Missing Kilman hugely

[The Dude]

I don't know where this myth has come from that RAN can't defend which just isn't true.

I've seen him lock Mo Salah down so he can do it and do it well.

Okay, I'll rephrase it. He can defend and he can defend very well as demonstrated v Mo Salah.

He doesn't perform like that very often though, often not tracking back and offering no physical presence when defending set pieces (have you seen our defending from set pieces? lol).

 

[The Dude]

Taking Saturday's XI, I do not think putting Santi Bueno in for Carlos Forbs is the silver bullet some would have it as.

No one's expecting much from City. I certainly don't see Bueno as a silver bullet, but then I don't think Forbs will be the wooden stake to the vampiric heart of Manchester City either.

I do however fancy our chances of shithousing them (about 20%) more than I do outscoring them (10%).

 

[Wolftone]

Yes RAN can defend as has been proved v Salah. He didn't seem to want to or was instructed otherwise v Chelsea.
I sometimes wonder if 'the free role' he was kind of given last season on odd occasions went to his or O'Neils head, or both maybe. We haven't got a viable alternative though as I see it now Hugo Bueno has been dissed.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I've seen Dawson pocket Haaland, it doesn't make him a world class CB, no more than RAN doing it to Salah makes him a competent, consistentLB.

I've seen RAN get ripped apart by various RM/RWs too.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

RAN is one of our best attacking players, not allowing him to play in a more advanced role has cost us both going forward and defensively.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Yes RAN can defend as has been proved v Salah. He didn't seem to want to or was instructed otherwise v Chelsea.
I sometimes wonder if 'the free role' he was kind of given last season on odd occasions went to his or O'Neils head, or both maybe. We haven't got a viable alternative though as I see it now Hugo Bueno has been dissed.

The viable alternative is going back to 3/5 which we should have started the season with.

I know people have invested a lot of time arguing for 4, but with this squad it just doesn't work.

Get another aerial presence in at CB, unlock RAN and Semedo(who has also been gash defensively) going forward and we kill two birds with one stone.

It's not going to solve ALL our problems, but it'll help to solve a couple of them.

 

[Johnny75]

Okay, I'll rephrase it. He can defend and he can defend very well as demonstrated v Mo Salah.

He doesn't perform like that very often though, often not tracking back and offering no physical presence when defending set pieces (have you seen our defending from set pieces? lol).

I think it's more the lack of any defensive plan from the English Lage.

I've tried to see what we're doing defensively and I don't think even the players know.

It's like they haven't had any guidance at all on any level.

 

[Alan]

Really hard for me to imagine that we'd have a significantly better points haul or GA record with Kilman. Slightly better? Maybe. Enough to be on more than 1 point and at the bottom of the table?

Nah. Not even close.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

A back 3 of Mosquera Dawson and Kilman seems to have a good balance to it to me, sort of a lower half Prem level back three.

But we'll never know.

 

[The Dude]

I think it's more the lack of any defensive plan from the English Lage.

I've tried to see what we're doing defensively and I don't think even the players know.

It's like they haven't had any guidance at all on any level.

It certainly doesn't help. We all know though that RAN's attributes make for a very exciting attacking wingback who'll go on to much bigger things in the correct setup. We're not utilising him properly in my opinion in a back four.

He's a much better WB than a FB. The formation doesn't suit him or the players as a whole, currently available.

 

[Tony Towner]

There's no such thing as a lower half Prem back 3 because as it stands only 1 team out of 20 plays every week with one and they are also winless this season. The club managed by the guy who implemented the system here doesn't, because he saw it's limitations, tried to move away from it here and has there.

I would go that way, whilst GON is manager but it's pathetic that it's even a consideration.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Yeah I should have said "defence"

One thing I will say though, just because other teams play with 4 doesn't mean we should.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I say we shouldn't because it's been crap for years and it won't help us.

It's such a ridiculous thing to keep reaching for.

 

[Tony Towner]

It means we should aim to. If you are playing any formation to hide your weaknesses other than against the elite then that's a failure of either coaching or recruitment - in this case both.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I say we shouldn't because it's been crap for years and it won't help us.

It's such a ridiculous thing to keep reaching for.

I've explained why I think we should

 

[Alan]

It means we should aim to. If you are playing any formation to hide your weaknesses then that's a failure of either coaching or recruitment - in this case both.

This feels odd. Surely a formation is nothing more than a tool for manager to use to do just what you say they shouldn't? Maximize strengths or minimize weaknesses; why not take advantage of a formation that suits?

Goes for all shapes IMO, to be clear.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

I've explained why I think we should

Apologies, I mean we shouldn't move to three CHs. There is no evidence to say we look more solid with it under this manager with these players.

 

[Tony Towner]

This feels odd. Surely a formation is nothing more than a tool for manager to use to do just what you say they shouldn't? Maximize strengths or minimize weaknesses; why not take advantage of a formation that suits?

That's not what we are doing though. He doesn't want to play it, we didn't (not) recruit for it. We are going back to it because the manager is incapable of getting the side to play the way he wants with the personnel he's been given. That's a failure at both levels

 

[Alan]

That's not what we are doing though. He doesn't want to play it, we didn't (not) recruit for it. We are going back to it because the manager is incapable of getting the side to play the way he wants with the personnel he's been given. That's a failure at both levels

Sort of see what you mean but I don't think the bold bit is necessarily a failure. In fact I'd say the bigger failure is that it took so long to realize something was irrevocably broken.

Any tactic or formation is moot if the manager can't get it across properly. But the manager has to coach to the team he has, not the one he wishes he had, IMV.

 

[Johnny75]

Sort of see what you mean but I don't think the bold bit is necessarily a failure. In fact I'd say the bigger failure is that it took so long to realize something was irrevocably broken.

Any tactic or formation is moot if the manager can't get it across properly. But the manager has to coach to the team he has, not the one he wishes he had.

He's had a whole year to work that out and still hasn't.

I don't think GoN is a stupid man which is what makes it worse.