Can't defend for shit tbh (6 Viewers)

LJC_CCFC

Member
No point having strikers on fire if you aren't defensively sound. Playing 4-4-2 with the lightweight Thomas and Fleck doesn't imo
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
This is the style of play we are currently playing. 'Score more than you' so far it has been working. It would be nice it we had a more experienced centre half but we have what we have.
 

Wyken Sky Blue

Well-Known Member
Didn't see anybody moan when we were winning, with the same players I may add.

Now we have lost ONE game its back to players being shit at defending. Such a fickle bunch!
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
Didn't see anybody moan when we were winning, with the same players I may add.

Now we have lost ONE game its back to players being shit at defending. Such a fickle bunch!

Feel free to search back to the start of the season when most were pointing out our lack of centre backs.

The goals have helped mask our defensive frailties but they have been blatantly there for all to see.
 

Sutty

Member
In our previous 3 games we'd only conceded 2 goals. Today, the whole team played badly in the second half, hence us conceding twice. It wasn't necessarily an issue of the defenders playing badly.

The most pressing issue is defending set-pieces. That I'll agree is a weakness.

Some Cov fans do love an over-reaction.
 

sw88

Chief Commentator!
Jury is still out on Webster for me. But that aside, I do think that, as well as Clarke is playing, we do need two recognised CB's rather than having to play a RB at CB.

He's doing well, but this must play a part in the amount of goals we are conceding
 

kdrinkell

Well-Known Member
Only one loss not major,we haven't been brilliant at defending for a few seasons now but I wouldn't start panicking...just yet.
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
In our previous 3 games we'd only conceded 2 goals. Today, the whole team played badly in the second half, hence us conceding twice. It wasn't necessarily an issue of the defenders playing badly.

The most pressing issue is defending set-pieces. That I'll agree is a weakness.

Some Cov fans do love an over-reaction.

There are only 4 teams that have conceded more goals in the league than us and they lie in 17th, 19th, 21st and 23rd.

If we hadn't been deducted the 10 points we would be something like 8th.

Based on this would you say we are somewhat fragile at the back?
 

WESTAUSSIESB

New Member
Kdrinkell

Sure your not Australian She'll be right mate, how about we plug the leaky defence now before we drown in relegation.
 

Sutty

Member
16 goals against in 8 games, to me i would say theres a bit of a problem at the back, Hey but i'm no Einstein.

And 22 goals scored.

Cov fans have been moaning for years about negative, dour, defensive football where we never score more than 1 or 2 in a game. Now we regularly score 2 or more and people start moaning about the goals against column.

As has been said in the match thread, we're not Real Madrid or Man United. We won't win every game, and we're not capable yet of being brilliant in both attack and defence.

I'd much rather watch us go for goals but be a bit vulnerable at the back than vice-versa.
 

Sutty

Member
There are only 4 teams that have conceded more goals in the league than us and they lie in 17th, 19th, 21st and 23rd.

If we hadn't been deducted the 10 points we would be something like 8th.

Based on this would you say we are somewhat fragile at the back?

We've scored plenty more than we've conceded. How much of the attacking potency do we sacrifice in order to solidify the defence?
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
And 22 goals scored.

Cov fans have been moaning for years about negative, dour, defensive football where we never score more than 1 or 2 in a game. Now we regularly score 2 or more and people start moaning about the goals against column.

As has been said in the match thread, we're not Real Madrid or Man United. We won't win every game, and we're not capable yet of being brilliant in both attack and defence.

I'd much rather watch us go for goals but be a bit vulnerable at the back than vice-versa.

You are missing the point totally.

No-one is bemoaning our attacking style but it would be nice to have some recognised centre backs actually playing at centre back in order to give us a bit of protection. Surely if we are playing this style and are clearly going to be vulnerable at the back then some recognised defenders playing in their recognised positions might be a good idea?
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
We conceded a lot last season, even under robins with 2 recognised centre backs and a 5 man midfield containing. 2 defensive midfielders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors :)
 

SkyBlueHomer

New Member
We have to wake up to the position we are in as a club. Scrap any idea of promotion, its a case of work with what we have. It may not be possible to get these players in he wants. Keegan style football may at the minute be whats best
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
We conceded a lot last season, even under robins with 2 recognised centre backs and a 5 man midfield containing. 2 defensive midfielders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors :)

I'm lost! So on that basis we should weaken the defence even more because we were conceding goals anyway?
 

Sutty

Member
You are missing the point totally.

No-one is bemoaning our attacking style but it would be nice to have some recognised centre backs actually playing at centre back in order to give us a bit of protection. Surely if we are playing this style and are clearly going to be vulnerable at the back then some recognised defenders playing in their recognised positions might be a good idea?

Jordan Clarke at CB is fundamental to our attacking play. If we can find a physically imposing centre back with his composure and ability on the ball available on a free then sure, let's get him in. I doubt we'll find one though.

