Why was the defence changed?

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Post Reply
Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Why was the defence changed?

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:35 pm

When the personnel were just getting to grips with the new set up?

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:36 pm

Bizarre. Been part of the problem the constant chopping and changing.

Steve1956
Posts: 17178
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
Been Liked: 6463 times
Has Liked: 2896 times
Location: Fife

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Steve1956 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:36 pm

It's a strange one,Long has been decent .....bet he has a little chuckle to himself later tonight.

texasbrit
Posts: 318
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:42 pm
Been Liked: 71 times
Has Liked: 3 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by texasbrit » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:37 pm

because Dyche is cluless or he has a maser plan that he doesnt want good performances so he can say i told you so to garlick and can get more transfer money in Jan

cricketfieldclarets
Posts: 21464
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 8585 times
Has Liked: 11285 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by cricketfieldclarets » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:37 pm

Just posted on the other thread.

Gibson has been brought here to play. And he looked decent today and his past in the premier league shows hes got good calibre and future at this level.

Lowton to an extent made sense. As he is better going forwards and quicker. So with us needing to attack more at home it made sense. But with hindsight dropping a player whos up for the fight and in form in Bardsley was daft. Its his shirt to lose.

Taylor needs replacing though.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by nil_desperandum » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:38 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:When the personnel were just getting to grips with the new set up?
Totally agree. 3 changes to the back 5 was a totally unnecessary gamble after recent performances.

Espia
Posts: 237
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 5:15 pm
Been Liked: 88 times
Has Liked: 12 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Espia » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:38 pm

Agree. It was bizzare. Especially as the big plus on the backs of the draws against Spurs and Arsenal was the solidity, battling performance of the defence.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by taio » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:38 pm

Right that Gibson played.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by nil_desperandum » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:39 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote: Taylor needs replacing though.
Yes. If a change was to be made then that was the one.

diamondpocket
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
Been Liked: 254 times
Has Liked: 215 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by diamondpocket » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:41 pm

taio wrote:Right that Gibson played.
why? No need at all unless Long couldn't play.

ElectroClaret
Posts: 17773
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
Been Liked: 4044 times
Has Liked: 1846 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by ElectroClaret » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:43 pm

Because he's running out of ideas. Or already has done.
Just desperately fumbling about in the dark, praying something will work.
And I speak as someone who's previously backed him to the hilt.

Dead man walking.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by taio » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:43 pm

diamondpocket wrote:why? No need at all unless Long couldn't play.
He's better than Long. And it wouldn't have changed the result in any case. We were awful in every position with the exception of Gibson. We were never going to do better without playing a goalkeeper.
Last edited by taio on Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by warksclaret » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:46 pm

Its not the changes that made the difference -Gibsons debut has been over due. Its the players not wanting to play for him anymore and total lack of tactics. To get what I mean just turn on and watch Brighton v Arsenal. Brighton went 1-0 down after a few minutes but watch and tell me that 11 are not playing for Hughton. Their running into space and pressing is fantastic.Can't see them lumping it to Murray from all over the pitch. If they lose their fans will go home enthusiastic

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:47 pm

warksclaret wrote:Its not the changes that made the difference -Gibsons debut has been over due. Its the players not wanting to play for him anymore and total lack of tactics. To get what I mean just turn on and watch Brighton v Arsenal. Brighton went 1-0 down after a few minutes but watch and tell me that 11 are not playing for Hughton. Their running into space and pressing is fantastic.Can't see them lumping it to Murray from all over the pitch. If they lose their fans will go home enthusiastic
It was bizarre we finally look to have some energy back and deliver some decent performances then he drops two of them. Absolutely baffling management.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by nil_desperandum » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:48 pm

taio wrote:He's better than Long. And it wouldn't have changed the result in any case. We were awful in every position with the exception of Gibson. We were never going to do better without playing a goalkeeper.
Partially agreed. But Gibson for Mee or Taylor would have made much more sense on current form.

