Understanding why we conceded 11 in 2 - We don't have the 2nd worst defence

I'm so glad I'm not on twitter. I just had a look on my dad's laptop, and It's infested with Newcastle fans ****ting themselves and committing knee jerk reactions. For ****s sake people need to grow some bollocks or go and watch lasses football.

Our last two games have contributed massively to us supposedly having the 2nd worst defensive record in the league. Conceding the 2nd most amount of goals doesn't necessarily mean you have the 2nd ****test defence, though. You can concede 7 in one game and keep a clean sheet the next. Another team can concede 2 in each game.

Which defense is ****ter? The first defence that coneded 7 in 2? Or the 2nd that conceded 4?

My point is that these last two have contributed massively to our goals conceded tally, but does that mean the goals will start flying in every game now that we are the 2nd highest on the goals conceded tally? No. Here's why -

Pardew decided to take a specific and very ballsy approach to a certain couple of games, an approach that we wouldn't normally take. We played a very attacking style which meant we would have to commit men forward, and also play a high line, leaving yourself a bit exposed at the back. It's a style which can catch the bigger teams off guard, and requires you to score goals, and it almost worked vs Manure when we were unlucky not to have 5 goals, and in achieving that tally, we could have stayed back and defended for the final stage of the game, but unfortunately, we hit the inside of the post and the crossbar. Luck was not on our side.

In the Arsenal game, we took the same approach. We dominated possession, did all the work and the pushing, but Arsenal had the physical and mental advantage due to the fact that they hadn't played in a week. Arsenals 3rd and 4th goals were quite scrappy. We got a goal back to make it 3-3, then Arsenal made it 4 when it just squeezed through to Walcott. At that point it would have been stupid to just sit back and defend, as we were losing, so we went forward and continued attacking. However, at the 70 minute mark, the team were obviously exhausted, and Arsenal had the physical advantage, not just because they hadn't played a week before, but because we'd dominated the game before hand. So Arsenal just carried on pushing and pushing, and we couldn't handle it because we were physically drained.

So you see, there were extenuating circumstances, and there was more to it than **** defending. We took a specific approach to a specific set of games, and it unfortunately didn't work. Yes poor defending played a part, but there was more to it than that, and we need to calm down and reach a better conclusion than just "our defence is ****".

Yes it was horrible to watch us crumble like we did, but we've had these spells in recent seasons, conceding 10/11 in 2/3 games, and to worse sides than Man Utd and Arsenal, but it didn't mean we were doomed, and it didn't mean goals flew into our net for the rest of the season.

We have the 2nd worst record but we don't have the 2nd worst defence. Sides like Arsenal have had 8 goal drubbings, but that doesn't necessarily mean that since it lead to them having one of the worst defensive records in the league, that they had one of the worst defenses. It's more to do with when and where you concede goals, than how many.

 

please god no

 

Personally I think we're rightly around the minus we should be based on the defending all season thus far. We definitely have one of the worst defences in the league, and considering some of the other pathetic teams out there, it's not something that we should be excusing. What changes from that defence we've played versus Man Utd and Arsenal at full strength? Saylor comes in for Perch/Willo. That's it. Willo definitely wasn't even the poorest defender when Man Utd scored 4. In my opinion, Colo and Krul are having their toughest ever season for us, I've been very disappointed.

Sorry Tash, this cannot be excused as a statistical anomaly. It's a deserved status representative of what's gone wrong this year, and while some people have been content to blame Ba for everything, the comedy freakshow at the back has been letting us down badly. Last year we had several clean sheets, several rock steady defensive performances, and only the occasional hiccup because of injuries.

 

We have a poor defence, which I have to admit is one of the worst in the Premiership.

Krul is not the poorest of keepers. Santon is not a finished article, and had an average game yesterday. Coloccini had a poor game, not clearing at least for one of the later goals. Perch is not a decent centre back, he's not a Premiership player at all. Simpson's form has dropped this season, yesterday he was average, but looked far better than the guy who replaced him (who is not a right back).

We desperately need a right back and centre back in January, or we're fooked.

Our midfield cannot keep the ball, which is making more hard work for the poor defence we have. Tiote has been pants this season, with Anita recently starting to show why we signed him in the first place. Gutierrez has been worse than Tiote, especially for an attacking option. Bigi is young and will improve.

Our goal difference and position of three points above a relegation place is the truth. We're down with the other relegation battlers.

 

I think Perch can do a job in the prem! I dont think he should be in the starting xi if we have aspirations for Europe but a good utility player and always gives 100%

 

Blind optimism here:

The last 2 games has shown that without our best players we are close to but not quite able to beat the best teams in their own back yard (you have to simply forget about the last 20 minutes of Arsenal - - they don't call optimism blind for nothing).

we soon will have our key players back and be playing easier matches. A brilliant second half of the season beckons

 

Bloody hell, a guide-dog that can type!!!

I hope you're right!

 

the great thing about lying to yourself is that you know just what you're prepared to believe.

 

We desperately need a right back and centre back in January, or we're fooked.


^^^^ Mate, Debuchy deal is near but done according to Sky Sports.

 

I'm concerned, as good as Debuchy is, we are not helping our defensive problems by keeping Santon left. we should be signing a left back to me. I hope I'm proved wrong. Colo is having a shocking season by his standards and Krul is going through a tough spell like all young keepers do. It would be nice to have some experienced competition for him. Harper looks gone reflexes wise.

