Case for the defence 12:06 - Oct 2 with 2657 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 12:15 - Oct 2 with 2081 views | BarcaBlue | Not just your post but I really don't get this line of thought. The defence has been excellent and really doesn't need any chopping changing. They haven't been overrun once this season, they're playing with extreme confidence and building well from the back. There's been an error and a misjudgement in the last 2 matches that have led to goals but on the whole we have an incredibly solid and composed back four. No need for change at all. |  | |  |
Case for the defence on 12:19 - Oct 2 with 2050 views | Illinoisblue |
Case for the defence on 12:15 - Oct 2 by BarcaBlue | Not just your post but I really don't get this line of thought. The defence has been excellent and really doesn't need any chopping changing. They haven't been overrun once this season, they're playing with extreme confidence and building well from the back. There's been an error and a misjudgement in the last 2 matches that have led to goals but on the whole we have an incredibly solid and composed back four. No need for change at all. |
Indeed. As I said to frimmers yesterday, who was demanding we sign new defenders, which defenders who never make mistakes are we going to sign. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 12:21 - Oct 2 with 2021 views | Chrisd | Not sure about a defensive change, but our vulnerability after we score perhaps needs looking at. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 12:24 - Oct 2 with 1973 views | FrimleyBlue |
Case for the defence on 12:19 - Oct 2 by Illinoisblue | Indeed. As I said to frimmers yesterday, who was demanding we sign new defenders, which defenders who never make mistakes are we going to sign. |
Demanding, interesting way of seeing it, " Jans shopping list has a new target i expect" how demanding of me. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 12:24 - Oct 2 with 2000 views | BarcaBlue |
Case for the defence on 12:19 - Oct 2 by Illinoisblue | Indeed. As I said to frimmers yesterday, who was demanding we sign new defenders, which defenders who never make mistakes are we going to sign. |
I have FrimleyMakin on ignore but typical knee jerk reaction that I don't miss post match. Especially when our defence didn't give them a sniff yesterday other than the misjudgement from Woolfie. |  | |  |
Case for the defence on 12:25 - Oct 2 with 1988 views | Churchman |
Case for the defence on 12:15 - Oct 2 by BarcaBlue | Not just your post but I really don't get this line of thought. The defence has been excellent and really doesn't need any chopping changing. They haven't been overrun once this season, they're playing with extreme confidence and building well from the back. There's been an error and a misjudgement in the last 2 matches that have led to goals but on the whole we have an incredibly solid and composed back four. No need for change at all. |
Agree entirely. Added to that the second penalty yesterday wasn’t and the challenge was by a midfielder. The second goal at SW was offside. Yes, we are conceding the odd goal at the moment, particularly against better teams. It’s going to happen, but by and large we’ve had a really good defence since KM started here. I’d leave it well alone. Injury and suspension will bring in other players soon enough, but until then to use your words there’s no need for change at all. |  | |  |
Case for the defence on 12:26 - Oct 2 with 1975 views | BlueBadger | Only 2 sides in the division have conceded fewer than us.. Both of yesterday's goals were down to one-off brainfarts from League One players(one of which isn't even a defender) that are always possible. [Post edited 2 Oct 2022 16:02]
|  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 12:30 - Oct 2 with 1945 views | pointofblue |
Case for the defence on 12:19 - Oct 2 by Illinoisblue | Indeed. As I said to frimmers yesterday, who was demanding we sign new defenders, which defenders who never make mistakes are we going to sign. |
I wouldn’t say it’s defensive errors as such, it’s that experience from Keogh which would hopefully permeate up the pitch as well. Experience giving slightly more solidarity and perhaps being able to cover some of the errors better than we are currently. Obviously we are going to concede goals throughout the season, but eight against our toughest four opponents is not a great record, especially considering Barnsley and Portsmouth barely got a sniff and still managed it. The hope is we’re never under the cosh at this level but, if we are, will be capable of holding out? (I suppose the opposing argument is we’re in Reverse Lambert mode at the moment - at the start of 19/20 everything we struck seemed to turn into a goal. This time, every chance the toughest opposition get they seem to be taking, which is probably not sustainable either) |  |
|  | Login to get fewer ads
