| A case for the defence …. 08:55 - Jan 29 with 5546 views | ArnieM |
So, arguably, our second string defence plays against runaway free scoring, Championship, Champions elect and outstandingly keep a clean sheet. Yet this same defence over the season has been found to be a soft touch in League One ( again, arguably), gifting soft goals to often poor opposition at their first opportunity of a shot on goal of ball into our box.
So the question is, why can they do it against immeasurably more prolific and skilful PL players, but not League One lower division sides?
Was it the change to formation/ tactics alluded to by Edmundson, or simply concentration levels or even attitude towards our opponents. By that I mean we showed Burnley players respect which perhaps we don’t do to League One opponents, set by a possible subliminal thought process of
“ we’re so much better than these, we will win”…… become to casual and then cock it up with an unforced error and don’t win. My point is really. If we can achieve the standard set yesterday whereby Burnley were limited to a few shots of note, surely we should be able to apply whatever approach/ mental attitude yesterday, to the rest of this season in League One?
Thought people? …….. |  |
| |  |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:10 - Jan 29 with 3759 views | backwaywhen |
Not our second string , Keogh is never first choice just because he played against Morecombe , secondly Burnley played football and not hoof it into the box bully boy football ! |  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:14 - Jan 29 with 3743 views | MaySixth |
It was Burnley reserves |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:23 - Jan 29 with 3698 views | Chrisd |
Getting ahead of ourselves here, let’s not forget Burnley made changes yesterday. That wasn’t their usual starting XI for Championship games. A good result for us, but important to keep that in context too. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:25 - Jan 29 with 3681 views | BloomBlue |
You're comparing one game to 'over the season? Every team concedes silly goals, you'll never build/buy a defence that stops those entirely. Hence over a season you will see every team concede sloppy goals, but look at individual games during that season you'll find many where sloppy goals aren't conceded. |  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:25 - Jan 29 with 3682 views | ArnieM |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:10 - Jan 29 by backwaywhen |
Not our second string , Keogh is never first choice just because he played against Morecombe , secondly Burnley played football and not hoof it into the box bully boy football ! |
I wouldn’t say the goals we’ve conceded have been hoofball into our box. Oxfords 1st and 2nd goals … corner kicks with free headers at back post ? Numerous occasions this season , Lincoln being one I can recall), square balls across the front of our box intercepted … I would agree however we are as a team often bullied off the ball . Championship can’t come soon enough can it!
Not sure why people highlight Keogh all the time. He rarely plays but doesn’t actually let us down when he does. There is however, Burgess, Woolfie, Edmundson who are regular CB’s and my original post is merely asking the question , why can they put in a sterling performance against much better opponents, yet make silly errors against much lesser opponents on a consistent basis? | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:57 - Jan 29 with 3547 views | Herbivore |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:23 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
Getting ahead of ourselves here, let’s not forget Burnley made changes yesterday. That wasn’t their usual starting XI for Championship games. A good result for us, but important to keep that in context too. |
It wasn't our usual starting XI either though. We made more changes than they did. |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:09 - Jan 29 with 3504 views | pointofblue |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:25 - Jan 29 by ArnieM |
I wouldn’t say the goals we’ve conceded have been hoofball into our box. Oxfords 1st and 2nd goals … corner kicks with free headers at back post ? Numerous occasions this season , Lincoln being one I can recall), square balls across the front of our box intercepted … I would agree however we are as a team often bullied off the ball . Championship can’t come soon enough can it!
Not sure why people highlight Keogh all the time. He rarely plays but doesn’t actually let us down when he does. There is however, Burgess, Woolfie, Edmundson who are regular CB’s and my original post is merely asking the question , why can they put in a sterling performance against much better opponents, yet make silly errors against much lesser opponents on a consistent basis? |
Oxford aside, how many individual silly errors has Woolfenden made of late? Or Donacien for that matter? His biggest issue has been supporting Burns going forward. Edmundson, granted, before he was dropped he was having a nightmare. And I think Hladky was a more commanding, confident presence than Walton has been of late. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:09 - Jan 29 with 3511 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
I think it was more due to the style of opposition play than personnel. Burnley,s high pressing didn’t have the same intensity as some of the League games we’ve played (imo) and not enough to fluster us or cause errors at the back. They also had a large amount of possession in comparison to our league rivals which meant we weren’t camped in their half and vulnerable to a counter attack.
There is some merit I believe in believing we’d be pretty effective in the Championship. Now to get out of this sh1thouse league… | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| A case for the defence …. on 10:11 - Jan 29 with 3504 views | BlueBadger |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:14 - Jan 29 by MaySixth |
It was Burnley reserves |
Not sure what your point is here, given that we were also playing our 'reserves'. |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:20 - Jan 29 with 3461 views | FrimleyBlue |
A GK who actually saved some shots and one who was comfortable on the ball, giving more confidence to those in front of him when having to use him...... |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:41 - Jan 29 with 3389 views | J2BLUE |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:14 - Jan 29 by MaySixth |
It was Burnley reserves |
We made more changes than them. Also their 'reserves' would comfortably walk into 20+ league one teams. |  |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:55 - Jan 29 with 3336 views | Chrisd |
| A case for the defence …. on 09:57 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
It wasn't our usual starting XI either though. We made more changes than they did. |
When the OP starts with 'So, arguably, our second string defence plays against runaway free scoring.......'
