Heroes & Villains, the Aston Villa fanzine
Heroes & Villains => Heroes Discussion => Topic started by: Percy McCarthy on March 05, 2011, 09:28:40 PM
-
Can people please stop blaming zonal marking for our defensive woes. MON used it, with success, GH ditched it for some reason. I'm fed up of pointing this out every five minutes to people who keep going on about it.
Thank you.
-
Whatever.
If it's zonal, we can't play it - if it's man-to-man, we can't play it,
There must be a third way....
-
Zonal marking, eh? Tch. I think we should make the libero and the trequartista do it.
-
The keeper is a factor here
-
The keeper is a factor here
He his not, that's the problem.
-
I don't think it's a case of the marking more a case of how quickly the players are reacting to the set pieces, it just seems like we are in the right position but to slow to react.
-
We are either allowing free headers or the 2nd ball to squirm free
It's basic schoolboy stuff and it is costing us week in week out
-
Maybe it's because the defence changes every game, whether necessary or not. It does take time to build a rapport between defenders and keeper and to the midfield. Too many changes, especially with a lot of inexperienced players coming in, can't be good.
-
We are either allowing free headers or the 2nd ball to squirm free
It's basic schoolboy stuff and it is costing us week in week out
half the defence today aren't much more than schoolboys.
-
Rule 1 - Defence: Get there first............ simples..........
-
We are either allowing free headers or the 2nd ball to squirm free
It's basic schoolboy stuff and it is costing us week in week out
half the defence today aren't much more than schoolboys.
Indeed, but whatever the personnel the end result is the same.
Stupid goals give away week in, week out.
Our inability to defend corners is gone beyond a joke.
-
We were marking zonally the last few years, and were good at it. We are not now, and we see the result.
My point is people are blaming it every time we let one in from a set-piece and we're not using it.
GH should be pragmatic about it and ask the defenders to do what they're good at. Zonal marking.
-
Zonal marking, eh? Tch. I think we should make the libero and the trequartista do it.
I'm fucking fed up to the back teeth of having to google words in your posts.
-
Pinched from another thread:
Andy Gray with his machines last season was adamant we were one of the better sides at defending set pieces because we were man-for-man and Liverpool struggled because they were going the fancy, continental zonal route.
Yet a few weeks back Laursen said we used to be zonal when he was at the club, but it looks like we've now gone man-to-man. Whether the OS got the wrong end of the stick I'm not sure, but I don't see how man-to-man marking can leave so many opponents unmarked - as it has done and countless times this season.
-
Zonal marking, eh? Tch. I think we should make the libero and the trequartista do it.
Don't ever change.
-
Citeh's first goal was either zonal marking or fucking crap defending. Please leave me with that one straw to clutch at that it was zonal marking. Please.
-
Rule 1 - Defence: Get there first............ simples..........
Is the right answer. I can't see how much more than that is needed on set plays. Set yourself man to man and fucking win the ball for me.
-
Pinched from another thread:
Andy Gray with his machines last season was adamant we were one of the better sides at defending set pieces because we were man-for-man and Liverpool struggled because they were going the fancy, continental zonal route.
Yet a few weeks back Laursen said we used to be zonal when he was at the club, but it looks like we've now gone man-to-man. Whether the OS got the wrong end of the stick I'm not sure, but I don't see how man-to-man marking can leave so many opponents unmarked - as it has done and countless times this season.
We were defo zonal, surprised Gray never spotted that. He was right about Liverpool though, but the truth was we were good at it while they were crap. Probably because we had Cuellar, Carew/Heskey, Dunne and Collins to mark the zones, while they had the two centre-halves and not much else of use in the air.
-
Zonal marking, eh? Tch. I think we should make the libero and the trequartista do it.
I'm fucking fed up to the back teeth of having to google words in your posts.
No need bob.
I majored in Latin.
Libero is short for librarian and trequartista is Latin for treacle tits.
Dunno who this applies to in our side. Not sure we have anyone who looks suitably bookwormish and nerdy enough to be a librarian. Dunne is obviously treacle tits though.
Hope this helps.
-
Rule 1 - Defence: Get there first............ simples..........
Is the right answer. I can't see how much more than that is needed on set plays. Set yourself man to man and fucking win the ball for me.
Why though, when zonal marking has been so successful for us the last few years?
-
We were marking zonally the last few years, and were good at it. We are not now, and we see the result.
Prior to last season (an impressive 39 goals only conceded) we let in 48 goals in 08/09 and 51 goals in 07/08. So I'm not sure it was the defensive system employed or rather MON always improving the personnel in defence from the previous year.
-
Zonal marking, eh? Tch. I think we should make the libero and the trequartista do it.
I'm fucking fed up to the back teeth of having to google words in your posts.
No need bob.
I majored in Latin.
Libero is short for librarian and trequartista is Latin for treacle tits.
Dunno who this applies to in our side. Not sure we have anyone who looks suitably bookwormish and nerdy enough to be a librarian. Dunne is obviously treacle tits though.
Hope this helps.
Who are you and why do you talk so much sense?
-
We were marking zonally the last few years, and were good at it. We are not now, and we see the result.
Prior to last season (an impressive 39 goals only conceded) we let in 48 goals in 08/09 and 51 goals in 07/08. So I'm not sure it was the defensive system employed or rather MON always improving the personnel in defence from the previous year.
Didn't concede so many from set-pieces as we do now though. I read somewhere that it was one all season in 08/09 (I think).
-
To the untrained eye (that'll be me) our current system -if I can even call it that- looks closer to what I'd expect zonal to be. That is, marking space, and being quite happy to stand off a player if he isn't in a particular area (or zone).
Whereas man-to-man would, for me, look like what we were doing last season. Where every defender (or tall forward) had a guy to mark and his job was to do nothing else but get in ahead of his man if the ball was in floated in his general direction.
The latter would seem to work better for me in a league such as the English one, where as many as five/six players from the opposition might be 6ft+ and a danger at set pieces.
Zonal would run the risk of the farcical situation of players not picking up an opponent just because he hasn't drifted into a certain expected area - and we've seen plenty of farcical situations from set pieces this year.
Can we agree that whatever we're attempting to do, it isn't working?
-
To the untrained eye (that'll be me) our current system -if I can even call it that- looks closer to what I'd expect zonal to be. That is, marking space, and being quite happy to stand off a player if he isn't in a particular area (or zone).
Whereas man-to-man would, for me, look like what we were doing last season. Where every defender (or tall forward) had a guy to mark and his job was to do nothing else but get in ahead of his man if the ball was in floated in in his general direction.
The latter would seem to work better for me in a league such as the English one, where as many as five/six players from the opposition might be 6ft+ and a danger at set pieces.
Zonal would run the risk of the farcical situation of players not picking up an opponent just because he hasn't drifted into a certain expected area - and we've seen plenty of farcical situations from set pieces this year.
Can we agree that whatever we've attempting to do, it isn't working?
Yes, but it's not zonal marking the wat we were doing it up until this season. It seems logical that this was the basis of Dunne saying the new guys are out of touch with modern football.
-
Bob, I can't change. I've only got one pair of pants.
-
We'd be better off trying out anal marking.
-
Well this season is definitely arse biscuits, so it's a natural enough progression.
-
Our players seem confused to me. I seem to remember them starting off zonally and then suddenly changing to man to man when the opposition players made their run, but not quite knowing who to pick up. It could have been the other way around too if i'm honest. Can't quite remember.
-
What telling the colours of pelargonium seedlings has to do with us conceding goals from corners is beyond me. I wish you Moderators would stop these threads drifting off topic.
-
Whatever they are doing in defence it clearly isn't working.
-
I played american football for a number of years to quite a high level in this country. In the late '80s zonal marking came in as the way forward and the greatest thing since sliced bread. During training we discovered it was crap, relied on the opposition playing your game and didn't work so we reverted to man-to-man marking before getting stuffed in a live game. Seems nothings changed and marking systems in football are pretty similar to american football.
-
During training we discovered it was crap, relied on the opposition playing your game...
That's pretty much what I envisaged.
And why we have defenders looking confused when someone comes in behind them with a free header to score a soft goal. "Oh he wasn't supposed to be there, this isn't how it looked in training," and so on.
Whereas man for man? No such dilema. Tail your bloke- whatever position he tries to take up- and just make sure you do everything you can to either get in ahead of him or put him off. Seems more flexible, more practical. And adjusts to what is actually going on on the pitch, rather than a pre-meditated idea based on what might/should happen.
But we definitely do that anyway apparently, so now I'm the one who is confused.
-
I don't really care if you call it zonal marking, but whatever it is, it hasn't worked for a very large chunk of the season
-
During training we discovered it was crap, relied on the opposition playing your game...
That's pretty much what I envisaged.
And why we have defenders looking confused when someone comes in behind them with a free header to score a soft goal. "Oh he wasn't supposed to be there, this isn't how it looked in training," and so on.
Whereas man for man? No such dilema. Tail your bloke- whatever position he tries to take up- and just make sure you do everything you can to either get in ahead of him or put him off. Seems more flexible, more practical. And adjusts to what is actually going on on the pitch, rather than a pre-meditated idea based on what might/should happen.
But we definitely do that anyway apparently, so now I'm the one who is confused.
There are no pre-meditated ideas about what might/should happen. Or any other abstract ideas. It's quite simple. You have your four best headers/biggest blokes lined up along the six-yard line, therefore it has to be a fucking brilliant cross. Just high enough to beat the first one, not quite so high that the attacking player can't get a head on it.
Theory aside, and from a pragmatic point of view, our players were good at zonal marking, and are absolutely shite at man-marking. Why anyone would rather we man-mark when this is so obvious is beyond me. Get some videos of last season Gerard, FFS. Or just ask the players.
-
I don't really care if you call it zonal marking, but whatever it is, it hasn't worked for a very large chunk of the season
...and it's not zonal marking.
You might as well say "the turning point was when the Bolton keeper saved Ashley's throw-in"?
-
I don't really care if you call it zonal marking, but whatever it is, it hasn't worked for a very large chunk of the season
...and it's not zonal marking.
You might as well say "the turning point was when the Bolton keeper saved Ashley's throw-in"?
Errr, yeah, whatever.
Like I said, it doesn't work. Beyond that, I don't care if it is zonal marking or anal marking, it just isn't happening for us.
-
Surely the main reason we're not very good at defending corners is because in training we're defending against our forwards - who aren't very good at attacking corners. I imagine the ball just bounces a few times, rolls along the ground a few yards, then Gary Mac picks it up and throws it back to the corner taker. This goes on for 20 mins or so then they all go and have tea and biscuits followed by a lie down.
-
Pinched from another thread:
Andy Gray with his machines last season was adamant we were one of the better sides at defending set pieces because we were man-for-man and Liverpool struggled because they were going the fancy, continental zonal route.
Yet a few weeks back Laursen said we used to be zonal when he was at the club, but it looks like we've now gone man-to-man. Whether the OS got the wrong end of the stick I'm not sure, but I don't see how man-to-man marking can leave so many opponents unmarked - as it has done and countless times this season.
A different sport I grant you but the zonal system was banned in US basketball (not sure if this is still the case) as it's too hard to break down and makes for dull viewing. Man on man marking is harder to do when you have a well drilled opposition who know how to lose a marker. And let's face it, with so many people in the penalty box, it's a piece of piss to lose your marker. Look at how Tim Cahill uses the big fellas around him to essentially mask his runs and protect him until the point where he pops up and heads one home.
Zonal marking should be very effective and should be hard to break down. Knocking the ball just outside the six yard box is one way - you're putting the ball just beyond the reach of the blokes on that line but if you have a player on each post, that should help out. The players outside the 6 yard zone should be man marking anyway. But we're not doing that properly and, at such short range it leaves a keeper an awful lot of goal to protect.
Zonal, done well, is the way to go IMO. At present we have players running into each other, players double or sometimes tripling up on opposition. It's a fucking shambles!!
Just for clarity, I'm a shit defender. Fucking awful. But I'm first pick in my team as centre half as I organise everything so well and we rarely if ever concede from set pieces. Villa's organisation is woeful beyond words.
-
Can people please stop blaming zonal marking for our defensive woes. MON used it, with success, GH ditched it for some reason. I'm fed up of pointing this out every five minutes to people who keep going on about it.
Thank you.
The problem is not the zonal marking, generally speaking it works very well, BUT on the set-pieces every defender must have an opponent to mark.
-
Fuck me I might as well try and explain it to the missus.
We don't do zonal marking on set-pieces. We used to. It worked for us.
We do man-marking on set-pieces. It doesn't work for us.
-
Surely the main reason we're not very good at defending corners is because in training we're defending against our forwards - who aren't very good at attacking corners. I imagine the ball just bounces a few times, rolls along the ground a few yards, then Gary Mac picks it up and throws it back to the corner taker. This goes on for 20 mins or so then they all go and have tea and biscuits followed by a lie down.
More likely because it's Ashley Young who is taking the corners and the balls keep ending up on the M42.
-
Unfortunately at set pieces we now look like prisoners on break shuffling around the exercise yard with no purpose other than trying not to get picked on by the big bastards from D Wing.
This Shawshank Redemption school of defending just isn't working. I like the old fashioned Italian style of defence - man for man marking that just about borders on sexual harrassment leaving the free defenders to attack the ball and clear your lines (for reference see Juventus and Sergio Brio for their performance at Villa Park in 1983). And a man on each post please.
-
I don't really care if you call it zonal marking, but whatever it is, it hasn't worked for a very large chunk of the season
...and it's not zonal marking.
You might as well say "the turning point was when the Bolton keeper saved Ashley's throw-in"?
Errr, yeah, whatever.
Like I said, it doesn't work. Beyond that, I don't care if it is zonal marking or anal marking, it just isn't happening for us.
Of course, but still, the correct terminology would be nice. It's just annoying when I read 'we must ditch this zonal marking bollocks', when, in fact, we have ditched it and that's the problem.
It's like reading Oliver Holt articles over and over again.
-
Unfortunately at set pieces we now look like prisoners on break shuffling around the exercise yard with no purpose other than trying not to get picked on by the big bastards from D Wing.
This Shawshank Redemption school of defending just isn't working. I like the old fashioned Italian style of defence - man for man marking that just about borders on sexual harrassment leaving the free defenders to attack the ball and clear your lines (for reference see Juventus and Sergio Brio for their performance at Villa Park in 1983). And a man on each post please.
What I've highlighted there is the main point that I think has been overlooked.
Under MoN we defended corners with all XI players back in the 18 yard box and a player on each post (usually Ashley and Milner).
Now though we seem to keep 1 player up the field and no long mark the posts either.
-
The posts. Opposition players. Anything.
-
Unfortunately at set pieces we now look like prisoners on break shuffling around the exercise yard with no purpose other than trying not to get picked on by the big bastards from D Wing.
This Shawshank Redemption school of defending just isn't working. I like the old fashioned Italian style of defence - man for man marking that just about borders on sexual harrassment leaving the free defenders to attack the ball and clear your lines (for reference see Juventus and Sergio Brio for their performance at Villa Park in 1983). And a man on each post please.
What I've highlighted there is the main point that I think has been overlooked.
Under MoN we defended corners with all XI players back in the 18 yard box and a player on each post (usually Ashley and Milner).
Now though we seem to keep 1 player up the field and no long mark the posts either.
I believe that the first priority at a defensive set piece is not to concede, so pulling all men back and sticking a man on each post is a decent tactic. It obviously means that you have little chance of scoring a goal on a break, but that is a price I am prepared to pay when defending in our own area.
An alternative tactic is one that Frank Upton used to try years ago with Villa, and that was to leave 3 players up when defending corners and free kicks. The logic was that the opposition had to leave 3-4 players back to mark them and that as a consequence our own area was less crowded, allowing our defenders to attack the ball more freely.
Ultimately I think you simply need really committed defenders a la Laursen, Teale and McGrath, maybe even Dunne and Collins, to defend set pieces.
-
The lack of defending surely just comes down to youth and inexperience, last year we moaned about Cuellar playing right back, but he was there to defend at set pieces not go on a mazy run and score from twenty yards like Walker. Walker, Clarke, Baker are the future but they need time and shouldn't be playing in defence at the same time...no experience. My other issue is the midfield, attack would you have much faith in Downing, Albrighton, Young, Bannan ,Delph and Bent throwing their heads in amongst the boots to clear their area....probably not. MON built a team based on our neighbours, Stoke, Bolton. Stong tall physical players who could defend but not create goals, hence scoring from set pieces. Houllier has to find that balance, at the moment the team is set up too attack minded.
-
Zonal marking is the only way. Give a player responsibility for a section within the 18 yard box regardless of which opposing players enter it. I played centre back, chasing a goon around the box while trying to keep your eye on the ball aint no fun
-
I think zonal marking for me especially has we leave the opposing players unmarked in our 18 yard box to score from a free shot on our goal like the Bolton winner yesterday.
-
We'll never get anywhere until we get rid of this zonal marking.
-
Forget the debate over whether it is man marking or zonal marking, surely the most debatable word is 'marking'
-
I just call it "shit" marking.
-
Forget the debate over whether it is man marking or zonal marking, surely the most debatable word is 'marking'
Sorry paulie. can't see that. They're two totally different ways of organising, both can be good or bad, but you have to do what suits you. The fact is we were, with these players, very good at zonal marking. We saw yesterday how good we are at man-marking.
-
Forget the debate over whether it is man marking or zonal marking, surely the most debatable word is 'marking'
Sorry paulie. can't see that. They're two totally different ways of organising, both can be good or bad, but you have to do what suits you. The fact is we were, with these players, very good at zonal marking. We saw yesterday how good we are at man-marking.
I think the point he is trying to make is that whether it's Man or Zonal, we are failing with the "marking" aspect of it.
-
Forget the debate over whether it is man marking or zonal marking, surely the most debatable word is 'marking'
Sorry paulie. can't see that. They're two totally different ways of organising, both can be good or bad, but you have to do what suits you. The fact is we were, with these players, very good at zonal marking. We saw yesterday how good we are at man-marking.
I think the point he is trying to make is that whether it's Man or Zonal, we are failing with the "marking" aspect of it.
We're failing at man-marking. We're not employing zonal marking, so how can we be failing at any aspect of it? It's like saying we're failing by playing 3-5-2 or something.
-
I think a mixture of the two should surely be employed. Front and back post zonal men to clear the ball, then 3 men picking up their runners - so yesterday knowing Cahill attacks well from corners our biggest man goes man to man on him, unfortunately that was a very inexperienced kid who got out thought, moved and bullied and we lost. I don't think Collins would have got the same. I still think GH should call Phil Thompson and get him in for 3 days a week to work with the back 4, if we can get a settled back 4 together for a couple of games!
