The future of Houllier and McAllister?

[Clampy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1124722/Have-boots-travel-Footballs-journeymen.html

Have a read Greg.

[Greg N'Ash]

Right...some bird who works for the mail then.....have a look at a dictionary definition clamps


1. One who has fully served an apprenticeship in a trade or craft and is a qualified worker in another's employ.
2.An experienced and competent but undistinguished worker.

[Concrete John]

If I can just move away from the pedantic argument and back to the general question of our defending?  Taking the idea of systems away for a minute, there's one of two personnel issues that have to be taken into account:-
1.  Gezza didn't like Cuellar at RB, due to limted passing and attacking ability, but we then lost that '3rd centre half' to defend set pieces.
2.  Playing one upfront meant no Heskey or Carew, who also helped in this regard.  I don't think it was coincidence that Ivanhoe was put back in at home to Stoke.
3.  From open play our back 4 was exposed without NRC and/or Petrov in the midfield to offer some protection.  The good run at the end of the season with them back in together is again not coincidence.

 

[Villa'Zawg]

Right...some bird who works for the mail then.....

That "bird" appears to understand Zonal defence.

"At Fulham he introduced a basketball defensive system, called a 'zonal trap', where his team moved as a unit when protecting their goal. When he joined Inter Milan in 1995 he asked Italian World Cup winner Giuseppe Bergomi, who had always marked man-to-man, to mark zonally. The team switched from a libero system to a back four and Hodgson asked Bergomi to play at right back.

After taking over at Hamstad in 1976, his first management role, Hodgson and his great friend Bob Houghton revolutionised Swedish football. They abandoned man-to-man marking all over the field in favour of a zonal approach. It is no wonder Hodgson tends to bristle at the suggestion he is an old-fashioned manager."

and a world cup winning centre-half at right back. What was he thinking eh? ;-)

[Greg N'Ash]

Right...some bird who works for the mail then.....

That "bird" appears to understand Zonal defence.

"At Fulham he introduced a basketball defensive system, called a 'zonal trap', where his team moved as a unit when protecting their goal. When he joined Inter Milan in 1995 he asked Italian World Cup winner Giuseppe Bergomi, who had always marked man-to-man, to mark zonally. The team switched from a libero system to a back four and Hodgson asked Bergomi to play at right back.

After taking over at Hamstad in 1976, his first management role, Hodgson and his great friend Bob Houghton revolutionised Swedish football. They abandoned man-to-man marking all over the field in favour of a zonal approach. It is no wonder Hodgson tends to bristle at the suggestion he is an old-fashioned manager."

and a world cup winning centre-half at right back. What was he thinking eh? ;-)

you really aren't getting this are you?

read norm candles definition of zonal marking with percy's link. He's talking about set pieces unless you're claming that everytime the opposition got the ball into our half during MON's time, two of our defenders ran straight to the goalmouth while the rest totally ignored the opposition

[Monty]

There's a difference between zonal marking in-game and zonal marking at set-pieces. What Hodgson did in Sweden and Italy (more so Sweden, Lindholm and Sacchi did it in Italy) was to get rid of in-game man-to-man marking and have the whole team defend more with their shape than with individual confrontations. Every uses zonal now - the only recent time anyone didn't really was Greece in 2004, and they won because everyone had forgotten how to solve that problem. Zonal and man-to-man at set-pieces is different, and to be honest they're both fine if you execute them well. Most teams use a combination of both anyway, covering key zones and key opposition players.

[pauliewalnuts]

"Journeyman" gets used by people in football to describe players who have been around a bit, but they're still getting the meaning wrong.

Incidentally, whilst I found Pires to be largely excruciating to watch (largely, not entirely, note), and think there should be no question of him staying here, I entirely understand why GH got him in.

Look back at some of our injury problems in midfield. We started against Manchester United with Barry Bannan and Jonathon Hogg in the centre, FFS.

We were desperately, desperately short of bodies in the centre, and the transfer window was closed. The thinking here was exactly the same as that employed when MON got Didier Agathe in. That didn't work, either, but anyone who can't comprehend why we made those moves needs to have a think about the circumstances at the time. Oh, and the same goes for Chris Sutton, too.

