Defending narrow leads ...

[sad-eyed prophet]

Maybe you could do it by not conceding three quarters of the pitch when your in front. Leaving Gooch and McGeady on for 90 minutes was an insane tactic given the circumstances and current form.

Exactly. By conceding the ground,you invite them on. I would much rather we continued to play attacking football,looking for a third,and try to pin them back,than rely on shoring up the defence and conceding ground and possession.If they manage to break through,so be it.If we have belief in our attacking strategy....and it's worked for 80 minutes of the match...why alter it.
I understand the opposition mentality of " if we're a goal behind we may as well go for an equaliser and if we concede another what does it matter",but that's them controlling the match rather than us. If we're on it,the moment they take up that mentality,we should be looking for more goals,
and putting the match beyond them.

 

[The Norton Cat]

They didn't sit back when they were ahead was my point as you well know.

Because they didn't have to due to the course that the game was taking. That's a very different scenario. Fleetwood took the game to us on Saturday, forcing us on to the back foot. When the game looked to be over, we brought an extra defender on because they were hitting long balls into the box constantly. Hardly an avant garde tactic.
You suggested Tuchel didn't change anything. He did. My point being that sometimes you have to change things depending on the way the game is playing out.

not entirely sure of your point here mate, my reply here was directly concerned with our last result above any others...of course each game needs taking on it's own merits but the topic of this thread is 'defending narrow leads' so realistically all other scenarios do not come into it.

What I meant was that we had to become more defensive because of the way Fleetwood started playing. We can't continue to commit men forward if they're bypassing our pressing by going direct. Our tactics will necessarily reflect the tactics of the opposition at times.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

The opposition often dictates whether a team can continue to play its natural game or not. If all teams just continue to play their natural game then for the whole 90 minutes the managers might as well just sit in the changing room baths, cuban cigar in one hand and a cocktail c/w mini umbrella in the other.

I'm right in thinking that against Fleetwood we started to play more defensively before it was 2-0. So you can say the tactic worked. It only went tits up when they instantly pulled one back (unforseen). Once that happened normality dictates that they will be on the front foot, crowd behind them, pushing for an equaliser, so its standard practice to sit more defensively and hold on for the last 15 minutes. If we kept to our natural game, and were caught out with a counter attack, there would be more questions raised asking why we didnt sit back more and absorb the pressure instead.

It also has to be remembered that a players mentality dictates how play goes. Its possible at 2-0 McGeady would have been partial to a surging run or two for the last 15 minutes, but at 2-1 he would decide against it. Even without the managers input the players themselves dictate at times whether to stick or twist. Sometimes the balance of play is not under a teams control.

Good,thoughtful post mate. It's generally agreed that we tried to sit back after we took the lead...the debate is whether or not it's standard practice to sit defensively and hold on for the last 15 mins. Player mentality,particularly in a young team like ours,is often affected from the bench....although someone with McGeady's experience may not be so affected by it.
In my opinion,if we start to try to protect a lead,whether one goal or more,ten minutes + what could be 5 mins added time..it's a mistake....we should keep playing our game.
We just aren't good enough defensively to withstand a bombardment in this league.......let's play our football further up the pitch,pin them back,retain possession and snuff them out.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Good,thoughtful post mate. It's generally agreed that we tried to sit back after we took the lead...the debate is whether or not it's standard practice to sit defensively and hold on for the last 15 mins. Player mentality,particularly in a young team like ours,is often affected from the bench....although someone with McGeady's experience may not be so affected by it.
In my opinion,if we start to try to protect a lead,whether one goal or more,ten minutes + what could be 5 mins added time..it's a mistake....we should keep playing our game.
We just aren't good enough defensively to withstand a bombardment in this league.......let's play our football further up the pitch,pin them back,retain possession and snuff them out.

Did we though? It looked more to me like Fleetwood changed their approach slightly, forcing us backwards.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

Did we though? It looked more to me like Fleetwood changed their approach slightly, forcing us backwards.

