Full Steam Ahead to Orient (a) 10/08, 17:30

[TANGODANCER]

Howdy,

I've just made something that I think will be really good for the rest of the season should you like it. For those lucky members that perch their arses on my couch, could you follow this link and have a look.

viewtopic.php?f=29&p=1181772#p1181772

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Fantastic work Djb. Big cheers.

[Worthy4England]

A reminder that this "embarrassment" of a back line conceded 36 goals all season in 22/23. Johnston, Santos and Toal.

They idea they simply can't defend is a nonsense. As is the suggestion Evatt can't organise a defence.

Nobody has called it an embarrassment. Johnston as has been pointed out is recovering from a serious injury so we can’t expect him at his peak yet.

That back three was strong but we also had wing backs who were more on the defensive side of the spectrum.

Regardless that is the sort of defensive form we need to replicate this season and if we’ve got the players there is no reason we shouldn’t.

You LITERALLY called them an "embarrassment" in your last post.

Defensively speaking compared to some of the best defenders we’ve had yes. But that was more modern football not that they are an embarrassment relatively.

If we focus on pure defending then they are. Bergsson, Taggart, Fairclough, Charlton, Ngotty, Laville
- some of the best defenders we’ve had but you wouldn’t fancy asking many of those to play wide centre back in this system. Those players focussed on reading the game, defending the 18 yard box and getting the ball away from danger. But they didn’t have to carry it 50 yards or find defence splitting passes or cover half a pitch in behind them nor be a hybrid centre half full back (at once).

It was looking at the way football is nowadays. Pure defenders - in some teams simply don’t fit.

I'm a bit torn on this one. There's little point referencing 2 years back, conceding 36, when the same set-up sans Johnston managed to deluge 51 last season, and the set-up that only conceded 36, managed roughly 20 goals less than the teams in front of us - in fact we were pretty much 40 adrift of Ipswich.

And this for me, makes the point. It's about being balanced enough to get the points, rather than all-out defence vs all-out attack, we need to be good enough at both. I fear, we have a few in the set-up who can only see one-way and not much the other...

[Mar]

A reminder that this "embarrassment" of a back line conceded 36 goals all season in 22/23. Johnston, Santos and Toal.

They idea they simply can't defend is a nonsense. As is the suggestion Evatt can't organise a defence.

Nobody has called it an embarrassment. Johnston as has been pointed out is recovering from a serious injury so we can’t expect him at his peak yet.

That back three was strong but we also had wing backs who were more on the defensive side of the spectrum.

Regardless that is the sort of defensive form we need to replicate this season and if we’ve got the players there is no reason we shouldn’t.

You LITERALLY called them an "embarrassment" in your last post.

Defensively speaking compared to some of the best defenders we’ve had yes. But that was more modern football not that they are an embarrassment relatively.

If we focus on pure defending then they are. Bergsson, Taggart, Fairclough, Charlton, Ngotty, Laville
- some of the best defenders we’ve had but you wouldn’t fancy asking many of those to play wide centre back in this system. Those players focussed on reading the game, defending the 18 yard box and getting the ball away from danger. But they didn’t have to carry it 50 yards or find defence splitting passes or cover half a pitch in behind them nor be a hybrid centre half full back (at once).

It was looking at the way football is nowadays. Pure defenders - in some teams simply don’t fit.

I'm a bit torn on this one. There's little point referencing 2 years back, conceding 36, when the same set-up sans Johnston managed to deluge 51 last season, and the set-up that only conceded 36, managed roughly 20 goals less than the teams in front of us - in fact we were pretty much 40 adrift of Ipswich.

And this for me, makes the point. It's about being balanced enough to get the points, rather than all-out defence vs all-out attack, we need to be good enough at both. I fear, we have a few in the set-up who can only see one-way and not much the other...

We arguably conceded more because we risked more. That in turn caused us to score more.

We should definitely be drawing parallels as there should be a sweet spot that would get us promoted.

As much as we'd like to rue not getting promoted last season there was definitely an argument for us warranting promotion. The amount of clear chances we missed could've been much different. Take away Pompeys penalties and they'd be in and around us.

Sure it's not all black and white but when we look at how close we came over the season, we only needed a few more things to go for us in order for us not to need that performance in the final.

Evatt may be doing a JDB style return for Johnston. That may see us in good stead long term.

Either way added risk didn't pay off last season but it certainly seemed worth it. Same again this season with better options off the bench.

[Worthy4England]

Indeed we weren't far short, which is why the bath water hasn't been totally ejected. Unfortunately, the League Table doesn't listen to argument one way or the other and we still bought it down to one game, where our frailties were on display.

I don't doubt we conceded more because we risked more - and I can see we're trying to address it - I disagree that the added risk paid off last season.

[BWFC_Insane]

A reminder that this "embarrassment" of a back line conceded 36 goals all season in 22/23. Johnston, Santos and Toal.

They idea they simply can't defend is a nonsense. As is the suggestion Evatt can't organise a defence.