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by warksclaret » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:50 pm

SHP was watching our shape today-deadful. Just hoping for a knock on. 5 at the back but neither full back capable of pushing up to put in a telling pass.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by taio » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:51 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Partially agreed. But Gibson for Mee or Taylor would have made much more sense on current form.
Wouldn't have had a problem with him coming in for Taylor who us way out of his depth unfortunately. The two signings from Leeds have been truly awful.
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum

Steve-Harpers-perm
Posts: 5744
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
Been Liked: 1868 times
Has Liked: 835 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Steve-Harpers-perm » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:52 pm

warksclaret wrote:SHP was watching our shape today-deadful. Just hoping for a knock on. 5 at the back but neither full back capable of pushing up to put in a telling pass.
Exactly if you are playing 5 at the back at home your full backs needs to be pushed up they were so far off the front 2 it was embarrassing. Another bad day at the office tactically for Dyche yet again.

warksclaret
Posts: 6594
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
Been Liked: 1676 times
Has Liked: 754 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by warksclaret » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:52 pm

By the way-see post 13 and what have Brighton just done by adapting like they did. Good old Chris hughton

Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:52 pm

warksclaret wrote:SHP was watching our shape today-deadful. Just hoping for a knock on. 5 at the back but neither full back capable of pushing up to put in a telling pass.
That was down to Everton and us having just a 3 man midfield.

Our full backs couldn't get out and too easy for Everton.

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:53 pm

Sorry, but Long wasn't very good vs Arsenal.
Neither, for what it's worth, was Bardsley probably because he's not suited to 5 at the back rather than lack of effort.

Winstonswhite
Posts: 2530
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
Been Liked: 605 times
Has Liked: 309 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Winstonswhite » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:56 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Just posted on the other thread.

Gibson has been brought here to play. And he looked decent today and his past in the premier league shows hes got good calibre and future at this level.

Lowton to an extent made sense. As he is better going forwards and quicker. So with us needing to attack more at home it made sense. But with hindsight dropping a player whos up for the fight and in form in Bardsley was daft. Its his shirt to lose.

Taylor needs replacing though.
Not sure you can say Gibson has got good calibre and a future at this level when his only other season in the Premier ended up with relegation

nil_desperandum
Posts: 7301
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1823 times
Has Liked: 3948 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by nil_desperandum » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:57 pm

boatshed bill wrote:Sorry, but Long wasn't very good vs Arsenal.
.
Maybe, but Mee hasn't been good all season, but he's kept Gibson out.
(Agreed it must be difficult playing on the same side of the defence as Taylor, [before someone makes that point])

boatshed bill
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
Been Liked: 3137 times
Has Liked: 6682 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by boatshed bill » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:58 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Maybe, but Mee hasn't been good all season, but he's kept Gibson out.
(Agreed it must be difficult playing on the same side of the defence as Taylor, [before someone makes that point])
Can't disagree with that.

NL Claret
Posts: 2004
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:37 pm
Been Liked: 515 times
Has Liked: 209 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by NL Claret » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:59 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:That was down to Everton and us having just a 3 man midfield.

Our full backs couldn't get out and too easy for Everton.
Our full backs aren't capable of getting out or putting in a decent cross. Might as well have gone 442 after 20 minutes. The midfield was a waste of time. Totally outplayed by a reasonable side. The lack of quality was massively exposed today, no fit wide player to choose from and some terrible decision making from the full backs which led to the corner and free kick for the first 2 goals.

Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:04 pm

NL Claret wrote:Our full backs aren't capable of getting out or putting in a decent cross. Might as well have gone 442 after 20 minutes. The midfield was a waste of time. Totally outplayed by a reasonable side. The lack of quality was massively exposed today, no fit wide player to choose from and some terrible decision making from the full backs which led to the corner and free kick for the first 2 goals.
We've seen Lowton get forward with Guddy in front of him, and put decent balls in before.

cricketfieldclarets
Posts: 21464
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 8585 times
Has Liked: 11285 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by cricketfieldclarets » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:07 pm

Winstonswhite wrote:Not sure you can say Gibson has got good calibre and a future at this level when his only other season in the Premier ended up with relegation
Middlesbrough went down because they couldnt score. They scored 20 odd but kept plenty of clean sheets and gibson got in the england squad. We got relegated with Keane...

beddie
Posts: 5134
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1382 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by beddie » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:17 pm

