull player carried the ball for the best part of 60 yards or more with Mckay running alongside him .... McKay is not slow and did not have the ball and there were multiple opportunities to get ahead and either slide the ball into touch or force a cut back on the Hull player ... the Hull player just kept going without so much as a shoulder bump and finally got inside our box ....

 

[Behindthegoal]

I have not seen the match, Yankee, so I can only try to defend our manager's decision making.
Your one shot wonder now has an assist under his belt.
Potter comes across as being primarily concerned for the welfare of the squad and will do anything rather than risk his players' fitness for the long term. Many managers would have had Bony and Montero playing ages ago (and probably back in the treatment room by now).
When Celina plays 90 he spends the first hour taking shots way off target, so he might as well spend that time on the bench and come on to make significant contribution.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Football is a game of fractions. A fractional mistake, or lack of effort, or decision here and there on the part of a player or manager can have significant consequences.

Celina has now proven that he has the ability to create and finish in the last few games.

McKay has yet to demonstrate a willingness to make physical contact with a player when it really matters. He’s not the only small player in our team or the smallest there’s ever been and there’s a long history of small players being wickedly tenacious and effective ... where the will was there. The example I gave above is the standout from the Hull game - because of either a lack of technique or shyness of physical contact a hull player got into a goal scoring situation in our box when he could/should have been stopped at the half way line. McKay’s “presence” in that situation meant that a defender held off when he could have been more decisive and taken care of the situation high up the field.

There are less obvious examples during the rest of the game when McKay could have made an impact by simply making an effort to put a foot in but shyed away ... hull’s 3rd goal is an example. McKay gets to make his own decisions and too often he decides not to do something when he could ... especially where it requires him to “get his kit dirty”.

We paid Forest 450K ... a little perspective, west Ham paid arsenal 400K for Leon when he was 16 ... 20 years ago in different economic times but you get what you pay for, and in today’s market we paid less than the cost of the paper on a serving of chips. There’s a reason he was so cheap and Forest are no fools.

I’m happy to eat crow when it comes to McKay, but I’m starving here.

 

[CroJack]

Watched re-play last night. We had a good game that we should have easily won, had it not been for some school-boy defending. Fer started or was involved in almost every offensive action and made some good blocks and tackles despite his early yellow. John was not so as bad as critics say, though better going forward. Grosicki and Bower excellent players.