Only 3 clubs shipped more goals last season. Therefore...

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

....changes in personnel and systems are indicated.

 

The 3 relegated clubs shipped - 88, 78 and 77. And us and QPR each let in 66. 

 

Not good enough.

 

Thus, expect changes in defensive personnel to be a priority - both defenders and holding midfielders.

 

I suspect that Whitbread is merely the first.

 

OTBC 

[nutty nigel 7,624]

I don''t think it''s that simplistic. I''ve never believed that the goals for column is down to the strikers or the goals against down to the defence. What I do belive is that the final league table doesn''t lie. That''s decided on points. The next factor is goal difference. And finally goals scored. If you look at the league table goal difference funs pretty much alomgside points won. But if you look at goals conceded then it doesn''t. You have Newcastle conceding 51 and Villa conceding 53. However there''s 11 positions and 27 points between the two clubs.

 

I would look at us and Stoke. Both mid-table and never been involved in the relegation issues. Only 2 positions and 2 points difference. But the bigger difference is that between the philosophies of the two managers and their styles of play.

 

Hopefully we''ll field a more settled back four next season and that will help. Bennett isn''t record signing for nothing and Ayala was also brought for the Premier League. We probably need to sign players for both fullback positions. But do we want to change Lamberts philosophy of going all out to win games of football?

 

 

[Cambridgeyellow 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

....changes in personnel and systems are indicated.

 

The 3 relegated clubs shipped - 88, 78 and 77. And us and QPR each let in 66. 

 

Not good enough.

 

Thus, expect changes in defensive personnel to be a priority - both defenders and holding midfielders.

 

I suspect that Whitbread is merely the first.

 

OTBC 

[/quote]

Lol Whitbread was probably our best centre half hence he has left due offers of huge salary increases

[Aggy 766]

I''d agree with nutty that''s it''s not as simple as saying we''ve conceded too many goals so the defence is rubbish.

I think the way we play we''re always going to have a pretty poor defensive record. But we''ve got, I think, one of the best goals scored records outside of the top 6 or 7 (I looked at that the other day and haven''t checked since, so could be one or two more, but you get the point - we can score goals).

In saying that, obviously the better the defenders are as individuals, the better you will defend. I don''t think we''ll ever be up their with the highest clean sheets with the way we play, but if we can bring in a quality defender who can maybe help to cut out an extra 5-10 goals through his won positioning etc. then obviously that''ll help.

[Salopian 1]

It can''t be denied - we did concede more goals than most - hence only 3 clean sheets all season.

 

It is also truethat we scored more goals than most teams - only the top teams scored more.

 

There is probably a connection between the two. If you attack because you never give up, this takes energy and absorbs the midfield upfield, with even full backs ventruing well down the pitch, so we leave ourselves vulnerable to teams who can break quickly - Manchester City, for instance. The famous diamond does tend to leave us narrow, and vulnerable down the wings, even if it has led to goals.

 

 Our main injuries have been in defence - Tierney, Ayala, Whitbread, Ward, Drury, (leaving aside Vaughan), which has meant chopping and changing, which doesn''t help. The first few weeks, when we conceded all those penalties, and when we struggled to find our best combination, were part of a learning experience.

 

It must also be admitted that nearly all our defenders, including Ruddy, have made repeated mistakes which are heavily punished in the Premiership. We have to hope that next season, no matter how many new signings there are in defence, greater concentration will lead to a greater meanness in conceding goals.

[Bill 1,788]

"Lol Whitbread was probably our best centre half hence he has left due offers of huge salary increases"Yes, there''s not many ''goals against'' that are chalked up as going past the treatment tableHe didn''t leave, he was not offered another contract. A vast difference (ask a grown up to explain it)

[dpit 1]

Please remember what we have discussed about making your points firmly but politely, City First.

[greendoor 16]

When you look at the goals that we conseded and who they were against then you can get a better overall picture of how good/bad our defence is.

In both fixtures against each club we conceded:

Man C = 11

Arsenal and Blackburn = 5

Sunderland, Man U and Liverpool = 4

Chelsea, Bolton, Swansea, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Wolves, Spurs and Fulham = 3

Wigan, Stoke, QPR and WBA = 2

IMO I would take conceding that amount of goals to those teams, with two exceptions being Man C (should be around 5) and Blackburn (2/3 but they are religated so it wont matter next season)

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

If you also look back at the goals conceded, there we''re lots from stupid mistakes.

I know ever team will make them, but Ward against Liverpool was shocking 3 goals.

