Antonio Manuel Luna Rodríguez

[LeeB]

I'm also less than impressed by his defending yesterday, the same could also be said of Vlaar and Lowton mind.

I can't believe we've not got this sorted on the training pitch yet. We're going to get another few hammerings i can see it already. It's all very well having full backs that are good going forward, but my priority for any defender is defending!

I don't see any logic in building a side from the front. We've got to get the defensive side of things right or we're going nowhere fast

I'm not saying anything you've put there is wrong, but has anybody stopped to think that if we follow conventional wisdom in how we play, and how we recruit, we'll probably go down.

The reason I'm so optimistic about Lambert's reign is that he doesn't fall into that trap.

Actually I'd say having one of the poorest defences in the league always leaves you vunerable to relegation. Don't understand your point at all.

The shape of the team is a weakness when we're struggling, but it's also the key to our success. We looked far better once we got the midfield three sorted.

[Monty]

You can go down by conceding too many or not scoring enough - and the latter happens as often as the former. It's an old point, but if you defend brilliantly and draw every game in the league season you'll get 38 points, whereas if you win half and lose half you get 57 points. Building a side from the front is actually the logical option, as you've more to gain than to lose in a 3-points-for-a-win league.

[neo_Villan]

Is it too much to ask to have a decent defence AND attack? Why does it have to be one or the other. I know we had McLeish but that doesn't mean we should be happy with the complete opposite (i.e. Gung-ho, three sheets to the wind approach).   

[Monty]

Well that's the thing - with limited resources you tend to be one or the other, because every team is balanced one way or the other but the richer clubs can afford individuals to make up the difference at the other end (defensive teams rely on strikers, number 10s etc, whereas attacking teams rely on centre-back pairings and goalkeepers). The only truly balanced approach is the Swansalona possession obsession, which takes years to implement effectively (see Liverpool FC). It's tough, but ultimately winning one then losing one is better than drawing two - so start from the front.

[LeeB]

Well that's the thing - with limited resources you tend to be one or the other, because every team is balanced one way or the other but the richer clubs can afford individuals to make up the difference at the other end (defensive teams rely on strikers, number 10s etc, whereas attacking teams rely on centre-back pairings and goalkeepers). The only truly balanced approach is the Swansalona possession obsession, which takes years to implement effectively (see Liverpool FC). It's tough, but ultimately winning one then losing one is better than drawing two - so start from the front.

Put much better than a man with a wife in labour could.

[Legion]

No need to bring politics into it.

[supertom]

The way we play in attack means that our fullbacks are always going to get isolated and/or leave huge gaps behind them. That they're not fantastic defensively will only compound matters. That said I do like Tony. He's no pushover physically and he loves bombing forward. He's impressed me.
Lowton I think will take his game up a level this season. He's fantastic in attack, and getting better defensively. Modern fullbacks aren't going to be rock solid at the back.

Our major problem is still the lack of a strong presence in the middle of our defence. For me, Vlaar is the weak link. Quality center halfs can cover for the defence gaps left by offensive fullbacks. This is why come january I think one of two things will happen.

1- Baker and Okore have become first choice and Baker looks better for having a pacey CB next to him.
2- Lambert goes into the market for another CB.

But as for all the players. Lets wait and see what happens in the season proper, when you can't afford to take your foot off the gas as we did against Malaga. Vlaar seriously has to step up his game though. He looks very ropey, and though you'd fancy him to score 4-5 quality goals over the course of a full season, he's too suspect defensively and worryingly poor in the air. About as poor as I've seen in a while from a CH from one of the better nations.

[neo_Villan]

Well that's the thing - with limited resources you tend to be one or the other, because every team is balanced one way or the other but the richer clubs can afford individuals to make up the difference at the other end (defensive teams rely on strikers, number 10s etc, whereas attacking teams rely on centre-back pairings and goalkeepers). The only truly balanced approach is the Swansalona possession obsession, which takes years to implement effectively (see Liverpool FC). It's tough, but ultimately winning one then losing one is better than drawing two - so start from the front.

Good point.

[PeterWithesShin]

If we had a good attack and defence we'd be CL contenders. We're not so i'll settle for consecutive scores along the lines of 5-2, 2-2, 1-5, 6-0, 3-3, 0-4 etc rather than a  bunch of 0-0, 1-0, 0-1 and so on. I'm old and I want to be entertained.

[Mister E]

Well that's the thing - with limited resources you tend to be one or the other, because every team is balanced one way or the other but the richer clubs can afford individuals to make up the difference at the other end (defensive teams rely on strikers, number 10s etc, whereas attacking teams rely on centre-back pairings and goalkeepers). The only truly balanced approach is the Swansalona possession obsession, which takes years to implement effectively (see Liverpool FC). It's tough, but ultimately winning one then losing one is better than drawing two - so start from the front.

Which is why the MF three needs to contain a Delph and a Sylla type of player; they track back and cover their fullbacks really well.

[eamonn]

Swansalona...hawt!

[saunders_heroes]

If we had a good attack and defence we'd be CL contenders. We're not so i'll settle for consecutive scores along the lines of 5-2, 2-2, 1-5, 6-0, 3-3, 0-4 etc rather than a  bunch of 0-0, 1-0, 0-1 and so on. I'm old and I want to be entertained.

I don't see anything entertaining in getting thrashed every few weeks. It's embarrassing.

[Monty]

If we had a good attack and defence we'd be CL contenders. We're not so i'll settle for consecutive scores along the lines of 5-2, 2-2, 1-5, 6-0, 3-3, 0-4 etc rather than a  bunch of 0-0, 1-0, 0-1 and so on. I'm old and I want to be entertained.

I don't see anything entertaining in getting thrashed every few weeks. It's embarrassing.

How did you miss the bit about winning 5-2 and 6-0 as well?

[saunders_heroes]

If we had a good attack and defence we'd be CL contenders. We're not so i'll settle for consecutive scores along the lines of 5-2, 2-2, 1-5, 6-0, 3-3, 0-4 etc rather than a  bunch of 0-0, 1-0, 0-1 and so on. I'm old and I want to be entertained.

I don't see anything entertaining in getting thrashed every few weeks. It's embarrassing.

How did you miss the bit about winning 5-2 and 6-0 as well?

But in the real world we're more likely to be on the end of a thrashing than the ones dishing them out. Our defence is still a worry.

[Monty]

But in the real world we're more likely to be on the end of a thrashing than the ones dishing them out. Our defence is still a worry.

...But...the point is that we play a risky attacking style which is as likely to thrash as to get thrashed. How are you not getting the point?