Case for the defence on 12:43 - Oct 2 with 1878 views | Illinoisblue |
Case for the defence on 12:24 - Oct 2 by FrimleyBlue | Demanding, interesting way of seeing it, " Jans shopping list has a new target i expect" how demanding of me. |
Let’s hope the recruitment team can find that perfect error-free defender who wants to come play in Division 3. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 12:45 - Oct 2 with 1841 views | FrimleyBlue |
Case for the defence on 12:43 - Oct 2 by Illinoisblue | Let’s hope the recruitment team can find that perfect error-free defender who wants to come play in Division 3. |
Don't be so demanding. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 13:42 - Oct 2 with 1776 views | SheffordBlue | This defence has so far conceded the fewest open play shots in the league (54 to 2nd placed Oxford's 65) and the fewest open play goals. It also has the 2nd lowest open play xGA - so we're allowing very few good quality chances. Set plays our defensive stats are slightly worse - we're 9th for set play shots conceded and 11th for set play xGA. Remove the penalties though and Walton keeps us joint 4th (with several other clubs) for set play goals conceded. Keogh might tighten things up on the set play defensive record but he'd have to do an awful lot to improve the open play record. With Woolfenden and Edmundson both on 3 yellows already it's probably only a matter of time before he does get a league start. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 16:42 - Oct 2 with 1623 views | LeoMuff |
Case for the defence on 13:42 - Oct 2 by SheffordBlue | This defence has so far conceded the fewest open play shots in the league (54 to 2nd placed Oxford's 65) and the fewest open play goals. It also has the 2nd lowest open play xGA - so we're allowing very few good quality chances. Set plays our defensive stats are slightly worse - we're 9th for set play shots conceded and 11th for set play xGA. Remove the penalties though and Walton keeps us joint 4th (with several other clubs) for set play goals conceded. Keogh might tighten things up on the set play defensive record but he'd have to do an awful lot to improve the open play record. With Woolfenden and Edmundson both on 3 yellows already it's probably only a matter of time before he does get a league start. |
We have been quite unlucky imho, off top my head Plymouth 1st, sheff wed 2nd and 2nd pen yesterday should never have stood. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 17:15 - Oct 2 with 1548 views | DJR | I am not convinced an ageing Keogh would improve us, and thus far it seems that McKenna takes this view too. Woolfy is pretty pacy, something I doubt is the case with Keogh, whether or not he was pacy when younger. This might in turn lead to him playing deeper than Woolfy, which I am not sure will benefit us. Indeed, the impression I got is that we went too deep when he came on against Wednesday, which maybe contributed to our defeat. In addition, I am not sure if he is as comfortable on the ball as Woolfy. He is also not as tall as Woolfy, so I am not sure it would strengthen us from a heading point of view. The other thing to say in connection with the ongoing discussion about our defenders is that looking back at old TV games featuring the Beat, it is clear that even he made mistakes too, even though at the time I thought he was God-like. [Post edited 2 Oct 2022 17:16]
|  | |  |
Case for the defence on 17:42 - Oct 2 with 1513 views | StokieBlue | Or alternatively, we could leave alone a defence that is doing perfectly well and allow them more time to become and even more cohesive unit. The narrative that the defence needs changing is bizarre to me, sure they will make occasional mistakes but they have conceded the least goals in the division and have 6 clean sheets in the league. I'm not sure how much better people are expecting them to be. They also provide good distribution and are comfortable where each other are going to be when playing out from the back. Leave them be. SB |  | |  |
Case for the defence on 17:54 - Oct 2 with 1482 views | Swansea_Blue |
Case for the defence on 17:42 - Oct 2 by StokieBlue | Or alternatively, we could leave alone a defence that is doing perfectly well and allow them more time to become and even more cohesive unit. The narrative that the defence needs changing is bizarre to me, sure they will make occasional mistakes but they have conceded the least goals in the division and have 6 clean sheets in the league. I'm not sure how much better people are expecting them to be. They also provide good distribution and are comfortable where each other are going to be when playing out from the back. Leave them be. SB |