Burnley had 1 attacking player who started yesterday that also started against WBA in their last league game. There's no doubt that was a good result and I'm not taking anything away from us. As you rightly say, we made changes too, but lets not kid ourselves that was their best offensive weapons. Twine for all his ability isn't a regular starter for them in fact he's only made 4 appearances. Good players no doubt, but they they've got better options available. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:57 - Jan 29 with 3314 views | pointofblue |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:55 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
When the OP starts with 'So, arguably, our second string defence plays against runaway free scoring.......'
Burnley had 1 attacking player who started yesterday that also started against WBA in their last league game. There's no doubt that was a good result and I'm not taking anything away from us. As you rightly say, we made changes too, but lets not kid ourselves that was their best offensive weapons. Twine for all his ability isn't a regular starter for them in fact he's only made 4 appearances. Good players no doubt, but they they've got better options available. |
But are the options stronger than the League One attacks we’ve faced week in, week out? I’d say so. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:01 - Jan 29 with 3310 views | Herbivore |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:55 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
When the OP starts with 'So, arguably, our second string defence plays against runaway free scoring.......'
Burnley had 1 attacking player who started yesterday that also started against WBA in their last league game. There's no doubt that was a good result and I'm not taking anything away from us. As you rightly say, we made changes too, but lets not kid ourselves that was their best offensive weapons. Twine for all his ability isn't a regular starter for them in fact he's only made 4 appearances. Good players no doubt, but they they've got better options available. |
They brought on those better options and still didn't score against us. A friend of mine is a Burnley fan and says Tella has been their biggest attacking threat and he started the game. Jay Rodriguez is still a quality centre forward. We won't be facing any attack close to that quality in League 1, so it was encouraging to see us defending solidly against them. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:15 - Jan 29 with 3260 views | Chrisd |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:01 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
They brought on those better options and still didn't score against us. A friend of mine is a Burnley fan and says Tella has been their biggest attacking threat and he started the game. Jay Rodriguez is still a quality centre forward. We won't be facing any attack close to that quality in League 1, so it was encouraging to see us defending solidly against them. |
I agree, it was good to see and about time as that has been a problem area for us along with not being able to capitalise on our chances. It can be difficult for players to get up to speed in games when they come on and try and hit the ground running - Zaroury coming on for the last 30mins for example . Barnes is also a real handful for them and he was missing too. Like I said previously, I'm not taking anything away from us. [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 11:16]
| |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:21 - Jan 29 with 3221 views | billlm |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:09 - Jan 29 by pointofblue |
Oxford aside, how many individual silly errors has Woolfenden made of late? Or Donacien for that matter? His biggest issue has been supporting Burns going forward. Edmundson, granted, before he was dropped he was having a nightmare. And I think Hladky was a more commanding, confident presence than Walton has been of late. |
Fair comments, woolfy needs a kick up the backside bit slack latley, hurts when your not first choice,
Edmundson was rightfully dropped awful mistake after mistake it's done him good, he's back to last season's edmundson,
Good completion for all defence slots makes us more competitive, that's our key to moving forwards,
I have a feeling some sloppy errors will slow down now, coyb, |  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:23 - Jan 29 with 3210 views | Herbivore |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:15 - Jan 29 by Chrisd |
I agree, it was good to see and about time as that has been a problem area for us along with not being able to capitalise on our chances. It can be difficult for players to get up to speed in games when they come on and try and hit the ground running - Zaroury coming on for the last 30mins for example . Barnes is also a real handful for them and he was missing too. Like I said previously, I'm not taking anything away from us. [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 11:16]
|
Although Barnes is no longer a regular starter for them, so not sure he'd really have strengthened their attack. That was a strong line up, despite the changes, and they brought on some big players as well. Was pleasing to see us able to contain them and good to see back to back solid performances from Fridge. Think he's got a big part to play for us over the remainder of the season. | |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 12:02 - Jan 29 with 3111 views | BigCommon |
Bit more "ground defending", against a side that primarily keeps the ball on the deck. As oppose to teams lumping long balls into our box, which can become a lottery, imo.. Chucking it in the mixer, might be ugly, but it's effective. Hence UTD signing Weghorst, as a plan B alternative option, for example.. Burnley probably played more to our defensive strengths, than trying to exploit our weaknesses, imo. But they are obviously confident in what they do, so probably don't feel the need to change their style.(Bit like us, in some games)... Ultimately, though. Our lads worked their socks off and kept their head's . Team effort, to keep a clean sheet. Starting from the front. With players like Jackson doing their share of graft. |  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 12:18 - Jan 29 with 3029 views | OldFart71 |