In addition, many people have Jordan Clarke down as their MOTM today. He's not as big a problem as he's made out to be.
 

WESTAUSSIESB

New Member
What happens if are strikers go on a bit of a dry spell, which most usually do?.......We need a solid defence to get us some points............
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
We have to wake up to the position we are in as a club. Scrap any idea of promotion, its a case of work with what we have. It may not be possible to get these players in he wants. Keegan style football may at the minute be whats best

Completely agree, however, it is plain to see that we are pretty weak at the back.

Yet people are arguing that we are not. Whether Pressley can do anything about it is a totally different thing.
 

Sutty

Member
Completely agree, however, it is plain to see that we are pretty weak at the back.

Yet people are arguing that we are not. Whether Pressley can do anything about it is a totally different thing.

I'm not saying we aren't a bit fragile at the back. Some are claiming that fragility is down to the personnel, whereas my view is that the fragility is more a consequence of the way we're playing.
 

LastGarrison

Well-Known Member
Jordan Clarke at CB is fundamental to our attacking play. If we can find a physically imposing centre back with his composure and ability on the ball available on a free then sure, let's get him in. I doubt we'll find one though.

In addition, many people have Jordan Clarke down as their MOTM today. He's not as big a problem as he's made out to be.

We'll agree to disagree but for me the amount of goals we have conceded this season so far is not all down to our "free flowing football".

An element of blame has to be apportioned to the whole defensive unit.
 

Marty

Well-Known Member
Defending was poor for the goals. Nothing we didn't already know.
 

pusbccfc

Well-Known Member
I'd play Jordan as a sweeper, have 5 at the back.
Would mean we could push Cyrus and Blair on even more.
Bring in the New lad.

5-3-2?
 

LJC_CCFC

Member
Not moaning just stating the facts as I see them, I said after the Crawley game that playing 4-4-2 wouldn't bode well for the season (It has worked to a degree up to now). I just feel that with a young back four (minus Webster) that the defence would benefit from some midfield protection which you don't get with 4-4-2 as the central midfielders have to try and do everything (which the much limited Thomas and Fleck cannot do). Pressley also mentioned he bases his tactics and formation on Klopp's Dortmund, I think Klopp wouldn't be best pleased to hear that as they play a flexible 4-2-3-1 with one main striker (not the two that Pressley referred to in the article) and are also defensively sound (due to playing two holding midfielders). I have every faith in Pressley but feel he missed out big time by not recruiting a defensive/physical midfielder and another experienced centre half (Obviously the chance to do this may never have arisen)
 

stupot07

Well-Known Member
I'm lost! So on that basis we should weaken the defence even more because we were conceding goals anyway?

But we haven't just weakened our defence, we've weakened our midfield. Defenders always get blamed for conceding goals but you defend as a team. People will naturally point the finger at Clarke, it's the easiest thing to do; but our midfield is defensively weak, plus we play with 2 attacking fullbacks which provides areas of weakness on the channels.

Like sutty says, fans have bemoan negative football saying they would rather win 5-4 trying to score goals rather than trying to scrape 1-0 wins.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse and spelling or grammar errors :)
 
Completely agree, however, it is plain to see that we are pretty weak at the back.

Yet people are arguing that we are not. Whether Pressley can do anything about it is a totally different thing.

I thought Pressley brought in a defender - wasn't it the one player he brought in for the main squad?

Totally agree defence is shaky and with no apparent plan B, the omens aren't good. Just hope Pressley can develop a plan B for games like this - else they will be relying on Clarke & Wilson being on fire every week for the rest of the season. Mind you if they are there will be some cracking games along the way!
 
He's brought in an 18 year old who is going to be a back up.
But as I said he is not really destined for the first 11 is he? Also is SP trying to say there aren't any decent kids in the coventry area - why else bring in a kid from north of the border just to put intp the academy. I appreciate he came out with a statement saying he wanted to build up the scottish national squad, but should he be doing it at the expense of local kids.

I mean right now were it not for local lads we wouldn't have a squad!
 

Covstu

Well-Known Member
There are not many teams in the world that can have a secure defence and a potent attack at the same time, you only have o look at Real, Barca etc awesome going forward but poor at the back (no I am not comparing city to those just emphasising the point). You reap what you sow and our focus is to score more than we concede. We have two full backs who bomb forward and it does cost us at the back but personally I am loving the style of play we have at the moment. Take us back to Bothroyd or Coleman days when we were defensively minded..... no thanks!!

I think we have to face facts, resources are very short and we are very lucky that the vultures haven't taken our good prospects in the summer. Elvis has seen something in our front guys particularly Wilson which no other manager has even given him a sniff and is capitalising on this and it is working. Lets not get the knives out on our young defenders just yet guys.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top