Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Tactics vs Players

Recommended Posts

Following the changed approach at Brentford and the resounding victory against Derby, the football grapevine has more questions than answers about the state of the Norwich City Nation.

At Brentford we saw clear tactical change that actively highlighted much of what has been identified in the Masterclasses.

The shape of the side, the players selected and the roles and jobs they were allocated provided a balance that was evident both initially on paper and subsequently on grass.

Before proceeding to identify how the shape helped the personnel and - particularly - the previously flaky defensive structure of the side, let us be clear on one point:

Paper formations are verging on worthless.

Starting positions should not be finishing positions and vice versa. There is no inherent reason why a 4-4-2 formation cannot in reality be 3-7-0 or 4-1-4-1 cannot be played as 3-4-3.

The allocation of roles, the identification of key zones, pivot positions and the emphasis on which aspects of which duties are the key ones is where the paper plans become fluid reality on the pitch.

Against Brentford via the nominal 3-4-1-2 formation we removed and protected our hitherto exposed defensive Achilles heel: the 2D-semi-diagonal-long-flat-ball-to-the-sides-of-the-centre-backs that has ben repeatedly used against us upon turnover when we almost score, overload the opposition final third with non-tracking-back 3/4 midfielders and high full backs, plus roaming /split/ ball-chasing ''defensive'' midfielders who do not ruthlessly and autistically adhere to the deep central pivot position (like a central third centre back), allowing the two central centre backs (in a four) to both be a little wider and ensure such a pass must be nearer to the wings to allow us more time to recover.

The shape of the side against Brentford - regardless of the selected personnel - ensures that this crucial, repeating weakness in the way that Norwich have consistently and predictably operated the 4-2-3-1 was mitigated and basically eliminated.

This is tactics, not players.

Two Central defenders, without a natural ability or tendency to split into 3/4 full back positions (and the non-existent deep central midfield pivot no6) will make mistakes, because they will be repeatedly exposed to scenarios that clearly and repeatedly risk such an event (without the opposition having to do anything very clever or come significantly out of their own shape).

In my view this is not bad defending. It is bad tactics.

Analysts are already poring over Norwich''s win against Derby and the whispers are that they are scratching their heads.

Norwich were superb and the Manager was quick to assert - in effect - that this was the same way Norwich had played in their losing run and thus the 4-2-3-1 system as operated was vindicated and - by clear extension - so was the Manager himself. It was simply the players doing what they had been told. Players, players, players.

Let us be clear about one point: the oft-repeated phrase ''Tactics don''t win matches, players do'' is true.

However it is only true in the way that Sun or Mail headlines are true. They accurately represent a slice of the pizza, without necessarily (or even trying to) represent the nature of the whole pizza. This is my ''Quattro Stagioni'' or Four Seasons Pizza theory in action.

Should you ask the Sun or Mail editor if their Quattro Stagioni pizza is a cheese and ham pizza they will say ''yes'', if the ask the same editor (of the same pizza) if their pizza is a mushroom pizza they will also say ''yes'', or if the pizza is a margherita again the answer will come back ''yes''.

They haven''t lied and they write an entire piece in great detail about each slice without ever offering the true vision - that which would make less of a story and less suit their agenda or desire to please - that the single Pizza is divided into sections with different areas and different flavours...

Players win matches without tactics if they do something brilliant or out of the ordinary - despite any flaws in the tactics that meant that the win was possibly achieved against the odds.

If your gifted, mercurial number 10 - let''s call him ''Wesley'' - has a day where he simply cannot be controlled, contained or stopped by a single opposition player (or two), and your striker scores a hat trick - including a priceless strike from some distance that wasn''t an obvious goal-scoring chance early in the game - then it is true to say that player s have played to their maximum potential and a positive result is the outcome.

As Managers we should be looking for the opposite of this however. To marshall, educate, align, adjust and deploy our troops so that we maximise our odds of winning at our weakest, to minimise the chances of losing in our worst days, to effectuate the ''Plusvalenza'': the sacred equation of what we gain from an (attacking) action minus what we lose from the resulting (defensive) consequences.