Horses for courses really. Where we need defenders who's main aim is to defend against a side that's more akin to rugby than football then those put in the team need to reflect that. Where a side we play have a similar style to us then again a more footballing style defence should be played. Whether Burnley's side was classed as being their second 11 or not it matters little as I would expect them to be just as capable of beating a league One side. All credit to Town. But in the grand scheme of things the FA Cup is secondary to our aims. A replay at Burnley if we don't get anything there is an annoying extra game we could have done without. Aside from the extra revenue. But whether they turn out in their droves and get a decent gate I don't know ? Cambridge then Wednesday should be our main concerns. | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 13:17 - Jan 29 with 2938 views | Chrisd |
| A case for the defence …. on 11:23 - Jan 29 by Herbivore |
Although Barnes is no longer a regular starter for them, so not sure he'd really have strengthened their attack. That was a strong line up, despite the changes, and they brought on some big players as well. Was pleasing to see us able to contain them and good to see back to back solid performances from Fridge. Think he's got a big part to play for us over the remainder of the season. |
He's played 21 games for them this season, so pretty much a regular. He's not a natural goal scorer or even prolific, but a real handful for most CBs with his physical presence. I'd really like KM to give Edmundson a helping hand and instead of shoehorning him in on the left of our defence give him a run of games centrally or on his natural right side. [Post edited 29 Jan 2023 13:24]
| |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 14:48 - Jan 29 with 2814 views | blueislander |
| A case for the defence …. on 10:20 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
A GK who actually saved some shots and one who was comfortable on the ball, giving more confidence to those in front of him when having to use him...... |
So after constantly posting how poor Burns is, you have now turned your attention to Walton? | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 14:57 - Jan 29 with 2793 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| A case for the defence …. on 14:48 - Jan 29 by blueislander |
So after constantly posting how poor Burns is, you have now turned your attention to Walton? |
Walton will have a blinder and he’ll move onto someone else.
It’s what he does. | | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 15:27 - Jan 29 with 2745 views | FrimleyBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 14:48 - Jan 29 by blueislander |
So after constantly posting how poor Burns is, you have now turned your attention to Walton? |
i've mentioned Walton's lack of performances to, or you decide to ignore that? many times. His shot/save stats, i've shared for months now.
It's also strange but not surprising to see SB liked your post.
Despite he being one who was very heavy on the walton defence in the posts i made about Walton not being in good form this season.. suppose he's still trying to move on from the day he actually agreed with me about a player and then tried to back track.
FB.
[Post edited 29 Jan 2023 15:34]
| |
| |
| A case for the defence …. on 15:51 - Jan 29 with 2673 views | StokieBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 15:27 - Jan 29 by FrimleyBlue |
i've mentioned Walton's lack of performances to, or you decide to ignore that? many times. His shot/save stats, i've shared for months now.
It's also strange but not surprising to see SB liked your post.
Despite he being one who was very heavy on the walton defence in the posts i made about Walton not being in good form this season.. suppose he's still trying to move on from the day he actually agreed with me about a player and then tried to back track.
FB.
[Post edited 29 Jan 2023 15:34]
|
Why are you bringing me into this?
I've not responded to you, I believe he is correct in his post and thus I upvoted. I believe that's "using the forum as intended" to coin one of your favourite phrases? The real problem here is that you're so quick to post and post and post that you've missed the point of his post.
The rest is disingenuous, you were wrong there as everyone can see, repeatedly trying to rewrite history doesn't make it correct. In fact it's rather weird that you're continually bringing it up in threads I'm not even posting in.
Honestly, you really are a tiresome bore and the worst thing about this forum. Phil should never have unbanned you for your foul-mouthed tirade.
SB |  | | |
| A case for the defence …. on 15:56 - Jan 29 with 2640 views | FrimleyBlue |
| A case for the defence …. on 15:51 - Jan 29 by StokieBlue |
Why are you bringing me into this?
I've not responded to you, I believe he is correct in his post and thus I upvoted. I believe that's "using the forum as intended" to coin one of your favourite phrases? The real problem here is that you're so quick to post and post and post that you've missed the point of his post.
The rest is disingenuous, you were wrong there as everyone can see, repeatedly trying to rewrite history doesn't make it correct. In fact it's rather weird that you're continually bringing it up in threads I'm not even posting in.
Honestly, you really are a tiresome bore and the worst thing about this forum. Phil should never have unbanned you for your foul-mouthed tirade.
SB |
As shown he isn't correct, hence your upvote was bizarre as pointed out, you involved yourself in many posts about Walton. So clearly you're upvoting something you actually know is incorrect.. which is bizarre for you SB.
you're the master of rewriting history SB, the best at it.
Have a good day now.
FB | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
