Things I've heard on here this season

[PeterWithesShin]

When I said back 5 I was including Guzan. Lambert uses no defenders that were regulars under Houllier. He bought 3 this summer, i'd class that as changing defenders.

[Dave]

Only now with a new back 5 is it starting to look steady again.

But even then they managed to concede five goals as recently as a few weeks ago.

I don't think any of the defences that we're talking about were that catastrophic, but sometimes these results happen.

We didn't play a back 5 v city

Guzan
Lowton
Clark
Vlaar
Stevens

[paul_e]

Exactly. Lambert didn't need to change the players. He did it with tactics and coaching, something Houllier had people believing was impossible.

I'm no sure who you're answering here Percy but I don't get the logic.  There are 3 key component to our upturn in defending for me:

1: The change of players in the defence.  We seem less likely to make mistakes and, when there is a mistake we seem better able to recover from it.
2: We have  a very vocal keeper who is very good at coming out and claiming the ball.
3: We have two really hard working midfielders who are providing a great shield.

Of those only the 3rd is tactical and I'd suggest the signing of Makoun (to play alongside petrov) was intended to address that.

[Risso]

Exactly. Lambert didn't need to change the players. He did it with tactics and coaching, something Houllier had people believing was impossible.

I'm no sure who you're answering here Percy but I don't get the logic.  There are 3 key component to our upturn in defending for me:

1: The change of players in the defence.  We seem less likely to make mistakes and, when there is a mistake we seem better able to recover from it.
2: We have  a very vocal keeper who is very good at coming out and claiming the ball.
3: We have two really hard working midfielders who are providing a great shield.

Of those only the 3rd is tactical and I'd suggest the signing of Makoun (to play alongside petrov) was intended to address that.

Makoun wasn't a hardworking defensive midfielder though was he? 

[danno]

Exactly. Lambert didn't need to change the players. He did it with tactics and coaching, something Houllier had people believing was impossible.

I'm no sure who you're answering here Percy but I don't get the logic.  There are 3 key component to our upturn in defending for me:

1: The change of players in the defence.  We seem less likely to make mistakes and, when there is a mistake we seem better able to recover from it.
2: We have  a very vocal keeper who is very good at coming out and claiming the ball.
3: We have two really hard working midfielders who are providing a great shield.

Of those only the 3rd is tactical and I'd suggest the signing of Makoun (to play alongside petrov) was intended to address that.

Makoun wasn't a hardworking defensive midfielder though was he?

Sorry to be really pedantic. But It doesn't say anything about defensive midfielders.
It says: "we have two really hard working midfielders".
As for Jean Deus I didn't see enough to confidently say what his ideal role in the team would've been.
He seemed to be good at retaining possession ala Westwood, his tackling however was nothing short of Delph-esque.

[Percy McCarthy]

My logic is that Lambert changed the defence (from a flat back four to three centre-halves) seamlessly and efficiently, within days. Unlike Houllier, he didn't need to change the players (much) or need a pre-season to drill them on the new formation.

My conclusion is that Houllier was full of shit, or a shit coach, or employed shit coaches. For him to give up on making our leaky defence more efficient at defending set-peices, as he admitted he did, was negligent. For people to agree with him that it couldn't be done was laughable.

[Monty]

My logic is that Lambert changed the defence (from a flat back four to three centre-halves) within days. Didn't need to change the players (much), and didn't need a pre-season to drill them on the new formation.

Unlike Houllier.

Given how much he used it at Norwich, I'd be very, very surprised if Lambert hadn't trained them in the three at the back in pre-season.

[Percy McCarthy]

So are you agreeing with GH that problems such as these can only be addressed in pre-season? I mean, footballers are so busy these days, where would they find the time to work on formations and tactics and play snooker, shop AND go spit-roasting?

[Monty]

So are you agreeing with GH that problems such as these can only be addressed in pre-season? I mean, footballers are so busy these days, where would they find the time to work on formations and tactics and play snooker, shop AND go spit-roasting?

Merely that they take time to train into. And that the players GH had at his disposal in defence were, shall we say, not exactly the most tactically intelligent you'll ever see.

[Monty]

An important point as well is that our good defensive record under MON wasn't wholly to do with that back four. Our conservative style and shape meant we were very rarely counter-attacked against, and we looked pretty plodding going forward unless we ourselves could counter (which became increasingly rare). GH tried to change to a more stylish, pro-active style and it blew up in his face, not least because those defenders who had coped fine as blockers were nowhere near good enough to defend high up the pitch.

[danno]

I'd lay blame at both camps Houllier's and the players concerned.
Houllier for his indifference at improving/tightening up what he had defensively straight away.
The senior players for being uncooperative and disruptive enough, to make him decide he had to move them on.

It happened much the same way at Liverpool, he went in and within a year, people like Ince were on there way.

[Dave]

I'd lay blame at both camps Houllier's and the players concerned.
Houllier for his indifference at improving/tightening up what he had defensively straight away.
The senior players for being uncooperative and disruptive enough, to make him decide he had to move them on.

It happened much the same way at Liverpool, he went in and within a year, people like Ince were on there way.

.msg2203068#msg2203068 date=1356032177]
I'd lay blame at both camps Houllier's and the players concerned.
Houllier for his indifference at improving/tightening up what he had defensively straight away.
The senior players for being uncooperative and disruptive enough, to make him decide he had to move them on.

It happened much the same way at Liverpool, he went in and within a year, people like Ince were on there way.
[/quote]
I'd happily agree with all that.

I don't think you can have shit seasons like the last couple without everyone involved being a bit to blame somewhere along the line.

[not3bad]

Certainly would have been interesting to see who would have come and gone of Houllier had had a full pre-season.  Warnock would have been straight out for a start.

[Matt Collins]

Only now with a new back 5 is it starting to look steady again.

But even then they managed to concede five goals as recently as a few weeks ago.

I don't think any of the defences that we're talking about were that catastrophic, but sometimes these results happen.

We didn't play a back 5 v city

Guzan
Lowton
Clark
Vlaar
Stevens

That doesn't make any sense. PWS said 'only now with a back 5' (ie the 5 defenders that we are only now playing). You then said that even then we conceded 5 v City. We didn't play 5 defenders v City!

[Dave]

It doesn't made sense when you omit his word 'new'.

Suggesting a change from the five of Friedel, Dunne, Collins, Warnock and Young/Cuellar to what we have been using this season.

Considering he's already said that is what he meant I'm afraid it's you with the wrong end of the stick here.

When I said back 5 I was including Guzan.