The football world has been awakened to Norwich''s real threat and potential again following the last two games. They will continue to butter us up, talk us up, praise our ''Premier'' players to try refresh the sense of complacency that teams and managers have used against us successfully for months - all they while waiting for us to change our defensive structure to cover for our repeatedly exploited - and easily activated - 2D counter ball outlined.

Brentford showed we could change; our tactical shape and defensive structure and solidity vastly improved as a result, negating almost all 2D counters against us, whilst remaining a threat ourselves. This foreshadowed the tactical future, filling in the weak and exposed areas*

Derby showed that we have great players on their day. Far less of a revelation to anyone, though there were nuanced changes in the way that the 4-2-3-1 was operated note:

1. The midfield screen of Tettey and Howson played somewhat deeper and remained stationed more religiously.

2. Olsson moved high, but tracked back deeply very assiduously and athletically throughout.

3. Russell Martin moves naturally into the 3/4 space toward le the typical right back area, shutting off this channel more often

4. Martin and Klose are happier to receive the ball in tighter areas, move it more confidently, quicker and more crisply. They both sense danger a half-second later (a good thing)

5. John Ruddy tried to release the ball faster as a consequence (he could vastly, vastly improve in this area.

6. Naismith created space intelligently (fans note: it is not what he does, it is what he allows others to do)

7. Murphy can beat a man with ease. This scares the opposition and upsets the best laid tactical plans of any coach

There is no Masterclass here as I too am left scratching my head along with the other analysts.....''have Norwich turned a tactical corner and confronted their weakness or did they have a great day with some wonderful individual performances?''

Alex Neil''s post match comments were noted with interest by all...the inference that nothing had changed other than the players might be McLaren-esque sidestepping and mis-direction or - worse - might have been typical (over) honesty and direct speaking a'' la the modus operandi seen hitherto.

The finest managers pore for hours over the minutiae of defeat and success alike, striving to improve, a never-attainable quest for perfection. To imply anything else is hubris. The hubris that may well be the other Achilles heel that has been used against us.

To misquote ''Some are born to seek change, others have change thrust upon them''...

....plus ca change?

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma, the following simplifies and explains perfectly.

1. The midfield screen of Tettey and Howson played somewhat deeper and remained stationed more religiously.

2. Olsson moved high, but tracked back deeply very assiduously and athletically throughout.

3. Russell Martin moves naturally into the 3/4 space toward le the typical right back area, shutting off this channel more often

4. Martin and Klose are happier to receive the ball in tighter areas, move it more confidently, quicker and more crisply. They both sense danger a half-second later (a good thing)

5. John Ruddy tried to release the ball faster as a consequence (he could vastly, vastly improve in this area.

6. Naismith created space intelligently (fans note: it is not what he does, it is what he allows others to do)

7. Murphy can beat a man with ease. This scares the opposition and upsets the best laid tactical plans of any coach.

Eloquently explained and logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, just Lisa successfully transforming the Isotots using stochastical probability theory & falling out with her instinctive, animalistic older brother as a result. They made up though <3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change and flexibility are not just tactical weapons to ensure opponents cannot foresee and plan for exact patterns, they ensure that your own players are challenged, mentally alert and fresh.

There is value in a highly structured, inflexible, repeated methodology if you are openly inferior and thus drilled-to-precision defensiveness provides you with the highest odds of success (even if this be a 35% probability or less).

Repeatedly presenting a soft underbelly tactical weakness that opponents can exploit and expose without doing anything tactically clever or without compromising their own structure to any great degree, is a flaw that must be eliminated or at least consciously mitigated against.

Watching Brady jog aimlessly back as a Brentford counter is sprung after conceding soft turnover possession, as his man drIves unchallenged in the area, would give me nightmares (hubris point). Actually I would have taken him off for it there and then (review the action from the 0:12 minute point for those who are interested).

This is the kind of analysis that is edited and shown in opposition pre-match preparation classes. Not pretty Norwich goals.

The multiple clips of the cheap 2D semi-diagonal sides-of-the-centre-backs-on-turnover ball are shown repeatedly in the same video rooms and these two elements alone have undone us so often in so many matches.

Alternatively the attacking fluidity, confidence and individual brilliance seen against Derby may be uncontainable and repeatable from hereon in.

