Are we really better defensively under Hughton?

[Baldyboy 0]

Just a question I ask as some people seem to think we are, personally I think we aren''t and the main defenders used this season weer all signed by Hughton. also, we were doubled only by Man U and Man C all season last time and already Chelsea and Liverpool have doubled us.

[Mister Chops 7]

Do you want to do this based on facts, or opinions?

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"]Just a question I ask as some people seem to think we are, personally I think we aren''t and the main defenders used this season weer all signed by Hughton. also, we were doubled only by Man U and Man C all season last time and already Chelsea and Liverpool have doubled us.
[/quote]

Well Man U wont be doubling us this season will they.

[Mister Chops 7]

Facts suggest:By this point last year we had conceded 37 goals.So far this season we have conceded 39 goals.However, last season we had kept no clean sheets up to this point (First was Chelsea 0-0 on 21/1).So this season we have conceded (a) none or (b) shedloads (5 to Fulham, 10 to Liverpool, etc.)When Bassong plays, we tend to concede (a)When he doesn''t, we tend to concede (b)This suggests we are better overall but have terrible off-days.Is that better than being consistently weak?  Not sure.  One of the reasons we conceded more was that we were chasing games and looking to attack first and defend second, rather than looking to defend first and attack second.If Football was scored on effectiveness, "round by round" like Boxing then Lambert''s way was better.  It isn''t.

[Baldyboy 0]

No beagle but Fulham, West Brom, Man City could all do it still

[Sing Up The South Stand 0]

With Bassong, Ruddy and even Whittaker - YES

Without those players - No

[87canary 0]

I was going to write what Mister Chops wrote. But he''s done a better job than I could.

When we have our first choice back 4 (plus Ruddy), we are much, much better in defence than last season

[Chunky Norwich 0]

I think under Lambert we were always guaranteed to ship at least one, maybe two. But conversely we always seemed to score so it was as basic as ''you''ll score, we''ll score, can we score more than you?''Hughton likes to keep it tight and play deep. It seems it either works and we pinch 1-0 wins or we capitulate and the opposition runs riot. We are also severely limited in our ''goals for'' column.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Chunky Norwich"]I think under Lambert we were always guaranteed to ship at least one, maybe two. But conversely we always seemed to score so it was as basic as ''you''ll score, we''ll score, can we score more than you?''Hughton likes to keep it tight and play deep. It seems it either works and we pinch 1-0 wins or we capitulate and the opposition runs riot. We are also severely limited in our ''goals for'' column.[/quote]Although (as posted elsewhere) it is worth noting Paul Lambert''s Aston Villa have now conceded 44 goals already this season, the highest goals conceded in the Premier League.It is also worth noting Aston Villa have scored 8 goals in 11 games at home compared to our 13 in 11.This

is particularly pertinent for those who believe Lambert''s "up and at

them" philosophy pays dividends and is preferable to Hughton''s more

measured approach.

[Aggy 766]

Today wasn''t even entirely about the absence of certain players. The main problem was that we gave Liverpool too much room. Suarez received the ball "in the hole" and was allowed to turn, dribble forward a few yards, look up, pick a pass and execute the pass without a yellow shirt within 5 yards of him - and quite a few times that happened.

At least three times we let Gerrard have the ball about 20 yards out and were 5 or 10 yards away from him, one of those he put away. Noticeably, every time one of our players got the ball in an advanced position, Carragher was clattering him instantly and usually winning the ball back or at the very least making it hard for us to do anything with it.

If you get beaten by class from Suarez and Gerrard type players, then fair enough - they''re better than what we''ve got. But it''s absolutely criminal to give players like that so much time and space. Get into them and at least make it hard. It was training ground stuff for them today.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"]No beagle but Fulham, West Brom, Man City could all do it still
[/quote]

Thats true and the same could have been said of teams we''d played once and lost to last season.  Man City we will lose baring a miracle or a total change of approach to away games, but i still fancy our chances of a result against either Fulham or West Brom at home.

[Gingerpele 0]

Take out a terrible off day to Fulham (no Bassong) terrible games against Liverpool (no Bassong) and shipping four goals to a team who were on fire (with a quite probably not fully fit Bassong) and its only 20 conceded in 19 games. or 24 in 20 games with Bassong playing.