The other part of this is that with one eye to the future (hopefully), there’s a few of these players we’d hope to develop into decent Championship players. Woolf and Davis especially. But no reason why Edmundson & Donacien can’t do that either. We’ll do much better if we can have a settled core of players able to improve and make the step up through the league(s) rather than rely on wholesale changes. Don’t want to tempt fate though; still a long way to go this season yet. In other words, it’s good to give them game time and keep a settled back line. Keogh will get his chance anyway as tiredness, injuries & suspensions build up. [Post edited 2 Oct 2022 18:07]
|  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 17:59 - Oct 2 with 1467 views | chicoazul |
Case for the defence on 12:15 - Oct 2 by BarcaBlue | Not just your post but I really don't get this line of thought. The defence has been excellent and really doesn't need any chopping changing. They haven't been overrun once this season, they're playing with extreme confidence and building well from the back. There's been an error and a misjudgement in the last 2 matches that have led to goals but on the whole we have an incredibly solid and composed back four. No need for change at all. |
A defence conceding eight goals in four games as OP says cannot be said to be excellent. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 18:01 - Oct 2 with 1462 views | jeera |
Case for the defence on 17:59 - Oct 2 by chicoazul | A defence conceding eight goals in four games as OP says cannot be said to be excellent. |
Which four games? I can't be bothered to look up what you mean? I'm assuming yesterday's penalties aren't in the count. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 18:08 - Oct 2 with 1438 views | chicoazul |
Case for the defence on 18:01 - Oct 2 by jeera | Which four games? I can't be bothered to look up what you mean? I'm assuming yesterday's penalties aren't in the count. |
Hate to break to you but penalties count. Anyway my bad it’s 6 in 3 not 8 in 4. Don’t get me wrong I wouldn’t change the defence either. But my point stands; conceding 2 per game is not excellent defending. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 18:16 - Oct 2 with 1412 views | Mullet | I thought Fridge looked jaded and could be rested, then he puts in an excellent performance and it's Woolfy with a rick! Ball coming on and changing shape seemed to answer the question better. Cambridge on Tuesday might see a change coming in to give someone a week to prepare for Morecambe away which will probably be more demanding. I can't see McK doing more than switching starters and finishers around a little. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 18:20 - Oct 2 with 1396 views | Swansea_Blue |
Case for the defence on 18:08 - Oct 2 by chicoazul | Hate to break to you but penalties count. Anyway my bad it’s 6 in 3 not 8 in 4. Don’t get me wrong I wouldn’t change the defence either. But my point stands; conceding 2 per game is not excellent defending. |
It’s not, but it only seems to be happening against the better teams and we still got a reasonable points return in those 3 tough games. I’m not especially worried about it. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 18:20 - Oct 2 with 1399 views | jeera |
Case for the defence on 18:08 - Oct 2 by chicoazul | Hate to break to you but penalties count. Anyway my bad it’s 6 in 3 not 8 in 4. Don’t get me wrong I wouldn’t change the defence either. But my point stands; conceding 2 per game is not excellent defending. |
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. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 19:34 - Oct 2 with 1287 views | pointofblue |
Case for the defence on 18:08 - Oct 2 by chicoazul | Hate to break to you but penalties count. Anyway my bad it’s 6 in 3 not 8 in 4. Don’t get me wrong I wouldn’t change the defence either. But my point stands; conceding 2 per game is not excellent defending. |
Counting our games against opposition near the top of the table. 1st place Plymouth - 2 3rd place Sheffield Wednesday - 2 4th place Portsmouth - 2 5th place Barnsley - 2 And actually... 6th place Bolton - 1 The only other goal we've conceded this season in the league was at Forest Green. |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 20:55 - Oct 2 with 1198 views | 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? |  |
|  |
Case for the defence on 21:22 - Oct 2 with 1153 views | BarcaBlue |
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? |
I think you're stereotyping League 1 strikers, I haven't seen any like that this season so far. I don't remember corners causing us regular problems either. The building from the back is working fine and the out ball is often to the midfield as much as too Donacien or Davis, there's also the long ball but maybe more often away from home. The mix there really is fine. The only point there is the lack of goals, be nice to see the CBs attack the corners more. |  | |  |
Case for the defence on 21:55 - Oct 2 with 1093 views | bluefunk |
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? |
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]
|  | |  |
| |