Unlike many I suspect, Brentford offered me greater confidence for future consistent success than the spectacular Derby showing, notwithstanding the result.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if you can see it Parma, and other clubs can see it, why has it taken Alex Neil so long to spot it and hopefully fix it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fear is that Alex Neil is holding back his instincts, that The Brentford approach was a forced and resented necessity, that he just wants to see his players attack, attack, attack force themselves on the opposition - almost as if they are not really part of the equation, as if they have no weapons, plans or methods of their own.

Why then would Conte or Guardiola spent the two days before games holed up privately studying every detail of the opposition, their preferred patterns, their strengths and weaknesses?

Why not simply choose the preferred formation, train the players to do what you want and then ignore the opposition, dismiss any repeated failures or weaknesses as ''individual player errors'' and give interviews that suggest your methodology is validated - and by extension implying that ''this is way we''ll usually play'' to your players and concurrently of course sharing it in advance with your opponents - following a win after a fallow period?

Why immediately imply that Brentford is the exception when it all but eradicated chances for the opposition, healed the repeated defensive weakness in 2D straight channel counters, whilst creating numerous usually match-winning quality chances?

If this is honesty, then it is all too revealing.

Ruthless empirical analysis is a pre-requisite of a good manager, though need not always be shared with the media or troops. Wilful self-deception can also be a useful tool, though it is to be used sparingly and can be toxic if mixed with stubbornness and self-righteousness.

Balance is viewed as an unacceptable compromise through this prism. More attacking players equals more goals and more wins under this logic. Not many Italians would agree and our results - even at this lower level - do not support the thesis.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A wonderful send upthough perhaps it might be a bit too subtle for somemeanwhile something a little less subtle but far funnier, if I may say soa real pi  sstake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I''m just too cynical after watching City for 40 years or so. I don''t think there was any science to it at all, it was just one of those days where the way the individuals played just happened to click and work together. I hope it is not a one off, but the evidence of the season suggests that this was an anomaly (lets not forget that the early season form involved many scratchy victories against poor sides).

All it proves to me is that the squad is/was good enough for promotion and automatics. Sadly to me that performance actually underlines why a change in manager is needed more than ever- the right person might be able to get that team playing like that on a regular basis not on an exception basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tumbleweed"]Maybe I''m just too cynical after watching City for 40 years or so. I don''t think there was any science to it at all, it was just one of those days where the way the individuals played just happened to click and work together. I hope it is not a one off, but the evidence of the season suggests that this was an anomaly (lets not forget that the early season form involved many scratchy victories against poor sides).

All it proves to me is that the squad is/was good enough for promotion and automatics. Sadly to me that performance actually underlines why a change in manager is needed more than ever- the right person might be able to get that team playing like that on a regular basis not on an exception basis.[/quote]

It was the first time we have used that midfield five since the beginning of the season - and used an in form Oliveira in attack. With Martin in there too, which he wasn''t at the beginning of the season, we arguably had our best side out there for the first time this season.  That, combined with the extra determination and pressure of getting a result led to us being too hot to handle.  Parma is very elequent in his posts and they make a lt of sense, but I can''t help feeling that if our best team is out there - and the attitude is right - we will more often than not overun teams.  The Derby game was the perfect storm - best team, all played well, concentration there for 100% of the game, luck was on our side - and the result was a great performance. Maintaining that level is paramount here on in - 100% concentration, intensity and belief.  If the players haven''t inspired themselves after that performance, they never will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you Parma - very interesting.Tumbleweed - "it was just one of those days where the way the individuals played just happened to click and work together."My fear is that you are correct Tumbleweed - if this is the case we have learned nothing and will revert to giving away the soft goals that have been a characteristic of out play for so long. With players like Wes etc, we know that we have players that can change a game but we do not seem to have developed a tactical system that suggests that we can hold on to a lead without giving away silly goads. The Brentford game, even if we did not play very fluently,  was one in which we actually looked solid and created enough chances to win the game (and would I suspect do so in the vast majority of occasions). Consecutive clean sheets is a source of optimism, but only time and future matches will show if we have found a way to have resolved our defensive frailties if we continue to use Neill''s preferred formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tumbleweed, LDC...there is the essence...