The beginning of the season we had 5 pens against us, and then only conceded another 1?

If we didn''t have Ruddy that could of been another 20+ goals.

Agree goals for are kind of irrelevent. Especially when you see the Newcastle / Villa comparison

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

[quote user="greendoor"]

When you look at the goals that we conseded and who they were against then you can get a better overall picture of how good/bad our defence is.

In both fixtures against each club we conceded:

Man C = 11

Arsenal and Blackburn = 5

Sunderland, Man U and Liverpool = 4

Chelsea, Bolton, Swansea, Villa, Newcastle, Everton, Wolves, Spurs and Fulham = 3

Wigan, Stoke, QPR and WBA = 2

IMO I would take conceding that amount of goals to those teams, with two exceptions being Man C (should be around 5) and Blackburn (2/3 but they are religated so it wont matter next season)

[/quote]

 

Thats good table..if we had been better defensively against Man City, our GD would be much better, and could have moved us up 1/2 places up table

[Harry 0]

8 clubs finished below us and only 9 clubs gained more points than us, that is all I need to know.

[BigFish 1,988]

There are some bonkers comments on here and BBB has got it bang to rights. The complacency that we can continue to ship goals at the rate we do without at some point facing a relegation battle beggars belief.

All it takes is for the strikers to go through a lean period and we are in the sticky stuff if we can''t defend.

Expect to see changes at the back and a more sophisticated approach next season (assuming Lambert is still here)

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]There are some bonkers comments on here[/quote]

Understatement.

[Bill 1,788]

"8 clubs finished below us and only 9 clubs gained more points than us, that is all I need to know."that''s not much use if you are trying to slag of the team

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t think it''s that simplistic. I''ve never believed that the goals for column is down to the strikers or the goals against down to the defence. What I do belive is that the final league table doesn''t lie. That''s decided on points. The next factor is goal difference. And finally goals scored. If you look at the league table goal difference funs pretty much alomgside points won. But if you look at goals conceded then it doesn''t. You have Newcastle conceding 51 and Villa conceding 53. However there''s 11 positions and 27 points between the two clubs.

 

I would look at us and Stoke. Both mid-table and never been involved in the relegation issues. Only 2 positions and 2 points difference. But the bigger difference is that between the philosophies of the two managers and their styles of play.

 

Hopefully we''ll field a more settled back four next season and that will help. Bennett isn''t record signing for nothing and Ayala was also brought for the Premier League. We probably need to sign players for both fullback positions. But do we want to change Lamberts philosophy of going all out to win games of football?

 

 

[/quote]

 

However, we tend to be the exception to the rule regarding goal difference and league position.  Especially in the top flight - when we finished 5th our gd was +2, 4th it was +3 and 3rd it was -4, which is actually a record!  When we topped the table at Christmas we did so with a negative goal difference!  Our record top flight goal difference is +4 when we finished 12th unbelievably with only 4 home wins.

 

Man City hold a very bizarre record.  In the 37/38 season, not only did they get relegated the season after being champions, they did so while having a positive goal difference and also being the division''s top scorers!  - It sounds almost impossible.  They must have won games by quite a margin and obviously lost a fair few but only by the odd goal.  One which always seem to spring to mind on such subjects was when Man City were relegated to the 3rd tier in 97/98 with a goal difference of only -1, you had to go up to 9th in the table for the next team to better that.

 

Anyway here''s some stats on this season - http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/PR/glsagst.html

[York Canary 28]

[quote user="Chelmsford Canary"]

If you also look back at the goals conceded, there we''re lots from stupid mistakes.

I know ever team will make them, but Ward against Liverpool was shocking 3 goals.

The beginning of the season we had 5 pens against us, and then only conceded another 1?

If we didn''t have Ruddy that could of been another 20+ goals.

Agree goals for are kind of irrelevent. Especially when you see the Newcastle / Villa comparison

[/quote]

 

Exactly.. a lot of it was inexperience to begin with and luckily PL didn''t mess about and rectified it sharpish with some changes i.e Barnett and De Laet out. The one thing with PL is that he''s efficient and doesn''t mess about if he thinks there''s a problem. That''s why I''m not overly concerned with Whitbread leaving because he will have a plan for his replacement and it will only improve us.

 

I wouldn''t be surprised to see Ward leave either as we used Martin towards the end instead with Bennett. I certainly think defence will be the immediate concern for PL and maybe a striker and defensive midfielder. I can see us going for Snodgrass again too simply because he likes him a lot from all accounts and is a quality player and you always need that quality in depth

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

How many teams have finished in the top 4 with a negative goal difference?