Nobody has called it an embarrassment. Johnston as has been pointed out is recovering from a serious injury so we can’t expect him at his peak yet.

That back three was strong but we also had wing backs who were more on the defensive side of the spectrum.

Regardless that is the sort of defensive form we need to replicate this season and if we’ve got the players there is no reason we shouldn’t.

You LITERALLY called them an "embarrassment" in your last post.

Defensively speaking compared to some of the best defenders we’ve had yes. But that was more modern football not that they are an embarrassment relatively.

If we focus on pure defending then they are. Bergsson, Taggart, Fairclough, Charlton, Ngotty, Laville
- some of the best defenders we’ve had but you wouldn’t fancy asking many of those to play wide centre back in this system. Those players focussed on reading the game, defending the 18 yard box and getting the ball away from danger. But they didn’t have to carry it 50 yards or find defence splitting passes or cover half a pitch in behind them nor be a hybrid centre half full back (at once).

It was looking at the way football is nowadays. Pure defenders - in some teams simply don’t fit.

I'm a bit torn on this one. There's little point referencing 2 years back, conceding 36, when the same set-up sans Johnston managed to deluge 51 last season, and the set-up that only conceded 36, managed roughly 20 goals less than the teams in front of us - in fact we were pretty much 40 adrift of Ipswich.

And this for me, makes the point. It's about being balanced enough to get the points, rather than all-out defence vs all-out attack, we need to be good enough at both. I fear, we have a few in the set-up who can only see one-way and not much the other...

I don’t think Evatt is some Coyle type who thinks winning 4-3 week in week out is viable. I think the issue is more whether the reality of a slog in league one can be matched by some of how we want to play.

And the back three are good examples of this. Toal is a very fine player who struggles at times in the wide centre half role. Because it’s massively demanding to play that role. Toal alongside prime time Gudni in a traditional back four would be a supreme centre back partnership to get out of this league. But you wouldn’t be asking them to do as much ‘outside of defending’.

Much of the difficulty comes down to the system - and broadly how it’s operated. Can you play a full league one season like this with the resources we have available and be successful as you need to be across all areas of the pitch?

[Worthy4England]

I don't think he's Coyle either, and I think we're saying the same thing. When it counts, the entire defensive unit - WBs, 6's, CDs need to be up to it, defensively. Having the best prospect attacking, 23 year old WB might help the transfer kitty, but ain't much use when you're back foot and they can't tackle and get muscled out.

As I said before, I think we have a few who rather like Nelson, can see no ships, defensively...

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I don't think he's Coyle either, and I think we're saying the same thing. When it counts, the entire defensive unit - WBs, 6's, CDs need to be up to it, defensively. Having the best prospect attacking, 23 year old WB might help the transfer kitty, but ain't much use when you're back foot and they can't tackle and get muscled out.

As I said before, I think we have a few who rather like Nelson, can see no ships, defensively...

Khumbeni?

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't think he's Coyle either, and I think we're saying the same thing. When it counts, the entire defensive unit - WBs, 6's, CDs need to be up to it, defensively. Having the best prospect attacking, 23 year old WB might help the transfer kitty, but ain't much use when you're back foot and they can't tackle and get muscled out.

As I said before, I think we have a few who rather like Nelson, can see no ships, defensively...

But the system and style Evatt chooses is reliant on your wing backs getting high up the pitch and exposing your wide centre halves, AND them being able to cope with that. Otherwise it doesn’t work. A wing back who is good defensively but less so going forwards and we are back to 22/23 - solid defence but not enough goals or attacking threat to go up.

You could play this more pragmatically where you have a hybrid 3/4 with one outstanding wing back going forwards and one more suitable to stopping at full back at times and indeed we did play that with Fossey and Parky likes that system second half of the league one season with Morais for example.

However the way we setup last season and this demands exceptional attacking wing backs. And this is my point - in league one that means likely they will be less defensively able. And the same follows though, your wide centre backs then have to be superb defenders one on one in open space and also very good on the ball, great readers of the game, quick and also reasonably physically. And we are in league one.

We play a style and system whereby it only really works with very specialised players in each role. And it’s hard to obtain those players without a lot of money.

[Mar]

Indeed we weren't far short, which is why the bath water hasn't been totally ejected. Unfortunately, the League Table doesn't listen to argument one way or the other and we still bought it down to one game, where our frailties were on display.

I don't doubt we conceded more because we risked more - and I can see we're trying to address it - I disagree that the added risk paid off last season.

The added risk paid off with better league position and more goals.

Sure it's not a pay off like promotion which is what we wanted but it can be considered paying off if the metric is goals scored and higher league position

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Indeed we weren't far short, which is why the bath water hasn't been totally ejected. Unfortunately, the League Table doesn't listen to argument one way or the other and we still bought it down to one game, where our frailties were on display.

I don't doubt we conceded more because we risked more - and I can see we're trying to address it - I disagree that the added risk paid off last season.

The added risk paid off with better league position and more goals.

