Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Tonight's lowlights 23:24 - Sep 18 with 994 viewsbosh67

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/coventry-city/120756

Blimey, our defending and defending positions!

At least we can still score a few and the kit looks lovely. But the defending!!!!!!!!!

Never knowingly right.
Poll: How long before new signings become quivering wrecks of the players they were?

0
Tonight's lowlights on 00:04 - Sep 19 with 952 viewsBrianMcCarthy

Ours

1st Goal - nice to see BOS involved, class peno.
2nd Goal - dangerous delivery, lovely finish, superb too-late-for-the-telly dive by their keeper.

Theirs

1st Goal - Kakay too far off and Wallace - oh dear - eyes on the ball and not on the man
2nd Goal - Both centre-halfs too far from their men. Not sure why Lumley gives out to Kakay - maybe he felt he should have taken the far post? Either way, I think he could have been an extra yard out himself maybe.
3rd Goal - Barbet far too weak.

"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Poll: Player of the Year (so far)

0
Tonight's lowlights on 12:43 - Sep 19 with 766 viewsfrancisbowles

Tonight's lowlights on 00:04 - Sep 19 by BrianMcCarthy

Ours

1st Goal - nice to see BOS involved, class peno.
2nd Goal - dangerous delivery, lovely finish, superb too-late-for-the-telly dive by their keeper.

Theirs

1st Goal - Kakay too far off and Wallace - oh dear - eyes on the ball and not on the man
2nd Goal - Both centre-halfs too far from their men. Not sure why Lumley gives out to Kakay - maybe he felt he should have taken the far post? Either way, I think he could have been an extra yard out himself maybe.
3rd Goal - Barbet far too weak.


Agree that Barbet was weak but I believe he was fouled and wasn't it Dykes who lost the man?
0
Tonight's lowlights on 12:47 - Sep 19 with 757 viewsBrianMcCarthy

Tonight's lowlights on 12:43 - Sep 19 by francisbowles

Agree that Barbet was weak but I believe he was fouled and wasn't it Dykes who lost the man?


Having watched it over and over I think - think! - it was Barbet's man. Might be wrong. But either way he was the first man and he had to clear that header. I know there was contact on him but, man, he was pushed off it very easily.

"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Poll: Player of the Year (so far)

1
Tonight's lowlights on 13:02 - Sep 19 with 750 viewsbosh67

Tonight's lowlights on 12:47 - Sep 19 by BrianMcCarthy

Having watched it over and over I think - think! - it was Barbet's man. Might be wrong. But either way he was the first man and he had to clear that header. I know there was contact on him but, man, he was pushed off it very easily.


Agree but as someone said recently our starting positions to defend at set pieces feels all wrong. At corners players have a free run in. We don't man mark and they either power onto a ball or get in behind us, depending if it is a free kick or a corner.

I almost feel our defenders are too worried about conceding a foul by being physical and then not committing to the challenge in the air.

I also said on another thread that our keepers need to be a lot more aggressive and industrial in the way they command the box. Our defenders have to do the same.

We can't play the beautiful game all over the pitch, particularly when defending our area. That side has to be a lot more Alan MacDonald / Steve Wicks. Physically dominate players and put the ball in row Z when needed. Be a bit horrible when needed. MacDonald and Wicks in our minds were much bigger physical specimens than Dickie and Barbet but actually they were pretty much the same heights and builds. It's just that MacDonald and Wicks read the game so well and also knew how to physically dominate opponents. Even Paul Parker at 5 foot 5 would out jump, outrun and bully players well over 6 foot.

Clear your lines and then and only then play a bit of football. There's a lot to be said for old school defending even in this type of playing style.

Never knowingly right.
Poll: How long before new signings become quivering wrecks of the players they were?

1
Tonight's lowlights on 13:57 - Sep 19 with 714 viewsNov77

Tonight's lowlights on 13:02 - Sep 19 by bosh67

Agree but as someone said recently our starting positions to defend at set pieces feels all wrong. At corners players have a free run in. We don't man mark and they either power onto a ball or get in behind us, depending if it is a free kick or a corner.