-
We have also had Carew and/or Heskey at the front of the six yard box cutting out all the Ashley Young type corners and making the attacker hit the ball higher into the danger area, which in turn gives more chance for the keeper to claim it or the defenders in the middle to get something on it.
Yesterday I think Bent was in this position some of the times but he didn't seem to clear it very often.
-
We have also had Carew and/or Heskey at the front of the six yard box cutting out all the Ashley Young type corners and making the attacker hit the ball higher into the danger area, which in turn gives more chance for the keeper to claim it or the defenders in the middle to get something on it.
Spot on.
-
From a basic point, we need to get clean sheets, at least then we have something to build on. Currenlty, no matter how we play up top, we can just throw it away by poor defending, not just y-day - all season.
-
For the first Bolton goal, iff Baker competes with Cahill for the header, then we stop the goal. If If we have a man on the post, then we stop the goal.
For the second, if we had a commanding, younger keeper, who firstly parries out a safe distance, then we stop the goal. If he isn’t still sat on his backside, then we stop the goal.
The third, if we’re not all ball watching and getting drawn to the line, then we stop the goal.
Its the personnel not being up to the simplest of tasks. We’re only consistent in our our inability to learn from these fundamental errors.
-
Forget the debate over whether it is man marking or zonal marking, surely the most debatable word is 'marking'
Sorry paulie. can't see that. They're two totally different ways of organising, both can be good or bad, but you have to do what suits you. The fact is we were, with these players, very good at zonal marking. We saw yesterday how good we are at man-marking.
I think the point he is trying to make is that whether it's Man or Zonal, we are failing with the "marking" aspect of it.
We're failing at man-marking. We're not employing zonal marking, so how can we be failing at any aspect of it? It's like saying we're failing by playing 3-5-2 or something.
My point was that, whether or not zonal is the right word for it, the thing we're failing to do is marking - whatever the form, as VS said.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
-
As far as I can see we line up along the edge of the 6 yard box, regardless of where the opposition players seem to be. Looks a lot like zonal to me whatever Andy Gray's spaceship says. If it's meant to be man marking it's the worst attempt at it that I've ever seen. Not sure what we did under O'Neill, I really didn't care enough to think about it because it worked.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
I think Houllier and McAllister are employing the Aleister Crowley method of defending
'Do what thou wilt.'
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Yes, oddly enough I do.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Interesting take on zonal marking.
My understanding of zonal marking was that you give people zones to defend and you pick up the man in your zone. What would be the point in employing a defensive system where players just stand around, making no attempt to pick up any attacking players?
That said, it appears to be exactly the way our defence has been told to go about their job as I've seen very little marking at set pieces recently from our boys!
Joking aside, the issue at Bolton was who was assigned to who. For both of Cahill's goals he was being marked by Nathan Baker. If someone can explain the logic are sticking our most inexperienced defender on one of their best headers of a ball they're a better man than me.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Interesting take on zonal marking.
My understanding of zonal marking was that you give people zones to defend and you pick up the man in your zone. What would be the point in employing a defensive system where players just stand around, making no attempt to pick up any attacking players?
That said, it appears to be exactly the way our defence has been told to go about their job as I've seen very little marking at set pieces recently from our boys!
Joking aside, the issue at Bolton was who was assigned to who. For both of Cahill's goals he was being marked by Nathan Baker. If someone can explain the logic are sticking our most inexperienced defender on one of their best headers of a ball they're a better man than me.
The way we played zonal marking under MON was that the four best headers lined up along the six-yard line, basically ignoring whatever the other team were doing. Whoever's 'zone' the ball came into headed it away. Simple, and it worked.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Yes, oddly enough I do.
Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.
-
The way we played zonal marking under MON was that the four best headers lined up along the six-yard line, basically ignoring whatever the other team were doing. Whoever's 'zone' the ball came into headed it away. Simple, and it worked.
Unless we played Stoke...
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Yes, oddly enough I do.
Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.
Im sorry you dont believe me, so I'll try again.
You do know that under zonal marking, you don't mark men, you take responsibility for an area, and clear anything that comes into your 'zone'. I know you're aware of this, in fact, as you've just alluded to it in another post.
My point was that whether we are man marking, or zonal marking (note the presence of the word 'marking' in the term), it isn't working, because we invariably we leave men free (if it is the former) or areas undefended, if it is the latter.
-
The way we played zonal marking under MON was that the four best headers lined up along the six-yard line, basically ignoring whatever the other team were doing. Whoever's 'zone' the ball came into headed it away. Simple, and it worked.
Unless we played Stoke...
Good point. It did work (for us) much better against corners than against set-pieces from further out, or Delap's bloody throw-ins.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Yes, oddly enough I do.
Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.
My point was that whether we are man marking, or zonal marking (note the presence of the word 'marking' in the term), it isn't working, because we invariably we leave men free (if it is the former) or areas undefended, if it is the latter.
But it's not the latter, so what has the latter got to do with our problems this season? It's like saying John Carew is not scoring enough goals for us at the moment.
I don't get this 'if it's the former'. It is. Or 'if it's the latter'. It isn't.
-
Thing is it doesn't matter if you employ man - to -man marking or zonal, if the players you pick to do the job fail in the simple task of marking tightly, and winning the second ball if not the first.
If you mark zonally, you're not supposed to mark tightly.
Paulie, do you know that in zonal marking you don't actually mark anybody?
Yes, oddly enough I do.
Strange then that you think this 'marking' is important, when you are aware that in zonal marking, it is supposed to be non-existant.
My point was that whether we are man marking, or zonal marking (note the presence of the word 'marking' in the term), it isn't working, because we invariably we leave men free (if it is the former) or areas undefended, if it is the latter.
But it's not the latter, so what has the latter got to do with our problems this season? It's like saying John Carew is not scoring enough goals for us at the moment.
I don't get this 'if it's the former'. It is. Or 'if it's the latter'. It isn't.
God almighty, Perc. Have the celebrating noses over there got to you or something?
My point is this - "whichever form of defending we're using (and I didn't say anything about it being zonal marking) we're not very good at it".
If you want an argument, I'll say we are zonal marking, and you can explain how we're not, if that makes it easier? But I'm not. I'm saying we're not very good at defending right now.
-
The bottom line is, we aren't picking up players in the 'zone' properly.
Call me old fashioned, I couldn't give a fuck whether we 'zonal mark' or 'man on man mark' as long as we fucking 'mark' !
-
By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?
-
By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?
I'll try again.
Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.
I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.
-
With so few players in the side above 6 foot we're going to struggle on set pieces against most teams, irrespective of the system we play.
-
By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?
I'll try again.
Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.
I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.
Okay, that's a bit clearer. Your previous comments about 'if it's zonal marking' etc. were a bit more ambiguous I thought. Anybody blaming our defensive deficiencies this season on zonal marking might as well say they think it's because our players are wearing stillettos. To which you might reply 'if it's because they're wearing stillettos, or if it's because they're man-marking, we're shit'. *wink*
Anyway, I think Clarke, Baker et al would be a lot more comfortable with last year's zonal system. I know Dunne, Collins and Cuellar were.
-
By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?
I'll try again.
Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.
I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.
Okay, that's a bit clearer. Your previous comments about 'if it's zonal marking' etc. were a bit more ambiguous I thought. Anybody blaming our defensive deficiencies this season on zonal marking might as well say they think it's because our players are wearing stillettos. To which you might reply 'if it's because they're wearing stillettos, or if it's because they're man-marking, we're shit'. *wink*
Anyway, I think Clarke, Baker et al would be a lot more comfortable with last year's zonal system. I know Dunne, Collins and Cuellar were.
No, I was just saying that we look so bereft of confidence at the back right now, I wouldn't really bank on us to tighten things up if we resorted to armed defence, trenches and dogs, let alone zonal marking, man marking, whatever.
I can't help thinking that it might be different had GH managed to persuade Patrice Bergues to come, who was apparently his defensive guru.
Someone mentioned yesterday that he'd said at the time that "the timing isn't right", so I don't know if that will change over the summer. Only problem is i think he was earmarked for the official role of "number two" which would put Gary McAllister in an awkward position
-
By saying 'if it's zonal marking, we're leaving areas undefended', aren't you suggesting that it might be zonal marking? If not, what's the point of saying it?
I'll try again.
Because I thought the discussion was about people saying we're marking zonally when we're not - ie that there's some debate about it? That's the point you were making, and which I don't disagree with.
I am implying that our defensive problems are far more crude than that - we are so frail defensively, that I don't think we look like we could mark men or "mark" (note inverted commas) space right now, we're so poor.
Okay, that's a bit clearer. Your previous comments about 'if it's zonal marking' etc. were a bit more ambiguous I thought. Anybody blaming our defensive deficiencies this season on zonal marking might as well say they think it's because our players are wearing stillettos. To which you might reply 'if it's because they're wearing stillettos, or if it's because they're man-marking, we're shit'. *wink*
Anyway, I think Clarke, Baker et al would be a lot more comfortable with last year's zonal system. I know Dunne, Collins and Cuellar were.
No, I was just saying that we look so bereft of confidence at the back right now, I wouldn't really bank on us to tighten things up if we resorted to armed defence, trenches and dogs, let alone zonal marking, man marking, whatever.
I can't help thinking that it might be different had GH managed to persuade Patrice Bergues to come, who was apparently his defensive guru.
