Tractor-Boys.com

I’ve been saying this for two seasons now. I think the fact that we were scoring goals for fun papered over this glaring ( in my eyes anyway) weakness in defence .

This pundit appears to highlight this too :

https://www.eadt.co.uk/sport/24040076.i ... fl-pundit/

Yeah many of us of have commented on our defence...

But there is Two sides to this, we csn bring in as many better defenders as we like but the fact remains the style which we play has seen us scoring loads of goals but the caveat to that is we leave ourselves exposed at the back, in a daft sort of way that is why we have been so successful and that won't change. Clearly we need to tighten up a bit but let's not forget EIGHT of those goals have come against Leeds, one was a terrible off day and the other a mad Ten minutes.

Good point. Yes, we have scored a lot of goals and that is brilliant! A few adjustments in defence could make us even more successful and ensure promotion.

We are similar in our tactic to the one Royle adopted … “ you score 3 we’ll score 4 mentality”… that’s great as long as we do keep scoring one more than the opposition. But when we do break forwards we surely should have a defence string enough to cope with the ball coming into our box? I think we are weak and especially down our right flank for whatever reason.

We’ve now lost Hirst . The fulcrum to our attacking tactic. Now the other forwards are struggling to get goals. I know opponents have started to change their tactics against us and we now also need to adapt ( does McK do this?) .

Never had a window been so important as this one I think. We need two strikers in a similar role to Hirst . What are the chances of that happening? I don’t think we’ll be seeing much if Hirst this season now and just that one injury can possibly be the turning point …. He’s been that pivotal. Fingers crossed Ashton and his team do their magic again

I've commented previously that our current tactics are similar to that employed by Joe Royle - not at all similar in attacking prowess as he employed 2 front men and we scored a hell of a lot of goals under him, but very similar in mentality in as much as it's fine for the opponent to score twice as long as we score 3.

I don't see that we can do much more defensively given the way that we play - yes, we are weak down the right flank but I think that has more to do with Burns' failure to track back and defend than it has with actual defenders.

Agreed (again) and how often to we see Burns receiving the ball well up the right wing and creating great chances from it.......

Yes, defending starts from the front; I think in our enthusiasm to get forward - which everyone loves - we sometimes lose the ball too easily, and are slow to react in stopping the opposition from exploiting our flanks. Similarly, we sometimes need to be better at wining first balls into our box, and be a tad better at marking and picking up runners. This applies to the whole team, not just defenders.

However, don’t think we should get this out of proportion. At this level, with a number of teams at around the same level, it’s often a case of fine margins. And we remain work on progress; but the half-term report’s pretty damn good. The latest additions will hopefully improve overall quality, and add a bit more midfield strength.

It looks like we’ve got the same debate going on in two places so I’ve copied the post I just wrote on the Town v Sunderland thread as that will soon be superseded by comments on the next match thread whereas on here the discussion can stay live.

The problem as I see it is this, we often start our games with a flat back four with with two central defenders and two full backs, however when our full backs are Harry Clarke and Keif Davis they are also both deployed as attacking wing backs. As WB’s they cover the full length of the pitch which leaves gapping holes at the back for our two central defenders to cover assisted by our defensive/holding midfielders. In reality it’s usually only one wing back pushing forward at a time but it means’s the other three defenders often get pulled out of position.
This is of course a deliberate tactic deployed by McKenna who chooses not to line up in the traditional way of having 3 central defenders with a wing back either side which would strengthen the defence. However by choosing to play with just two central defenders, this gives him an extra attacking midfielder on the pitch which improves our attacking play and increases the potential to score goals. This approach also invites the opposition to attack and leaves them exposed to our strength going forward. Clearly the philosophy is you score one or two then we’ll score two or three or however many it takes to win the game. It’s very risky but also exciting to watch and so far it’s worked well for us. Far better than the stuff we watched under Mick McCarthy & Co. The only problem is we have to accept you can’t have it both ways and sometimes defenders will get pulled out of position basically because they’re working one man down, it also calls on the two wide attacking midfielder players to track back and help defend meaning pretty much everyone on the pitch is putting in a huge shift. This latter demand is also something that often gets overlooked and we blame the defence, whereas perhaps we should be looking elsewhere if we’re looking to place blame.
Just a thought, but I think there might be some mileage in it.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. When you deploy wing backs to attack, you have to have midfield defence. Essian comes to mind, when Chelsea were good. He was immense at covering defenders moving forward. It’s fine to instill an attacking philosophy from your defenders, but you have to have cover. I remember on numerous occasions when I played center midfield…yelling to the defenders…I’m going forward. Likewise when a defender made a run forward, I’d hang back in defence. Positional tactics on an open field are all about closing and creating space. It’s not a chess match with static pieces because the pieces in football are always moving, and you have to close down space created from attacks. That’s how you maintain positional awareness. Just sayin…

I want to see Harry stop drifting out of his right wing-back position and leaving us continuously exposed by his covering other players' tactics, it was vastly exposed against Leeds, Leicester, and Sunderland, perhaps we should start a 4-3-3 until we are sorted out player-wise, and Morsy, Burgess, and Williams back, I think Morsy, Travis, and Luongo across the midfield should protect the defence and should spice up the attack as well, the opposition know our 4-2-3-1 so we need to change it around against our stronger opponents like Southampton and Coventry

Alternatively we could play 5 at the back with Woolfie. Burgess and Edmundson playing as 3 central defenders with Clarke and Davis wing backs. We then have two defensive/holding midfield players in front of them eg two of Morsy Travis or Luongo with any three from four of five in front of them.
This would resolve any defensive issues but would significantly reduce our goal threat at the other end of the pitch. Personally I’d prefer we leave it as it is because we know it works and it’s how we’ve got ourselves to second in the table. We just have to accept it comes at a cost but we can’t have it both ways.

We need to leave it as it is and thankfully it's 100% nailed on that we will, its what has got us where we are.

Bluemike wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 16, 2024 9:37 am

We need to leave it as it is and thankfully it's 100% nailed on that we will, its what has got us where we are.

Exactly Mike. Why change when it’s not broken.

No change required - please! At times just need to be a bit more savvy, and react faster, when we lose possession and stop the opposition targeting our flanks with the wide ‘out’ ball. Decision making in those situations will continue to improve under KM. But, ultimately, whatever system is played mistakes will be made, particularly when facing quality opposition. Leicester comes to mind!