Norwich 92-93 (-4)

Everton 04-05 (-1)

Interesting, we we''re top at Christmas also with a negative goal difference.

The next season (93-94) we finished 12th but our GD was (+4).

When we win, it''s usually only by the single goal (8 times this season out of our 12 wins)

[nutty nigel 7,624]

I don''t think any of the views on this thread are bonkers. I think it''s interesting. But we did have all this last season. Similar comments stating that we conceded too many goals to get promoted. Now we did copncede more goals than any one in the top six that season but we also scored more than any of them.

 

Now if you look at Swansea last season you will see that comparing us with them is not too disimilar to this season. Last season we scored .3 goals per game more than them and conceded .35 goals per game more. This season we scored .2 goals per game more but conceded .4 goals per game more. I doubt there''s any difference in quality between the two defences. Both got good keepers. Both were chasing Ryan Bennett. I just think it''s just the difference in style and philosophy of the two managers.

 

What will help us next season would be if we could field a settled back four. I suspect this could be part of the reasoning behind the Whitbread decision. But I believe the main reason we conceded so many goals was that we gave the ball away too cheaply in all areas of the pitch. And that''s partly through being more open in our play. Tightening up may well  improve the goals against column but would probably also have a knock on effect to the goals scored.

 

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t think any of the views on this thread are bonkers. I think it''s interesting. But we did have all this last season. Similar comments stating that we conceded too many goals to get promoted. Now we did copncede more goals than any one in the top six that season but we also scored more than any of them.

 

Now if you look at Swansea last season you will see that comparing us with them is not too disimilar to this season. Last season we scored .3 goals per game more than them and conceded .35 goals per game more. This season we scored .2 goals per game more but conceded .4 goals per game more. I doubt there''s any difference in quality between the two defences. Both got good keepers. Both were chasing Ryan Bennett. I just think it''s just the difference in style and philosophy of the two managers.

 

What will help us next season would be if we could field a settled back four. I suspect this could be part of the reasoning behind the Whitbread decision. But I believe the main reason we conceded so many goals was that we gave the ball away too cheaply in all areas of the pitch. And that''s partly through being more open in our play. Tightening up may well  improve the goals against column but would probably also have a knock on effect to the goals scored.

 

[/quote]

Okay, Ed, may be it isn''t bonkers to state the fact that we gave the ball away too cheaply in midfield as well as at the back, but one would be slightly silly to blame attacking players for conceding so many goals -- we lack a good defensive-midfielder and the weaknesses of our back four is already established, so saying our problem isn''t with our defense is somewhat bonkers.

[Syteanric 1]

Im of the belief a team should be built from the back... theres only 1 goalkeeper so he needs to the very best you can get, from this confidence will come from the rest of the players to do their jobs...we have the best in Ruddy and thats 1 box ticked... I also agree that defending and attacking is a team game but with a good solid defence it allows the midfield and strikers to do their job with much more confidence...I think we are only 2 or 3 singings away to be honest.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]I think we are only 2 or 3 singings away to be honest.[/quote]A bit more choir practice then jas! [;)][:D]

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]I think we are only 2 or 3 singings away to be honest.[/quote]A bit more choir practice then jas! [;)][:D][/quote]i bet Russ Martin can hit soprano!

[nutty nigel 7,624]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t think any of the views on this thread are bonkers. I think it''s interesting. But we did have all this last season. Similar comments stating that we conceded too many goals to get promoted. Now we did copncede more goals than any one in the top six that season but we also scored more than any of them.

 

Now if you look at Swansea last season you will see that comparing us with them is not too disimilar to this season. Last season we scored .3 goals per game more than them and conceded .35 goals per game more. This season we scored .2 goals per game more but conceded .4 goals per game more. I doubt there''s any difference in quality between the two defences. Both got good keepers. Both were chasing Ryan Bennett. I just think it''s just the difference in style and philosophy of the two managers.

 

What will help us next season would be if we could field a settled back four. I suspect this could be part of the reasoning behind the Whitbread decision. But I believe the main reason we conceded so many goals was that we gave the ball away too cheaply in all areas of the pitch. And that''s partly through being more open in our play. Tightening up may well  improve the goals against column but would probably also have a knock on effect to the goals scored.

 

[/quote]



Okay, Ed, may be it isn''t bonkers to state the fact that we gave the ball away too cheaply in midfield as well as at the back, but one would be slightly silly to blame attacking players for conceding so many goals -- we lack a good defensive-midfielder and the weaknesses of our back four is already established, so saying our problem isn''t with our defense is somewhat bonkers.
[/quote]

 

So now that we are tighter and don''t give the ball away so cheaply the goals have dried up. I guess the way to avoid "being bonkers" now is to blame the strikers!

