A question on the defence
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
A question on the defence
Why do we play such a high line what's the thinking behind it?
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 10572
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:51 pm
- Location: Up above the streets and houses
Re: A question on the defence
It's all down to managerial insanity.newboy wrote:Why do we play such a high line what's the thinking behind it?
Businesswoman of the year.
Re: A question on the defence
The high line is Coyles way of ensuring we don't endure an onslaught from opposing teams however we lack the ability to execute the offside trap. We also lack the pace in defence to cope with the occasions that a player sneaks through.
Damned if we do damned if we don't.
Damned if we do damned if we don't.
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 am
Re: A question on the defence
With Knight and Wheater their it's a form of euthenasia.
It makes sense for a team capable of pressing and maintaining possession /creating pressure which sadly we cant. We'd be better defending deeper and trying to break quickly in the space created by teams coming onto us.Two banks of 4 set up like milan v arsenal.
It makes sense for a team capable of pressing and maintaining possession /creating pressure which sadly we cant. We'd be better defending deeper and trying to break quickly in the space created by teams coming onto us.Two banks of 4 set up like milan v arsenal.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2076
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:54 pm
Re: A question on the defence
My question to Owen Coyle - one of many I'd like answered but doubt that he knows himself !!
Why do you play Zak Knight, this season even more than in his previous years he's a total liability on a football pitch. He's out of contract in the summer so its quite obvious that from a motivational element he's not arsed whether we stay up or go down, combine that with awful positional sense & very poor sunday league level decision making and his general can't be arsed lazyness, and you have a very poor defender no better than Cid was - Shearer even pointed this out on Motd last night how poor Knight is.
Coyle has options, he can play Wheater & Ream or one of them with Ricketts in the centre of defence - there is just no need to play Knight, its actually contemptable that Coyle actually continues to play him in the situation we are in, where we need players to battle, roll up there sleeves and give 100%.
Generally our defensive 4 play like complete stranger,s very poorly organised - they do play like they aren't coached at all and don't practice anything in training.
Why do you play Zak Knight, this season even more than in his previous years he's a total liability on a football pitch. He's out of contract in the summer so its quite obvious that from a motivational element he's not arsed whether we stay up or go down, combine that with awful positional sense & very poor sunday league level decision making and his general can't be arsed lazyness, and you have a very poor defender no better than Cid was - Shearer even pointed this out on Motd last night how poor Knight is.
Coyle has options, he can play Wheater & Ream or one of them with Ricketts in the centre of defence - there is just no need to play Knight, its actually contemptable that Coyle actually continues to play him in the situation we are in, where we need players to battle, roll up there sleeves and give 100%.
Generally our defensive 4 play like complete stranger,s very poorly organised - they do play like they aren't coached at all and don't practice anything in training.
Re: A question on the defence
Peter Thompson wrote:My question to Owen Coyle - one of many I'd like answered but doubt that he knows himself !!
Why do you play Zak Knight,
the simple answer? he doesn't and never has.
-
- Reliable
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:53 pm
Re: A question on the defence
Ianmooreslovechild wrote:With Knight and Wheater their it's a form of euthenasia.
It makes sense for a team capable of pressing and maintaining possession /creating pressure which sadly we cant. We'd be better defending deeper and trying to break quickly in the space created by teams coming onto us.Two banks of 4 set up like milan v arsenal.
but....but.....
has to be a bank of four and either FIVE or THREE with two fancy dan wide players shirley?
no-one in their right mind would contemplate 4-4-2

"A child of five would understand this- send someone to fetch a child of five"
Re: A question on the defence
You have!lovethesmellofnapalm wrote:Ianmooreslovechild wrote:With Knight and Wheater their it's a form of euthenasia.
It makes sense for a team capable of pressing and maintaining possession /creating pressure which sadly we cant. We'd be better defending deeper and trying to break quickly in the space created by teams coming onto us.Two banks of 4 set up like milan v arsenal.
but....but.....
has to be a bank of four and either FIVE or THREE with two fancy dan wide players shirley?
no-one in their right mind would contemplate 4-4-2
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 am
Re: A question on the defence
You mean lots of careless fumbling followed by embarrassed awkward silences and recriminations? SWounds about rightPeter Thompson wrote:My question to Owen Coyle - one of many I'd like answered but doubt that he knows himself !!
Why do you play Zak Knight, this season even more than in his previous years he's a total liability on a football pitch. He's out of contract in the summer so its quite obvious that from a motivational element he's not arsed whether we stay up or go down, combine that with awful positional sense & very poor sunday league level decision making and his general can't be arsed lazyness, and you have a very poor defender no better than Cid was - Shearer even pointed this out on Motd last night how poor Knight is.
Coyle has options, he can play Wheater & Ream or one of them with Ricketts in the centre of defence - there is just no need to play Knight, its actually contemptable that Coyle actually continues to play him in the situation we are in, where we need players to battle, roll up there sleeves and give 100%.
Generally our defensive 4 play like complete stranger,s very poorly organised - they do play like they aren't coached at all and don't practice anything in training.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 19597
- Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
- Contact:
Re: A question on the defence
Well, he had to play Knight ... as the centre half he chased for 6 months, paid £2.5m for and has played at centre-half (I think) twice was busy playing defensive midfield .... on account of us not having a suitable alternative for that position due to Muamba being on the bench.
Confused ? You will be !!
Confused ? You will be !!
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
-
- Dedicated
- Posts: 1741
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 am
Re: A question on the defence
Even with 451 and Mavis in his best position you're talking banks of 4 at best.Hoboh wrote:You have!lovethesmellofnapalm wrote:Ianmooreslovechild wrote:With Knight and Wheater their it's a form of euthenasia.
It makes sense for a team capable of pressing and maintaining possession /creating pressure which sadly we cant. We'd be better defending deeper and trying to break quickly in the space created by teams coming onto us.Two banks of 4 set up like milan v arsenal.
but....but.....
has to be a bank of four and either FIVE or THREE with two fancy dan wide players shirley?
no-one in their right mind would contemplate 4-4-2
-
- Reliable
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:53 pm
Re: A question on the defence
got me - just off to get my pencils and underpants.Hoboh wrote:You have!lovethesmellofnapalm wrote:Ianmooreslovechild wrote:With Knight and Wheater their it's a form of euthenasia.
It makes sense for a team capable of pressing and maintaining possession /creating pressure which sadly we cant. We'd be better defending deeper and trying to break quickly in the space created by teams coming onto us.Two banks of 4 set up like milan v arsenal.
but....but.....
has to be a bank of four and either FIVE or THREE with two fancy dan wide players shirley?
no-one in their right mind would contemplate 4-4-2
"A child of five would understand this- send someone to fetch a child of five"
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: A question on the defence
Zat Knight's shitness had him singled out by Alan Hansen on last night's MotD. That bad! 

May the bridges I burn light your way
Re: A question on the defence
not watched "motd" for about 20 months.
no time to listen to smug golf club wankers telling me what's wrong.
no time to listen to smug golf club wankers telling me what's wrong.
Re: A question on the defence
Don't bother watching the match but go to 9:20 where Shearer absolutely slates Knight. They may be smug tossers but in this case they are correct.a1 wrote:not watched "motd" for about 20 months.
no time to listen to smug golf club wankers telling me what's wrong.
http://www.101greatgoals.com/gvideos/ma ... on-0-motd/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Do not trust atoms. They make up everything.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests