• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Alexandre Mendy (transfer rumour)

J Doughnut said:
oh, please take me seriously!

...or alternatively just paraphrase what I have said incorrectly in as patronising a way as possible.

You said we lacked dominance in the air. Which somone quickly pointed out we have won all our defensive headers. We haven't come under too much aerial pressure, so your comment was horseshit.

Then, rather than going, 'oh shit, so we have but I think Ballard is better in the air', you said that everyone kept telling you are defence was good because of our defensive record, until it wasn't. But our defensive record was always good. If you take out the shit shows against Southampton and Blackburn we conceded a goal a game . Also worth noting Hjelde and Styles were our LB on those days.

I didn't say anything about not being open under Mowbray. We got away with that stule of play because our defensive unit is good. We got away without conceding too many under Dodds and Beale because the defence are good (although not as good without a recognised LB).

You can keep saying you can see it with your own eyes, but the fact is we don't concede many.
Click to expand...

We do lack dominance in the air. You look at the makeup of the back four and it can be seen. You see one or two balls floating around like one early against Cardiff that sailed over O'niens head and a more dominant taller player may have been able to head it. Because its not an attempted header and it was misjudged you cannot see or interpret it, because it doesn't show up in a stat - pretty much all you seem to understand. Our defence is good because the stats say it is, regardless of the balance in the side. Is that right?

So far this season its not caught us out. We've fought in numbers, but occasionally we've struggled to make clearances.

We started last season quite open and it progressed under Mowbray that is how we played and results got worse. We didn't have to be getting hammered for that to progress, but it was pretty obvious we were becoming easier to beat. Maybe I should have worded it differently saying 'defensively as a team' rather than our 'our defence' but I've explained enough now to know the difference.

Why would you take out the shit shows - are they not part of the season? Was there no shit shows earlier in the season? Shall we counter that by taking out various high performing wins? What on earth are you talking about.
 

Perryqhill said:
Isn't that defensively though?

We'd lose the ball and call it experience, strength or at times work ethic a quick counter or two precise passes would get teams in too easily. We were quite average in the air in both boxes - very reliant on Ballard without Batth or Cirkin/Alese.

I didn't say the actual defenders were poor - for some reason this is being massively misinterpreted or overdone, although we did lack a left back most the season and that effected us going forward and defensively.

We were just too open and hence defensively not great, because you defend as a team.
Click to expand...

If you're not then you and the person you're debating with are arguing at cross purposes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top