Well, even if the opposition change their approach,if we're the better side,we should still be able to manage it and adapt it into our game plan. In every match we play,the opposition are going to have times of possession and pressure on our goal.....we have to be good enough to manage it,whether it's the 20th minute or the 80th minute.

 

[Saf]

Did we though? It looked more to me like Fleetwood changed their approach slightly, forcing us backwards.

I'm not sure I get this, mate. It sounds like we should just submit to other teams tactics when they change them up.

I'd rather our tactics force the game rather than adjusting the way we play because of the opposition tactics. We should be confident that the way we play will see off any team in this division. If every team we play against now starts launching the ball from the first minute to the last from CB to CF, does that mean they will be forcing us to go defensive and we'll need to change our tactics to counter the opposition?

At times like that, I'd be more inclined to push McGeady and Gooch even further up the pitch telling them to chase every player and pass down to stop them putting the longs balls over in the first place.

 

[samwise_new]

Because they didn't have to due to the course that the game was taking. That's a very different scenario. Fleetwood took the game to us on Saturday, forcing us on to the back foot. When the game looked to be over, we brought an extra defender on because they were hitting long balls into the box constantly. Hardly an avant garde tactic.
You suggested Tuchel didn't change anything. He did. My point being that sometimes you have to change things depending on the way the game is playing out.

What I meant was that we had to become more defensive because of the way Fleetwood started playing. We can't continue to commit men forward if they're bypassing our pressing by going direct. Our tactics will necessarily reflect the tactics of the opposition at times.

think this is the million dollar question though, did we change because fleetwood suddenly went all 'gung-ho' or did fleetwood get the upper hand because we sat back more...i need to watch the full 90 again but my impression was that we stopped passing the ball around and therefore keeping control which allowed them to press, there again, i guess if we got 10 lads who were all watching the game they could all see things slightly differently.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Well, even if the opposition change their approach,if we're the better side,we should still be able to manage it and adapt it into our game plan. In every match we play,the opposition are going to have times of possession and pressure on our goal.....we have to be good enough to manage it,whether it's the 20th minute or the 80th minute.

I thought we did manage it fairly well, in tactical terms. They started bypassing the midfield where we had the upper hand so we soaked that up and started hitting them on the break. The introduction of Broadhead helped with that. Good movement by their forwards and a lapse of concentration by Winchester got them back into it. We didn't bring the extra defender on until we were into added time at which point it seemed sensible. Another individual error cost us when Wright put his hands on Morton. It seemed to me these individual errors, which its hard for the coaching staff to legislate for, were what McGeady was complaining about in his interview, rather than the tactics.

 

[The Norton Cat]

think this is the million dollar question though, did we change because fleetwood suddenly went all 'gung-ho' or did fleetwood get the upper hand because we sat back more...i need to watch the full 90 again but my impression was that we stopped passing the ball around and therefore keeping control which allowed them to press, there again, i guess if we got 10 lads who were all watching the game they could all see things slightly differently.

This is very true.

 

[The Norton Cat]

I'm not sure I get this, mate. It sounds like we should just submit to other teams tactics when they change them up.

I'd rather our tactics force the game rather than adjusting the way we play because of the opposition tactics. We should be confident that the way we play will see off any team in this division. If every team we play against now starts launching the ball from the first minute to the last from CB to CF, does that mean they will be forcing us to go defensive and we'll need to change our tactics to counter the opposition?

At times like that, I'd be more inclined to push McGeady and Gooch even further up the pitch telling them to chase every player and pass down to stop them putting the longs balls over in the first place.

I think that's the thing though. I don't agree that we went defensive, particularly. They were bypassing midfield where were strongest. So, as they were forcing us back, we started hitting them on the break. Broadhead for Embleton is not a defensive change. We still had chances to go further ahead after they became more direct.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

I thought we did manage it fairly well, in tactical terms. They started bypassing the midfield where we had the upper hand so we soaked that up and started hitting them on the break. The introduction of Broadhead helped with that. Good movement by their forwards and a lapse of concentration by Winchester got them back into it. We didn't bring the extra defender on until we were into added time at which point it seemed sensible. Another individual error cost us when Wright put his hands on Morton. It seemed to me these individual errors, which its hard for the coaching staff to legislate for, were what McGeady was complaining about in his interview, rather than the tactics.

