The case against the Defence

[Kosh]

Don't buy the theory that we can't score cos we're worried that our own defenders might be a bit creaky.

I don't think we 'can't score', just that we're not setting up with a shape conducive of scoring due to an acute awareness that the defence is toilet.

 

[the wanderbus]

Of course the defence needs strengthening. That, however, doesn't make it the top priority. Scoring goals is the most important part of football, without a goal, the best you can hope for is one point. The foundation of every team should be a solid Defence, and then you build from there. Currently though, our defence IS perfectly adequate. Being 8th best in the league isn't my opinion, it's a fact. You could say we set up to play defensively, but tell me a team which doesn't?? Every team in the devision aims for a clean sheet.

This season there has been one outstanding issue, goal scoring. Where did he issue of goal scoring arise? From poor summer recruitment. That's bleeding obvious to see. Singing a decent pair of strikers should be our priority next season, equally with a creative spark to play in midfield. After those (more important issues) are sorted, we can look to improve the 8th best defence in the league. The only difference between this season and last is having a decent striker (Ulloa).
[MENTION=1104]seagulls4ever[/MENTION] care to share your opinion? Or are you just going to sit there giving me the thumb?

Look at the goals the teams that have conceded less than us have scored, other than Wednesday all have scored over TWENTY more than us. They clearly all set out to score goals as thier prioroty, we set out not to concede by packing the side with defensive minded players. The reason we concede so few is not due to the quality of our defence but the quanity

 

[Lurchy]

Don't buy the theory that we can't score cos we're worried that our own defenders might be a bit creaky.

It's certainly affected the way that the team has been set up to play though - one man up top looking to hold the ball up, with very little / late arriving support.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

We are going to have to go looking for a left back for next season (again), and we also need at least to start thinking about phasing out our ageing back four (well, most of them). Don't see that as a priority, though, and we can't expect TB to spend enough money to improve in ALL departments this summer.
Possibly though, the midfield is spending too much time and effort protecting the back four - but the urgent priority for this summer is finding someone who can convert chances (and half chances) even if these don't come very frequently.

Who do we have in our current squad that's has been left out that is the creative attacking player(s) we have sacrificed to play the more defensive players? - I'm struggling to think who?

 

[stss30]

I couldn't disagree more. It confirms my belief that we're ULTRA defensive in order to protect a creaking and porous back line. Greer's finished, Bennett is league 2 fodder, Dunk isn't that great, Bruno is literally the embodiment of a journey man at the end of the road and Calde likewise. We play one upfront for a reason, so the holding midfielder(s) can help Greer to cross the street.

I'm perplexed that anyone thinks our defence is 'good' - are you shitting me? Mistakes, personal nightmares aside it's a poor, poor championship backline. Age has got the better of it, that and some immensely poor signings/transfer (in &out) events/non events.

Agree with a lot of that, only thing I take slight issue with is I think Dunk is a decent defender. Just low on confidence playing alongside players who make regular errors. Our defence is largely aging and quite simply not good enough if we want to compete at the top of the Championship.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

There's no case to answer for the defence. They played pretty solidly throughout. But Deeney and Vydra are top-class strikers. That what separates us from Watford. Our strikers are poundshop by comparison, every last one of them. That's what happens when you flog off major proven assets like Ulloa and Barnes for a fast buck and replace them on the cheap.

Weren't Ulloa and Barnes the cheap option when we signed them? Or is that being overlooked for the sake of their point.

Some signing work, some fail and it's not down to price tag (Chelsea signed proven PL goalscorer Torres for £50m(?) How did he do?

 

[Kosh]

Look at the goals the teams that have conceded less than us have scored, other than Wednesday all have scored over TWENTY more than us. They clearly all set out to score goals as thier prioroty, we set out not to concede by packing the side with defensive minded players. The reason we concede so few is not due to the quality of our defence but the quanity

Top post.

 

[Luke93]

Errrmmmmm gee let me think - Bournemouth, Watford, Derby to name but three... YES we've had a terrible season in attack too - but we don't provide any service and when we do it's hit and hope time baby. Nah - we're setting up not to concede as we know full well we can't match any team in this league for pace, power and strength across our back four/three or two under Sami.

Disagree. Our defence has kept us up. Our attackers are DIRE. We have been playing openly in many games (under Sami) and the problem there was the same - scoring goals. I'm Not saying keep the exact same back 4, I'm saying money is best spent in other places FIRST.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

Weren't Ulloa and Barnes the cheap option when we signed them? Or is that being overlooked for the sake of their point.

Some signing work, some fail and it's not down to price tag (Chelsea signed proven PL goalscorer Torres for £50m(?) How did he do?

Ulloah wasn't that cheap for what was a bit of a gamble, and Barnes was a reasonable amount for money at a time when we were hardly the most glamorous team to join. Barnes had already made a bit of progress when we got hold of him and he proved it quite quickly. Just a shame we didn't continue using him further forward to give him the opportunity to score at the rate he started off.