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t think any of the views on this thread are bonkers. I think it''s interesting. But we did have all this last season. Similar comments stating that we conceded too many goals to get promoted. Now we did copncede more goals than any one in the top six that season but we also scored more than any of them.

 

Now if you look at Swansea last season you will see that comparing us with them is not too disimilar to this season. Last season we scored .3 goals per game more than them and conceded .35 goals per game more. This season we scored .2 goals per game more but conceded .4 goals per game more. I doubt there''s any difference in quality between the two defences. Both got good keepers. Both were chasing Ryan Bennett. I just think it''s just the difference in style and philosophy of the two managers.

 

What will help us next season would be if we could field a settled back four. I suspect this could be part of the reasoning behind the Whitbread decision. But I believe the main reason we conceded so many goals was that we gave the ball away too cheaply in all areas of the pitch. And that''s partly through being more open in our play. Tightening up may well  improve the goals against column but would probably also have a knock on effect to the goals scored.

 

[/quote]



Okay, Ed, may be it isn''t bonkers to state the fact that we gave the ball away too cheaply in midfield as well as at the back, but one would be slightly silly to blame attacking players for conceding so many goals -- we lack a good defensive-midfielder and the weaknesses of our back four is already established, so saying our problem isn''t with our defense is somewhat bonkers.
[/quote]

 

So now that we are tighter and don''t give the ball away so cheaply the goals have dried up. I guess the way to avoid "being bonkers" now is to blame the strikers!

 

[/quote]

 

The goals have dried up so far this season, but not the chances. Prior to today we had the worst chance conversion ratio in the Premier League of 4%.

 

Another 8 shots today (3 on target) and no goals will have only  have made this statistic worse.

 

OTBC

 

 

[Phillip J Fry 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Shyster"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t think any of the views on this thread are bonkers. I think it''s interesting. But we did have all this last season. Similar comments stating that we conceded too many goals to get promoted. Now we did copncede more goals than any one in the top six that season but we also scored more than any of them.

 

Now if you look at Swansea last season you will see that comparing us with them is not too disimilar to this season. Last season we scored .3 goals per game more than them and conceded .35 goals per game more. This season we scored .2 goals per game more but conceded .4 goals per game more. I doubt there''s any difference in quality between the two defences. Both got good keepers. Both were chasing Ryan Bennett. I just think it''s just the difference in style and philosophy of the two managers.

 

What will help us next season would be if we could field a settled back four. I suspect this could be part of the reasoning behind the Whitbread decision. But I believe the main reason we conceded so many goals was that we gave the ball away too cheaply in all areas of the pitch. And that''s partly through being more open in our play. Tightening up may well  improve the goals against column but would probably also have a knock on effect to the goals scored.

 

[/quote]

Okay, Ed, may be it isn''t bonkers to state the fact that we gave the ball away too cheaply in midfield as well as at the back, but one would be slightly silly to blame attacking players for conceding so many goals -- we lack a good defensive-midfielder and the weaknesses of our back four is already established, so saying our problem isn''t with our defense is somewhat bonkers. [/quote]

 

So now that we are tighter and don''t give the ball away so cheaply the goals have dried up. I guess the way to avoid "being bonkers" now is to blame the strikers!

 

[/quote]

 

The goals have dried up so far this season, but not the chances. Prior to today we had the worst chance conversion ratio in the Premier League of 4%.

 

Another 8 shots today (3 on target) and no goals will have only  have made this statistic worse.

 

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

I..agree...with...Bly?  [:O]

[nutty nigel 7,624]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][

 

The goals have dried up so far this season, but not the chances. Prior to today we had the worst chance conversion ratio in the Premier League of 4%.

 

Another 8 shots today (3 on target) and no goals will have only  have made this statistic worse.

 

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

 

If you compare todays game with last seasons game at Newcatle those stats suggest nothing has changed. We lost both games 1-0.

 

This season we had 8 shots 3 on target last season 9 shots 4 on target.

This season Newc had 16 shots 8 on targer last season they had 12 shots 6 on target.

This season we had 5 corners last season we had 5 corners.

This season they had 4 corners last season they had 4 corners.

This season we had 19 fouls last season 15 fouls.

This season they had 11 fouls last season they had 8 fouls.

This season we had 43% posession last season we had 56% posession.

 

It''s a funny ol'' game!