The Centre Back pathway conundrum

[Fordy62]

It’s great to see two young centre halves in Vyner and Moore getting an extended run in the team, in that respect the pathway is good. But can we afford to play both in a fully fit team?

Ignoring the fact that at present we have little other choice (I don’t consider playing Rowe there an option), then I can’t help but feel that both Moore and Vyner each have a mistake in them once in every three games. Having one player in the back line that has a 1/3 game error is probably Ok, you can get away with it. But when you’ve got two such centre halves, it means you’ve got 2 mistakes every three games - which is high and we’re being punished a lot for these errors. 

Dont get me wrong, I think each is capable of playing good football. But both together are a little too error strewn for me. 

The sooner we bring in CB reinforcements, the better. I’m not sure we can maintain a sustained attack on the top 6 with both of them playing together regularly. 
 

 

[And Its Smith]

3 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

It’s great to see two young centre halves in Vyner and Moore getting an extended run in the team, in that respect the pathway is good. But can we afford to play both in a fully fit team?

Ignoring the fact that at present we have little other choice (I don’t consider playing Rowe there an option), then I can’t help but feel that both Moore and Vyner each have a mistake in them once in every three games. Having one player in the back line that has a 1/3 game error is probably Ok, you can get away with it. But when you’ve got two such centre halves, it means you’ve got 2 mistakes every three games - which is high and we’re being punished a lot for these errors. 

Dont get me wrong, I think each is capable of playing good football. But both together are a little too error strewn for me. 

The sooner we bring in CB reinforcements, the better. I’m not sure we can maintain a sustained attack on the top 6 with both of them playing together regularly. 
 

 

Maybe if we had played one of them last season instead of Ashley Williams, they’d be more experienced and improved.  Need to hold your nerve with youngsters and keep playing them. 

[sh1t_ref_again]

2 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

It’s great to see two young centre halves in Vyner and Moore getting an extended run in the team, in that respect the pathway is good. But can we afford to play both in a fully fit team?

Ignoring the fact that at present we have little other choice (I don’t consider playing Rowe there an option), then I can’t help but feel that both Moore and Vyner each have a mistake in them once in every three games. Having one player in the back line that has a 1/3 game error is probably Ok, you can get away with it. But when you’ve got two such centre halves, it means you’ve got 2 mistakes every three games - which is high and we’re being punished a lot for these errors. 

Dont get me wrong, I think each is capable of playing good football. But both together are a little too error strewn for me. 

The sooner we bring in CB reinforcements, the better. I’m not sure we can maintain a sustained attack on the top 6 with both of them playing together regularly. 
 

 

They were good enough in the first 4 games when they had Mawson along side, perhaps its just unlucky, perhaps its Kalas style of play or communication. They are coming up against some very good players and sometimes any defender of any quality and experience will make a mistake that leads to a goal, I would rather we stick with them rather than the rush to chuck them under the bus or have a new scapegoat to moan about

[Fordy62]

2 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Maybe if we had played one of them last season instead of Ashley Williams, they’d be more experienced and improved.  Need to hold your nerve with youngsters and keep playing them. 

I completely understand that way of thinking, but how long do you give it?

[marcofisher]

Mariappa is the one free agent who I think would be able to compete for a place in our team.

 

Thought bar a few stray passes last night, Vyner looked solid defensively and used his pace well to snuff out some attacks. A good squad option for sure even if we bring someone in.

[BrizzleRed]

23 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Maybe if we had played one of them last season instead of Ashley Williams, they’d be more experienced and improved.  Need to hold your nerve with youngsters and keep playing them. 

Agree with this comment completely.

I just hope we hold onto them long enough to get the benefits when their increased experience starts reducing those mistakes.

Sadly I fear it’s more likely we’ll then sell and have to start the learning process again with more young players, but time will tell on that one.

[spudski]

What's obvious to me when watching Vyner, Kalas and Moore as a back three...is how simple it is for a striker to go between any two defenders in the three, and for the defenders to get confused to who's man it is. It's that split second confusion that's allowing the mistakes...constantly checking as to who to mark.

With the injuries we have, I'd be playing a flat back 4.

[downendcity]

I'm guessing that had DH had all defenders available only one of Vyner or More would be playing alongside Kalas/Mawson/Baker.

Credit to DH for persisting with 3-5-2, as he obviously wants to embed this as our default formation style, but 3 at the back does expose 2 inexperienced defenders - especially when up against the quality of strikers that Bournemouth and Norwich fielded.- much more than would 4-3-3, which would need only one of them to play alongside 3 other experienced defenders,

Can only think that they and the team will benefit from the experience they are gaining.

 

 

 

 

[RedRock]

Playing one of Vyner or Moore is ok, playing both is dangerous. 

At the start of the season out of the two it would have been Moore for me. However, Vyner has looked the more assured, so Kalas and Vyner for me in a back four. That leaves Moore as cover for an injury.

