.....are a bone of contention with me. Too many full backs are too concerned with getting beaten by their man that they are standing too far off and not getting close enough as a consequence to stop crosses coming. It then becomes someone else's responsibility to deal with the cross. Hull's winner is a good case in point IMO. Too harsh?
Just got back. I'm gutted by the result coming as it did. The team played well, with purpose and commitment and were undone by the "Caulker moment", the "Barton moment" to add to Hull's existing one man advantage (the one wearing black) and the yawning gap in the centre of our defence. I didn't realise we were playing a womens team. They looked like men, kicked our players every bit as much as we did theirs and yet the yellow cards only came out for the Hoops. The positives - cracking goal from Austin and the two full backs should have secured starting places in our line up. Taka a bow Yun and the other half of "there's only two Furlongs". Played well, contributed substantially to the move from which the equaliser was scored and I'' m sure will learn the lesson that the winning goal came from a cross from the left side. Phillips started slowly but took responsibility and fought his way into the game On another day with a bit more luck he'd have something worthwhile to show for his efforts instead of a yellow card. We looked by far the better side in the second half and they never looked like scoring but for those two bits of horror defending. Such a shame that the wonderful vocal support did not get its reward. Will I go again? You bet. I can take defeat, I'm used to it. But they played well I thought and deserved something from the game. Can't remember the last time I said that away from home.
Typical small weak ref probably bullied at school for going bald at 16. Most of the cards our players got, with the exception of Zarate, were probably warranted but their midfield had carte blanche to commit endless niggly fouls without any fear of retribution
And to add, typically frustrating away day. Modern identikit ground, locals with questionable parentage and a late winner conceded.
Young Furlong looks decent and has good control with his two feet but it is apparent that he has a lot to learn. That's fine with me but I think I would prefer if he was backup for Isla. When fit, Isla should play every game there and Furlong should be ready as backup and perhaps on the bench in every game, with a short appearance at the end. The reason why I say this is that we're trying to survive relegation and we should have the best players on the pitch to try and get points. He has a future but our current needs are very immediate. Yun has surprised me since he's come back. He is not the player he was before. He seems a little afraid to push up and take players on. And both him and Furlong were a bit hesitant to press players, as the original post suggests. But all in all I was happy with the fact that we had an ACTUAL left back and an ACTUAL right back playing for once. You could tell this system works better that way, even if they still have some building and developing to do.
Well, I was coached that as a full back it was your responsibility to stop the opponent getting to the byline. If he crosses from further out you have done your job & it is the responsibility of the centre halves, other full back & goalkeeper to win the ball. It is impossible to stop all crosses & would you be blaming the Hull full back for our goal?
Bad coaching in my view. It is a full backs job to stop crosses coming in as well as stopping your man from getting by you.
It's how full backs all over the world are coached, and yes it was professional coaching. Not from a professional team, but from international players. Stop crosses from the goal line. Allow them from deeper positions. And when the ball is wide on the other side you ignore anyone wide on your side & cover the centre halves. As you can't stop crosses being made, it ain't a bad philosophy! It avoids more goals being scored against you than you concede. The Hull first goal yesterday was a cross (free kick) from forty yards out. That should be a defender's ball every time. Indeed it was, but Caulker ignored the rule of heading it to a safe area, even at the cvost of a corner.
Yep. I started out as a full back and I was coached this way. The thinking is that a cross that comes from deep and has to travel a long way should, in theory, be easier to defend.
Furlong didn't do that for their goal. He never got tight at all, leaving their player all the time in the World to pick his man. He still might have got his cross in but young Furs should have made it harder for him.
I'm with Swords on this one. Furlong should have got tighter. The cross came in from a dangerous position. I could maybe agree with terry and col if the ball was being crossed from further out. When I played it was as a central defender and it always annoyed me when full backs didn't get sufficiently tight and put the opposition under pressure.
I think everyone is right here. Furlong certainly should have got tighter and this may have been down to fatigue having had to play with a man less for 60 minutes. However, if Ferdinand and Caulker had been Terry and Cahill, that wouldn't have been a goal imo.
Agreed. Furlong was partially to blame, with Ferdinand more so for losing his man. What about Green though? He didn't reposition himself quick enough and was left flapping at fresh air.
I have watched again and again. Green was also badly at fault. That was a keeper's ball all day long. The ball was in the air plenty long enough for him to reposition himself and deal with it.