There is clearly a direct correlation between Bassong playing and goals conceded, i.e we don''t concede as many with him in the team.

Also, since Ruddy has been out, we''ve only kept one clean sheet. Whereas we kept 5 maybe 6 with him in goal. We''ve also conceded 10 in 5 without Whittaker I believe.

If we had a fully fit defence, we would be so much better defensively than last season. Obviously there were injury problems last year, but to be honest if anything they helped Lambert out, as when he had more defenders fit he didn''t know what to do.

[Chunky Norwich 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Chunky Norwich"]I think under Lambert we were always guaranteed to ship at least one, maybe two. But conversely we always seemed to score so it was as basic as ''you''ll score, we''ll score, can we score more than you?''Hughton likes to keep it tight and play deep. It seems it either works and we pinch 1-0 wins or we capitulate and the opposition runs riot. We are also severely limited in our ''goals for'' column.[/quote]Although (as posted elsewhere) it is worth noting Paul Lambert''s Aston Villa have now conceded 44 goals already this season, the highest goals conceded in the Premier League.It is also worth noting Aston Villa have scored 8 goals in 11 games at home compared to our 13 in 11.This

is particularly pertinent for those who believe Lambert''s "up and at

them" philosophy pays dividends and is preferable to Hughton''s more

measured approach.[/quote]Probably because he''s got a completely different set of players playing for him so he''s not going have a carbon-copy replication of results

[Zak Van Burger 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"] and the main defenders used this season weer all signed by Hughton.[/quote]These main defenders Hughton signed, I assume you mean Whittaker, Bassong, Turner and Garrido, remind us please how many games have we lost this season when they''ve all been available?   I think you will find that you''ve then answered your own question.It may have escaped your notice or you may well not see anything of the

games bar the score on teletext or whatever but 60% of our first choice

back five were unavailable for selection today.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Chunky Norwich"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Chunky Norwich"]I think under Lambert we were always guaranteed to ship at least one, maybe two. But conversely we always seemed to score so it was as basic as ''you''ll score, we''ll score, can we score more than you?''Hughton likes to keep it tight and play deep. It seems it either works and we pinch 1-0 wins or we capitulate and the opposition runs riot. We are also severely limited in our ''goals for'' column.[/quote]Although (as posted elsewhere) it is worth noting Paul Lambert''s Aston Villa have now conceded 44 goals already this season, the highest goals conceded in the Premier League.It is also worth noting Aston Villa have scored 8 goals in 11 games at home compared to our 13 in 11.This

is particularly pertinent for those who believe Lambert''s "up and at

them" philosophy pays dividends and is preferable to Hughton''s more

measured approach.[/quote]Probably because he''s got a completely different set of players playing for him so he''s not going have a carbon-copy replication of results[/quote]Yes Sherlock, I imagine that has something to do with it (though Hughton''s first choice team is also different to the one Lambert left behind).  But while we can''t compare the two squads directly, didn''t Lambert leave because he believed Villa had more potential?We can however look at the overall trend of the two clubs to see how Lambert''s philosophy compares to a more quotidian one.  Or just laugh a little as Lambert inches nearer to the sack.

[Chunky Norwich 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Chunky Norwich"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Chunky Norwich"]I think under Lambert we were always guaranteed to ship at least one, maybe two. But conversely we always seemed to score so it was as basic as ''you''ll score, we''ll score, can we score more than you?''Hughton likes to keep it tight and play deep. It seems it either works and we pinch 1-0 wins or we capitulate and the opposition runs riot. We are also severely limited in our ''goals for'' column.[/quote]Although (as posted elsewhere) it is worth noting Paul Lambert''s Aston Villa have now conceded 44 goals already this season, the highest goals conceded in the Premier League.It is also worth noting Aston Villa have scored 8 goals in 11 games at home compared to our 13 in 11.This

is particularly pertinent for those who believe Lambert''s "up and at

them" philosophy pays dividends and is preferable to Hughton''s more

measured approach.[/quote]Probably because he''s got a completely different set of players playing for him so he''s not going have a carbon-copy replication of results[/quote]Yes Sherlock, I imagine that has something to do with it (though Hughton''s first choice team is also different to the one Lambert left behind).  But while we can''t compare the two squads directly, didn''t Lambert leave because he believed Villa had more potential?We can however look at the overall trend of the two clubs to see how Lambert''s philosophy compares to a more quotidian one.  Or just laugh a little as Lambert inches nearer to the sack.[/quote]My apologies, Watson. It sounded like you needed it spelling out to you.In the same way that it seems you need it spelling it out that to this day, there has never been an official reason from either camp as to why Lambert left us to join Villa

[ZLF 275]

its a tough one.