Someone mentioned yesterday that he'd said at the time that "the timing isn't right", so I don't know if that will change over the summer. Only problem is i think he was earmarked for the official role of "number two" which would put Gary McAllister in an awkward position
That someone was me. That's what I'm hoping for too, either that or a new manager. Strange that even after the shambles this season (and I've been one of GH's biggest critics) I can still entertain the possibilty that he might do well eventually.
-
That someone was me. That's what I'm hoping for too, either that or a new manager. Strange that even after the shambles this season (and I've been one of GH's biggest critics) I can still entertain the possibilty that he might do well eventually.
I can definitely entertain that possibility.
We play some lovely football at times. I like that. I spent so much time moaning about it under MON that it's not really surprising I like to see us play it around. Houllier has mentioned the way we play himself quite frequently, I think his basic football philosophy is sound.
I have two issues, though. The results, obviously. It annoys me when people talk about those who like tippy tappy football as if it is something bad, as if it means you have to eschew decent results. Our struggles are mainly down to what we were just talking about, our frailities at the back.
We've given away so many points from a winning position this season, it is unreal. That's not good, but it at least suggests that we're getting into decent positions in the first place. If we were consistently creating zero chances - like, say, Blues do - I would be a lot more worried.
The other is the fact that Gerard is a walking PR disaster waiting to happen. it's easy to say "who cares what the media think" and dismiss it, but the fact is, he's dropped gaffe after gaffe since being here, from the original "it's not a job on the level of Liverpool", through the "typically a 7th-12th place team", the "my objective is survival" (in his first weeks), then the terribly disrespectful stuff at Anfield, then this week's FA Cup surrender, compounded by his "we'd never have beaten them anyway" line, but the fact is that these things chip away at spirits, a spirit we've worked hard to build up lately.
They also mean that, when you're really up against it and need to get people behind you and the club, you find it a bit harder, because over the course of 8 or 9 months, you've soundly pissed people off, and they're less likely to want to back you. And it is all so fucking avoidable, too.
I spent most of the last two years moaning about MON's style of football,
-
That someone was me. That's what I'm hoping for too, either that or a new manager. Strange that even after the shambles this season (and I've been one of GH's biggest critics) I can still entertain the possibilty that he might do well eventually.
I can definitely entertain that possibility.
We play some lovely football at times. I like that. I spent so much time moaning about it under MON that it's not really surprising I like to see us play it around. Houllier has mentioned the way we play himself quite frequently, I think his basic football philosophy is sound.
I have two issues, though. The results, obviously. It annoys me when people talk about those who like tippy tappy football as if it is something bad, as if it means you have to eschew decent results. Our struggles are mainly down to what we were just talking about, our frailities at the back.
We've given away so many points from a winning position this season, it is unreal. That's not good, but it at least suggests that we're getting into decent positions in the first place. If we were consistently creating zero chances - like, say, Blues do - I would be a lot more worried.
The other is the fact that Gerard is a walking PR disaster waiting to happen. it's easy to say "who cares what the media think" and dismiss it, but the fact is, he's dropped gaffe after gaffe since being here, from the original "it's not a job on the level of Liverpool", through the "typically a 7th-12th place team", the "my objection is survival" (in his first weeks), then the terribly disrespectful stuff at Anfield, then this week's FA Cup surrender, compounded by his "we'd never have beaten them anyway" line, but the fact is that these things chip away at spirits, a spirit we've worked hard to build up lately.
They also mean that, when you're really up against it and need to get people behind you and the club, you find it a bit harder, because over the course of 8 or 9 months, you've soundly pissed people off, and they're less likely to want to back you. And it is all so fucking avoidable, too.
Agree on all that too. Looking forward, I think we should always employ managers who like to play good football. If only for the fact that we wouldn't have to completely overhaul the squad every time the manager changed. Oh, and because we'd play good football too, of course.
-
There's not much wrong with most of our players, technically.
MON bought some duffs, and we're paying the (wage bill) price for those, but he also bought some decent players.
We've got players who can pass the ball around pretty well. I know people like saying "there's no point trying to play like Arsenal if you don't have Arsenal level players", but the team we played yesterday are a good example of how you don't have to have absolutely top class players to turn your game around and pass it around a bit.
-
Joking aside, the issue at Bolton was who was assigned to who. For both of Cahill's goals he was being marked by Nathan Baker. If someone can explain the logic are sticking our most inexperienced defender on one of their best headers of a ball they're a better man than me.
This may be the problem, if they have given Baker a certain zone to patrol, and someone on Bolton's team has noticed this then it doesn't take a genius to tell Cahill to run into that area on set pieces.
-
Percy is right that we zonally marked last season and not only that we were one of the few teams who actually managed to get it right due to our height.
Fuck knows what we are doing this season though as it is one disorganised pile of shit at the back.
-
Joking aside, the issue at Bolton was who was assigned to who. For both of Cahill's goals he was being marked by Nathan Baker. If someone can explain the logic are sticking our most inexperienced defender on one of their best headers of a ball they're a better man than me.
This may be the problem, if they have given Baker a certain zone to patrol, and someone on Bolton's team has noticed this then it doesn't take a genius to tell Cahill to run into that area on set pieces.
No, he was man-marking him. Well, running round behind him actually, which is often what man-marking equates to. You tend to give away more penalties too, with all the wrestling.
-
A lot of teams put a player in front of the near post and then a decent header of the ball centrally on the edge of the 6 yard box, the rest then man to man. The idea being that any ball in the 6 yard box should be the goal keepers if it beats the first man.
-
A lot of teams put a player in front of the near post and then a decent header of the ball centrally on the edge of the 6 yard box, the rest then man to man. The idea being that any ball in the 6 yard box should be the goal keepers if it beats the first man.
Our system last year was Carew or Heskey as the one in front of the near post, making a higher delivery from the corner taker essential. These looping crosses are a lot less dangerous than the driven ones such as the one Blackpool scored from at their place. Behind Carew/Heskey we had Dunne, Collins and Cuellar along the six-yard line with instructions that if the ball was coming near whichever one of the three, attack it and clear it. A man on each post, making the goal smaller for Friedel, who stayed on his line purely to save shots/headers, unless they managed to get a cross very near to him (almost impossible with the set-up in front of him). Everybody else in the box, so if a loose ball fell, there was a chance that it would fall to one of ours, or if it fell to the opposition, the box was too crowded to get a decent shot off.
All about percentages, and it worked, by and large.
-
Makes perfect sence to me Percy. So why did he change it?
-
Makes perfect sence to me Percy. So why did he change it?
I think he's just got a dogmatic view that man-marking is better.
-
I'm not sure I understand what 'Zonal Marking' is.
If only somebody could explain it
-
Makes perfect sence to me Percy. So why did he change it?
I think he's just got a dogmatic view that man-marking is better.
You need the players for man-marking and we don't have them When you're playing midfielder's at the back and centre backs at full back (although not really his fault) you have to be very careful with how you set up.
-
I'm not sure I understand what 'Zonal Marking' is.
If only somebody could explain it
I sighed, then I read who posted it, and relaxed.
-
See Percys Post above, there are different variations, a lot of teams i played for would allways leave our best header to attack the ball from the centre of the 6 yard box, the free man, now they have 3 or more. there are still players going man to man
-
I am a Zonal Marxist. Whenever I go through South Kensington I get this urge to seize the means of production
-
looks like i walked into that, but i dont think we have men on both posts either and a goalkeeper rooted on the line
-
From the Mirror:
Gerard Houllier claims he will not be able to fix Aston Villa’s leaky defence until the end of the season.
Houllier blamed the zonal marking system he inherited from Martin O’Neill for the defeat.
Villa’s defending from set-pieces was abysmal and Houllier said: “We were naive from set-pieces and it’s not the first time we have conceded from them.
“The players have had certain habits for four years and I’m not going to change them in the middle of the season.
Oh fuck.
-
From the Mirror:
Gerard Houllier claims he will not be able to fix Aston Villa’s leaky defence until the end of the season.
Houllier blamed the zonal marking system he inherited from Martin O’Neill for the defeat.
Villa’s defending from set-pieces was abysmal and Houllier said: “We were naive from set-pieces and it’s not the first time we have conceded from them.
“The players have had certain habits for four years and I’m not going to change them in the middle of the season.
Oh fuck.
The clock is ticking.............
-
If it's true that he cannot 'fix the defence' then we truly are doomed.
A fucking shambles.
-
From the Mirror:
Gerard Houllier claims he will not be able to fix Aston Villa’s leaky defence until the end of the season.
Houllier blamed the zonal marking system he inherited from Martin O’Neill for the defeat.
Villa’s defending from set-pieces was abysmal and Houllier said: “We were naive from set-pieces and it’s not the first time we have conceded from them.
“The players have had certain habits for four years and I’m not going to change them in the middle of the season.
Oh fuck.
You missed out the worrying bit -
“But next season it is something I’ll address.”
The deluded **** thinks he will still be here next season .....he won`t will he?
Read more: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Gerard-Houllier-has-blamed-Aston-Villa-s-leaky-defence-on-former-manager-Martin-O-Neill-article711438.html#ixzz1Ftg2y8PQ
-
You missed out the worrying bit -
“But next season it is something I’ll address.”
The deluded **** thinks he will still be here next season .....he won`t will he?
Yes he will, so I think a lot of people are going to have to address the issue.
-
You missed out the worrying bit -
“But next season it is something I’ll address.”
The deluded **** thinks he will still be here next season .....he won`t will he?
Yes he will, so I think a lot of people are going to have to address the issue.