Good post mate.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

I think that's the thing though. I don't agree that we went defensive, particularly. They were bypassing midfield where were strongest. So, as they were forcing us back, we started hitting them on the break. Broadhead for Embleton is not a defensive change. We still had chances to go further ahead after they became more direct.

And another.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

I think that's the thing though. I don't agree that we went defensive, particularly. They were bypassing midfield where were strongest. So, as they were forcing us back, we started hitting them on the break. Broadhead for Embleton is not a defensive change. We still had chances to go further ahead after they became more direct.

I agree Broadhead for Embleton isn't a defensive change....despite that individual change,.it's the mentality which changes.The rest of the side weren't geared up to use him...they were already in defensive,defend at all costs,deeper and deeper mode. That's what we have to change.

 

[The Norton Cat]

I agree Broadhead for Embleton isn't a defensive change....despite that individual change,.it's the mentality which changes.The rest of the side weren't geared up to use him...they were already in defensive,defend at all costs,deeper and deeper mode. That's what we have to change.

I certainly agree that the mentality to see a game out might not be right. It looks like McGeady thinks that too and, from what he said, that the manager does too.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

I certainly agree that the mentality to see a game out might not be right. It looks like McGeady thinks that too and, from what he said, that the manager does too.

Spot on mate!
By the way, good discussing things with you...what the forum is all about.

 

[clockstander]

Because they didn't have to due to the course that the game was taking. That's a very different scenario. Fleetwood took the game to us on Saturday, forcing us on to the back foot. When the game looked to be over, we brought an extra defender on because they were hitting long balls into the box constantly. Hardly an avant garde tactic.
You suggested Tuchel didn't change anything. He did. My point being that sometimes you have to change things depending on the way the game is playing out.

What I meant was that we had to become more defensive because of the way Fleetwood started playing. We can't continue to commit men forward if they're bypassing our pressing by going direct. Our tactics will necessarily reflect the tactics of the opposition at times.

Our pressing was inefective and in the wrong area thats the whole point, I cant really be bothered to argue with you but if you think I don't rate Tuchel you have missed my earlier posts, I love Tuchel, a straight talker if ever their was one, a complete contrast to the people you seem to worship, I repeat for your benefit, I was talking about his tactics after Chelsea were two up, again, as you well know.

 

[BackO'TheNet]

That, IMO is a very worrying trait we seem to have developed. If you miss half chances that’s one thing. But some of the chances we’re missing are “put your house on it” chances. Stewart, McGeady, Gooch have all done it. These are players you back to score in those situations. Not “kids”.

If we sort that out, then we’ll not have to worry about the defending and ref as much

Especially in this Leage, when, on paper, we appear to have best outfit from top to bottom....and superia attendace support !

 

[The Norton Cat]

Spot on mate!
By the way, good discussing things with you...what the forum is all about.

And with you! Its good to be able to have an in depth discussion about these things.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Our pressing was inefective and in the wrong area thats the whole point, I cant really be bothered to argue with you but if you think I don't rate Tuchel you have missed my earlier posts, I love Tuchel, a straight talker if ever their was one, a complete contrast to the people you seem to worship, I repeat for your benefit, I was talking about his tactics after Chelsea were two up, again, as you well know.

I haven't suggested that you don't rate Tuchel. Who do I worship? Johnson? If this is about me defending him last season when people were criticising his terminology, I stand by what I said at the time- I hear that kind of terminology all the time, its not unusual. That's hardly worshipping him, although he does seem to be doing a good job as I anticipated he might.
Like I said, Tuchel didn't need to change anything after they took the lead due to the way the game went after he made his change.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

Cant remember McGeady making many surging runs lately especially towards the end of games, and Gooch lost the ball in midfield for their first goal, which was poory defended and not just by Bailey Wright.

Just an example really. My point being that an oppositions momentum dictates individual players mentality (whether to defend or attack), not just tactics.