The fact Barry Bannan was sent on loan to Leeds is totally irrelevant - Pires joined in December. Bannan went to Leeds in March.

[Percy McCarthy]

aye. while i can understand changing from zonal marking to man marking would confuse a thick person at the end of the day its only who covers who and in what area. it doesn't cover what you do when/if you tackle and win the ball and then what you do with it. And when Davies used to go walkies to the left of Luke young, well if thats a zonal system...there's something wrong with the zones.

Zonal coverage has nothing to do with open play. Explained well by Norm Crandles here:

http://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=42616.105

Not having a go here, but you can ask Norm for his coaching qualifications if you like! *wink*

I'm still got getting what you're trying to say percy. Norm candles seems to be talking about set pieces or corners only. Is that it? are all our problems defending down to changing the way we defend set pieces? what about the other 85 minutes?

GH was talking about defending set-pieces when he said the way we defend them hasn't changed. I'm talking about defending set-pieces when I point out the fact that it has.

How we defend our penalty area, six-yard box and goal against set-pieces is probably the most fundamental aspect of not conceding goals. For instance, in the 'other 85 minutes' that you talk about, we'd maybe have possession for half of it, so our goal would not be under direct threat (that's part of the reason why dominating possession is so important to managers, GH included). Then there's all the time that the opposition have the ball but are not posing a direct threat. At a set-piece you sometimes have 19 out of 22 players in the penalty box, the way you defend is absolutely vital. It may well be only five minutes in some games, although I think it's usually considerably more, but is often when the most important events in the match take place.

As well as this absolutely fundamental change, there is the change in personnel (with former regulars Cuellar and Warnock having little or no chance of a game), and the change in emphasis on the role of the full-backs, who are now encouraged to get forward, rather than undertake a more conservative, safety-first role, as was the case last season.

Obviously I think we'd all prefer last season's goals against column, but I'm really not trying to argue about one way being better than the other. I'm just pointing out that, with different players who have different strengths and weaknesses and have been instructed to do different things, what a load of bollocks it is to say that nothing's changed.

 

[Concrete John]

I agree, Paulie - Pires was the right decision at the time as inaction would have been worse.

[Percy McCarthy]

i don't know what your point is Villadawg apart from trying to hide you've got  the wrong end of the stick as usual. Maybe you can supply some made-up stats again to prove that how you mark at corners is all that matters when defending

An important thing to remember here is that our defending at set-pieces was what GH was talking about when he said 'nothing's changed'.

[Greg N'Ash]

i still wouldn't say we've changed out entire defensive system percy, maybe the aspect of set peices to a degree but the rest....nah. Way i see it and this is a simplification, you've got three cogs. Last season the ball was hoofed from the defensive cog out to the midfield where more often than not Milner was on the end of it. This season, the midfield cog and the attacking cog have been changed a bit but you're still getting the likes of dunne and collins launching it to no-one in particular and there's not a milner there to win it and create so half the time we lose it, and there's more pressure on the defence and more goals against. As i said a simplification of our problems but thats how i see it.

[Percy McCarthy]

i still wouldn't say we've changed out entire defensive system percy, maybe the aspect of set peices to a degree but the rest....nah.

To a very large degree, and the aspect of our game that has gone to pot most (among many) this season.

Still a bit of mystery why you, I, Martin Laursen and everybody else can see it, but for some reason GH couldn't admit it.

[Percy McCarthy]

Just in case anybody still thinks that how we defend set-pieces is a minor component of the overall 'defensive style', we let 27 goals in from them in the league this season. I seem to recall that one season under zonal marking it was 1 (one).

But nothing's changed.

[Ian.]

Just in case anybody still thinks that how we defend set-pieces is a minor component of the overall 'defensive style', we let 27 goals in from them in the league this season. I seem to recall that one season under zonal marking it was 1 (one).

But nothing's changed.

Without getting to the big debate about the style of marking the biggest factor about "nothings changed" is the personnel in the back 4 was changing very frequent throughout the season.

[VinnieChase84]

The latest comments from the general in his thread do not sound like GH is 'on the brink' of a return. Just a gut feeling from it.