We can exclude some games if we like but for liverpool or fulham you can include man citeh for example - and overall we have conceded more and scored less than the equivalent stage last season with a similar number of points and probably similar outcome by the season end.

my take is that when we have our best back five playing (mainly meaning bassong & Ruddy back) then we are much better this season as GPs stats excellently point out, 24 goals in 20 games with bassong is perfect.

Without bassong in particular we look a little rudderless and points look far less likely to arrive - so in that respect we are probably much worse, especially with the move to 2 rather than 1 defensive midfielder.

It just goes to show

1. that we do need another CB in the summer similar or better than seb.

2. if we are going to be porous without seb and ruddy should we go for 2 up front (holt and morison when fit) with a view that they offer an out ball (albeit hoof) that they can chase and hold up to ease the pressure and occupy a back 4 - today liverpool went back 3 as holt was so easily held? If we cant pass to 2 (as CH pointedly mentioned today) we may as well hoof it by design!

[nutty nigel 7,646]

[quote user="Aggy"]Today wasn''t even entirely about the absence of certain players. The main problem was that we gave Liverpool too much room. Suarez received the ball "in the hole" and was allowed to turn, dribble forward a few yards, look up, pick a pass and execute the pass without a yellow shirt within 5 yards of him - and quite a few times that happened. At least three times we let Gerrard have the ball about 20 yards out and were 5 or 10 yards away from him, one of those he put away. Noticeably, every time one of our players got the ball in an advanced position, Carragher was clattering him instantly and usually winning the ball back or at the very least making it hard for us to do anything with it. If you get beaten by class from Suarez and Gerrard type players, then fair enough - they''re better than what we''ve got. But it''s absolutely criminal to give players like that so much time and space. Get into them and at least make it hard. It was training ground stuff for them today.[/quote]

 

I disagree. I think the senior players help dictate the way we play. We were without Ruddy and Bassong. We chose to be without Hoolahan and Pilkington. We were also without Whittaker who I feel helps dictate the tempo of our performance, especially in the early stages of games. That''s half a team and I believe a big part of why the performance was so bad. If those players are fit and refreshed for the run-in it may not matter.

 

 

[Aggy 766]

I agree Nutty that they are key players. And without them, we were always unlikely to get a result. However, my main point is that today, even without those players we could (and should) have been capable of at least keeping it respectable.

We did have a full strength central (defensive) midfield with Tettey and BJ. E Bennett was (presumably) picked to offer more in terms of defense than Pilkington, as arguably was Howson over Hoolahan. Yet the midfield didn''t get tight either.

I''m not saying that getting tight would have got us anything from the game. But missing those players wasn''t the reason we lost by 5. Bennett and Turner are decent defenders (and Turner has got plenty of experience), Garrido is experienced and a first choice regular, and Martin is supposed to be something of a leader in the side. That defensive unit (alongside today''s supposedly more defensively sound midfield) should have made a better show of it today, even without those key players.

We didn''t get tight and didn''t look to challenge. Had we done that (which even these players without Ruddy and Bassong are capable of), we would have maybe lost by a couple but not a 5-0 mauling.

[Highland Canary 76]

We did give their players a lot of space today. Also, Tettey and Johnson do not seem as effective at the mo. Combined with the loss of Bassong and Martin at RB, we were simply too open.

The other scary things about today is that really could have got quite a few more and our heads dropped after two. Confidence has evaporated - hopefully a couple of ins might make a difference. At least the train is back on time...

[Baldyboy 0]

Zak werent THREE of the back five signed by Hughton? Bunn, Garrido and Turner? that is 60% of the defence!!!!