I've no idea and agree the recent defence were just starting to gel. Tarks looked out of position in the first half as did others so expected a full change at half time. I've been supporting Dyche throughout but it's getting to be the same story nearly every week. Something has to change and quickly.

beddie
Posts: 5134
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 1382 times
Has Liked: 511 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by beddie » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:17 pm

I've no idea and agree the recent defence were just starting to gel. Tarks looked out of position in the first half as did others so expected a full change at half time. I've been supporting Dyche throughout but it's getting to be the same story nearly every week. Something has to change and quickly.

taio
Posts: 11520
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 3220 times
Has Liked: 340 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by taio » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:18 pm

Winstonswhite wrote:Not sure you can say Gibson has got good calibre and a future at this level when his only other season in the Premier ended up with relegation
To be fair that would an absurd way of judging him.

Burnleyareback2
Posts: 2664
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
Been Liked: 772 times
Has Liked: 1426 times
Location: Mostly Europe

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Burnleyareback2 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:20 pm

Steve1956 wrote:It's a strange one,Long has been decent .....bet he has a little chuckle to himself later tonight.
Very much doubt he had a chuckle, comes across as a great pro.

However I’d rather he had come on up front instead of Wood.

Granny WeatherWax
Posts: 2785
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:20 pm
Been Liked: 711 times
Has Liked: 88 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Granny WeatherWax » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:22 pm

Wood coming on was the final straw. Managed to get back to Manchester in rapid time.

whiffa
Posts: 1349
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:58 pm
Been Liked: 504 times
Has Liked: 2560 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by whiffa » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:33 pm

My biggest issue with today was the formation of 5-3-2 against an Everton side than seemingly set up as a 4-6-0/4-5-1 with runners from midfield. Having 5 at the back was a mistake for me today and we were too isolated in midfield. Bringing JBG and McNeil on to go 4-4-2 happened far too late and I also think having McNeil as main option on the bench shows how desperate we are for a fit Brady/replacement. No disrespect to the lad, he tried his best - not really the kind of game I'd be throwing him into.

Granny WeatherWax
Posts: 2785
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:20 pm
Been Liked: 711 times
Has Liked: 88 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Granny WeatherWax » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:46 pm

My biggest issue with 5-3-2 is we don’t have the players to play 5-3-2.

Cubanclaret
Posts: 1113
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:35 am
Been Liked: 286 times
Has Liked: 139 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Cubanclaret » Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:41 pm

We played 5-3-2 because Dyche doesn’t have a pair of wingers fit enough to start...and that formation worked reasonably well last time out.
Gibson overdue a start and lowton better at raiding down the flank than Bardsley, also got three games in a week.
Not rocket science.

Bin Ont Turf
Posts: 10948
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
Been Liked: 5154 times
Has Liked: 795 times
Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Bin Ont Turf » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:00 pm

Cubanclaret wrote: Gibson overdue a start and lowton better at raiding down the flank than Bardsley, also got three games in a week.
Not rocket science.
The Gibson point doesn't need to be countered because it's completely stupid.

I won't bother with the two others, because to counter them wouldn't be 'rocket science'.

Spijed
Posts: 17112
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 2892 times
Has Liked: 1294 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by Spijed » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:11 pm

warksclaret wrote:Its not the changes that made the difference -Gibsons debut has been over due. Its the players not wanting to play for him anymore and total lack of tactics. To get what I mean just turn on and watch Brighton v Arsenal. Brighton went 1-0 down after a few minutes but watch and tell me that 11 are not playing for Hughton. Their running into space and pressing is fantastic.Can't see them lumping it to Murray from all over the pitch. If they lose their fans will go home enthusiastic
I think it's a bit unfair to use Brighton as an example. They are in their second year of the Prem. Let's see how they do next year when they've been around the same length of time.

I bet no-one saw how this season would turn out for us after last years events.

jojomk1
Posts: 4735
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 11:20 am
Been Liked: 836 times
Has Liked: 574 times

Re: Why was the defence changed?

Post by jojomk1 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:16 pm

Mee should never have been played in the centre of a three when he can only use his right foot

The manager will not make brave decisions as Gibson should have started instead of him with Tarks in the middle

Post Reply