Sort the defense and then later sort the attack?

[Thingy 36]

It is weird that some people say sort-out the defense and then later change the team to sort the attack. There's no reason why you can't do both from the outset.

Sargent isn't good enough, just as Placheta and Wildschut were not good enough.

 

[1902 1,167]

I'm not quite sure if these are supposed to be connected points.

[Ward 3 372]

Sort the defence out on the back of 2 clean sheets. What more do people want 🤔 

[Mr Angry 1,561]

1 hour ago, Ward 3 said:

Sort the defence out on the back of 2 clean sheets. What more do people want 🤔 

No reason why you can’t do both in the same match-having virtually nullified Brighton’s attacking threat we could have gone a bit more attacking ourselves I thought.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,165]

12 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

No reason why you can’t do both in the same match-having virtually nullified Brighton’s attacking threat we could have gone a bit more attacking ourselves I thought.

We HADN'T nullified Brighton's attacking threat. They had their best chance of the match in the 87th minute. If Brighton had nicked a late winner this board would have been awash with people bemoaning our 'naivety', inability to keep a clean sheet, losing mentality ............. blah, blah, blah.....................

[Ward 3 372]

5 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

No reason why you can’t do both in the same match-having virtually nullified Brighton’s attacking threat we could have gone a bit more attacking ourselves I thought.

Oh yeah absolutely agree buddy. Couldve taken anyone of the defending 8 off and put on an attacking threat earlier in my opinion 

[Danke bitte 965]

What I’m still struggling to understand is why the whole defensive fragility wasn’t addressed before the season began. Farke knew what the weaknesses were the last time we were in the Prem. And yet we change our entire midfield in the wake of Buendia’s sale but played the first bunch of matches set up in that 433 which didn’t work. 

Why didn’t we just play defensively from start using the players we had in the view we were waiting on other signings to come in? The team, by now, would have been more used to the new formation / tactics.

There’s a certain level of culpability that falls to Farke here. 

[Mr Angry 1,561]

24 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

We HADN'T nullified Brighton's attacking threat. They had their best chance of the match in the 87th minute. If Brighton had nicked a late winner this board would have been awash with people bemoaning our 'naivety', inability to keep a clean sheet, losing mentality ............. blah, blah, blah.....................

Virtually nullified I said, and yes if that had gone in there would have been a lot more moaning than there has been. But if we’re talking about what might have been, then maybe, if we’d attacked a bit more in the second half we might have scored and then Brighton’s goal wouldn’t have meant a loss.

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

34 minutes ago, Danke bitte said:

What I’m still struggling to understand is why the whole defensive fragility wasn’t addressed before the season began. Farke knew what the weaknesses were the last time we were in the Prem. And yet we change our entire midfield in the wake of Buendia’s sale but played the first bunch of matches set up in that 433 which didn’t work. 

Why didn’t we just play defensively from start using the players we had in the view we were waiting on other signings to come in? The team, by now, would have been more used to the new formation / tactics.

There’s a certain level of culpability that falls to Farke here. 

The main reason was that we hadn't signed Kabak yet and Zimmerman was injured. Hanley had missed the pre-season and Gibson had also had an injury. There was Omobamidele, but that seemed a big ask against Liverpool. In hind sight, it might have been better to play him in a back 3.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

No reason why you can’t do both in the same match-having virtually nullified Brighton’s attacking threat we could have gone a bit more attacking ourselves I thought.

But thats when we concede. Watford sliced us open when we attacked more. Since we've had 3 at the back theres been far less of that

[Jim Smith 2,317]

48 minutes ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

But thats when we concede. Watford sliced us open when we attacked more. Since we've had 3 at the back theres been far less of that

Yes although we’ve also played two low scoring teams who don’t have a Sarr on the wing. There is something about how Watford play and how we play that just makes them difficult opponents for us. Farke should have learnt by now but didn’t but it was perhaps also unfortunate that they were the first of our “winnable” games.

im not at all convinced that we would not have picked up a win or two had we gone for our last three opponents a bit more. It really would have made sense to play like we are now against Liverpool and Man City not these opponents. 

[nutty nigel 7,535]

6 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It really would have made sense to play like we are now against Liverpool and Man City not these opponents. 

Even without the players to do it?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

That's what Hughton did, gave us a good defense.

Then f*cked up stage 2, we got Elmander, Van Wolfswinkel, and Hooper.

Then he left the only one of those who could score on the bench for half a season.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

The problem comes when you are only good enough to attack or defend and not both together…as that is looking like the case we have a serious issue. Why? Because we spent on upgrading an attack that we now have no space for and cannot utilise and are sticking to a defence which is arguably no better than before 

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

What DF is doing is not extreme in the PL. Of the 14 teams playing last Saturday, 8 were using a back 3 and most of those a 3-5-2. The fact that we now have 5 CBs suggests that it's part of long term planning rather than just a reaction to results. DF is more experienced and adjusting to our circumstances, which is a good thing. 

We will see some variations in starting lineups and during matches as well, given the attacking players we've recruited, but much will depend on the new players settling in and developing a rhythm as each game we get closer to that. With a fully fit Normann, the next test will be Chelsea and I'm actually looking forward to that now.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Yelloow Since 72

[Jim Smith 2,317]

20 minutes ago, Yelloow Since 72 said:

What DF is doing is not extreme in the PL. Of the 14 teams playing last Saturday, 8 were using a back 3 and most of those a 3-5-2. The fact that we now have 5 CBs suggests that it's part of long term planning rather than just a reaction to results. DF is more experienced and adjusting to our circumstances, which is a good thing. 

We will see some variations in starting lineups and during matches as well, given the attacking players we've recruited, but much will depend on the new players settling in and developing a rhythm as each game we get closer to that. With a fully fit Normann, the next test will be Chelsea and I'm actually looking forward to that now.

I agree with you to a degree but what i am struggling with is how we will see more variations in starting line ups and during games. Because we all know that Farke does not change the team lightly after a non-loss. We also know he doesn;t make subs early and that this formation has limited scope for multiple of our attacking players to be on the pitch at the same time. I'm therefore a little worried that we will limp along, picking up a few points here and there so the team remains largely unchnaged and never really let our attacking players off the leash. 

We all knew deep down that it would be the same team as at Burnley playing Brighton and we also know that defeat at Chelsea will just be seen as expected and won't necessarily prompt changes for Leeds. I just don;lt see how the likes of Tzolis, Rashica, Todd and Gilmour play their way into this line up barring injuries because we also know he loves Kenny and I suspect PLM is going to fall into the bracket of the kind of "effort" player that coaches and managers love as well. 

[City 101 83]

We haven’t sorted the defence we have just packed the defence against two of the weaker sides in the league . Manager is totally lost at this level ,  Burnley and Brighton are the games you need to put everything into winning not going into the matches scared ****less .

 

[Danke bitte 965]

1 hour ago, City 101 said:

We haven’t sorted the defence we have just packed the defence against two of the weaker sides in the league . Manager is totally lost at this level ,  Burnley and Brighton are the games you need to put everything into winning not going into the matches scared ****less .

 

Not sure I agree, Burnley at Turf Moor is always a difficult ask with the orcs they have in their team and Brighton are 4th currently for a reason. I think Farke did what he needed to correctly, BUT what I don't understand is why wasn't this the thinking from the off owing to the last disastrous campaign. It's like no lessons were learned. 

I appreciate Farke's signed a 4 year deal but if Norwich go down again, are we at a point when it's time to go our separate ways, or stick with him to go up again only to have a third crack of the whip, which seems to me pretty daft.