Me: As a means to create quality chances, O'Neil would often have the CMs drift extraordinarily high and/or wide, without a rotation to fill the gap behind them. This dreadfully exposed our defense, particularly the center halves, who IMO are decent Premier League players, but can't be asked to defend equal number attacks (ie, 3v3, 2v2, 1v1, etc) as the standard defensive situation and not concede at least once.
Claude: This is excellent tactical analysis - it explains both the scoring output and defensive fragility I noted in the numbers. The picture you paint of the CMs' positioning helps explain that strange dichotomy in the statistics (good attacking numbers, poor defensive record). It's a classic case where the raw numbers told part of the story, but the tactical detail you've provided explains the "why" behind them.
The issue you describe with the CMs' positioning without rotational cover is particularly interesting because it's almost a perfect recipe for what we've seen:
- It would create good attacking opportunities (explaining the solid goal count)
- But leave center backs in those nightmare equal-number situations you described
- The far post set piece vulnerability suggests a broader issue with defensive organization