Missing Kilman hugely

[Del Woppio]

If it solidified us defensively I'd be all for it. It won't, because our manager is Gary O'Neil, and we were still porous when he played a three, with better players than he has currently available.

He can't do 'balance'. It's either murderball or park-the-bus, and it's fucking ridiculous. A 4231 with Andre, Gomes and Doyle should be plenty solid enough, if you can coach a defensive unit. But he can't.

 

[Alan]

If it solidified us defensively I'd be all for it. It won't, because our manager is Gary O'Neil, and we were still porous when he played a three, with better players than he has currently available.

He can't do 'balance'. It's either murderball or park-the-bus, and it's fucking ridiculous. A 4231 with Andre, Gomes and Doyle should be plenty solid enough, if you can coach a defensive unit. But he can't.

Tbf a bus might actually block some things; we're more like parking a 1980s Corolla.

 

[sycophantia]

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.

This is the thing, no issue with him trying tactics and giving it plenty of time but he's had well over a season now and we're no different to when he came. We managed to put a good run together middle part of last season, even then we were a bit of a bombscare at the back. If he couldn't get the players to do what he wanted over that time, then there's no excuse for sticking with it.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

How many headed goals have we conceded this season?

Looking at it REALLY simplistically, having an extra CB who is good/better in the air will help with that, it has to.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Not if we continue to zonal mark. Just an extra body watching the opposition nod it in at the far post.

3 CHs will mean we score fewer, and will still let in a boatload. Apart from that I think it is a decent plan. More effective would actually be coaching some bloody defence.

 

[The Bear]

Not if we continue to zonal mark. Just an extra body watching the opposition nod it in at the far post.

3 CHs will mean we score fewer, and will still let in a boatload. Apart from that I think it is a decent plan. More effective would actually be coaching some bloody defence.

We didn't have any issues scoring goals under GON last season with a back three. And the vast majority of that was using the 3-4-3 I suggested in the other thread.

 

[Johnny75]

We didn't have any issues scoring goals under GON last season with a back three. And the vast majority of that was using the 3-4-3 I suggested in the other thread.

20 goals in 18 league games this calendar year with 3 at the back isn't plenty.

Particularly when you're leaking 32 in 18 under the same system of 3 at the back.

I have no idea when people like you are going to realise it isn't about the formation. Perhaps never and ignorance is bliss

 

[sycophantia]

We didn't have any issues scoring goals under GON last season with a back three. And the vast majority of that was using the 3-4-3 I suggested in the other thread.

Yeah but we did have issues still with leaking goals at the back, even when we were in our purple patch and especially the last quarter of the season.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

It isn't JUST about formation, but it has a part to play.

 

[Johnny75]

It isn't JUST about formation, but it has a part to play.

Undoubtedly so, but the argument being made is that it'll make us stronger defensively when it doesn't. Add to that the other argument is it doesn't affect goal scoring when it clearly does.

Can't argue with the stats there.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I think we clearly have huge issues defending crosses/corners. How many headed goals have we conceded this season? It "feels" like a lot.

If they aren't going to mark properly, of course that will continue, but take out our 2 CBs and Larsen, we have very little aeriel presence. Another CB would help with that.

I don't think it'll effect our chance creation, in fact having RAN being more advanced may well mean we create more, not less.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

More effective would actually be coaching some bloody defence.

Well I agree with that, but as we aren't going to.

Also, players don't need to be "coached" at the basics, or shouldn't need to. Something is inherihently wrong there.

 

[From Distant Shores]

He can't do 'balance'. It's either murderball or park-the-bus.

I don't think the team knows how to park-the-bus, they don't appear to have the necessary discipline.

 

[Stan Hullis]

If we were to try parking the bus:

 

[machin05]

If we were to try parking the bus:

Trying to get the bus out of the tunnel, be like

 

[Tredman]

Trying to get the bus out of the tunnel, be like

Couldn’t see the gif until quoting but very glad it’s the one I thought it would be. Top work.

 

[machin05]

Fixed it now

 

[Carsy]

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.

Spot on.

I don’t personally have an issue with a back 5. What I have an issue with is our supposed inability to play anything other than a back 5. It’s not as if we are trying to reinvent the wheel playing a back four, most teams do, ofcourse with different variations with and without the ball. We’re not trying to do something outside revolutionary.

It’s a combination of manager,coaching, poor recruitment, tactics etc. I just can’t fathom how even with our squad you can’t have a competent back 4, or at the very least defend atleast competently.

 

[Carsy]

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.

Also the full pre season with these players, specifically working on a back 4

 

[Shotbybothsides]

I love how you dismiss others opinions, then pass your own opinion off as fact lol.

What good partnership did we break up exactly? We shipped 65 PL goals last season! Max was central in more than one way to a mediocre (at best) defence (only 5 teams conceded more). How are those for FACTS?

Most could see our best CB was Dawson, whom without would most likely have seen us relegated in '23. Max in my opinion was just about the third best defender (out of five) in a mediocre (at best) defence.

Are we worse without him? Yes, undeniably so.

Is it indefensible to have not spent a decent chunk of his transfer fee on suring up our leaky defence? Absofuckinglutely.

I did stress that it was my opinion, not fact.
Anyway, your last two lines are in agreement with my OP.

I'm more baffled how we can look so vulnerable defensively as we did on Saturday with 3 good defensive centre-mids.