Central Defencive Partnerships

[ZLF 271]

Sorry for the length of the post, just trying to paint a less explosive view on this problem than previous posts.

The options from the 4 main candidates are:

Fleming &  Charlie   17 games & 27 goals conceeded - 1.59 per game

Fleming & Doc   14,  29  - 2.07 per game

Fleming & Shackell  11, 25  - 2.27 per game

Doc & Charlie

Doc & Shackell

Charlie & Shackell

So far only the first three combinations have been tried in matches.   Any partnership regularly conceeding at these sorts of rates must have big question marks about them and it is time to try something different.

Looking at each player my own admittedly biased ( I have tried to be neuitral honest!) view

Shackell +ve - good in the air, pace, positionally solid, reads game well, a leader, tackles

            -ve - inexperienced, too big for boots? still inconsistent

Charlie   +ve - experience, reads the game, firm in the tackle, better in the air than his height suggests, good footballer, takes responsibility

            -ve - age, fall outs with worthy,  lack of pace

Flem      +ve - experience, club captain,  rarely conceeds a free kick, distribution

            -ve -  lack of pace, age, positioning,  blame culture      

Doc       +ve - good in the air, physically strong, positionally ok, age, can only get better? international experience 

            -ve - lacks confidence, no pace, clumsy, prone to rash tackles around edge of box    

My own rating in terms of perceived ability is  Shacks ahead of Charlie then Flem & Doc very close together, making our best partnership Shacks and Charlie, with only shacks likely to make the grade in the prem IF we manager a promotion this season.  If I was to rate the partnerships they would go

1  Shacks & Charlie          ability score       9/10

2. Shacks & Fleming                                 7/10

3. Charlie & Fleming                                  6/10

4. Shacks & Doc                                      5/10 

5.  Charlie & Doc                                      4/10

6.  Fleming & Doc                                      2-3/10

Unfortunately from my point of view city have started with by far the worst combination at the back  

However with both flem and charlie over 32 we should be making assessment of our

[NottsCanary 0]

Very good in depth post.

I would like to see Colin and Shackell tried against MK Dons because we need a younger partenership and the jury is still out with Donkerty.

One disagreement, Fleming +ve, distribution? i think his distribution is very suspect!? 

[FatMan Fat 0]

Interesting post.

I also would like to see Shackell and Colin.  Both are relatively young, both appear to be "footballers" in the sense that they are comfortable on the ball, have good positional sense etc.

However, will it happen?  I doubt it.  With Worthington it will be Flem + A.N. Other

[milan marcus 0]

Good Post,

However Charlie is just to small IMHO to play in the centre of defence and lacks enough quality to overcome this huge (or small) problem.  I would use him a versatile sub to be deployed around the pitch because you know he will do a good job for you as a sub.  Shacks is the man for the middle but I don''t rate flem or doggers to partner him.  Flem was quality but has lost the form and doggers is never going to make me feel safe at the back. 

Answer

Charlie as a defensive sub

Doggers as a squad player to provide cover up front or at the back if required

Flem sold or put out on free transfer

Francis money to be used to buy a new defender who can lead us back to the Prem and keep us there

Someone find Kenton and bring him back to give us more options at the back and provide real competition for Shacks and New boy !

Happy with midfield (agree with a creative need in the middle of the park) however still strong enough at this level to get us promoted.  Marney looks class.

Great upfront with cover for the positions and class with Ashton

Message is clear Worthy - please go and sign a top class defender with height and pace.

Up the City!

[Saint Canary 0]

I really think that Worthy has to pick a pairing and stick to it, whoever it is.  Continuity is the best way to get a solid defence.

Also, a very important point is that Flem needs to be given a hoof up the backside by way of Worthy telling he is not the first name on the team sheet and could be dropped if he doesn''t perform.  At the moment Flem''s place in the side seems untouchable.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Interesting post Zip. We''ve had this discussion before, but with your top 9/10 combination - Charlie & Shacks - would you really feel comfortable with Charlie in the middle having seen the way Coventry played on Saturday? How many headers do you think Charlie would have won against either Adebola or Stern John?

[ZLF 271]

[quote]Interesting post Zip. We''ve had this discussion before, but with your top 9/10 combination - Charlie & Shacks - would you really feel comfortable with Charlie in the middle having seen the way Cov...[/quote]

For charlie I can only point to the stats  - less goals per games conceeded with him at the back than the other combination.   Of course he would conceed more headers, that is inevitable, but defending i about so much more than just winning an aerial battle;  he is rarely out of position as a central defender, makes it hard for strikers to have half decent goal scoring chances and keeps very close.   In this position a good big un will always be better than a good little un - but shackell apart we dont have a a good big un do we?