Willo is doing no worse than he has ever done and likewise Simpson. One is patently not good enough and Simpson is decent but limited. They are however not our main problems. Colo has not marshalled the back line well at all with some crazy offside traps a particular lowlight. Krul is letting in some soft ones ans Santon doesn't have a clue with runners off the ball on that side and is now being targeted. Man U, Man C and Arsenal all exposed him.

Then we have the lack of consistency in selection and Tiote missing games for fun and not playing at his best level. The thinness of defensive options has led to just having to put out whoever is fit most weeks and Perch being used there. A combination of factors have added up to a very poor defence. I do think its been exaggerated in the last two games through tiredness though, and not a true reflection of our level. But you cannot not get away from it, we've been sloppy and made countless individual and collective errors this season.

 

Ever since the Liverpool game Colo has not been the same. Need Steven Taylor back ASAP!

 

Or go and watch lasses football, that remark is both ignorant and unnecessary. When played at the top level there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Ladies Football.
Ever watched Arsenal Ladies or the England Ladies Team ? most players in either of those settings could show most men who mock them a thing or two. Granted Ladies cannot compete from a strength point of view, but tactically and skills wise, most Ladies play football at it's purest level.
If you don't like our fair-weather fans, running, like rats from a sinking ship, then fine, neither do l, but please don't slag off the Ladies game, it doesn't deserve it and neither do the splendid lasses who turn out to play it. Football is not the sole domain of men, women and girls are equally passionate about supporting it and playing it too. Okay rant over, but this is a subject close to my heart and disrespecting it, really upsets me.

 

The ladies are actually a much better example to young kids than the men are... They don't back-chat or fight anywhere near as much as the men, and they are extremely professional in everything they do, just most of them are on semi-pro contracts.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll express it again, but I genuinely don't see why women can't play with men at some point. Women are, at peak physical fitness, as footballers are supposed to be, just a little bit slower, just a little bit weaker than male counterparts... But there are many weak, short and slower male players in the game today. If a woman could excel in the technical and work really hard at the physical side, it should be no issue to see her compete with men.

I don't see them ever being great centre-backs in the male game, but little skillful attackers could have boobs one day, for sure.

Also, I notice the girl assistant ref got a lot of bloody tight offside calls right, and continues to do so. Good luck to her.

 

I started playing for a Ladies team when l was in my late teens, having played footie in the back lane with the boys from a very young age. Until strength and size kicked in, l would say l was more than a match for most of them.
We had to register with the Women's FA, just the same as the men and could not transfer between clubs outside the transfer windows or without the necessary paperwork. As Gandalf rightly points out, Lady players do not backchat the officials, do not swear and curse and rarely commit a nasty foul, as none of the aforementioned are tolerated in any shape or form.
We turned out to play mostly on Sunday afternoons, after several games and already been played on pitches by the men before us, so mostly we tried to play on what resembled ploughed fields.
No one would open the changing rooms for us, so we went home covered in mud. We had our supporters and those idiots who stood on the sidelines, smoking ***s, with their beer bellies hanging out, shouting out silly remarks etc.
Some parents would simply not approve of their daughters playing football, as it was not lady like, so they snuck out when they could. Those with jobs had to supplement those still in school or college and ferry the team about in their own cars to away matches at their own expense. It required a true devotion of and dedication to the sport we all loved.
My career was cut short at age 25 when l suffered a nasty knee injury, but l did win medals and trophies. Many of the girls l played with went on to play for their countries and one or two even went semi-professional and played abroad. We were really dedicated and trained and worked hard to be the best we could be.
I for one feel we were true pioneers of today's women's game and our sacrifices made it possible for girls and women to enjoy football today in a very different climate to the one we knew.

 

Sorry, but women's football is ****. Period. That's not sexism, and it isn't ignorance. I see what's put in front of me, and I've gave it a chance.

It's ****, and I shouldn't have to embrace it the same as men's football.

Men's football is better, women's football is ****. There are some good female footballers, but I'm never entertained when I watch women's football.

It's not as if it's just men that think this. I know a lot of women who will say the same thing.

 

Women are a better examples than men? That's not right. A certain percentage of male footballers are pricks, but most aren't. And from some of the matches I've seen, the women aren't perfect in terms of attitude.

And Women have not been tempted by the same lure of cash and fame as men have, and it's ignorant to say women would be any different if offered 5/6 figure cash salaries.

It's quite obvious that a lot of young men turn into twats because of the money and the fame. I'm not saying there is no money or fame in Women's football, but it's no where near the same level.

At the day, more Men are interested in playing the sport of football, and also watching it. Therefore a lot more talent will be coming through the ranks, and more interest and more participation = more funding.

I'm not saying Women's football should not exist or that it is not worthy of funding, but at the end of the day women just aren't as interested in football as men are, generally speaking.

 

The women posters on the board are just going to love you Tash.

 

P.S. I treat Female athletes with the same respect I give men athletes, I'm just saying that women's football isn't good IMO, and I shouldn't be labeled a sexist because of it.

I support women in a lot of other sports, mainly the Olympics.

 

I think since the Olympics a lot of girls have become interested in football.
I have nieces who are very good players and hopefully will push on.
I'm also pleased the BBC are showing more ladies football and may it long continue.

 

Sorry, but I'm not going to be a little PC bitch, I'm going to speak my mind.