| Case for the defence 12:06 - Oct 2 with 2661 views | pointofblue |
After such a strong start of the season, we’ve conceded eight goals in four games against teams in the promotion hunt. Whilst winning every game 3-2 is far more exciting than 1-0, it’s not sustainable either. Admittedly, a lot of these goals have come down to individual errors - Burns, Chaplin, Edmundson, Woolfenden, arguably Morsy - or odd/bad decisions from the officials (Barnsley’s first, Wednesday’s second, potentially Plymouth’s first) but do we need more experience, and a leader, in the back three?
Now we’ve got through the last three games, we have a relatively favourable run to perhaps integrate Keogh in the defence. It’s be harsh on Woolfenden who, other than the error yesterday, has had a great season so far, or Edmundson, who had his best game for us at left centre back yesterday IMO, but I think it would give us some structure and a level head to aid them both, at different times, when we need it.
As Keogh would probably play in the centre, and Edmundson has been given the chance to build an on field relationship with Davis, I’d probably make the decision to replace Woolfenden for now. It is a really tough decision and McKenna would have to make it clear it has nothing to do with his individual performances this season. But conceding two goals a game against the promotion fighting teams isn’t the way to go up. |  |
| |  |
| Case for the defence on 22:07 - Oct 2 with 527 views | Oldsmoker |
Jeeez.
We are in Lge 1 and can cope with any Lge 1 Team and their forwards.
The team McK has built is good enough for lge 1 and better than just about every other Lge 1 team. Name one that is better than us. |  |
| |
| Case for the defence on 22:49 - Oct 2 with 485 views | Stewart27 |
| Case for the defence on 20:55 - Oct 2 by ArnieM |
I’d say as a team our defensive abilities are quite good. But our two centre banks individually snd as a pair give cause for concern. They both have an a propensity to give the ball away when under no particular pressure, or make a poor pass ( usually a slow pass square across the top of our 18yard area). Neither demonstrate any particular dominance in the air when there’s an ariel challenge or against a side that has a big hairy, ballsy centre forward. They rarely clear the lines when there’s a corner to defend , and how many goals to they contribute, ( oh for a Tommy Smith or Luke Chambers on that score!). One of them is comfortable “ on the ball” the other clearly isn’t, so always passes it square to his CB partner to “ bring it out of defence “, eg pass it to Donacian/Burns.
From an attacking perspective, our manager likes his team to build attacks playing it on the deck methodically, out from defence, but I’d suggest neither Edmundson, Burgess nor I suspect Keogh are comfortable to play that style . Only Woolfie appears comfortable on the ball to the extent McKenna wants. From a pure defending perspective, in this division ,we are more often than not, facing that hairy arsed ballsy, centre forward,, which out if our current CB’s id say Keogh and Burgess are best suited. Edmundson and Woolfie less so. So the conundrum is fo we play CB’s who can start attacks and comfortable with ball to feet ( only Woolfie fits those attributes), or do we in this division, dealing with hairy arsed, ballsy, centre forward, require a more Keogh: Burgess combo? |
Fridge has indirectly assisted 2 goals in the last 3 games against top teams by bringing the ball out of defence with his feet and comfortably advancing us up the pitch.
What justification do you have to say he’s not comfortable with the ball?
Who do you want, Rio Ferdinand? | | | |
| Case for the defence on 22:54 - Oct 2 with 484 views | Grumpy_Old_Man |
I appreciate everyone is entitled to their view but I find it amusing that despite our current squad are doing well that there a number of posts about adding to the squad, changing players.etc Dropping Woolfenden for Keogh? Why? Would Keogh have the pace to play at our current level. Keogh is the old type stopper centre half who will come in useful at some point.
I can imagine KMc telling Woolfenden, hi Luke you've had 10 7/8 out of ten performances but you made a mistake last week so I'm dropping you for a 36 year old!! | | | |
| Case for the defence on 23:00 - Oct 2 with 477 views | Oldsmoker |
| Case for the defence on 22:49 - Oct 2 by Stewart27 |
Fridge has indirectly assisted 2 goals in the last 3 games against top teams by bringing the ball out of defence with his feet and comfortably advancing us up the pitch.
What justification do you have to say he’s not comfortable with the ball?
Who do you want, Rio Ferdinand? |
Sorry Richard (Keogh-36 years) I'm dropping you for Rio (Ferdinand-43 years). | |
| |
| Case for the defence on 23:26 - Oct 2 with 451 views | RKD |
The thing is the reason these defenders are making the odd sloppy mistake is because they are taking far more risks due to the style of play, so it is the price we have to pay in order to enjoy football the way it should be played. I doubt Keogh would be as comfortable on the ball as Woolfy and Edmundson if he was tasked with playing out the back so much.
Keogh definitely has a role to play, and I think he will be very useful coming on to defend a lead, it’s a shame it didn’t work with Wednesday but we were robbed by that offside decision.
Hopefully the more the season goes on the more we tighten up on at the back and see fewer unforced errors. |  |
| |
| Case for the defence on 07:48 - Oct 3 with 386 views | ArnieM |
| Case for the defence on 21:55 - Oct 2 by bluefunk |
So yesterday, against an archetypal hairy *rsed League One CF, how often were Woolfie and the Fridge beaten in the air? And wasn’t Edmundson the one that brought the ball out to create the space for the second goal, and how many chances did they have from corners?.
