Is Wes really weaker defensively than Dorrans/Howson?

[grefstad 0]

Most of us will agree that Wes, at least in previous seasons, have not been a very solid performer when asked to help out defensively in midfield.

Too lightweigth, to easy to pass one vs one, etc.

Offensively very good, defensively not so good has been the perception.

But, I think Wes have improved quite a lot defensively. He tracks back more often, wins the ball more often, and puts his feeble frame about more often than he used to do, intercepting passes, even doing the odd tackle.

I dont have the Opta stats to back it up at the moment, but will try to find it.

If the hunch is correct, the question about sacrificing Wes for more "steel" or people who can "eat up more ground" arises.

Did Dorrans or Howson, even Tettey, eat up that much ground yesterday? They played quite well, yes, but was Dorrans or Howson that much better than Wes would have been? Difficult to say, ofcourse.

AN has a difficult task of balancing offensive guile vs defensive solidity, and I fully understand his reasoning for sacrificing Wes for more "steel" in the middle of the park when he played Jarvis and Redmond on the wings, but my point is, how much more solid are we with Howson/Dorrans compared to Wes?

On paper, and based on established perception, probably more solid. But it is all a tradeoff vs what we get offensively with Wes.

Against a team playing only 3 at the back, Wes could have had a field day with his defence-splitting passes (if he got on the ball, that is..)

I thought the space between our midfield and defence were exploited quite well by Couthino, and later on Firminho, so I am not so sure if the players chosen ate so much ground.

Difficult to argue against the relative success AN had with his setup, but if we are fair, we rode our luck, and could easily have lost this game 3-0 on another day.

I am very happy with the result, dont get me wrong, but it is always interesting to discuss the likes of Wes'' inclusion or not in the team, even on the back of a decent result.

And no, I dont want to see lame comments from the usual pesticide in this forum, something like: "we won, ffs, be happy".

If you got something to bring to the discussion, please do, if you dont, stay away.

[Move Klose 303]

Simple answer to your question is yes.

[Hairy Canary 700]

Of course he is!

His skills are best used further up the field where he can try his tricks without causing danger if it doesn''t come off.

[Move Klose 303]

That''s why most of our managers take him off around the 70th minute mark when we are winning.

[lake district canary 4,531]

The simple answer is that Wes cannot defensively compete as physically and as effectively as Howson and Dorrans.   It is a waste of his talent to ask him to play in that way.   He can defend of course and has improved in that department, but for a specific gameplan where defensive organisation and strength are required, then Dorrans and Howson are better equipped.   He wasn''t left out completely and could have come on at any time from the bench, but the fact that he didn''t come on suggests that the gameplan worked and he wasn''t needed.  Yes, we might have created more with him in the team, but we probably would have conceded more too.

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="Oh Cameron Jeroooooooome"]That''s why most of our managers take him off around the 70th minute mark when we are winning.[/quote]

It''s a good point. Wes will rarely last a full game, so starting him is the same as planning for a subsitution after 60-70 mins.

But Wes is also taken off around 70 mins when we are running the game. In most home games, when we are winning, even by a margin, he gets subbed, and he does not look knackered when subbed either.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Wessi is a brilliant attack minded player, and if you listened to AN yesterday you can tell Wes knew exactly what was happening and accepted it, and if anyone doesn''t believe that you just had to witness his rapport with the fans yesterday, during the game when subs were out warming up, and at the end of the game you could see the result meant no less to him than it did super Russ Martin.

[havemyhowsonit 0]

Simple yes would have done. Yesterday proved that too

[Ginja 26]

Yes and I think we saw that yesterday.

As soon as I saw the side announced I felt AN had made the right choice, away from home, especially at Liverpool this was a good call.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

He''s the reason our ''running around'' stats are poor, AN knew that if we don''t improve those stats our season could be over by Christmas. [:)]

 

 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Wes is definitely contributing better defensively than any time I can remember previously since he''s been with us. But he''s still not as good as Howson and Dorrans in that role - in the same way that they are good creative players but not as good creatively overall as Wes.

It''s an easy choice to substitute him most games - if we''re a couple of goals up, you put on someone more solid defensively, if we''re behind then you think about changing him if he''s tiring, and at 33 the manager needs to use his game time carefully.

[Nuff Said 5,131]

Yes,Nuff said.

[Six Pack 93]

We need to thank Big John for the point today - not those operating in midfield. Liverpool had their chances to win it. But their defence was average so we could easily have stolen it. Hoolahan would have won it for us - But Alex Neil just didn''t have the balls to play him !