The fact he and flem conceeded so many goals as a pair was less about aerial prowess and far far more about having an organised defence that could keep a shape, read a threat and position accordingly.

I have no doubt that had charlie been playing on sat we would not have conceeded the goal we did.  In place of flem he would have been challenging his man, John, leaving MLJ in the right back position to make it much harder for McSheffrey to get a telling cross in, and in place of Doc Charlie is more likely to have read the danger and ensured he was ball side of adebola.

To be honest if the players pull their fingers out and remember how defend, ie keep a shape, stay with their player read a threat (not dive in on the edge of the box for doc) etc etc  then all four should be able to combine well enough to be a good partnership in this league - its just they seem to have forgotten how to do the basics.

OTBC

[StevenageFan 0]

I would also like to see Charlie back at CB as the first half of last season he looked very, very good in that position.   I think Charlie and Shack would be a very organised partnership.

One positive that I noticed on Saturday was that our defence was playing much further up the pitch.   In the prem they sat back way too much with Holt right on their toes, but pushed out when we had posession on Saturday much better.   Seriuosly apart from about 6 free kicks, Coventry didn''t have a proper scoring chance in open play, meanwhile we had about 6.

Even if Doc and Flem do play for a while I am confident they will develop a good partnership, but Shackell has to come in there somewhere.

 

[Salopian 1]

I would like to say a word for Charlie, if we don''t dip into the transfer market.

His position is left back, as all would concede, but he had many games in the centre for his former club in the Premiership. What he has over Flem and Doherty is positional sense, an ability to read the game and secure tackling. What he lacks in height, and even in pace, he more than compensates for in other ways. That statistics seem to show that our defence was more frugal when he played.

I would still like to see us buy a younger taller centre half, quicker than Flem and Doherty (- not difficult) and with better positional play. There must be several around. But if the club are unwilling to spend more (now), then I would like to see Charlie play. The only central defenders I would consider in the present squad are Shackle, Charlie and Colin(?).

[Putney Canary 0]

Finally some proper analysis! So much more constructive than "Docherty is rubbish" / "Well Fleming is worse" scape-goating posts we have seen so much of over the last few days. Thanks for making the effort ZLF. I can hardly ever get to games so find it difficult to know where the truth lies, I rely on posts such as yours and the better bits in the press for details.

Its interesting that the goals conceded stats look worse with Shacks in - and that is also with Helveg in at RB and Safri in the midfield I presume. We shouldn''t really trust stats that only take account of the 2 CBs, the full backs and defensive midfielders are also key. I thought we looked a much better team with Safri and Helveg in (and Shacks), but your stats don''t support that! I guess we can put that down to the pressure and desparation of end of season games in a relegation battle?

It does seem that Shacks is the future, and it would be logical to partner him the Doc considering his age. I''m sure there is better to come from Doc, his performance for Ireland shows he can win lots in the air and control the ball whilst doing so, something it seems he didn''t do well on Saturday (I know the Ireland performance was up front, but he looked so strong!). Charlton''s height concerns me for CB, I can see him being used as a versatile super-sub for us this season. I''m not convinced that Fleming is past it though, I didn''t fault him for Coventry''s goal (MLJ looked out of position, but its tough to tell from brief highlights) and he does provide leadership.

Whoever Worthy choses, they must be given a decent run together so they can develop an understanding. I would like to see Shacks back (but only when 100% fit) but have no real opinion on whether Flem or Doc should partner him, other than age is on Doc''s side.

Has Colin played CB before? If so, whats his record?

[ZLF 271]

[quote]Finally some proper analysis! So much more constructive than "Docherty is rubbish" / "Well Fleming is worse" scape-goating posts we have seen so much of over the last few days. Thanks for making the e...[/quote]

Cheers Putney - you are right about the stats showing a confusing picture; as well as the full backs changing there was the issue of various formations (diamond, 1 striker etc etc) yet our best performer coincides with the most goals conceeded but also the period where we picked up most points and scored most goals (although that was only 6 of the last 7 games).

Thats why part of my analysis goes with what I see with my own eyes, trying remove my clear prejudice!  I did struggle with praise for Flem but so far no one has really challenge my assessment on him as being toooo harsh - yet.

To defend MLJ the reason he WAS out of position was that he stepped forward to challenge stern john for an aerial ball crossed from our left.  He lost that header,and John nodded to the gap MLJ left, which was filled by McSheffrey, one cross later and it was 1-1.   MLJ stepped forward because Flem was too deep and hadnt gone with his man - hence my voicingmy  frustration with Flem; as it was an identikit goal to probably 10 goals conceeded last season - it that position the centre back has to challenge his man.  I can understand a youngster making a mistake but for an experienced pro to make the same mistake, costing us goals and so points, game after game, is simply not good enough.

I agree that Shacks has to be the corner stone of our defence and that any partnership has to be given time to settle (at least a dozen games IMO) Ijust think the other pair offer more than Flem - when we know what he can do. 

Heres hoping both players remember the basics of defending tonite - if they do I am sure we can keep a clean sheet.

OTBC

[ZLF 271]

[quote]Finally some proper analysis! So much more constructive than "Docherty is rubbish" / "Well Fleming is worse" scape-goating posts we have seen so much of over the last few days. Thanks for making the e...[/quote]

PS

I dont know much about Colin but the reports suggest he did spend some or all of his time with Breda at centre back so it is a possibility but I cant see it happening to be honest.

OTBC 

[Putney Canary 0]

ZLF - that shows how much you can trust highlights, I saw from MLJ rushing out late to meet McSheffry and presumed he was out of position. I look forward to your comments on the Crewe game tomorrow! I have read on another board that Shacks will replace Doc tonight...

OTBC

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Well I suppose this could run and run, but I primarily blame MLJ for Coventry''s goal and here''s why.

There is more than one way to defend against a high ball played forward. The most common way is for the centre half to come with the centre forward and challenge for the ball. However, you will sometimes see the defender drop off with the aim of intercepting or picking up the flick on from the centre forward.

I guess this was probably what Flem was doing for the high ball. If MLJ had stood off as well instead of coming in out of position he would almost certainly have picked up the flick on to McSheffrey or at the very worst if it was a very accurate flick on he would have been in position to challenge McSheffrey and prevent him getting the cross in which led to the goal.

There''s a very interesting quote from Dario Gradi in the story on the main site about Ashton playing against his old club. Talking about how to play someone like Adebola he says "he''s very strong and the way to play him isn''t to get into a fight with him". Now Dario Gradi knows what he''s talking about. By going in for a ''fight'' with Adebola or John MLJ was always going to come off second best - so he should have showed some patience and stood off and then we probably wouldn''t have conceded the goal.

The really important thing however - and this takes time playing together and coaching - is that everyone in the defence knows what they should be doing at any one time. For example it could be that the Doc will adopt the come forward and challenge for it attitude to a high ball and Flem will adopt the stand off and pick up the flick approach. If the other players instinctively know this it doesn''t necessarily matter that the two centre backs play the situation in different ways. However, in practise it takes time for these sorts of understanding to develop.

Anyway, here endeth my contribution to the coaching discussion on how to defend against high balls played forward.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

Well I suppose this could run and run, but I primarily blame MLJ for Coventry''s goal and here''s why.

There is more than one way to defend against a high ball played forward. The most common way is for the centre half to come with the centre forward and challenge for the ball. However, you will sometimes see the defender drop off with the aim of intercepting or picking up the flick on from the centre forward.

I guess this was probably what Flem was doing for the high ball. If MLJ had stood off as well instead of coming in out of position he would almost certainly have picked up the flick on to McSheffrey or at the very worst if it was a very accurate flick on he would have been in position to challenge McSheffrey and prevent him getting the cross in which led to the goal.

There''s a very interesting quote from Dario Gradi in the story on the main site about Ashton playing against his old club. Talking about how to play someone like Adebola he says "he''s very strong and the way to play him isn''t to get into a fight with him". Now Dario Gradi knows what he''s talking about. By going in for a ''fight'' with Adebola or John MLJ was always going to come off second best - so he should have showed some patience and stood off and then we probably wouldn''t have conceded the goal.

The really important thing however - and this takes time playing together and coaching - is that everyone in the defence knows what they should be doing at any one time. For example it could be that the Doc will adopt the come forward and challenge for it attitude to a high ball and Flem will adopt the stand off and pick up the flick approach. If the other players instinctively know this it doesn''t necessarily matter that the two centre backs play the situation in different ways. However, in practise it takes time for these sorts of understanding to develop.

Anyway, here endeth my contribution to the coaching discussion on how to defend against high balls played forward.