In summary you’re talking bollix [Post edited 2 Oct 2022 22:15]
|
I think Westlake commented that Edmundson bringing the ball out was a very rare evff eg my . Excellent if he’s going to be coached to start doing that.
We recently signed one those hairy arsed strikers (from Burton). Woolfie / Edmundson were all at sea trying to deal with him. Guess you missed that game then? Let’s how they do against the likes of Wycombe, or any other team that plants high balls into the box on a regular basis. You appear to be missing the point somewhat and you provide an example of The usual Bollox response spouted to someone having a view/ opinion that differs from your own.
Edit : I meant to add. You must also view Mick Milk’s comment last season regarding Edmundson and his reduced ability to bring the ball out of defence or look comfortable on the ball, thst in his view made us very lop sided when building attacks. Guess he’s talking Bollox to eh!! Or is that maybe just you? [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 7:50]
|  |
| |
| Case for the defence on 08:17 - Oct 3 with 377 views | StokieBlue |
| Case for the defence on 07:48 - Oct 3 by ArnieM |
I think Westlake commented that Edmundson bringing the ball out was a very rare evff eg my . Excellent if he’s going to be coached to start doing that.
We recently signed one those hairy arsed strikers (from Burton). Woolfie / Edmundson were all at sea trying to deal with him. Guess you missed that game then? Let’s how they do against the likes of Wycombe, or any other team that plants high balls into the box on a regular basis. You appear to be missing the point somewhat and you provide an example of The usual Bollox response spouted to someone having a view/ opinion that differs from your own.
Edit : I meant to add. You must also view Mick Milk’s comment last season regarding Edmundson and his reduced ability to bring the ball out of defence or look comfortable on the ball, thst in his view made us very lop sided when building attacks. Guess he’s talking Bollox to eh!! Or is that maybe just you? [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 7:50]
|
Why would you cite a comment Mills made 6 months or more ago about Edmundson when he successfully carried the ball out of defence twice in the last three matches resulting in goals.
It's massively disingenuous, you're posting on football is agenda ridden and never tallies with the evidence.
It's a bit odd.
SB |  | | |
| Case for the defence on 08:55 - Oct 3 with 365 views | BiGDonnie |
| Case for the defence on 18:20 - Oct 2 by jeera |
Don't be silly.
You saw what happened with those penalties and neither could be directly argued as a case to alter our defensive unit.
The second notably involving Morsy and shouldn't have been a sodding pen at all. |
One of which was given away by a midfielder... |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Case for the defence on 09:50 - Oct 3 with 349 views | ArnieM |
| Case for the defence on 08:17 - Oct 3 by StokieBlue |
Why would you cite a comment Mills made 6 months or more ago about Edmundson when he successfully carried the ball out of defence twice in the last three matches resulting in goals.
It's massively disingenuous, you're posting on football is agenda ridden and never tallies with the evidence.
It's a bit odd.
SB |
Because it’s still relevant !
And the first penalty stemmed from a cock up by Edmundson : he didn’t Marshall his man. The man was able to get the ball forward into aches of space behind him, leaving Woolfie to try hunt down the Pompey player running in on goal. This is what I mean about Edmundson either getting caught in possession, giving the ball away or not defending well. He did similar v Plymouth … it’s my view on what I’ve seen both at the game and on video footage afterwards. Sat, Woolfie also got the wrong side of his man so couldn’t make tackle or guide him wide ( just as well he didn’t coz the guy would have gone down anyway). | |
| |
| Case for the defence on 09:54 - Oct 3 with 348 views | bluefunk |
| Case for the defence on 07:48 - Oct 3 by ArnieM |
I think Westlake commented that Edmundson bringing the ball out was a very rare evff eg my . Excellent if he’s going to be coached to start doing that.
We recently signed one those hairy arsed strikers (from Burton). Woolfie / Edmundson were all at sea trying to deal with him. Guess you missed that game then? Let’s how they do against the likes of Wycombe, or any other team that plants high balls into the box on a regular basis. You appear to be missing the point somewhat and you provide an example of The usual Bollox response spouted to someone having a view/ opinion that differs from your own.
Edit : I meant to add. You must also view Mick Milk’s comment last season regarding Edmundson and his reduced ability to bring the ball out of defence or look comfortable on the ball, thst in his view made us very lop sided when building attacks. Guess he’s talking Bollox to eh!! Or is that maybe just you? [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 7:50]
|
I’ve no doubt Keogh will be brought in at some point and you will trumpet that as justify your opinion, when in fact it’s just the stopped clock phenomenon. |  | | |
| Case for the defence on 10:01 - Oct 3 with 342 views | StokieBlue |
| Case for the defence on 09:50 - Oct 3 by ArnieM |
Because it’s still relevant !
And the first penalty stemmed from a cock up by Edmundson : he didn’t Marshall his man. The man was able to get the ball forward into aches of space behind him, leaving Woolfie to try hunt down the Pompey player running in on goal. This is what I mean about Edmundson either getting caught in possession, giving the ball away or not defending well. He did similar v Plymouth … it’s my view on what I’ve seen both at the game and on video footage afterwards. Sat, Woolfie also got the wrong side of his man so couldn’t make tackle or guide him wide ( just as well he didn’t coz the guy would have gone down anyway). |
It's not relevant because you were citing his carrying of the ball out of defence which has been excellent, especially recently.
Honestly, you're talking bobbins in this thread, agenda-driven arguments rather than evidence based.
SB | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