[A Horse With No Name]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

What's obvious to me when watching Vyner, Kalas and Moore as a back three...is how simple it is for a striker to go between any two defenders in the three, and for the defenders to get confused to who's man it is. It's that split second confusion that's allowing the mistakes...constantly checking as to who to mark.

With the injuries we have, I'd be playing a flat back 4.

Do you think that central defenders get given a striker to mark, come what may, or do they mark the striker in their own positional zone. So if the strikers are forever switching left to right, would that not confuse any CB especially young ones?

[cidered abroad]

27 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Mariappa is the one free agent who I think would be able to compete for a place in our team.

 

Thought bar a few stray passes last night, Vyner looked solid defensively and used his pace well to snuff out some attacks. A good squad option for sure even if we bring someone in.

From what I've seen so far on tv, my opinion is that Vyner is the better all round central defender.

I wonder if Moore's best position will  prove to be defensive central midfield.

[GrahamC]

Think the real issue is with both Baker & Mawson out, none of the 3 available are comfortable on the left hand side.

I have been impressed with Vyner but he has been given the luxury of playing in his favoured position, Moore hasn’t.

I would also say that with Mawson’s injury history, Baker’s return in December by no means a certainty & last night’s solution of playing a left footer in Rowe out of position at LCB not looking great, there are no easy answers here.

[Numero Uno]

36 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

From what I've seen so far on tv, my opinion is that Vyner is the better all round central defender.

I wonder if Moore's best position will  prove to be defensive central midfield.

Not good enough with the ball at his feet to be a cdm imo.

[Dullmoan Tone]

1 hour ago, RedRock said:

Playing one of Vyner or Moore is ok, playing both is dangerous. 

At the start of the season out of the two it would have been Moore for me. However, Vyner has looked the more assured, so Kalas and Vyner for me in a back four. That leaves Moore as cover for an injury.

I much prefer Moore to Vyner - his distribution. positioning and strength are more consistent than Vyner for me - although I agree with the OP there are too many mistakes in both of them.

Interestingly you could say the same about Kelly while he was here and now at Bournemouth. I realise CB's mature later than most positions but we are very exposed while they learn on the job - it's a catch 22 unless we want to consistently loan in expertise at great cost - which was really the position we have been in since Johnson senior in the Championship - the one season with Webster excluded.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

1 hour ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Do you think that central defenders get given a striker to mark, come what may, or do they mark the striker in their own positional zone. So if the strikers are forever switching left to right, would that not confuse any CB especially young ones?

Man to man marking every time for. Positional zone marking just causes confusion. 

[awbb]

27 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

it's a catch 22 unless we want to consistently loan in expertise at great cost - which was really the position we have been in since Johnson senior in the Championship - the one season with Webster excluded.

I think Kalas was in on loan (at great expense!) that season, though I get what you're saying.

Vyner did well last night. His only real fault was that he failed to scan for their goal (as soon as the cock-up as the obvious "spare" centre back his head should have been on the swivel) and would have picked up Komora and the fact that Hunt was in no position to track him. There was no danger in the middle and he could safely cover him while Hunt moved into the middle in case another player joined the attack. To be fair, I'm looking at the replay to figure it out while he has to make decisions in a split second, but I am pretty sure his head doesn't turn at all.

Ultimately, can he learn stuff like this? If he can, I reckon he has everything he needs to contribute to a Championship promotion side. I really hope he does.

Like several have said, ideally, Moore and Vyner rotate with more experienced heads along side them.  

[spudski]

2 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Do you think that central defenders get given a striker to mark, come what may, or do they mark the striker in their own positional zone. So if the strikers are forever switching left to right, would that not confuse any CB especially young ones?

You defend your nearest man unless man marking or at set pieces. You keep shape and orchestrate between yourselves who's marking who as the game unfolds around you. This is why forwards try to drag defenders out of position to create space.

Three defenders against two strikers often causes confusion as the spare defender often finds himself having to adjust accordingly.

[Rob k]

2 hours ago, BrizzleRed said:

Agree with this comment completely.

I just hope we hold onto them long enough to get the benefits when their increased experience starts reducing those mistakes.

Sadly I fear it’s more likely we’ll then sell and have to start the learning process again with more young players, but time will tell on that one.

You also then have to hold your nerve with the manager when your introducing youngsters and new players to the squad 

[Prinny]

I don't see it as a conundrum at all, you should pick the best team to win the game. If you're good enough you're old enough. Well the reverse is true too. If you're not good enough, then it shouldn't matter about your age. For people crying over the lack of minutes that certain players get, how about they get better? If you need games to make mistakes in, that's what loans are for. They train more than they play. There's a lot of opportunity to get better outside of playing in our first team.

