A question on the defence

Where fellow sufferers gather to share the pain, longing and unrequited transfer requests that make being a Wanderer what it is...

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
newboy
Promising
Promising
Posts: 469
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 2:21 pm

A question on the defence

Post by newboy » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:28 am

Why do we play such a high line what's the thinking behind it?

CrazyHorse
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 10572
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: Up above the streets and houses

Re: A question on the defence

Post by CrazyHorse » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:30 am

newboy wrote:Why do we play such a high line what's the thinking behind it?
It's all down to managerial insanity.
Businesswoman of the year.

User avatar
DJBlu
Site Admin
Posts: 10258
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:38 pm

Re: A question on the defence

Post by DJBlu » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:34 am

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.

Ianmooreslovechild
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 am

Re: A question on the defence

Post by Ianmooreslovechild » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:45 am

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.

Peter Thompson
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:54 pm

Re: A question on the defence

Post by Peter Thompson » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:45 am

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.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: A question on the defence

Post by thebish » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:48 am

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.

lovethesmellofnapalm
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: A question on the defence

Post by lovethesmellofnapalm » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:50 am

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 :D
"A child of five would understand this- send someone to fetch a child of five"

User avatar
Hoboh
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 13661
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 8:19 am

Re: A question on the defence

Post by Hoboh » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:51 am

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 :D
You have!

Ianmooreslovechild
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 am

Re: A question on the defence

Post by Ianmooreslovechild » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:53 am

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, 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.
You mean lots of careless fumbling followed by embarrassed awkward silences and recriminations? SWounds about right

bobo the clown
Immortal
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

Post by bobo the clown » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:55 am

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 !!
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".

Ianmooreslovechild
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:00 am

Re: A question on the defence

Post by Ianmooreslovechild » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:55 am

Hoboh wrote:
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 :D
You have!
Even with 451 and Mavis in his best position you're talking banks of 4 at best.

lovethesmellofnapalm
Reliable
Reliable
Posts: 860
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:53 pm

Re: A question on the defence

Post by lovethesmellofnapalm » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:11 pm

Hoboh wrote:
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 :D
You have!
got me - just off to get my pencils and underpants.
"A child of five would understand this- send someone to fetch a child of five"

User avatar
Bruce Rioja
Immortal
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

Post by Bruce Rioja » Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:39 pm

Zat Knight's shitness had him singled out by Alan Hansen on last night's MotD. That bad! :shock:
May the bridges I burn light your way

a1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 2:11 pm

Re: A question on the defence

Post by a1 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:14 am

not watched "motd" for about 20 months.

no time to listen to smug golf club wankers telling me what's wrong.

malcd1
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 3610
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 5:33 pm

Re: A question on the defence

Post by malcd1 » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:40 am

a1 wrote:not watched "motd" for about 20 months.

no time to listen to smug golf club wankers telling me what's wrong.
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.

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 22 guests