I will address it by not renewing my two season tickets - the club should not underestimate just how many feel that way... and before anyone starts wittering on about loyalty or fickleness - just recall Moscow or Eastlands - what price loyalty?
-
The penny will only drop with the owners when there is an exodous of top players using the weary "ambition" excuse so commonly used at Villa, and a huge drop in attendances which is inevitable if the current cautious approach is persued.
It's no use splashing out huge amounts of cash on players but then conceding that there is no point trying to achieve anything or better the position of the club. Intended or not, this is the message coming out of Aston Villa at the moment.
-
There are many things I blame MON for, but our defending from set pieces this season? Do me a favour!
-
Surely man to man marking is the easiest system to implement, how difficult is it to assign our 4 best header(ers) to mark their 4 best.
We're not reacting to the 2nd ball which is what is causing us problems.
-
I still think we are zonal "marking". Percy you said under O'Neill we just lined up our best headers along the 6 yard box. As far as I can see that's what we still do, it's just that our best headers aint what they used to be. What's the difference? In any case even if we are intending to man mark, by doing it very badly our players end up marking space. Which is, by default, zonal defending isn't it? Whatever it is, it's useless and needs fixing.
-
Notwithstanding our own recent record, corners are pretty useless and produce very few goals. Around 2002, FIFA stats had the ratio at 150:1. The new ball might have shifted that slightly since then.
I`d like to address some confusion on here about zone coverage versus man-marking. All of the teams I coached in my final fifteen years up to 2002 employed ZC and goals conceded from corners were very rare.
Here is how Zone coverage is supposed to work:-
- All players come back to defend and are positioned thus:
- One on each post ;
- three equi-spaced across the six yard box;
- three similarly placed five yards further out;
- one short between the goal and the flag
- one on the `D`
ALL OPPOSING PLAYERS ARE IGNORED THROUGHOUT.
Defenders concentrate solely on the flight of the ball and the closest player attacks and clears it from the zone in front of him. No backing up.
This is compared with man-marking which effectively requires a defender to impede or otherwise foul his opponent while ignoring the ball.
We all know that a penalty could be easily be called against most defenders at every corner. What does 'losing my man' actually mean? That he broke free from my grip?. The sight of players dodging and juking with each other in a manic game of hide and seek, whilst both ignore the ball is frankly ludicrous.
Much as I hate to do so, check out ManC. at corners and you`ll see zone coverage worked to perfection.
I commend ZC to all coaches out there. It`s easy to teach, easy to implement and I`ve not yet had a player tell me he preferred old fashioned man marking.
-
Notwithstanding our own recent record, corners are pretty useless and produce very few goals. Around 2002, FIFA stats had the ratio at 150:1. The new ball might have shifted that slightly since then.
I`d like to address some confusion on here about zone coverage versus man-marking. All of the teams I coached in my final fifteen years up to 2002 employed ZC and goals conceded from corners were very rare.
Here is how Zone coverage is supposed to work:-
- All players come back to defend and are positioned thus:
- One on each post ;
- three equi-spaced across the six yard box;
- three similarly placed five yards further out;
- one short between the goal and the flag
- one on the `D`
ALL OPPOSING PLAYERS ARE IGNORED THROUGHOUT.
Defenders concentrate solely on the flight of the ball and the closest player attacks and clears it from the zone in front of him. No backing up.
This is compared with man-marking which effectively requires a defender to impede or otherwise foul his opponent while ignoring the ball.
We all know that a penalty could be easily be called against most defenders at every corner. What does 'losing my man' actually mean? That he broke free from my grip?. The sight of players dodging and juking with each other in a manic game of hide and seek, whilst both ignore the ball is frankly ludicrous.
Much as I hate to do so, check out ManC. at corners and you`ll see zone coverage worked to perfection.
I commend ZC to all coaches out there. It`s easy to teach, easy to implement and I`ve not yet had a player tell me he preferred old fashioned man marking.
Brilliant post Norm, thanks for sharing. In your opinion, does this efficient-sounding system bear any resemblance to the shambolic rubbish that we are currently enduring? It didn't look much like zonal coverage to me when Nathan Baker was facing his own goal and vainly chasing Cahill around our box on Saturday.
-
You missed out the worrying bit -
“But next season it is something I’ll address.”
The deluded **** thinks he will still be here next season .....he won`t will he?
Yes he will, so I think a lot of people are going to have to address the issue.
I will address it by not renewing my two season tickets - the club should not underestimate just how many feel that way... and before anyone starts wittering on about loyalty or fickleness - just recall Moscow or Eastlands - what price loyalty?
Anybody who thinks Houllier won't be our manager next season - barring relegation - is deluding themselves. He is here to stay for next season at least.
And I'm saying that as someone who shares your views.
He's now lapsed into blaming his predecessor for his own failings too. It's not the marking system he has inherited that is to blame as it worked fine under MoN and it is probably the way to go in marking set pieces.
Needless to say I fully expect we will now go and buy another new back four like we did before under MoN but this time to replace the perfectly serviceable defenders we already have.
-
I will address it by not renewing my two season tickets - the club should not underestimate just how many feel that way... and before anyone starts wittering on about loyalty or fickleness - just recall Moscow or Eastlands - what price loyalty?
I heard lots of people say something similar on Saturday Clive, and not just shouty internet types either. Real fans like you, who have just had enough.
-
I'm getting one with my 7yr old but by then we will have a new manager fingers crossed
I will address it by not renewing my two season tickets - the club should not underestimate just how many feel that way... and before anyone starts wittering on about loyalty or fickleness - just recall Moscow or Eastlands - what price loyalty?
I heard lots of people say something similar on Saturday Clive, and not just shouty internet types either. Real fans like you, who have just had enough.
-
You missed out the worrying bit -
“But next season it is something I’ll address.”
The deluded **** thinks he will still be here next season .....he won`t will he?
Yes he will, so I think a lot of people are going to have to address the issue.
I will address it by not renewing my two season tickets - the club should not underestimate just how many feel that way... and before anyone starts wittering on about loyalty or fickleness - just recall Moscow or Eastlands - what price loyalty?
VCTM, I understood Moscow, we had a knackered squad although i think MON overdid the number of changes because he had not utilised the squad before. I can not understand the Fiasco at Eastlands and the manager trying to mug off the fans. I feel for you mate. UTV
-
I can not understand the Fiasco at Eastlands and the manager trying to mug off the fans. I feel for you mate
I can accept that you don't agree with it but squad rotation is surely not that difficult a concept to understand. Prioritising attempts to stay in the PL is also quite easy to understand, I'd have thought.
-
I can not understand the Fiasco at Eastlands and the manager trying to mug off the fans. I feel for you mate
I can accept that you don't agree with it but squad rotation is surely not that difficult a concept to understand. Prioritising attempts to stay in the PL is also quite easy to understand, I'd have thought.
and it's all working so well. I just don't know why people are so upset.
-
I can not understand the Fiasco at Eastlands and the manager trying to mug off the fans. I feel for you mate
I can accept that you don't agree with it but squad rotation is surely not that difficult a concept to understand. Prioritising attempts to stay in the PL is also quite easy to understand, I'd have thought.
and it's all working so well. I just don't know why people are so upset.
Yes, I can understand that people are upset. I have the ability to comprehend things that I might not agree with.
-
I can not understand the Fiasco at Eastlands and the manager trying to mug off the fans. I feel for you mate
I can accept that you don't agree with it but squad rotation is surely not that difficult a concept to understand. Prioritising attempts to stay in the PL is also quite easy to understand, I'd have thought.
I have no problem with squad rotation, a thing that was an anathema to our last manager. GH has since admited that he should have told the fans that the FA Cup was not a priority, which is contradictory to the statements he made before the game. Changing 8 players is not squad rotation as i understand it, it is picking a completely different team. So its ok for our manager to be disingenuous and so lilly livered that he does not believe he can get 10 points from 10 games against the teams that we were about to face. I would have accepted squad rotation against Citeh but nor surrender.
-
It's not lilly livered or any of the other emotive tosh spewed out in recent days, it was pragmatism. We are in a relegation fight and he decided to try to protect some of his players for what he (and i'm guessing Randy) considered the priority of avoiding it. As it was our only fit and experienced centre half picked up an injury so the risks were real.
I though he made a couple of changes too many but then I'm not charged with ensuring we stay in the league so it us easy for me to say.
-
Was it pragmatic to put young and downing on when the game was effectively over and risk losing them to injury?
-
Chris if you think it is OK for The Villa to give up on the FA Cup because our manger has put us in such a perilous position then fine. So why put 2 of our first team on when the game was lost? You think his decisions were pragmatic and some think it was cowardice. It looks like his decision was the last straw for many supporters who have said that they wont renew season tickets and dont feel that they can trust the manager. So we can disagree on the merits of this arguement but GH has managed to disenfranchise a lot of supporters by his actions and comments. This is not goood for our Club.
-
Was it pragmatic to put young and downing on when the game was effectively over and risk losing them to injury?
The problem was they were both warming up for about 10 minutes and were ready to come on just when Man City scored. If they had come on 3-4 minutes earlier they might (I say might) have been able to make an effect on the game. Who knows, one goal for us and it might have been a different story.
So, if GH did do it wrong, it was not getting them on sooner. (Personally I would have done it at half time).
-
Chris if you think it is OK for The Villa to give up on the FA Cup because our manger has put us in such a perilous position then fine. So why put 2 of our first team on when the game was lost? You think his decisions were pragmatic and some think it was cowardice. It looks like his decision was the last straw for many supporters who have said that they wont renew season tickets and dont feel that they can trust the manager. So we can disagree on the merits of this arguement but GH has managed to disenfranchise a lot of supporters by his actions and comments. This is not goood for our Club.
Supporters often say that things are the last straw, they rarely mean it.
-
Chris if you think it is OK for The Villa to give up on the FA Cup because our manger has put us in such a perilous position then fine. So why put 2 of our first team on when the game was lost? You think his decisions were pragmatic and some think it was cowardice. It looks like his decision was the last straw for many supporters who have said that they wont renew season tickets and dont feel that they can trust the manager. So we can disagree on the merits of this arguement but GH has managed to disenfranchise a lot of supporters by his actions and comments. This is not goood for our Club.
Supporters often say that things are the last straw, they rarely mean it.
Given our poor attendances this season, I'd say that several thousand of them very much mean it, and even more will do so next year.
-
Chris if you think it is OK for The Villa to give up on the FA Cup because our manger has put us in such a perilous position then fine. So why put 2 of our first team on when the game was lost? You think his decisions were pragmatic and some think it was cowardice. It looks like his decision was the last straw for many supporters who have said that they wont renew season tickets and dont feel that they can trust the manager. So we can disagree on the merits of this arguement but GH has managed to disenfranchise a lot of supporters by his actions and comments. This is not goood for our Club.
Supporters often say that things are the last straw, they rarely mean it.
Given our poor attendances this season, I'd say that several thousand of them very much mean it, and even more will do so next year.
Poor? Compared to the crowds we got under our last manager they've gone down but in historical terms they're not too bad at all, but that's down to league position and the economic climate, surely. If we do better next season then crowds will go back up.
There is a lot less less wrong with the team that some of you suggest. Take away the major issue of defending sermon pieeces and we're a top 8 side at least. Our manager is an experienced man with a proven track record, do you really think it is beyond him to address that in the summer.
-
So you're saying that if we conceded less goals, we'd win more games and be higher up the table? Well, can't argue with that kind of insight.
-
So you're saying that if we conceded less goals, we'd win more games and be higher up the table? Well, can't argue with that kind of insight.
No, I'm saying that in a transition season, badly hampered by injuries, that the manager has now got the team playing a lot of good football as shown by the number of chances created in our last 2 league games where we've scored 6 and could have had double that. There is an issue with defending set pieces but injuries have been a large part of it, things had tightened up recently but the latest batch has caused us further problems. That's an issue to be sorted in the summer and, given his record, I am confident it will be addressed.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
-
I'm wondering what excuse will be used next year for our defensive frailties. My money is on leaves on the line or the wrong kind of snow.
-
I hope we're better next season, but unfortunately that's all it is - hope!
I can see where he adds value thus far (good transfer dealings and improved style of play) but what he seems to lack is that competitive edge and motivational skill needed. I look forward to more of his signings and more good football next season, but I think we'll get that and be using the word 'underachieved' a lot.
-
A lot of people on here make the mistake of thinking that when we have a perceived weakness, the manager will sort it out, and other areas of the team will stay at the same level and everyhting will fall into place. Under O'Neill we started off by scoring lots of goals, but with a shit defence. Then when he tightened the defence up last year, we scored far fewer goals. Houllier may well shore up the defence next year, but if say, Ashley Young and Agbonlahor move on, then we'll need a big spend on new attacking players as well.
-
The first new face I'd like to see next year is a decent keeper. Whoever is in charge then can build the defence around him.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I don't think the teams in those positions can be completely happy that they are safe from the drop.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
If's and but's are of no help Chris.
If we'd turned four of draws into wins, we'd be 8 points better half.
But it's meaningless, what's the point in saying it?
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I don't think the teams in those positions can be completely happy that they are safe from the drop.
I would imagine that the likes of Everton and Fulham are a damn sight happier than us.
-
I hope we're better next season, but unfortunately that's all it is - hope!
I can see where he adds value thus far (good transfer dealings and improved style of play) but what he seems to lack is that competitive edge and motivational skill needed. I look forward to more of his signings and more good football next season, but I think we'll get that and be using the word 'underachieved' a lot.
I wonder how much of it is down to the players though.
He's got rid of Carew/Ireland already who he clearly didn't like, and with Warnock/Beye on the sidelines for their piss poor attitude he's making a stand.
However I also think the likes of Friedel, Petrov, NRC, and Dunne have a fair idea that they too will be on the way in the Summer.
Now I'm not saying that they are all that unprofessional that they aren't going to put the effort in, but at the same time I wonder if they think it's worth busting a gut and risking an injury for the team.
-
We are in a right 2 and 8 this season but at least the manager knows it. Concentrate on stopping up and then go for honours next season (e.g. Darren Bent can play for us in the FA Cup next season).
As January proved, for the first time in ages we have a manager who I trust in the transfer market and I think we will see the biggest upheaval in our squad since BFR in 1991. Two years after that we were challenging for the league and the year after that we won a cup.
With reference to Zonal marking, I dont think we should change it now for the reasons Houllier has stated. However the short term coaching has to improve as we cant afford to leak goals like we did at Bolton week on week.
-
It's a tight league where one or two results going the other way can make a big difference. However, if we're going to do that then we should also ask ourselves where we'd be if one or two didn't go our way....
-
It's a tight league where one or two results going the other way can make a big difference. However, if we're going to do that then we should also ask ourselves where we'd be if one or two didn't go our way....
Exactly, it's a completely pointless exercise. I'm sure all teams have excuses why they could have a few more points as well. We are where we deserve to be.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
I agree, but why can't some fans see this ?
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
I agree, but why can't some fans see this ?
What use is saying we should be in 'blah-blah' position when we're in a relegation scrap?
Almost as bad as 'too good to go down.'
-
It's a tight league where one or two results going the other way can make a big difference. However, if we're going to do that then we should also ask ourselves where we'd be if one or two didn't go our way....
And there are that many teams in the same relegation fight that every week there are 2/3 games where they are playing each other. For example -
Aston Villa v Wolves
Blackburn v Blackpool
Stoke v Newcastle
Wigan v Birmingham
Everton v Fulham
So if (and it is an if) we beat Wolves and all the other results go against us we still are guaranteed to increase the gap between us and 3rd bottom.
-
@VillaSubmariner
Yes, there probably were 'wasters' in there when he took over and he's made good moves getting shot of them. However, I still don't see a side out there that look like they're willing to run through walls for their manager. He needs to get inside their heads, even the ones who may be off in the summer, and get them playing to their optimum for Aston Villa, which again I don't see.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
If's and but's are of no help Chris.
If we'd turned four of draws into wins, we'd be 8 points better half.
But it's meaningless, what's the point in saying it?
Beacuse it's true.
If you were expecting 10th - 12th then we are currently one place outside that. We've had the worst run of injuries I have ever known as a Villa fan, on top of losing our best player, the managerial upheavals and unrest from some squad members. How can you just ignore that and pretend it isn't a major part of the reason why this season has been so disappointing.
-
Brilliant post Norm, thanks for sharing. In your opinion, does this efficient-sounding system bear any resemblance to the shambolic rubbish that we are currently enduring? It didn't look much like zonal coverage to me when Nathan Baker was facing his own goal and vainly chasing Cahill around our box on Saturday.
Indeed it was, but don't you think the fact we had a defence made up of so many new faces in new positions hindered us.
Don't you think Baker playing only his second PL game and returning from injury, might not be up to speed and / or good enough as a contributory factor.
Over all the defence did ok considering Bolton aren't anyone's fools at home this season and yes while as in several seasons under Mon the defence has not been as good as last season, there are plenty of contributing factors this term, factors absent in the poor defensive play under Mon, when he usually had a full squad to pick from, several transfer windows to change players and no early season disruptions.
-
I never thought I'd see the day where I would be in as much agreement as I am with Chris Smith!
-
I never thought I'd see the day where I would be in as much agreement as I am with Chris Smith!
Everyone gets there in the end!
-
The way I see it, and I know others will disagree with me, is as follows:-
Villa squad after Martin left - 6th
Villa squad after martin left, but without Milner - 8th
Villa squad after Martin left, but without Milner and carrying injuries - 12th-15th
Villa squad after Martin left, but without Milner and carry injuries, plus Bent - 9th-10th
Villa squad after Martin left, but without Milner and injuries cleared up, plus Bent - 6th-8th
Now, we can argue about what effect and for how long the injuries had, but ultimately a top half finish is not unrealistic given what he's had to work with at any given time during this season. Lets see if he can produce it.
-
The way I see it, and I know others will disagree with me, is as follows:-
Villa squad after Martin left - 6th
Villa squad after martin left, but without Milner - 8th
Villa squad after Martin left, but without Milner and carrying injuries - 12th-15th
Villa squad after Martin left, but without Milner and carry injuries, plus Bent - 9th-10th
Villa squad after Martin left, but without Milner and injuries cleared up, plus Bent - 6th-8th
Now, we can argue about what effect and for how long the injuries had, but ultimately a top half finish is not unrealistic given what he's had to work with at any given time during this season. Lets see if he can produce it.
That's fair but I think it mostly depends on getting some centre halves back fit. If we have to play Clarke and Baker for any length of time then I have my doubts.
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January. We have about 235 central midfielders, yet it has been obvious from the off this season that the defence has gone to pot.
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January
Nothing other than money and availability, you mean.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
I agree, but why can't some fans see this ?