E.g. Taylor Moore. Last season he kept making mistakes, so he got loaned out. Now he was stuck out at LCB, where he was garbage, well he got dropped for it, good. So now if he's not good enough to play that role ahead of Tommy Rowe, he's competing with Vyner and Kalas for their spots. Let the best man win. Football should be a meritocracy. We're not here to help Taylor Moore develop. We're trying to win. Now those two things can go together of course. But the priority is winning. If we're playing a back two, and Baker or Mawson are fit, if they're better than Vyner, then they should play. We have both Moore and Vyner under contract for three years, so I want them to succeed as assets to the football club. I care about the (ugly) badge on the front, not the name on the back.

You can change the names for any of the young players we have. Semenyo was diabolically bad last year. And thus he shouldn't have played. This year he's better and deserves time. Because he got better. you don't NEED to be patient in regards to first team football, you don't NEED to have a commitment to playing young players. You just NEED to pick the best team, and if the academy is producing talent, then it works out. If the academy is not producing talent, then you sack the academy coaches and or scouts. If the first team coach fails in his targets then he gets sacked.

The stated aim is to challenge for promotion. Don't let young players get in the way of that. If they earn minutes through good play, and they're better than their competition, then they get to play. Semenyo, Bakinson. Vyner. If they're not better, then they don't get to play, Massengo, Moore, O'Leary, Wollacott etc

This is where talent ID and self scouting comes in. Holden "just" needs to identify the players who are good enough, now and going forwards. And he's been around them so long, that he doesn't have any excuses over missing on any of them. The fact we gave Moore and Vyner new contracts and then have had to already drop one of them is a bad initial indicator (not final judgement) of the internal scouting. The play time of Bakinson and Semenyo is the opposite. A good initial indicator. You can't really judge until the end of seasons or the end of a players spell at the club of course.

If you're at the point where your bad play is hurting the team more than your good play is helping it (I think the two young centre backs are right there) then you need to be replaced. Which we're looking at doing, or at least getting in more competition. Which is pleasing. The other pleasing thing for me is that it seems like Dean Holden is picking who he believes is the best team, regardless of age or loans or contracts etc. He's just picking on what he believes to be form and fitness even if I disagree.

If you actually support Bristol City, you should care about the results, not whether both, one or neither of Moore and Vyner play for us. Let's try to win football games over developing assets.

[BCFC Rich]

@Davefevs Could we get some tackling, passing, interception stats for the season so far?

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Maybe if we had played one of them last season instead of Ashley Williams, they’d be more experienced and improved.  Need to hold your nerve with youngsters and keep playing them. 

Agree - Taylor Moore - One Loan Too Many?  Yes (imho).  Irrespective of views on Williams, we needed a CB until January, and for some games, him and Moore were our only two fit CBs.  January and Benkovic confused matters.  You could argue we shouldn’t have kept Williams, but I believe contractually we had to extend him til the summer because he’d played a target number of games.  The issue was exacerbated by LJ then not even playing Benkovic.  Recruitment disconnect!!!

8 hours ago, spudski said:

What's obvious to me when watching Vyner, Kalas and Moore as a back three...is how simple it is for a striker to go between any two defenders in the three, and for the defenders to get confused to who's man it is. It's that split second confusion that's allowing the mistakes...constantly checking as to who to mark.

With the injuries we have, I'd be playing a flat back 4.

They need to sort out marking roles and passing-on principles.  It ain’t rocket science....least of all at their level.

8 hours ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Do you think that central defenders get given a striker to mark, come what may, or do they mark the striker in their own positional zone. So if the strikers are forever switching left to right, would that not confuse any CB especially young ones?

Can be both.  Depends on the rules you set.  The issue last night wasn’t which of the 3 picked up 2 strikers, was they only had Campbell.

6 hours ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Man to man marking every time for. Positional zone marking just causes confusion. 

Not if you communicate.  I’ve played in both, one where we tended to mark left and right (most often) but also man-4-man.  I much preferred zonal as it saved me lots of running.

5 hours ago, spudski said:

You defend your nearest man unless man marking or at set pieces. You keep shape and orchestrate between yourselves who's marking who as the game unfolds around you. This is why forwards try to drag defenders out of position to create space.

Three defenders against two strikers often causes confusion as the spare defender often finds himself having to adjust accordingly.

Yep, there are good times to pass-on your man and bad-times, you have to be flexible.  Good players (Pukki / Hogan) exploit the indecision during the pass-on.

I’ve got to say I never found it a problem.  At times we’d pull in the spare man to mark because there were dangers elsewhere.

If you go rigid m4m you are gonna get blocked off and be a single point of failure.  Do you let the midfield runner bear down on goal because you’re marking your man?  Nope....although I’ve played with plenty of players who’s first reaction to a goal is to say “well, I had my man”!!

[Wade Wilson]

Hang on. . .