I thought O'Grady did reasonably well today as a target but I really can't see us getting away with using a single striker in the future. Most teams that are doing well seem to have a decent pairing up front.

 

[Kosh]

There's no case to answer for the defence. They played pretty solidly throughout. But Deeney and Vydra are top-class strikers. That what separates us from Watford. Our strikers are poundshop by comparison, every last one of them. That's what happens when you flog off major proven assets like Ulloa and Barnes for a fast buck and replace them on the cheap.

Except Tom Greer was at fault for their first and had a shocking game - what you say is true re our strikers, but the defence is poor too mate, very poor.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Ulloah wasn't that cheap for what was a bit of a gamble, and Barnes was a reasonable amount for money at a time when we were hardly the most glamorous team to join. Barnes had already made a bit of progress when we got hold of him and he proved it quite quickly. Just a shame we didn't continue using him further forward to give him the opportunity to score at the rate he started off.

I thought O'Grady did reasonably well today as a target but I really can't see us getting away with using a single striker in the future. Most teams that are doing well seem to have a decent pairing up front.

How much difference was there between Ulloas transfer fee and Baldocks?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Do you think we were playing with a striker on one wing (Baldock before his injury) and a defender on the other (Calderon) because it was to shore up the defence?

Or was it a lack of options? (we have lost Noone, Buckley and Orlandi to name but 3 wingers and brought in ?? to play out wide?)

 

[Kosh]

Disagree. Our defence has kept us up. Our attackers are DIRE. We have been playing openly in many games (under Sami) and the problem there was the same - scoring goals. I'm Not saying keep the exact same back 4, I'm saying money is best spent in other places FIRST.

Fair enough... it's a game of opinions after-all. I think what we're heading for here is a whole new team. We won't get it though... will we?

 

[Kosh]

Do you think we were playing with a striker on one wing (Baldock before his injury) and a defender on the other (Calderon) because it was to shore up the defence?

Or was it a lack of options? (we have lost Noone, Buckley and Orlandi to name but 3 wingers and brought in ?? to play out wide?)

Ohhhhhh don't get started on the wings! So that's a new back four, two new strikers, two new wingers and a new attacking/class midfielder. Only joking... listen the entire team is poor, but I think our defence have had it easy, hidden behind a sea of defensive holding midfielder's. Lest we forget we've seen Calde on the wing too - way too often to suggest anything other than caution and defensive cover.

 

[whosthedaddy]

Defensively from what I saw today...
Greer, like a geriatric in a trance, no awareness of Watford players close to him, (an an oil tanker turns faster than he does), must have played Stockdale and other players into trouble more times than I care to remember, how the hell can he be captain when he's one of our weakest links? GET RID

Bruno, (good in parts) but does my head in with his lazy crosses, lazy defending and an ability to look like he's running on quicksand. GET RID

Dunk, had one of his better games but can be a liabilty in many others. KEEP

Bennett, Lack of pace let's him down as does his strength in possession, loses the ball way too easily for my liking. FENCE

As for our attack...just don't, DON'T get me started on that front

 

[drew]

Not going to agree entirely with the OP as we have only conceded 5 goals more than a team that has just got promoted. However, they have scored over twice as many goals as us. It's not quite that simple as the defence are of course part of the attack just as much as the attackers are part of the defence. If our defence don't move the ball around quick enough we are going to struggle to get forward and create chances.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

How much difference was there between Ulloas transfer fee and Baldocks?

Not a lot probably. Ulloa exceeeded expectations and Baldock hasn't met them (yet?). I just hope of we spend a lot of dosh it isn't wasted. Perhaps we can pick up a couple of strikers from the teams that are going up as they will probably get replaced.

 

[BBassic]

I think CH has us playing defensively because our front line is woeful beyond belief. The stats would certainly indicate our problem this season lay with the lack of penetration up front than with generosity at the back.

 

[BensGrandad]

The case for the defence:

The table if it was decided on goals conceded:


Middlesbrough 34
Bournemouth 45
Norwich 45
Sheff Wed 49
Watford 49
Derby 50
Ipswich 50
Brighton 54
Wolves 54
Blackburn 55
Charlton 56
Cardiff 58
Brentford 59
Wigan 60
Leeds 61
Birmingham 64
Bolton 64
Nottm Forest 65
Reading 65
Rotherham* 65
Millwall 69
Huddersfield 73
Fulham 76
Blackpool 88

That proves nothing even with a few more goals we conceded too many to be promotion candidates, 8th 14th whats the difference at the end of the day.

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

As a newbie, I was surprised by how much the focus was on the forward line where an early conclusion I came to was that the defence was slow, cumbersome and offered no impetus to attack whether from the back or dead ball situations. COG in the right formation and playing like he did in the first half today is a notch up from any of his defensive teammates.