What use is saying we should be in 'blah-blah' position when we're in a relegation scrap?
Almost as bad as 'too good to go down.'
If your Aunti had balls she would be your uncle
The fact is in the last 24 league games we have won 5
We are exactly where we deserve to be, we have had opportunities to get ourserlves out of the shit but can't.
A loss to Wolves and I'll be shitting is as i dont fancy us in a roll your sleeves up relegation scrap
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January
Nothing other than money and availability, you mean.
As available as Darren Bent?
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January
Nothing other than money and availability, you mean.
Money obviously wasn't a factor.
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January
Nothing other than money and availability, you mean.
Money obviously wasn't a factor.
Why? We spent a lot of money, I don't think funds are unlimited.
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January
Nothing other than money and availability, you mean.
Money obviously wasn't a factor.
Why? We spent a lot of money, I don't think funds are unlimited.
It's a relief to me that we didn't get anybody in.
He was hot on the trail of Chris Samba AKA Eric Young remixed.
-
I never thought I'd see the day where I would be in as much agreement as I am with Chris Smith!
I know, I'm in the same boat (or is it ship?), I keep having to look and try to find something to argue with.
-
I
-
I
We should never let George VI on here.
-
I accepted this season as a transitional one, by that I thought 10th - 12th, not fighting fucking relegation.
I think but for the horrendous run of injuries we would have another 6-10 points and be comfortably top half, as it is we are 13th.
I agree, but why can't some fans see this ?
What use is saying we should be in 'blah-blah' position when we're in a relegation scrap?
Almost as bad as 'too good to go down.'
If your Aunti had balls she would be your uncle
The fact is in the last 24 league games we have won 5
We are exactly where we deserve to be, we have had opportunities to get ourserlves out of the shit but can't.
A loss to Wolves and I'll be shitting is as i dont fancy us in a roll your sleeves up relegation scrap
losing to Wolves is unthinkable,
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
I agree. The defenders have been below par, and GH must take the blame for this, particularly the fact that Dunne was overweight and unfit for half a season.
On the other side, Clark has done well and Luke Young has proved himself capable at PL level. I think we should give MON credit for this.
-
On the other side, Clark has done well and Luke Young has proved himself capable at PL level. I think we should give MON credit for this.
He's played in the Premier League continually for the last thirteen years. Hardly cause for crediting Martin.
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
Spot on.
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
Spot on.
Yep.
Regardless of the personnel, the mistakes have been schoolboy-ish.
The buck stops with the manager and the coaching staff.
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
Spot on.
No it's not, it's mostly bollocks. Since GH took over, even you surely aren't going to criticise him for things that happened before he arrived, he's rarely been able to put out the same defence 2 games running and injuries have also deprived him of senior midfiled players to protect them.
Since January when senior players returned we stopped conceding as many goals, 5 in 6 games at one point. Injuries again on Saturday and we suffered for it.
To say that it hasn't had an impact is a distortion of the facts.
-
Since January when senior players returned we stopped conceding as many goals, 5 in 6 games at one point Injuries again on Saturday and we suffered for it.
The bit in bold, which games were they?
-
Since January when senior players returned we stopped conceding as many goals, 5 in 6 games at one point Injuries again on Saturday and we suffered for it.
The bit in bold, which games were they?
His first 6 PL games. Yet they'll have you believe the problem stems from what he inherited.
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
Spot on.
I thought it took Houllier 6 games to get Dunne looking fit and another 2 to get him acting so.
I always thought the defence was more than just 2 cb's too, perhaps I git that wrong too.
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
Spot on.
I thought it took Houllier 6 games to get Dunne looking fit and another 2 to get him acting so.
I always thought the defence was more than just 2 cb's too, perhaps I git that wrong too.
Fair point actually. We've had no settled left back this season and only a had a regular right bak since Walker came in (during which time results have improved).
-
Since January when senior players returned we stopped conceding as many goals, 5 in 6 games at one point Injuries again on Saturday and we suffered for it.
The bit in bold, which games were they?
His first 6 PL games. Yet they'll have you believe the problem stems from what he inherited.
So, since January we haven't had a spell where we conceded 5 goals in 6 games?
-
We haven't suffered from horrendous injuries at centre half.
Collins and Dunne have each missed only a handful of league games, some of which were unrelated to injuries. How many times has Carlos sat on the bench? Clark has generally been exceptional for a defender in his inaugral season.
People are using injuries to excuse a totally unacceptable performance from the manager with this squad at his disposal.
Spot on.
I thought it took Houllier 6 games to get Dunne looking fit and another 2 to get him acting so.
I always thought the defence was more than just 2 cb's too, perhaps I git that wrong too.
Dunne still doesn't look fit to me.
-
I personally hate zonal bollocks, a man each on the post with the rest of them man for man and it also helps if the keeper can come and collect a cross.
oh and a speedster ready on the halfway line ready for the clearances.
UTV
The Doc
-
Since January when senior players returned we stopped conceding as many goals, 5 in 6 games at one point Injuries again on Saturday and we suffered for it.
The bit in bold, which games were they?
His first 6 PL games. Yet they'll have you believe the problem stems from what he inherited.
So, since January we haven't had a spell where we conceded 5 goals in 6 games?
5/1 Villa 0 - Sunderland 1 (Cuellar, Dunne, Clark, Collins)
8/1 Sheff Utd 1 - Villa 3 (Cuellar, Dunne, Clark, Walker)
16/1 Blues 1 - Villa 1 (Dunne, Walker, Clark, Collins)
22/1 Villa 1 - Man City 0 (Cuellar, Dunne, Clark, Collins)
25/1 Wigan 1 - Villa 2 (Cuellar, Dunne, Baker, Collins)
29/1 Villa 3 - Blackburn 1 (Cuellar, Baker, Walker, Clark)
So, if you include the cup games, we have. Interesting to see the presence of Cuellar in much of that run
A better record, but our defence has looked iffy on an almost uninterrupted basis from the start of the season.
There are a lot of things Gerard has had to put up with which weren't his fault (bad luck) or were hangovers from the MON era, but I honestly don't think the defence is something he can blame on what he inherited.
-
Even if you introduce cup games which is daft, those 6 games were bookended by four games in which we conceded 12 goals, which I suppose doesn't quite fit in with the point being made.
-
Even if you introduce cup games which is daft, those 6 games were bookended by four games in which we conceded 12 goals, which I suppose doesn't quite fit in with the point being made.
Why is it daft?
It is a run of 6 games in which we conceded 5 goals which is what we were talking about.
I'm quite happy to say I think Gerard is fucking clueless when it comes to the defence - I think he is - but it is a bit daft to ignore facts because they purely aren't convenient.
-
For me, the crux of the matter is still the personnel involved; it's wrong of Houllier to blame O'Neill for defensive shortcoming as last season we were pretty tight, but I generally think that when we've had our key defenders available, we've looked stronger. The back four for those selected games shows we had at least two, if not three, of our senior defenders playing.
I'm not sure it's anything more complicated than that, to be honest. Put Luke Young at CB alongside Clark and we look vulnerable? Who'd have thunk it? Chris Herd at right-back for Man City away, shaky? No way! Etc...
-
I'm quite happy to say I think Gerard is fucking clueless when it comes to the defence - I think he is - but it is a bit daft to ignore facts because they purely aren't convenient.
Convenient would be ignoring the 12 goals we conceded either side of those games.
-
I'm quite happy to say I think Gerard is fucking clueless when it comes to the defence - I think he is - but it is a bit daft to ignore facts because they purely aren't convenient.
Convenient would be ignoring the 12 goals we conceded either side of those games.
No. That's irrelevant.
Chris said we had a spell of 6 games where we conceded 5 goals, indicating that we are capable of putting a run together.
VD said it was at the start of the season, you implied we hadn't done it, I was just pointing out that, actually, we have.
-
I'm quite happy to say I think Gerard is fucking clueless when it comes to the defence - I think he is - but it is a bit daft to ignore facts because they purely aren't convenient.
Convenient would be ignoring the 12 goals we conceded either side of those games.
No. That's irrelevant.
Chris said we had a spell of 6 games where we conceded 5 goals, indicating that we are capable of putting a run together.
VD said it was at the start of the season, you implied we hadn't done it, I was just pointing out that, actually, we have.
Chris was using it as evidence that when we had some of the senior players together, that the defence improved. The fact that we conceded a shedload of goals other than in his carefully selected sample shows it's rubbish, whether you include cup games or not.
-
Chris was using it as evidence that when we had some of the senior players together, that the defence improved.
Isn't it a fucker when facts get in the way of your prejudices?
The 2 games before were Man City (Warnock and Lichaj at full back), which most sensible people realise was a low point but we were and then Chelsea (where we played well) and the one straight after was Manu all away from home. Hardly caving in against shit teams
I haven't tried to claim anything other than when we have had our senior defenders available we have been better than when we haven't as evidence to support the rather obvious point that injuries have had a big impact on our season.
-
We've played 24 PL matches under GH. In 20 of those, two of Dunne/Cuellar/Collins have played the whole match.
In the first five of the 20 matches we conceded 1 goal per match on average.
In the next five the average was 2.4 goals/match.
In the five after that the average was 2.2 goals/match.
In the final five matches the average was 1.4 goals/match.
It seems pretty evident the the defence have gotten worse, then improved. Also, it may no be a coincidence that we were conceding most goals in the period when our central midfield consisted of players we have now loaned out to Championship sides.
