Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Samwam27

Would you change anything in defense?

Recommended Posts

Hope fully Krul won''t have a clanger like that again!

My feeling is I''ve always preferred four at the back because when you play a central 3 with wingbacks, apart from 5 defenders PLus a defensive midfielder (e.g. Tettey) you''re sacrificing an attacking player further up the pitch. We had problems all last season scoring and we needed to rectify that.

With Hanley (a scottish international) and Klose (a Swiss international) we ought to have a very strong central pairing, but let''s face it we were prone to errors all throughout last season, which cost us goals per game.

And we''ve now played two average teams and let in six goals. That''s worrying!

So, would you change the back two, perhaps give Godfrey or Zimmerman a run,would you revert back to a central back three with wingbacks, or do you think we need to dip into the loan market. Alternatively can these two improve their concentration levels and become a strong defensive unit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full backs are a concern.....no way in the world is marshall a right back..when we signed him I assumed it was with a view to us switching to wing backs thus season.

Pino and lewis still the best we have at RB and LB

the other u sure us of course the level of protection in front of them....one holding midfielder or two? and on which occasions and opposition to play them?

Farke possibly got his selections the wrong way around vs Birmingham and WBA ....only Tettey was required at Brum where possibly both him and Tettey vs WBA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree about the full backs, Husband got all of the grief for Birmingham but I thought Marshall was equally as bad defensively but better going forward, so got away with it. The same could be said of him again yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In terms of defense, I would change the ‘s’ to a ‘c’ because I’m not American

In terms of defence, I would like to see us try the back 3 formation now. It seemed to have some impact on preseason and whatever we’re doing now isn’t working

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn''t change anything or anyone in the defence.

I would simply add a psychologist to the NCFC payroll as they seem to have mental issues when things go array on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"In terms of defence, I would like to see us try the back 3 formation now. It seemed to have some impact on preseason and whatever we’re doing now isn’t working."

Me too. Essential if you are going to have two attacking full-backs or wing-backs whatever the label.

This plus a competent young, mobile minder at the back of midfield.

Not sure about Tettey anymore. Perhaps he should have been released after all.

I feel that Louis Thompson should, by all accounts, be a regular starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need to return to prioritising not conceding goals over scoring them. I''m amazed that this lesson still hasn''t been learned, despite season after season of having it illustrated on the pitch. If we play a back four, we need two disciplined DMs in front of them. If we play three at the back, we need a more disciplined and better forward passing DM than Tettey in front of them (Godfrey?). And the responsibility for playing the ball forward from the back should never be Hanley''s; he is far too inaccurate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''d do one of two things.

1- go back to the back three. We look much more balanced and it helps bring out the best in our wingbacks.

2- If we want to keep a back 4 then I''d drop Tettey. Too much of a ball chaser to work in that formation on his own. You need a disciplined holder who will sit infront of the back 4 and drop in between central defenders when we break. Tettey isn''t that. I wonder if the answer lies with Godfrey or Thompson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the much heralded philosophy rather than players or formation? We still can’t effectively defend with a back four after 12 months trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="FCC"]Is it the much heralded philosophy rather than players or formation? We still can’t effectively defend with a back four after 12 months trying.[/quote] No successful team at this level or higher "defends with a back four". Surely you''ve noticed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trouble with playing 3 at the back is that it then forces you to discard either one of your midfield 3 or play one up front and on yesterdays showing we posed a real threat going forward with the formation we played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope DF doesn''t revert back to 3 CBs as we can be sure it will lead to the slow turgid build up play we had to suffer last season. We also need more pressing out of Leitner and Maclean when we don''t have the ball. Too often yesterday Livermore was given loads of space in midfield to run at or back 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we reverted to a back 3 with wing-backs, do you think we could sacrifice Tettey?

Would give us a more solid back line (with wing backs) and retain the attacking threat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The message you are replying to: Re: Would you change anything in defense?

BroadstairsR wrote the following post at 12/08/2018 9:04 AM:

"In terms of defence, I would like to see us try the back 3 formation now. It seemed to have some impact on preseason and whatever we’re doing now isn’t working."

Me too. Essential if you are going to have two attacking full-backs or wing-backs whatever the label.

It’s the only way forward with the squad we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I''m with the back three. I think it alleviates the need for a purely defensive midfield player. It creates the position for a decent passer of the ball, both in central defence and midfield.

With a back four, as with Saturday, if Pinto is out of position then it is easy to pull one of the CB''s out of position.

I think the days are gone where we need a Trevor Hockey. The passing game means you just need players to be in spaces and cover. I think the Dutch called it Total Football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Samwam27"]If we reverted to a back 3 with wing-backs, do you think we could sacrifice Tettey?

Would give us a more solid back line (with wing backs) and retain the attacking threat[/quote]

I cant see how playing three centre backs, means we can get away with out a defensive midfielder (if that''s what you mean about getting away with not playing Tettey?). for the back three to really work and keep the wingbacks forwards, without a defensive midfielder, what we''d most likely end up with is a flat back 5, the defence definitely still needs some shielding whether that be Tettey, Godfrey or Thompson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I cant see how playing three centre backs, means we can get away with out a defensive midfielder

It would just require one of the middle three to cover. The wing backs would be adding to the attack.