I almost feel our defenders are too worried about conceding a foul by being physical and then not committing to the challenge in the air.

I also said on another thread that our keepers need to be a lot more aggressive and industrial in the way they command the box. Our defenders have to do the same.

We can't play the beautiful game all over the pitch, particularly when defending our area. That side has to be a lot more Alan MacDonald / Steve Wicks. Physically dominate players and put the ball in row Z when needed. Be a bit horrible when needed. MacDonald and Wicks in our minds were much bigger physical specimens than Dickie and Barbet but actually they were pretty much the same heights and builds. It's just that MacDonald and Wicks read the game so well and also knew how to physically dominate opponents. Even Paul Parker at 5 foot 5 would out jump, outrun and bully players well over 6 foot.

Clear your lines and then and only then play a bit of football. There's a lot to be said for old school defending even in this type of playing style.


I just read warburton’s comments on the signing of Dickie on the offish, I wanted to see how much he talked about his defensive capabilities rather than his ability to play out from the back.

“He is very comfortable in possession. We often talk about defenders dominating players rather than dominating the ball, but Rob is the prime example of someone who likes to dominate the football and that hugely encourages me.
“For a centre-half, he loves to receive the ball in tight areas. He makes good decisions, has a good variety of release, is very comfortable playing it forward and through units and as well as that he can be a very physical player. That makes me confident that he will comfortably make the step up to the Championship.”

Apart from ‘can be very physical’ there was nothing about his ability to defend.

First and foremost defenders should be picked on their defensive ability, playing out from the back should be seen as a bonus, with warburton it seems to be the other way round.

Poll: December goal of the month - vote for your favourite R's goal during December

0
Tonight's lowlights on 14:08 - Sep 19 with 684 viewsBrianMcCarthy

Tonight's lowlights on 13:02 - Sep 19 by bosh67

Agree but as someone said recently our starting positions to defend at set pieces feels all wrong. At corners players have a free run in. We don't man mark and they either power onto a ball or get in behind us, depending if it is a free kick or a corner.

I almost feel our defenders are too worried about conceding a foul by being physical and then not committing to the challenge in the air.

I also said on another thread that our keepers need to be a lot more aggressive and industrial in the way they command the box. Our defenders have to do the same.

We can't play the beautiful game all over the pitch, particularly when defending our area. That side has to be a lot more Alan MacDonald / Steve Wicks. Physically dominate players and put the ball in row Z when needed. Be a bit horrible when needed. MacDonald and Wicks in our minds were much bigger physical specimens than Dickie and Barbet but actually they were pretty much the same heights and builds. It's just that MacDonald and Wicks read the game so well and also knew how to physically dominate opponents. Even Paul Parker at 5 foot 5 would out jump, outrun and bully players well over 6 foot.

Clear your lines and then and only then play a bit of football. There's a lot to be said for old school defending even in this type of playing style.


I agree with the first two paragraphs completely.

Third para - mostly agree, but I thought that Lumley was commanding in the Forest game. Didn't see last night's game yet apart from the goals. But I think it's an area where Lumley has potential.

On the main point about physical domination, I completely agree about physical defending and occasionally the need for safety-first in possession.

I posted this to a friend last night. Hope you don't mind the copy-and-paste but it's exactly what I feel:-

"I just watched the two-minute highlights a few times. We really do need defensive coaching that teaches the basics - if you're close - get closer, hand on the man, touching distance, positioning so that you can see the ball and your man at all times etc etc.

And like you I have yet to see the glory of zonal marking on corners.

None of this would change our shape or hamper our attacking intent."

"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Poll: Player of the Year (so far)

1
Tonight's lowlights on 14:17 - Sep 19 with 668 viewsRangersw12

Lumley should of done better for the 1st and should of at least narrowed the angle for the 2nd

Defending was also awful aswell but keeper should be doing better at this level
0
Tonight's lowlights on 14:54 - Sep 19 with 623 viewsqpr_1968

if we start winning a few and challenging for an upper half of the division, think kakay, who had an excellent first half, and barbet will be solid.
not sure on lumley though.

Poll: how many games this season....home/away.

0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024