davieG Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Some interesting stats from here: Results based on goals scored: When we've scored Scored 0 we've Won 0, Drawn 5, Lost 7 Scored 1 we've Won 0, Drawn 4, Lost 4 Scored 2 we've Won 3, Drawn 2, Lost 1 Scored 3 we've Won 0, Drawn 0, Lost 0 Scored 4 we've Won 2, Drawn 0, Lost 0 We've never won a game in the league unless we've scored at least 2 goals even then we've failed to win half of them. Mind you the fact that we've only won 5 does 'distort' the figures or does it? That means if we are to survive in this league not only have we got to win around about 8 games but we've got to score at least 2 goals but more likely 3 in those games to get guarantee wins. Or the defence has got to tighten up considerably. It's bloody frightening isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 That's one thing that I can't fathom out this season. Our defence! There's no doubt that Levein has improved it ability wise, but the figures show that it's actually worse than last season. We have stopped conceding all those silly goals from set pieces but we are still odds on to concede atleast once a game. It appears whatever Levein tries to do another leak appears and he's constantly trying to plug in the holes. There's no denying it though, we have a good enough defence to be in the top half of this league and a good enough attack to do the same. All falls down to one thing - the manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Think i'll change what i wrote in the optimism thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 i think the key to our leaky defence is that it changes every week! the defence is one unit, it takes time to build an understanding, and the unit is going to continue to fail unless a set back four is given a chance to gel. it's the inconsistency in selection that is the problem i reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polyphonic Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 We are religation fodder me thinks, this sadly just proves it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 i think the key to our leaky defence is that it changes every week! the defence is one unit, it takes time to build an understanding, and the unit is going to continue to fail unless a set back four is given a chance to gel. it's the inconsistency in selection that is the problem i reckon. I don't buy in to all this 'gelling' shit. Fair enough in the first few weeks, but these lads have been training with each other 4 times a week for over 6 months now and surely have got the hang of defending. It all comes down to confidence and the right attitude installed by the manager. They have the ability and they know each others game, there's no other excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 20 January 2006 Author Share Posted 20 January 2006 I don't buy in to all this 'gelling' shit. Fair enough in the first few weeks, but these lads have been training with each other 4 times a week for over 6 months now and surely have got the hang of defending. It all comes down to confidence and the right attitude installed by the manager. They have the ability and they know each others game, there's no other excuse. I agree about the gelling it's an excuse when used beyond a certain amount of time, if it's as true as some would have us believe then what is the point of playing Weso and Fryatt, by the time they gell the season will be over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Harpic Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Some interesting stats from here: Results based on goals scored: When we've scored Scored 0 we've Won 0 Well I never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Well I never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 20 January 2006 Author Share Posted 20 January 2006 Well I never! I know but it demonstrates quite clearly that CL's correct in that we've been damned unlucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 I don't buy in to all this 'gelling' shit. Fair enough in the first few weeks, but these lads have been training with each other 4 times a week for over 6 months now and surely have got the hang of defending. It all comes down to confidence and the right attitude installed by the manager. They have the ability and they know each others game, there's no other excuse. do you not think that a consistent back four would be of benefit to the team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 20 January 2006 Author Share Posted 20 January 2006 do you not think that a consistent back four would be of benefit to the team? Absolutely, but it shouldn't take 6 months to decide who they are! The only excuse CL has is that Gerrbrand was injured, but that should not have affected stabalising the other 3 positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milky Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Absolutely, but it shouldn't take 6 months to decide who they are! oh, i agree with that completely, all i said was that a consistent back four hasn't been played and might be the reason for the leakage, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationwider Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Interesting we've not been able to grind out a plain vanilla 1-0 league win this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Interesting we've not been able to grind out a plain vanilla 1-0 league win this season. Nice choice of a word there, i would have said shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scow Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 oh, i agree with that completely, all i said was that a consistent back four hasn't been played and might be the reason for the leakage, that's all. It is part of the reason why we've let in silly goals. There was one point earlier in the season where we had a back 4 that kept a number of clean sheets in a row. Equally, we didn't score in most of those games either. The back 4 then was; Maybury - McCarthy - Gerrbrand - Johansson However, Johansson has always looked out of his depth at left back. Beaten for pace against nippy wingers and caught out positionally by keeping far too close to the centebacks. If Levein doesn't trust Sheehan to play there regularly yet, then he'll have to consider bringing in a left back. Gilbert played well against us and looked sharp, indicating he could have been the solution to our problems there if he was given a proper chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 i think the key to our leaky defence is that it changes every week! the defence is one unit, it takes time to build an understanding, and the unit is going to continue to fail unless a set back four is given a chance to gel. it's the inconsistency in selection that is the problem i reckon. You may well be right but equally it may be that the defence is not really good enough at all unless it is reinforced with rottweilers in midfield and when it is we don't have enough attacking strength to score. It may be that both ideas contribute but, whatever, DavieG makes it plain in another thread that statistics suggest we've got to score two goals a game at least to win which was what a number of people said in the summer. Some challenge that. Dame Ellen MacArthur for manager?????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Flair Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 You may well be right but equally it may be that the defence is not really good enough at all unless it is reinforced with rottweilers in midfield and when it is we don't have enough attacking strength to score. It may be that both ideas contribute but, whatever, DavieG makes it plain in another thread that statistics suggest we've got to score two goals a game at least to win which was what a number of people said in the summer. Some challenge that. Dame Ellen MacArthur for manager?????????????????? It is good enough, you only have to look at other clubs with better defensive records that actually have worse defenders than us. Alan Maybury is a Republic Of Ireland International, so is Paddy McCarthy. Patrick Gerrbrand used to play for Sweden Under 21's and Nissa plays or did play for the national team. Sheehan is a R.O.I under 21 player and Stearman is an England under 19 player. Add Dublin in there aswell and that's a decent enough defence at this level. They've trained with each other for 6 months, played together a fair bit given the combinations and still we concede goals. We concede goals because we are a team that is doing very badly, a team that has no conviction or confidence, a team with no motivation. A team that is massively under-achieving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
l444ry Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 All this criticism of the back four is a bit of a red herring. Firstly, Only 9 clubs have let less goals in than City this season. Secondly, when you lose the ball everybody is a defender, not just the back four. In my humble opinion, therefore, it is a team problem. And if it's team problem we all know where the blame has to lie...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhermon Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 Well do we really have the best spread of players at the back?? We have a young CB playing RB and to have him in the team we cover the LB position with a RB the rest of the players we have in defence are all CB's and only 1 really has a bit of pace about him Anyway this would be my back four R.B. Alan Maybury C.B. Richard Stearman C.B. Patrick McCarthy L.B. Alan Sheehan / New Player / Danny Tiatto <----only as a last resort but then what would i know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimp Posted 20 January 2006 Share Posted 20 January 2006 All this criticism of the back four is a bit of a red herring. Firstly, Only 9 clubs have let less goals in than City this season. Secondly, when you lose the ball everybody is a defender, not just the back four. In my humble opinion, therefore, it is a team problem. And if it's team problem we all know where the blame has to lie...... Yes, I was going to metion the same fact. Also, in order to have consistent back four you need to have those four players fit and free from supension at the same time, something we've not had the luxury of recently. Another very clear point which the stats quoted illustrate is that we simply haven't scored enough goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.