Defensive frailty or carelessness?

[Salopian]

Two points dropped, and worse, the goals scored by Birmingham actually gave them a confidence which made it harder to win in the end. This was no Cardiff, they got their nose in front and were not going to give up.

I think it is true to say that there was a deflection in the first goal, compounded by Ruddy's inability to hold fast to the ball, and even a suggestion of a deflection in the second. The cause of deflections is usually because the defender is too far away to get a solid leg in the line of the shot. This, in turn, is often because the shooter has not been closed down. A deflection can go anywhere, so there was an element of bad luck.

We were attacking in force, with the result that our fairly slow back four were left unprotected. They hit us on the break. This is a massage which other clubs will learn - suck us forward and then break at speed. It was not helped by the fact that Wes had a poor game and Olsson, our only quick defender, had double duties to perform.

Our defensive record has not been too bad, but this was partly due to the excellent form of John Ruddy and also to wayward shooting by opponents, especially Brentford.

At our best, we do do close opponents down, and we do block effectively, but somehow Adams has to deal with the

inconsistency in this.

 

[The Ghost of Michael Theo]

Something needs to be worked on at the back. Personnel wise - we look strong. I'd say a back 4 of Olson, Hoovield, Turner, Martin is as good as anything in this league.

But we do appear to be making too many mistakes. I'm not sure if it the system, or a lack of cohesion with Hoovield still meshing into the squad. Hopefully it;s something that can be worked on and fixed.

However, one thing which you touched on, there is a big quality gap in this league. Many of the chances we're giving up haven't been converted. Take Birmingham that, while we looked ropey at times, one goal was from a deflection which Ruddy was unlucky not to save, while the other was a decent finish, when we should have admittedly cleared earlier.

I back them to make it right.

 

[morty]

I think there is always going to be a bedding in period when a lot has changed in a side. We have been relegated, changed manager, lost players, gained players, and basically changed the whole philosophy of how the team is set up, how we defend and attack.

And we have played 8 games, chopping and changing a few people along the way.

Throw in a Hoolahan having an absolute stinker and that means that mistakes will happen.

I also back them to get it right, but I think if we want blitzkreig, Paul Lambert style football, we're going to have to put up with a few conceded!

 

[KeiranShikari]

Yup, teething pains for a new partnership. I'm sure it'll get better with games.

 

[Canaryboy]

Yup, teething pains for a new partnership. I'm sure it'll get better with games.

I don't think we can even be certain that a Turner - Hoovield partnership is the one that we'll be using for the bulk of this season, Bennett is almost half way through his 2 month lay off, and Cuellar didn't have a pre-season so is playing catch up.

I honestly think that Cuellar will be above Hoovield in the pecking order, he's a player who went to Villa for £7.8m six years ago and was then a mainstay in the Villa team which finished 6th in both 2008/09 and 2009/10. The year before that he was a UEFA Cup runner up with Rangers and won the Scottish League player of the year award. 

He then had some injury problems, but it was Martin O'Neill who took him to Sunderland on a two year deal.

So I'm not personally holding out for the Hooiveld - Turner partnership to start working, I'm just waiting for Cuellar to get to the point where he can play 90 minutes every week, and hopefully he will get 90 minutes tomorrow night to help with that, he has always been a really classy player. 

 

[SussexYellow]

The trouble with us supporters is that we want it all. Solid at the back, numbers in midfield, pace out wide and strikers to convert. Ideally I think we would choose something like 4-5-4.

Obviously that is not on and the problem managers have is one of choice. If you have more of one thing then you must choose to have less of another. If we are going to attack with numbers then we will short of numbers at the back, and as Morty says the price of that is likely to be a few more conceded.

We may need to tailor our defensive approach to our opponents. If their tactic is to hit us fast on the break then it is unlikely that they will have 2 big guys up front. So possibly we do need a more mobile centre back - Miquel? If they have a couple of big guys up front, like Blackburn, then probably we do need to match them up.

However tailoring means no starting back 4 with greater understanding of playing together. Back to not being able to have it all - who would be a manager!

Personally I would like to see a bit more pace introduced into the back 4 when playing at home against opponents going for the quick counter. The other argument for this is that we are not going to continually get away with hauling opponents down when done for pace and keeping 11 on the pitch. Away from home when we perhaps play a deeper line then perhaps go with the two big guys.