For Alex Neil It''s nothing to do with if Howson & Dorrans being stronger defensively. It''s to do with playing for one point & not lose. Redmond, Dorrans & Jarvis just have not got the quality. Hoolahan would have had a field day against that defence !

We need to have higher aspirations than just drawing with teams like Liverpool. If there is an identified weak point, we need to press it home.

It was a good result but it could have been a "great" one.

Neil went on record to say Hoolahan decides the results of matches. Yesterday he decided he didn''t want to win. Congratulations feeble little man !!

[R Mellie 0]

[quote user="Six Pack"]We need to thank Big John for the point today - not those operating in midfield. Liverpool had their chances to win it. But their defence was average so we could easily have stolen it. Hoolahan would have won it for us - But Alex Neil just didn''t have the balls to play him ! For Alex Neil It''s nothing to do with if Howson & Dorrans being stronger defensively. It''s to do with playing for one point & not lose. Redmond, Dorrans & Jarvis just have not got the quality. Hoolahan would have had a field day against that defence ! We need to have higher aspirations than just drawing with teams like Liverpool. If there is an identified weak point, we need to press it home. It was a good result but it could have been a "great" one. Neil went on record to say Hoolahan decides the results of matches. Yesterday he decided he didn''t want to win. Congratulations feeble little man !![/quote]

 

Apologies if it has simply just gone over my head, but I''m tired and really can''t tell if this is sarcastic or not...

 

Assuming it''s not...hindsight is great eh?  I don''t see it as Alex Neil not having the balls to play Wes whatsoever, rather the tactical nous to understand what was required to nullify the threat that Liverpool would pose.  You say Hoolahan would have had a field day against that defence, and I can argue just as easily that the Liverpool midfield and front line would have had their own field day overunning our midfield and back line - neither of us will know though will we, thats the benefit of hindsight.  Daft to infer we don''t aspire to beat teams ''like'' Liverpool - of course we do.  I''d also like to know your corroborated source for Alex Neil deciding he didn''t want to win, or is that just something you made up? 

 

[Hairy Canary 700]

AN lives and dies by these sorts of decisions. Virtually everyone is pleased to come away from Anfield with a point so that vindicates his decision.

If there is a feeble little man around here he will be an anonymous pink-un contributor with a big mouth who thinks that we would have won had we all just listened to his tactical genius. (All said after the game of course)

[Guest]

One consequence of AN leaving Wes on the bench was Rob Butler inventing a whole new language on Radio Norfolk with sentences such as:

"Pre-match people have been throwing their phones at us on Twitter"

and

"Dorrans has been keeping it real in midfield"

What any of this means, Butler only knows.

[Six Pack 93]

Viro wrote:

Apologies if it has simply just gone over my head, but I''m tired and really can''t tell if this is sarcastic or not...

Assuming it''s not...hindsight is great eh? I don''t see it as Alex Neil not having the balls to play Wes whatsoever, rather the tactical nous to understand what was required to nullify the threat that Liverpool would pose. You say Hoolahan would have had a field day against that defence, and I can argue just as easily that the Liverpool midfield and front line would have had their own field day overunning our midfield and back line - neither of us will know though will we, thats the benefit of hindsight. Daft to infer we don''t aspire to beat teams ''like'' Liverpool - of course we do. I''d also like to know your corroborated source for Alex Neil deciding he didn''t want to win, or is that just something you made up?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fully agree with "hindsight" Viro but I was forming my opinion on the last 6 games with Liverpool and the strength of our team today. I thought we could win the game. Liverpool no longer have their X factor player, the have Beneteke and other but their combination is disjointed. We have an X factor player but Neil chose not to play him.

In a game such as this you need that extra quality to score from open play. Our goal came from a set piece, but all 8 goals we have score prior - Hoolahan had been on the pitch- not a coincidence. He is usually subbed early so it is a significant factor - the whole team plays better at holding the ball.

When Neil said that he''d bring Hoolahan on only if we were chasing a goal - that corroborates he was settling for a draw.

All coaches hope for a miracle and the win but Neil would have increased our changes if he''d played Hoolahan.

Unlike the previous managers who left Hoolahan out for this fixture, I thought Neil was different - so disappointed.

We would have won that game !

[QHcanary 0]

There''s absolutely nothing wrong with settling for a draw at Anfield. We played well, and were good for a point, but had to weather considerable pressure as the second half went on. You contend that Hoolahan would have won the game for us. I think the correct tactical decisions were made to ensure we took something from the game.