...you both offer the different sides of the coin and - as stated - I don''t know which reality we are now looking at.

Truthfully it was the psychological traits displayed in the post-match interviews that triggered the feeling that Tumbleweed identified. The clear statements that ''..we did today exactly what we''ve done [during the losing run]....the players just played well..''

This is undoubtedly true as LDC states, but then this raises a further point...''why bother having a manager at all?''...somebody phone Conte and Guardiola and tell them to stop bothering with tactics, opponent analysis and match preparation, just buy the best players, tell them they''re the best around and set them up to attack, attack, attack regardless (England anyone?).

There were tactical and approach changes in the 4-2-3-1 set up against Derby. There is nothing wrong with the formation per se, though the implication that it was always correctly conceived and the Norwich players just didn''t do it right is odd management.

There are defensive flaws in the easy we have operated the 4-2-3-1 and opponents have exploited the weakness repeatedly outlined (amazed that we haven''t remedied it).

As LDC says if players do brilliant things and confidently overcome the opposition then of course any system or tactics can be successful. Players, players, players.

There has been change via Brentford and Derby. Much worked, though as Tumbleweed fearfully says, possibly for two different reasons.

The change was necessary. The change was good. Let us not now attribute the success - after a run of 10 negative games - to doing what we had been doing all along.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do you need a manager? Well, good question Parma as I am not always sure that some managers add much value in truth.

At this level pretty much everything has to come together to be a success including the things you mention such as match prep and analysis etc. But the assumption should not be that every manager does all of this stuff correctly, otherwise every game would be drawn bar those where the player quality was markedly different.

My worry is that AN has been in charge for two years. TWO YEARS! And are people suggesting that only now he has hit on some miracle formula which will work? Continued tinkering and changes in formations, tactics, subs etc suggest to me simply that the truth is that he is just not very good. Sooner or later something will work (by the laws of probability), but is it really sustainable? The honeymoon effect of having someone in who wasn''t Neil Adams seems now to me to have been a short term bump which got us over the line in May 2015 but I fear that he has neither the innate ability nor long term experience to be a viable option at this level right now.

There''s the best part of 26K of us who pretty much know who can do what well in our team as we see them on match days. Assuming AN can see the same stuff, why don''t they perform on a regular basis? Something is wrong in the way the team is selected, set up, coached, prepared or whatever (and maybe all of these) which is making us regularly less than the sum of their parts.

So maybe the answer to your question Parma, as a rather cheeky proposition, is that in this case there is no point in the manager and the current management team are somehow making us less than the sum of our parts rather than more...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is very difficult to make assessments over the Christmas period. We don''t know which players have relaxed their strict regimes, who has indulged in festive cheer a bit too much, who has been eating and drink the wrong things, who has been slacking in his personal training, who has fell out with his Wag, and so on.

Christmas is a strange time that can throw up strange results, so I would be a bit cautious to jump to too many conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But, Tumbleweed, some managers clearly do make a difference. Just look at Derby (at least, until we played them), swapping from Pearson to McClaren transformed their results. Do we have a manager who makes a positive difference at the moment? Recent experience would suggest not, imagine if we did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Why then would Conte or Guardiola spend the two days before games holed up privately studying every detail of the opposition, their preferred patterns, their strengths and weaknesses"But isn''t AN on record saying that exactly this is the unfailing starting point of his team preparation for the next match? Indeed, when AN said that he had done nothing different coming into the Derby game, I took him to mean that he prepared for that match (and of course the game at Griffin Park) in exactly the same way as he always does -- analyse the oppositon, review the available resources and circumstances, decide the best approach and lineup for the game. (I actually made this point summarily on Ricardo''s Derby match report before having heard any of AN''s post-match comments.) In other words, I interpret AN''s remarks about "same as, same as" differently, as referring to the way he prepares for the next match, not to his being immovably rigid in his formational thinking or his briefing of his players about his expectations of them as regards the on-field realisation of the plan.My comment on Ricardo''s thread was prompted in part by the reversion from the back 3 at Brentford to 4 at the back for Derby. Where some, including myself, were hoping for a continuation with the 3, others correctly saw AN making a one-off adjustment on Saturday in line with his judgement of what best suited for that day, much as he had done last season (for different reasons) against Man City at the Etihad. His preferred paper formation of 4:2:3:1 was jettisoned at Griffin Park, and would be jettisoned again if it were judged necessary. If a clear predilection for 4:2:3:1 on paper implies rigidity, then the vast majority of club managers in all leagues can be said to be equally rigid. In point of fact, in team selection in particular, stubborn refusal to make changes seems the least plausible criticism. The usual complaint is exactly the reverse, too much tinkering, and disregard of that fan-loved cliche "never change a winning team"; indeed everything from "doesn''t know his best team [implication: or he''d keep playing the same starting eleven]" to "what sort of message does a player get when he plays one game and is dropped the next?" Again, what sort of tramline thinking allows spectacular, Lambert-esque, miscalculations such as were exemplified in the team setup against Birmingham and Barnsley (and by Lambert away at Scunthorpe for example)? What this suggests to me is a manager who takes detailed study of the opposition every bit as seriously as Conte or Guardiola, and perhaps, in the very different context in which he is managing, a bit too seriously for his own good and that of his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent evaluation and much of what you have written is true.