Sure it's not a pay off like promotion which is what we wanted but it can be considered paying off if the metric is goals scored and higher league position

More goals, more wins, fewer losses, more points, higher position.

Of course there are unarguable alternative universes in which we go to Derby and stand 10 men on the line in order to get a 0-0 (although with all else being identical we'd still have finished two points and five goals behind them).

Derby averaged precisely 2ppg and went up. We didn't and didn't. So overall we didn't hit our target, but that doesn't necessarily mean the idea was wrong.

[Mar]

Indeed we weren't far short, which is why the bath water hasn't been totally ejected. Unfortunately, the League Table doesn't listen to argument one way or the other and we still bought it down to one game, where our frailties were on display.

I don't doubt we conceded more because we risked more - and I can see we're trying to address it - I disagree that the added risk paid off last season.

The added risk paid off with better league position and more goals.

Sure it's not a pay off like promotion which is what we wanted but it can be considered paying off if the metric is goals scored and higher league position

More goals, more wins, fewer losses, more points, higher position.

Of course there are unarguable alternative universes in which we go to Derby and stand 10 men on the line in order to get a 0-0 (although with all else being identical we'd still have finished two points and five goals behind them).

Derby averaged precisely 2ppg and went up. We didn't and didn't. So overall we didn't hit our target, but that doesn't necessarily mean the idea was wrong.

That couldve been a one off though against Derby to get that scenario. They were panicked into signing a striker before we played them so the risk was there.

It was fortunate for Derby. There's not many metrics I look at and think we made a bad decision. Perhaps the year and a half for Jerome rather than a prolific backup. Same for goalkeeper. We cheaped out and paid the price. Nlundulu, Jerome, Shoretire, etc. Didn't make the grade last season and yet we ended up with two of them. Again not necessarily the wrong call but not overwhelming the right one either. Signing players that definitively improve the squad should kick us on this season, trouble is that it's a tougher league.

A Maghoma loan for an injured Lolos would fit the bill.

[GhostoftheBok]

I was at Derby. Maybe it looked different on TV than in the stands (that can happen), but I thought we were the better side and extremely unlucky not to win it.

Both our main strikers were out of commission. With them in the team we win that game, for me.

Them's the breaks. I don't think we got it massively wrong.

We've tweaked the system to try and deliver the best of both worlds. Attacking threat, but a bit more solidity. It'll take time to get right.

We've also gone for more quality in depth in all areas of the team.

Jerome/Lolos
Bod/McAtee
Ogbeta/Schon
Ramsay/Tutu
Taylor/Forino

Then we've added - Arfield, Southwood and Matete.

I recognise that Evatt will have to go up this season or lose most of the fanbase and it probably will be a natural end to his time here if we fall short. However, we can't really do much more than we are to have a go at a tough division.

Time to just enjoy the game and see how we do. Two entertaining games so far.

[Bertie Wooster]

Time to just enjoy the game and see how we do. Two entertaining games so far.

Entertaining ?

A quite fortunate win at Orient & last night the 1st 60 mins or so was the most turgid, lacklustre performance I've possibly seen in a very long time.

Look I'm actually (for me !) quite positive about this season with the good signings we've made - but if the 1st two games are anything to go by, there is a lot of improvement required if we are to get promoted this season.

Saturday will be a barometer for me, if we win then yes we are absolutely going in the right direction, lose and its in the nothing has changed comments section.

[GhostoftheBok]

Entertaining ?

Yeah, I've enjoyed both games.

They've been scrappy and hard-fought games with good goals in both.

I thought both sides gave it a proper go in both matches. I don't expect fluidity two games into a season.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I thowt we were after "winning ugly"...

[TANGODANCER]

When you look at it it's s all just a repetition of last season really. Same league, same clubs, bit of shuffling the deck with a few new cards dealt. I reckon it's more about will to win more than anything, that and a positive attitude. Only thing it doesn't need is the same Bolton Wanderers. Tighten up all round and remember, it's never too soon to start winning.

[Mar]

I thowt we were after "winning ugly"...

This in a nutshell. The fan base can be quick to jump on the performances when it's not going well. In reality we're getting through the games and winning despite not being fully up to speed.

As long as we keep winning

[BWFC_Insane]

I thowt we were after "winning ugly"...

I think we are. If we can do that consistently we will be fine.

[GhostoftheBok]

We knew preseason was disrupted and that would make the start more difficult than we'd hoped. Yet here we are, back at "If we don't win every game nothing has changed."

We'll have some idea where we stand after 12-15 games.

15 takes us to Stockport away. That'll probably be a good marker.

In that time we'll have:

Home: Wrexham, Huddersfield, Posh.
Away: Charlton, Birmingham, Stockport.

If we're at ~2PPG at that point and the new lads are settling we can be very hopeful.

[TANGODANCER]

I thowt we were after "winning ugly"...

I think we are. If we can do that consistently we will be fine.

Rather "occasionally" or we won't get far in the Championship. How can you win ugly "consistently" and play football?