Our defensive coaches - are they up to it?

[southvillekiddy]

Setting aside all the injuries to our defensive players - which is a separate issue (I thought we now had the facilities at Failand to better improve the recovery of our players and indeed regimes to reduce the likelihood of injuries) - it seems to me that our defence coaches cannot teach our players how to hang onto a lead, as other teams can.

I seem to remember that we have one of the worst if not the worst record in the League in this respect? 

[Dr Balls]

11 minutes ago, southvillekiddy said:

Setting aside all the injuries to our defensive players - which is a separate issue (I thought we now had the facilities at Failand to better improve the recovery of our players and indeed regimes to reduce the likelihood of injuries) - it seems to me that our defence coaches cannot teach our players how to hang onto a lead, as other teams can.

I seem to remember that we have one of the worst if not the worst record in the League in this respect? 

We have defensive coaches? I think that if the exist that they could be prosecuted under the trades description act. There has been no evidence of any defensive coaching all season.

[frenchred]

No

[LondonBristolian]

Up to it or not, we have to also be massively affected by never playing an actual defender on the right side of our defence.

[wendyredredrobin]

Based on today's diabolical performance, it's not only the defensive coaches that don't seem up to it.

We don't seem to have a clue what to do with the ball when we do get it other than lump it up to two forwards who can't win bugger all in the air.

Edited December 26, 2022 by wendyredredrobin

[Red-Robbo]

We're weak. Weedy. Powder puff.

That isn't just in defence, but when it is in defence, you have big problems. 

[RedRock]

Set aside the defensive coaching, Euell appears not to have provided any ‘added value’ to the attacking part of the team. Be interesting to see this season’s stats before/after he was appointed. As a team and strike force, I strongly suspect we’ve got worse, not better…. and people are talking about Euell as a replacement for Pearson!

I think the gauge has moved towards the ‘uneasy’ zone on this regime. 

 

[GrahamC]

2 hours ago, LondonBristolian said:

Up to it or not, we have to also be massively affected by never playing an actual defender on the right side of our defence.

It is bizarre.

The first goal was poor judgement by Max but Weimann seemed to struggle to be in the right position on a regular basis.

He’s not a RWB, mind you I don’t think that Sykes is, either.

We started (through choice) with an attacker at RWB & a midfielder at CB, with Tanner & Atkinson (who would have been my choices) both on the bench.

I was making the point today that when Russell Osman was in charge he took horrendous stick for the style of play but his back four (usually Llewelyn, Munro, Shail & Scott) could all defend & whilst we scored very few, they often kept a clean sheet.

We are starting to score fewer (only at Rotherham have we scored more than once since West Brom away back in October) & I have no confidence at all that we’ll keep the opposition out, that’s not a good combination.

[And Its Smith]

It comes from Pearson. Two years….

[Dr Balls]

27 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

It is bizarre.

The first goal was poor judgement by Max but Weimann seemed to struggle to be in the right position on a regular basis.

He’s not a RWB, mind you I don’t think that Sykes is, either.

We started (through choice) with an attacker at RWB & a midfielder at CB, with Tanner & Atkinson (who would have been my choices) both on the bench.

I was making the point today that when Russell Osman was in charge he took horrendous stick for the style of play but his back four (usually Llewelyn, Munro, Shail & Scott) could all defend & whilst we scored very few, they often kept a clean sheet.

We are starting to score fewer (only at Rotherham have we scored more than once since West Brom away back in October) & I have no confidence at all that we’ll keep the opposition out, that’s not a good combination.

First thing is to stop conceding. And we struggle to keep a clean sheet in large part because we are playing players at the back who aren’t really defenders. If you don’t concede you don’t lose. You might not always win but at least you still get points, which is something that we are really struggling to do right now.

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

First thing is to stop conceding. And we struggle to keep a clean sheet in large part because we are playing players at the back who aren’t really defenders. If you don’t concede you don’t lose. You might not always win but at least you still get points, which is something that we are really struggling to do right now.

No argument from me.