Are we saying only Tettey can tackle or mark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="keelansgrandad"]I cant see how playing three centre backs, means we can get away with out a defensive midfielder

It would just require one of the middle three to cover. The wing backs would be adding to the attack.

Are we saying only Tettey can tackle or mark?[/quote]

of course i''m not saying Tettey is the only one who can tackle or mark but presumably you have watched like I have how well tracked midfielders are when we don''t play a holding midfielder. The centre backs can not deal with a midfielder running at the heart of the defence and the space in behind the attacking full backs what will happen is the full backs will drop back meaning they are just full backs and one of out centre backs has to step out to try and stop a player often running at them with momentum as we get deeper and deeper. If we were vastly superior to the opposition or had more rounded midfielders similar to Trybull maybe we could get away with it. But I feel certain what will happen is we''ll end up with 5 across the back, sat deep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4-2-3-1. When all fit...

Krul

Marshall - Hanley - Klose - Lewis

Tettey - Trybull

Pukki - Leitner - Hernandez

Rhodes

A tad harsh on MacLean, but we had our most successful spell last season with T&T in the holding roles. Leitner does seem to want to play a lot deeper, which might cause problems with this set up.

We have the players to swap into this formation if we need to: Pinto, Passlack, Husband, Stiepermann, MacLean, Zimmermann, Godfrey, Thompson, Vrancic, Buendia, MacLean, Srebny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the evidence we saw last season the only scenario in which Norwich were able to keep a clean sheet was 7 at the back - 5 across the back and 2 DMs in front. This is obviously excessive and curtails the ability to score.

The problem that Norwich seem to have is that the defenders are simply not good enough as stand alone defenders - they are only effective when more than half the team pitches in to defend.

The truth is that Krul, McGovern, Hanley, Klose, Pinto, Zimmermann, Passlack and Husband are no good and Marshall is played out of position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"]On the evidence we saw last season the only scenario in which Norwich were able to keep a clean sheet was 7 at the back - 5 across the back and 2 DMs in front. This is obviously excessive and curtails the ability to score.

The problem that Norwich seem to have is that the defenders are simply not good enough as stand alone defenders - they are only effective when more than half the team pitches in to defend.

The truth is that Krul, McGovern, Hanley, Klose, Pinto, Zimmermann, Passlack and Husband are no good and Marshall is played out of position.[/quote]
Interesting that you have chucked Passlack into the mix,have you seen him play then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Passlack has been so far off the pace in pre-season that he can''t even get into what is already a poor defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
of course i''m not saying Tettey is the only one who can tackle or mark but presumably you have watched like I have how well tracked midfielders are when we don''t play a holding midfielder. The centre backs can not deal with a midfielder running at the heart of the defence and the space in behind the attacking full backs what will happen is the full backs will drop back meaning they are just full backs and one of out centre backs has to step out to try and stop a player often running at them with momentum as we get deeper and deeper. If we were vastly superior to the opposition or had more rounded midfielders similar to Trybull maybe we could get away with it. But I feel certain what will happen is we''ll end up with 5 across the back, sat deep.

Just like Saturday you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keelansgrandad, What exactly is your point about Saturday? individual errors caused us to throw away a winnable game in which first half we played well. Regardless of what formation we play if we do those individual errors every game it wont make a blind bit of difference what formation we play?

Maybe your point is about Tettey? he had a poor game on Saturday after having a good game against Birmingham the week before it happens, however I''m talking about the position he plays (or Godfrey or Thompson) and the need for us to have that position currently in any formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Keelansgrandad, What exactly is your point about Saturday?

My point is that we did play a holding midfield player, and, not because of Tettey''s performance because I didn''t see 90 minutes, and it didn''t stop us conceding four goals.

It doesn''t matter who fills the gap, as long as someone does. It just needs the discipline of players being aware of what is going on behind them as much as in front of them.

With regard to Tettey, he is pat his best in my opinion, and someone with, once again in my opinion, greater passing ability and greater movement, take his place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’d have McLean and Godfrey in front of the defence. Godfrey to sit in and McLean box to box. Tetteys best days are long gone and I’m not 100% convinced about Leitner. McLean and Godfrey are both 6 foot and very athletic. Think it’s the perfect balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="keelansgrandad"]Keelansgrandad, What exactly is your point about Saturday?

My point is that we did play a holding midfield player, and, not because of Tettey''s performance because I didn''t see 90 minutes, and it didn''t stop us conceding four goals.

It doesn''t matter who fills the gap, as long as someone does. It just needs the discipline of players being aware of what is going on behind them as much as in front of them.

With regard to Tettey, he is pat his best in my opinion, and someone with, once again in my opinion, greater passing ability and greater movement, take his place.[/quote]

The system on Saturday was decent, the individual errors are what cost us, play any system you like it wont make a difference if that continues to happen. But dispense with a holding midfielder with the current players we have and you''ll certainly see more goals in the games on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still feel that Tettey is one of our most important players. He was essential to our run of clean sheets last season, for a start.He may be moving on in years a bit but can still have a great influence over this team.We don''t really know how Godfrey will do there (having not seen him play at this level) and Farke seems to want to utilise him as a CB anyway. Thompson is an option, in my opinion, but he is still coming back from horrible injuries and is less likely to want to over commit himself until he can fully trust his body again.

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...