Defending narrow leads ...

[The Norton Cat]

How well did that work out then?

At the point at which Alves was introduced, we were in the lead and Fleetwood had us mostly pinned back, playing very direct. We were relying on breaking on them to score. After he was introduced, were still pinned back but still managing to break on them occasionally. So, the change didn't alter our ability to attack but it did give us an extra defender and Alves made at least one important clearance. The goal that we conceded after the change came from the penalty- if Bailey Wright hadn't got hold of Morton's shirt, we would have won and there would be no contention about the change. In short, the introduction of Alves didn't lead directly to us conceding.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

We were 2-0 up with 15 minutes to go. Whether we sat back or went for the 3rd, we should not be drawing that game. 9 times out of 10 we would have won, no matter what our tactics were. Complacency kicking in and unfortunate luck resulted in a draw really.

 

[samwise_new]

not watched the full 90 again or the highlights, but i am sure there was a point where an attacker (may have been morton again) was goal side of winchester and he made a last ditch tackle, maybe he is getting a tad over confident at the back and needs to learn to be a little more defence minded than attack.

LJ's 'philosophy' seems to be attack and get goals, allowing the lads to sit back a bit and get their breath back, unfortunately it is starting to look as if we will need at least 3 goals to 'guarantee' a result...this league is all about the ball in the net, actual tactics seem to come second and usually involve p1ssing the opposition off at every chance, this might well come down to the fact that these players are not premier league and will have more mistakes in them so rather than 'polishing a turd' managers tend to throw a few.

 

[Draig]

TBF the logical thing to do, if you're losing, is to bring on an attacker ...

... if that doesn't work out it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do.

I guess there are two schools of thought on that. We belong to the attacking is defending school and others belong to the shore up the defence school. That's why there has always been discussion about their team wherever fans meet up.

I get the idea of shoring up the defence, but attacking (or more specifically sticking to the game plan and stated club ethos) removes pressure from the defence and is equivalent to shoring it up.

Geads was replaced by Alves brought on 90 minutes and we had been at 2-1 for 10 mins. That is the point where we cemented the defensive posture, but I thought Geads should have been taken off at 70 mins and our attacking threat would have been sharpened and thus there should have been no need to change the shape of the team to shore up the defence later on.

Still, what we all say doesn't do anything more than keep us all entertained.

 

[Saf]

Our style of play has changed hugely and more assists are coming from Embleton and Dan Neil as we focus more on playing through the lines than last season's more obvious wing play

Embleton has what? 2 goals and at least 4 assists that I can think of. Neil has 1 goal and a couple of assists. It's refreshing to be honest

Embleton has 2 goals and 3 assists. Dan Neil has one goal 2 assists. They're both doing well.

What about Gooch and McGeady, though? If they aren't scoring or assisting, what is the point in them playing in the inside forward positions?

 

[Nordic]

not watched the full 90 again or the highlights, but i am sure there was a point where an attacker (may have been morton again) was goal side of winchester and he made a last ditch tackle, maybe he is getting a tad over confident at the back and needs to learn to be a little more defence minded than attack.

LJ's 'philosophy' seems to be attack and get goals, allowing the lads to sit back a bit and get their breath back, unfortunately it is starting to look as if we will need at least 3 goals to 'guarantee' a result...this league is all about the ball in the net, actual tactics seem to come second and usually involve p1ssing the opposition off at every chance, this might well come down to the fact that these players are not premier league and will have more mistakes in them so rather than 'polishing a turd' managers tend to throw a few.

LJ himself said we need to bag 3 goals to get comfortable with a win, so we need to improve our finishing (player rotation) to bag 3 from all the chances we make.
**** refs
Limited quality
Freak goals/strikes

Means a 2:0 advantage ain’t enough…… as well we know

 

[samwise_new]

LJ himself said we need to bag 3 goals to get comfortable with a win, so we need to improve our finishing (player rotation) to bag 3 from all the chances we make.
**** refs
Limited quality
Freak goals/strikes

Means a 2:0 advantage ain’t enough…… as well we know

i feel the difference this season is that we are actually creating good chances, last season it often felt if we missed a chance that was it, we would struggle to score...now i feel we are going to score just a case of how many.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

We were 2-0 up with 15 minutes to go. Whether we sat back or went for the 3rd, we should not be drawing that game. 9 times out of 10 we would have won, no matter what our tactics were. Complacency kicking in and unfortunate luck resulted in a draw really.

Mmm...it isn't complacency....it's the exact opposite...it's too much intensity. Rather than keep playing our natural game, we're trying to do something else.....which isn't what we've been doing for the previous 80 minutes of the match.

 

[samwise_new]

Mmm...it isn't complacency....it's the exact opposite...it's too much intensity. Rather than keep playing our natural game, we're trying to do something else.....which isn't what we've been doing for the previous 80 minutes of the match.

good point that, remember saying to my son how we were controlling the game, some nice little passages of just passing the ball around the back four (yeh, i know i normally despise 'tappy lappy' football but not when 2-0 up and in control)...then we suddenly seemed to resort to hoofing it upfield and as we all know, that only results in us camping in our own goal area hoping no goals go in.