However I can assure you that analysts had noted the weakness in the way we typically set up the 4-2-3-1 a dozen games ago.

Playing both full backs high, without a deep-lying CDM dropping between the centre backs covering the central space in front and allowing the centre backs to move a little wider to shut off the very simple option of a flat, semi-diagonal 2D long pass upon counter - when our 3/4 midfielders are over-committed in forward areas - leaving the opposition striker to spin into this space with the ball, without the opposition having to do anything as clever as we are doing to score a goal. By attacking we concede. It is too simple and too easy to play against, teams sit back and wait for the moment - which we have repeatedly provided.

All analysts pinpoint this as Norwich''s Achilles heel.

One can indeed do huge amounts of preparation for each opponent, but if what one wants to see is only the strengths of ones own pieces, then this hubris is a dangerous virus, especially if transmitted to players.

To be truly strong, you must first acknowledge your weaknesses and confront them.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]"Why then would Conte or Guardiola spend the two days before games holed up privately studying every detail of the opposition, their preferred patterns, their strengths and weaknesses"But isn''t AN on record saying that exactly this is the unfailing starting point of his team preparation for the next match? Indeed, when AN said that he had done nothing different coming into the Derby game, I took him to mean that he prepared for that match (and of course the game at Griffin Park) in exactly the same way as he always does -- analyse the oppositon, review the available resources and circumstances, decide the best approach and lineup for the game. (I actually made this point summarily on Ricardo''s Derby match report before having heard any of AN''s post-match comments.) In other words, I interpret AN''s remarks about "same as, same as" differently, as referring to the way he prepares for the next match, not to his being immovably rigid in his formational thinking or his briefing of his players about his expectations of them as regards the on-field realisation of the plan.My comment on Ricardo''s thread was prompted in part by the reversion from the back 3 at Brentford to 4 at the back for Derby. Where some, including myself, were hoping for a continuation with the 3, others correctly saw AN making a one-off adjustment on Saturday in line with his judgement of what best suited for that day, much as he had done last season (for different reasons) against Man City at the Etihad. His preferred paper formation of 4:2:3:1 was jettisoned at Griffin Park, and would be jettisoned again if it were judged necessary. If a clear predilection for 4:2:3:1 on paper implies rigidity, then the vast majority of club managers in all leagues can be said to be equally rigid. In point of fact, in team selection in particular, stubborn refusal to make changes seems the least plausible criticism. The usual complaint is exactly the reverse, too much tinkering, and disregard of that fan-loved cliche "never change a winning team"; indeed everything from "doesn''t know his best team [implication: or he''d keep playing the same starting eleven]" to "what sort of message does a player get when he plays one game and is dropped the next?" Again, what sort of tramline thinking allows spectacular, Lambert-esque, miscalculations such as were exemplified in the team setup against Birmingham and Barnsley (and by Lambert away at Scunthorpe for example)? What this suggests to me is a manager who takes detailed study of the opposition every bit as seriously as Conte or Guardiola, and perhaps, in the very different context in which he is managing, a bit too seriously for his own good and that of his team. [/quote] I don''t think that is the point. I assume Neil does all that preparatory stuff as assiduously as any manager. The question is whether he is very good at it. And specifically whether he is very good at organising the team (and I mean the whole team rather than just the defence) to play against specific opponents to concede as few goals as possible. Only four teams have let in more goals than us, and no fewer than 11 teams below us have let in less. I admit that is a pretty crude measure (although not as misleading as it might be if we were scoring loads, but our goal difference is only +4) but sometimes crude measure are revealing, even if the detailed explanation is more complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Nuff Said: yes clearly some managers do have a positive impact. But then some others seem to have a negative effect. If the team as a whole consistently play less well than you feel they are capable of doing then the manager must be making things worse. therefore you would probably be better off without him!