[nutty nigel 7,646]

[quote user="Aggy"]I agree Nutty that they are key players. And without them, we were always unlikely to get a result. However, my main point is that today, even without those players we could (and should) have been capable of at least keeping it respectable. We did have a full strength central (defensive) midfield with Tettey and BJ. E Bennett was (presumably) picked to offer more in terms of defense than Pilkington, as arguably was Howson over Hoolahan. Yet the midfield didn''t get tight either. I''m not saying that getting tight would have got us anything from the game. But missing those players wasn''t the reason we lost by 5. Bennett and Turner are decent defenders (and Turner has got plenty of experience), Garrido is experienced and a first choice regular, and Martin is supposed to be something of a leader in the side. That defensive unit (alongside today''s supposedly more defensively sound midfield) should have made a better show of it today, even without those key players. We didn''t get tight and didn''t look to challenge. Had we done that (which even these players without Ruddy and Bassong are capable of), we would have maybe lost by a couple but not a 5-0 mauling.[/quote]

 

I think that those players being missing was the difference between an acceptable defeat (if there is such a thing) and an unacceptable defeat. At no stage did we get hold of the game. That''s not down to the defence, midfield or forwards. That''s down to the team. You can''t really excuse the way we capitulated so that would suggest to me we were short of strong characters who wanted the ball and could impose themselves on a game at Anfield.

 

[nutty nigel 7,646]

[quote user="baldyboy"]Zak werent THREE of the back five signed by Hughton? Bunn, Garrido and Turner? that is 60% of the defence!!!!
[/quote]

 

Yeah, so Lambert would have had Rudd, Ward and Lappin? Would that have been better? I really don''t see the point you''re trying to make Baldy. All you seem to do is go off on one all over the board everytime you get disappointed.

 

I''m going to watch Mrs Brown''s Boys and play "name that poster"[;)]

 

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,042]

Baldyboy, you are clearly not at peace with yourself and your angst seems to stem from not liking NCFC very much, despite being an NCFC fan. I think you need to find yourself another outlet, maybe take up a hobby, or find another team to support, if you do I am sure you will find an inner peace, and will feel much better for it.....

 

[Baldyboy 0]

I would reply but you would only doctor what i write as you did earlier today!!

[nutty nigel 7,646]

[quote user="baldyboy"]I would reply but you would only doctor what i rant as you did earlier today!!
[/quote]

[Y]

 

 

[Yellow Wal 314]

If we had made plans to play Liverpool today they would have been upset by an extraordinary player. Tell me, was that the first time Suarez has played ''in the hole'' behind another striker as he did today, behind Sturridge?

If so, then all the preparation would have been next to useless as Liverpool played it differently ........ and very effectively.

There are times when players who cost double figures in millions are going to show why they are worth that much. Even Henderson and Downing did today. When that happens we are not going to be good enough and, once in a while, we have to accept that we have played against some very good players who have cost one hell of a lot of money because they are good players,

[Baracouda 47]

Bassong missing is huge, both his ability but his organisation.

After thinking about today''s game, it appeared to me that we play so deep as there is no pace in the side with Bassong at the back.

Suarez/Sturrdige/Sahem would have been itching to have a foot race v Bennett and Turner. So they play 15 yards further back, the midfield then have to shift defensive positioning and poor old Holty is left up top 30 yards away from another yellow shirt.

With Bassong our defensive line is well outside the penalty area when defending, today it was well inside the area.

So maybe we do need to sign another CB, preferece for a young high potential with a turn of Foot. i.e Kenton when he first burst on the scene. Possibly an ideal unstudy for Bassong. Obviously Kenton, didn''t work out when he moved up a league, but I can''t see we can afford the wages and fee, for a defender largely sitting on the bench.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

We have better quality defenders than last season, and play a more defensive formation, with 4 at the back and 2 defensive midfielders.

The record does seem to be blighted by number of complete collapses, although we got hammered a few times last year as well.

With the first choice back line, in the new defensive formation and outlook I think we look a solid side defensively. Missing the likes of Bassong and Ruddy we look likely to concede goals for fun even with the defensive formation.

[4th floor 4]

Amongst other factors, I think one out of Tettey and Johnson needed a rest but we don''t have suitable backup; we need another who can play DM who is at least better than Fox and on a par with the two incumbents. Also, Hughton may have wanted the most settled side he could field so was forced to play both AT & BJ due to others in other defensive positions being unavailable.The stats in the situation may not fairly reflect what has been observed so far this season, but on the other hand we are sometimes overly defensive when it would be better to be more offensive to avoid pressure in our own half. Obviously this is more akin to Lambert''s style.