 

[clockstander]

I think some are missing an important point here. The decision whether or not to sit deep to try to defend a lead surely depends on how the pattern of the match has progressed to the 80th minute. If we have had much the less of the play,created very little,been penned back for much of the game,and found ourselves 1-0 up against the run of play with 10 minutes to go,then it would make sense to bring a couple of extra defenders on to try to see the game out.
If,however,we have been the better side for much of the match,allowed the opposition to create very little,but our play in the final third has not matched our superiority and we've been wasteful with our chances, and,as a consequence, find ourselves only one goal ahead instead of the three it should have been,there is no logical reason to change our tactics with 10 minutes + 5 minutes added time still to go. On the balance of play,we are much more likely to score than the opposition,so why concede ground to them and invite them to try? The tiring players argument doesn't hold water either....they can be replaced with like for like subs.when you have a squad like ours.

Exactly, I the didn't see Chelsea changing formations or sitting deep last night , even though their manager is very capable of doing so under the right circumstances, Jargon is fine but its no substitute for thinking on your feet.

 

[Draig]

At the point at which Alves was introduced, we were in the lead and Fleetwood had us mostly pinned back, playing very direct. We were relying on breaking on them to score. After he was introduced, were still pinned back but still managing to break on them occasionally. So, the change didn't alter our ability to attack but it did give us an extra defender and Alves made at least one important clearance. The goal that we conceded after the change came from the penalty- if Bailey Wright hadn't got hold of Morton's shirt, we would have won and there would be no contention about the change. In short, the introduction of Alves didn't lead directly to us conceding.

If we were up in their midfield then we wouldn't be able to concede a penalty could we?

Geads wasn't greatly effective and doesn't track back to help the defence very well so I would have changed that aspect before touching our centre midfield.

 

[The Norton Cat]

If we were up in their midfield then we wouldn't be able to concede a penalty could we?

Geads wasn't greatly effective and doesn't track back to help the defence very well so I would have changed that aspect before touching our centre midfield.

But we didn't have the ball in midfield before the change. We'd been pinned back for a large proportion of the second half. How do you win the ball in midfield if the opposition are bypassing midfield? You can't, you have to win the ball at the back and pass it into midfield.

 

[sad-eyed prophet]

But we didn't have the ball in midfield before the change. We'd been pinned back for a large proportion of the second half. How do you win the ball in midfield if the opposition are bypassing midfield? You can't, you have to win the ball at the back and pass it into midfield.

Yes,but we were 2-0 up! You have to win the ball in midfield,retain possession and make it difficult for them....not resort to a siege mentality.....pin them back.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Mmm...it isn't complacency....it's the exact opposite...it's too much intensity. Rather than keep playing our natural game, we're trying to do something else.....which isn't what we've been doing for the previous 80 minutes of the match.

good point that, remember saying to my son how we were controlling the game, some nice little passages of just passing the ball around the back four (yeh, i know i normally despise 'tappy lappy' football but not when 2-0 up and in control)...then we suddenly seemed to resort to hoofing it upfield and as we all know, that only results in us camping in our own goal area hoping no goals go in.

But surely this view is taking what we're doing in isolation. You have to view it in terms of how we're reacting to the opposition and vice versa.

Exactly, I the didn't see Chelsea changing formations or sitting deep last night , even though their manager is very capable of doing so under the right circumstances, Jargon is fine but its no substitute for thinking on your feet.

They did. Kanté replaced Mount at half time and they switched from a 343 to a 352 which made them more solid and prevented Spurs from causing the problems they had in the first half.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Yes,but we were 2-0 up! You have to win the ball in midfield,retain possession and make it difficult for them....not resort to a siege mentality.....pin them back.

Yes, 2-0 up and being pinned back by their direct football. The ball was rarely in midfield to be won there. When we could win it, we broke on them.

 

[clockstander]

But we didn't have the ball in midfield before the change. We'd been pinned back for a large proportion of the second half. How do you win the ball in midfield if the opposition are bypassing midfield? You can't, you have to win the ball at the back and pass it into midfield.

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.

 

[E.T. Fairfax]

Mmm...it isn't complacency....it's the exact opposite...it's too much intensity. Rather than keep playing our natural game, we're trying to do something else.....which isn't what we've been doing for the previous 80 minutes of the match.

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.

 

[clockstander]

But surely this view is taking what we're doing in isolation. You have to view it in terms of how we're reacting to the opposition and vice versa.


They did. Kanté replaced Mount at half time and they switched from a 343 to a 352 which made them more solid and prevented Spurs from causing the problems they had in the first half.

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

 

[clockstander]

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.

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.

 

[samwise_new]

But surely this view is taking what we're doing in isolation. You have to view it in terms of how we're reacting to the opposition and vice versa.


They did. Kanté replaced Mount at half time and they switched from a 343 to a 352 which made them more solid and prevented Spurs from causing the problems they had in the first half.

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.