-
In our latest five matches the average was 2.0 goals/match
-
In our latest five matches the average was 2.0 goals/match
Which gives you an idea of the mountain we have to climb before we even kick a ball.
-
In our latest five matches the average was 2.0 goals/match
Bolton lost 3-2 Walker, L Young, Clark, Baker
Man City lost 3-0 Herd, Dunne, Clark, Delph
Blackburn won 4-1 Walker Dunne Clark Baker
Blackpool drew 1-1 Walker Cuellar (Collins 1st half sub) Dunne Clark
Fulham drew 2-2 Walker Dunne Collins Clark
I've noticed something.
-
It's felt like we've needed to score at least two goals to have any hope of getting something for a large chunk of this season.
Even in our recent run, as a struggling side, if you'd said pre game we would score 3 at Chelsea 2 at home v Fulham 1 v Blackpool away and 2 away to Bolton; you might have been cautiously optimistic that we'd win those games.
A half decent defence (nevermind a good one) and we might have managed a grand total of more than three points from that lot alone.
-
In our latest five matches the average was 2.0 goals/match
Bolton lost 3-2 Walker, L Young, Clark, Baker
Man City lost 3-0 Herd, Dunne, Clark, Delph
Blackburn won 4-1 Walker Dunne Clark Baker
Blackpool drew 1-1 Walker Cuellar (Collins 1st half sub) Dunne Clark
Fulham drew 2-2 Walker Dunne Collins Clark
I've noticed something.
Eigentor and I were referring to PL matches only.
The missing one is Man Utd lost 3-1 Walker, Dunne, Collins, Clark
-
Eigentor and I were referring to PL matches only.
I was referring to PL matches in which two of Cuellar/Dunne/Collins was able to play the full match. That is the reason why my average was 1.4 and Villadawg's was 2.0.
-
If our central defenders are so shit and unreliable, then there was nothing stopping Houllier signing somebody in January. We have about 235 central midfielders, yet it has been obvious from the off this season that the defence has gone to pot.
From what I gathered he tried for a LB & CB in Jan.
-
Eigentor and I were referring to PL matches only.
I was referring to PL matches in which two of Cuellar/Dunne/Collins was able to play the full match. That is the reason why my average was 1.4 and Villadawg's was 2.0.
Sorry, I hadn't spotted that distinction.
-
Even so... I'd say of those five games I listed, the two where our defence was poor were the two games that we literally had a patched-up defence. Yes, we had a strong back four at Old Trafford... but that's Old Trafford.
-
It seems pretty evident the the defence have gotten worse, then improved. Also, it may no be a coincidence that we were conceding most goals in the period when our central midfield consisted of players we have now loaned out to Championship sides.
That's something that hasn't been mentioned that much on this thread, but was (correctly) mentioned a lot at the time - for a prolonged spell we had a very flimsy central midfield which just let pressure be put on the back four, which is not going to be helping any defence.
We started against Man United, for example, with a central midfield pairing of Barry Bannan and Jonathon Hogg. That gives an idea of just how lightweight our middle has been at times this season.
-
That's fine Paulie, and for that period it really was a case of 'muddling through' and making the best of it.
But with NRC, Petrov, Makoun and co being available in our more recent games -as well as having as near close to our full strength backline available as possible, I'd have hoped to have seen more shut outs since then.
Yet our defence still looks suspect, the same errors often being repeated over and over again. The cast of characters may change, but the performance seems to remain the same.
-
We've conceded goals in just about every game this season, no matter who the defence or midfield is. They come from dead balls and open play. Our defensive play is just dire.
-
But we haven't got anywhere near our full strength back four available, which is what I tried to point out by listing the back four line-up over the last five games. We were looking reasonably solid from January onwards, I think. Things have really deteriorated in the last couple of matches but we're struggling for fit players back there.
Let's face it, if Collins and Cuellar are fit for Wolves we'll be okay. If not and we have to go with Luke Young plus AN Other at CB, shall we blame zonal marking/Gerard Houllier/Martin O'Neill or the fact that all four centre-backs are unavailable?
-
FWIW, I firmly believe Houllier has the nous to improve our defence. His technical expertise hasn't suddenly gone out of the window or become out-dated. It just seems that defensive work, strangely, hasn't been a priority so far.
However, if he doesn't want to practice man-to-man marking until the summer, and doesn't believe in zonal marking -- does this mean that we won't be (and haven't been) practicing defensive set pieces at all this season?
-
We've seen the accounts and the issue with the wages. The defence doesn't fit into the current system. Warnock, Beye, Dunne, Collins and Cuellar (and infront of that, Petrov) are clearly players he wants to replace but isn't able to until we've let them go due to the wages issue.
I think Houllier's main fault has been trying to change too much, too quickly.
If we'd have just let the defence 'get on with it' as they were, we might have seen some different results. But as it is he's trying to overhaul the philosophy of the club, but the likes of those mentioned (who are experienced, senior pros on massive contracts and have played for 'big' managers at big clubs) aren't willing to change.
I was calling for Houllier out during and in the immediate aftermath of the Man City game, and it'll never be a decision I'll agree with. But he's done enough good to be given the Summer and the start of next season at least. There's alot of similarities here with what he took over with at Liverpool. Let's hope he can achieve even 10 per cent of that here.
-
But we haven't got anywhere near our full strength back four available, which is what I tried to point out by listing the back four line-up over the last five games. We were looking reasonably solid from January onwards, I think. Things have really deteriorated in the last couple of matches but we're struggling for fit players back there.
Let's face it, if Collins and Cuellar are fit for Wolves we'll be okay. If not and we have to go with Luke Young plus AN Other at CB, shall we blame zonal marking/Gerard Houllier/Martin O'Neill or the fact that all four centre-backs are unavailable?
Sorry, but since February, Walker, Dunne, Collins and Clark, who must be seen as our first choice back four have played the vast majority of matches. In that time we haven't kept a clean sheet and have won one league game.
-
There's alot of similarities here with what he took over with at Liverpool. Let's hope he can achieve even 10 per cent of that here.
10% of what he achieved at Liverpool?! That's not an awful lot to aspire to.
-
Sorry, but since February, Walker, Dunne, Collins and Clark, who must be seen as our first choice back four have played the vast majority of matches. In that time we haven't kept a clean sheet and have won one league game.
However, other than away at Old Trafford (top of the league) we didn't lose until Saturday when we were once again crippled with injuries.
I get it that you don't like the manager but you are making yourself look a bit silly with this insistence that the worst injury run in living memory hasn't disrupted our season.
-
Sorry, but since February, Walker, Dunne, Collins and Clark, who must be seen as our first choice back four have played the vast majority of matches. In that time we haven't kept a clean sheet and have won one league game.
However, other than away at Old Trafford (top of the league) we didn't lose until Saturday when we were once again crippled with injuries.
I get it that you don't like the manager but you are making yourself look a bit silly with this insistence that the worst injury run in living memory hasn't disrupted our season.
And you look a bit silly by calling always people silly for disagreeing with you. Are you five years old, silly billy? The injury run hasn't been half as bad lately, yet we still can't keep a clean sheet, and we're still right down in the relegation battle.
-
Oh good another of your smarmy posts, well done, it really is what you are best at and I'd hate it if you decided to stop.
The point is injuries have badly disrupted our season, everyone can see that other than you and your new best mate Villa Dawg.
-
Oh good another of your smarmy posts, well done, it really is what you are best at and I'd hate it if you decided to stop.
The point is injuries have badly disrupted our season, everyone can see that other than you and your new best mate Villa Dawg.
I don't think anybody's disputing that injuries have had an effect on the season, however you've claimed that when we've had the senior players available, we've done a lot better, and that simply isn't the case as the league table shows.
-
Better, not a "a lot better". Until the Man City game we had a run of losing only 1 in 9 (in all competitions) including a period of conceding just 5 in 6. Compared to the rest of the season that is a decent return and it coincided with a relatively injury free period.
-
however you've claimed that when we've had the senior players available, we've done a lot better, and that simply isn't the case as the league table shows.
But surely we were doing better up until the cup match against Man City -- when GH decided not to play senior players -- and against Bolton when both Cuellar, Dunne and Collins (all senior players) where unavailable. That equates to doing better when we've had the senior players avaiable, not necessarily a lot better, or impressive by any means, but a detectable improvement from our pre-Christmas form.
-
Better, not a "a lot better". Until the Man City game we had a run of losing only 1 in 9 (in all competitions) including a period of conceding just 5 in 6. Compared to the rest of the season that is a decent return and it coincided with a relatively injury free period.
But despite all that though Chris, we're still only 3 points off a relegation spot.
-
True, Clampy, but we've moved up 5 or 6 places so it has been better relative to the others down there.
-
True, Clampy, but we've moved up 5 or 6 places so it has been better relative to the others down there.
I'm not too concerned on what position we're in though, that's not really the problem, it's how many points on the board we have that concerns me. Newcastle are up in 9th and they're only 6 points off the drop zone.
Yes, we went on a little run that steadied the ship a bit, but we're still down there.
-
Clampy, I haven't for a second tried to suggest that we are in anything but a relegation battle. My point is that when we have had closer to a full squad to pick from our results have been better. it's not a great leap from there to think that if we'd had fewer injuries that we'd be in less trouble.
-
I've been trying to find out how many of our goals that we've conceded this season have been from set pieces. Anyway, I did find that we've kept 5 clean sheets in the league this season - that's the same amount as Spurs.
Surprising stat that.
-
And we've got to get rid of the nasty habit of conceding late goals.