@westcoast: a lot of sense in there. A manager can also do all that stuff and just come to the wrong conclusions. In my opinion the biggest difference the manager can make is the man management and psychological aspects of the game. Ranieri''s achievements with Leicester must show at an extreme level how dramatically that can affect performance. levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Indeed Purple.

We also clearly didn''t operate the 4-2-3-1 against Derby as we had done previously. The 7 points outlined include different tactical instructions, so why respond in such prickly fashion and state that nothing was any different...doesn''t t this de-facto blame the players again...?...

...doesn''t this scream ''see, it wasn''t my fault?..'' in rather chippy fashion just as a corner is being turned?

Where is the benefit in this approach Westie? After all it hadn''t been working for an extended period....so what or who exactly has been validated or proved correct...?..

Change won didn''t it...?...

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma,

Maybe he didn''t do anything differently but someone did, either that or all the stars lined up and it''ll be another thousands years or so before it repeats. I know where my money lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Purple wrote: "I don''t think that is the point. I assume Neil

does all that preparatory stuff as assiduously as any manager. The

question is whether he is very good at it. And specifically whether he

is very good at organising the team (and I mean the whole team rather

than just the defence) to play against specific opponents to concede as

few goals as possible."
With respect, I should have quoted Parma more fully to more accurately to identify my query:"
The fear is that Alex Neil is holding back his instincts, that The

Brentford approach was a forced and resented necessity, that he just

wants to see his players attack, attack, attack force themselves on the

opposition - almost as if they are not really part of the equation, as

if they have no weapons, plans or methods of their own.

Why then would Conte or Guardiola spent the two days before games

holed up privately studying every detail of the opposition, their

preferred patterns, their strengths and weaknesses?

Why not simply choose the preferred formation, train the players to do what you want and then ignore the opposition ........."I

was pointing out that if  "the fear" is justified, it would indeed be a

mystery as to why AN bothers to make paying meticulous attention to the

opposition  the essential starting point for his pre-match preparation.

As Parma says, "why not simply choose the preferred formation, train

the players to do what you want and then ignore the opposition

........." Yet from the moment he arrived, AN has always emphasised the

importance he attaches to analysing the upcoming opposition. How good he

is at it and how good the decisions made on the basis of it, are

another question. I''m not denying the latter point; I just prefer not to poke

more than one wasp nest at a time [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of sensible points on this thread.  I agree with Parma''s comment that it''s not all about the formation, it''s the way the players implement it that''s crucial.

 

A couple of things occur to me :

 

First, our awful defensive form has generally coincided with Klose being out of the team. It''s no coincidence that his return has seen us keep two clean sheets.  Although this begs the question : why he was out of the team for so long ?  And if Klose leaves during January, a quality replacement at CB is an absolute necessity for me.

 

Second, I can see Parma''s point about our attacking fullbacks leaving an obvious opening for opponents to counter.  In my view, if we have two DMs playing a disciplined role (and we have several players who''ve shown they can do that) plus with R Martin at CB (covering the right back), and Ollsson at left back (again with a disciplined attitude) and we have a couple of wide players who make a decent defensive contribution (i.e. Jacob Murphy but not Josh (yet) - Josh should be kept back as a substitute) this deals with the problem (at Champ level), and is a winning formula for us this season (with Klose as the other starting CB).

 

Depressingly though, this is something we''ve failed to achieve for much of the season, despite it being pretty obvious. Hopefully the manager is able to do this now, after several false dawns - jury''s still out for me though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...