Had we brought Wes on there''s a good chance that he''d be muscled off the ball or lose it trying to create something in the way he does, leading to a winner for Liverpool. You also have to consider that the rest of the team would likely be pretty tired after closing down and chasing for the 60%+ that Liverpool had the ball. Wes is likely never going to run past 3 or 4 defenders and score a solo wonder goal. He normally creates for other players. In a tiring team it''s less likely he would be able to do this, which just backs up the decision by AN to try and secure the point by staying more solid defensively.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

I was disappointed to see Wes not starting, too. Liverpool were ripe for the taking. The goal he scored last week was a carbon copy of the one sent high into the stands by .....I forget who, but the defenders in both games left the door open as they waited for a pass, and in both cases our guy said ''ok, I''ll shoot''. Wes nailed his. The early attempt by Jerome (I think) could have ended much better if the incoming pass had been sharper, which at that moment i thought Hoolahan would have put that on his shooting foot.

However, leaving Anfield with a point was nice for us and terribly disappointing for them, so job done.

[grefstad 0]

My big point is that we were not at all "solid defensively" in this game. People are as alway blinded by the result. If we have lost this game 2-0, which would not have been totally unfair, people would gave been crying for Wes from the start of the game.

For me, I just dont buy into that we were much more solid in the 4-5-1 with Dorrans/Howson.

We managed a result due to Liverpools poor finishing, mainly, despite Russ Martins best efforts to gift them another goal.

Look at the way Liverpool penetrated our rather immobile central midfield. Coutinho turned Tettey and co at will in the hole all game.

"Defensive solidity", fooled by a rather fortunate 1-1 result.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="grefstad"]My big point is that we were not at all "solid defensively" in this game. People are as alway blinded by the result. If we have lost this game 2-0, which would not have been totally unfair, people would gave been crying for Wes from the start of the game.

For me, I just dont buy into that we were much more solid in the 4-5-1 with Dorrans/Howson.

We managed a result due to Liverpools poor finishing, mainly, despite Russ Martins best efforts to gift them another goal.

Look at the way Liverpool penetrated our rather immobile central midfield. Coutinho turned Tettey and co at will in the hole all game.

"Defensive solidity", fooled by a rather fortunate 1-1 result.[/quote]

Have to disagree.  Ruddy and the defence were solid in that between them they only alowed one goal - and the result is what matters.  Losing 2-0 could have happened, but you could say that about most games. We could also have won 2-1 with that Jarvis chance.  1-1 was deserved - we frustrated Liverpool - and that is a credit to the players and manager. 

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="grefstad"]My big point is that we were not at all "solid defensively" in this game. People are as alway blinded by the result. If we have lost this game 2-0, which would not have been totally unfair, people would gave been crying for Wes from the start of the game.

For me, I just dont buy into that we were much more solid in the 4-5-1 with Dorrans/Howson.

We managed a result due to Liverpools poor finishing, mainly, despite Russ Martins best efforts to gift them another goal.

Look at the way Liverpool penetrated our rather immobile central midfield. Coutinho turned Tettey and co at will in the hole all game.

"Defensive solidity", fooled by a rather fortunate 1-1 result.[/quote]

We rode our luck a bit. No doubt. We were under pressure, and had to rely on a mixture of poor finishing from Liverpool and good goal keeping from JR.

What we''ll never know is how many more, and what quality of chances we''d have allowed Liverpool had we played a different team.

I''d have loved Jarvis to tuck that chance away and we win 2-1, but I''m more than happy with taking a point and the way it was achieved.

I guess some people just can''t be satisfied.

[Six Pack 93]

Hairy Canary:

AN lives and dies by these sorts of decisions. Virtually everyone is pleased to come away from Anfield with a point so that vindicates his decision.

If there is a feeble little man around here he will be an anonymous pink-un contributor with a big mouth who thinks that we would have won had we all just listened to his tactical genius. (All said after the game of course)

.........................................................................................................................

You don''t need to be a tactical genius to recognize that if you control the ball - you control the game.

You don''t need to be a tactical genius to play your best attacking player.

Seeing I am advocating for us to go out and win the game rather than just draw it - I can''t be the feeble one.

I''ve always wondered how you look in real live Hairy Canary - hiding behind your PC.

I bet when you look in a mirror - you see the reflection of a sheep !

[93vintage 16]

Without Wes to play through balls we needed to be a better with our shooting from the 18 yard line. This has been a weak spot in recent years, but on Sunday we either weren''t sharp enough in teeing up decent shooting chances or we failed to bang it on target.

[Cobain18 0]

The answer to the question posed in the title is yes.