[Lack of Action Man]

There's been no discernible improvement in defense/defensive midfield in two years. Based on this, I have to say that our defensive coaches (or more broadly - our coaches) are just not good enough at all.

[Supersonic Robin]

4 hours ago, RedRock said:

Set aside the defensive coaching, Euell appears not to have provided any ‘added value’ to the attacking part of the team. Be interesting to see this season’s stats before/after he was appointed. As a team and strike force, I strongly suspect we’ve got worse, not better…. and people are talking about Euell as a replacement for Pearson! 

 

3 hours ago, OddBallJim said:

There's been no discernible improvement in defense/defensive midfield in two years. Based on this, I have to say that our defensive coaches (or more broadly - our coaches) are just not good enough at all.

These 2 quotes summarise my thoughts on attacking/defensive coaching fairly nicely.

Really not convinced by Fleming and Euell.

[LondonBristolian]

9 hours ago, GrahamC said:

It is bizarre.

The first goal was poor judgement by Max but Weimann seemed to struggle to be in the right position on a regular basis.

He’s not a RWB, mind you I don’t think that Sykes is, either.

We started (through choice) with an attacker at RWB & a midfielder at CB, with Tanner & Atkinson (who would have been my choices) both on the bench.

I was making the point today that when Russell Osman was in charge he took horrendous stick for the style of play but his back four (usually Llewelyn, Munro, Shail & Scott) could all defend & whilst we scored very few, they often kept a clean sheet.

We are starting to score fewer (only at Rotherham have we scored more than once since West Brom away back in October) & I have no confidence at all that we’ll keep the opposition out, that’s not a good combination.

Indeed. And, over the last year, we have also played Scott and Bell at RWB plus I think I have forgotten another non right back who also played RWB - Williams maybe? In that time, we have signed three right backs and released Hunt (the right decision but I’d take him at RWB over Weimann, Bell or probably Sykes). Admittedly Wilson is injured but he was not getting in the team before that either.

It is easy to pinpoint the mistakes that lead to goals but I think another factor of playing players out of position is trust. As you say, Weimann is not in the right position much of the time and that leads to obvious errors but it also leads to Vyner, for example, having to constantly check what Weimann is doing to his right and possibly what King is doing to his left too, which is going to lead to a more uncertain approach - and more errors - from him or other defenders than if they can play with confidence knowing that the players around them understand their roles.

And that’s before we even get onto the fact that we are struggling for goals whilst stranding one of our most effective attackers in a position where he struggles to influence the game.

[1960maaan]

I don't like playing players out of position, or playing players just to get them into the team. We've got away with it previously, but when we aren't scoring loads, those little errors or problems are highlighted.
We have been a little unlucky with Wilson getting injured twice, then when he was fit Sykes had been doing well. Who knows if we would have been more solid with him there. 
After King had a hand in both goals conceded against Stoke , I expected a change there. Because of his Pressers, it can feel like Pearson being bloody minded and playing him to make a point, specially as he had been criticised  for his choices.

Apart from not seeing much of an improvement in defence, I do question Pearsons Subs. I couldn't be there yesterday, keeping up with the game through the BBC site was tough. Seeing the Subs was baffling. 
I know I'd read we were poor in MF and that Scott wasn't great, but he took off 2 MF's and put on a striker & a WB. Not sure how we ended up but I saw some of the last 10/15 minutes and it didn't seem like we bossed MF after the changes.
It seems Pearsons fall back strategy, no thought of how we will make chances, just throw strikers on.

I've supported NP, then when I've got a bit fed up at least I can reason what has gone on. I think he's done an ok job in restructuring and cutting costs. But it has to be getting near the time to push the Panic button. 
That said I have no idea how we could afford a change, or who we could get, or who would want the job with no money, let alone who I would feel confident in making a difference. 
I was hoping to get safe and then reassess in the summer, I think Steve's hand may be forced before. 

[Super]

I'm amazed such an experienced manager is still playing players out of position. It's a moronic call to play last seasons top scorer at RWB. 

[MelksRed]

The fact that our defence leaks like a sieve with the plastic insert punched through suggests not. 

[red ponty]

NO NO NO !!!!!!