Why was the defence changed?
-
- Posts: 10970
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5185 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Why was the defence changed?
When the personnel were just getting to grips with the new set up?
-
- Posts: 5789
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1883 times
- Has Liked: 840 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Bizarre. Been part of the problem the constant chopping and changing.
-
- Posts: 17249
- Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 1:57 pm
- Been Liked: 6488 times
- Has Liked: 2911 times
- Location: Fife
Re: Why was the defence changed?
It's a strange one,Long has been decent .....bet he has a little chuckle to himself later tonight.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 7311
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Totally agree. 3 changes to the back 5 was a totally unnecessary gamble after recent performances.Bin Ont Turf wrote:When the personnel were just getting to grips with the new set up?
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Right that Gibson played.
-
- Posts: 7311
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Yes. If a change was to be made then that was the one.cricketfieldclarets wrote: Taylor needs replacing though.
-
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 11:18 pm
- Been Liked: 254 times
- Has Liked: 215 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
why? No need at all unless Long couldn't play.taio wrote:Right that Gibson played.
-
- Posts: 17935
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:07 pm
- Been Liked: 4068 times
- Has Liked: 1853 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
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.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.diamondpocket wrote:why? No need at all unless Long couldn't play.
Last edited by taio on Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 6681
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1697 times
- Has Liked: 789 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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
-
- Posts: 5789
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1883 times
- Has Liked: 840 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.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
-
- Posts: 7311
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Partially agreed. But Gibson for Mee or Taylor would have made much more sense on current form.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.
-
- Posts: 6681
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1697 times
- Has Liked: 789 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.nil_desperandum wrote:Partially agreed. But Gibson for Mee or Taylor would have made much more sense on current form.
This user liked this post: nil_desperandum
-
- Posts: 5789
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:52 am
- Been Liked: 1883 times
- Has Liked: 840 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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 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.
-
- Posts: 6681
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 7:13 pm
- Been Liked: 1697 times
- Has Liked: 789 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
By the way-see post 13 and what have Brighton just done by adapting like they did. Good old Chris hughton
-
- Posts: 10970
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5185 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Why was the defence changed?
That was down to Everton and us having just a 3 man midfield.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.
Our full backs couldn't get out and too easy for Everton.
-
- Posts: 15236
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3156 times
- Has Liked: 6744 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
Neither, for what it's worth, was Bardsley probably because he's not suited to 5 at the back rather than lack of effort.
-
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
- Been Liked: 608 times
- Has Liked: 311 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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 relegationcricketfieldclarets 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.
-
- Posts: 7311
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
- Been Liked: 1827 times
- Has Liked: 3964 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Maybe, but Mee hasn't been good all season, but he's kept Gibson out.boatshed bill wrote:Sorry, but Long wasn't very good vs Arsenal.
.
(Agreed it must be difficult playing on the same side of the defence as Taylor, [before someone makes that point])
-
- Posts: 15236
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3156 times
- Has Liked: 6744 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Can't disagree with that.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])
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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 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.
-
- Posts: 10970
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5185 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Why was the defence changed?
We've seen Lowton get forward with Guddy in front of him, and put decent balls in before.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.
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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...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
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
To be fair that would an absurd way of judging him.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
-
- Posts: 2671
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:07 pm
- Been Liked: 773 times
- Has Liked: 1431 times
- Location: Mostly Europe
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Very much doubt he had a chuckle, comes across as a great pro.Steve1956 wrote:It's a strange one,Long has been decent .....bet he has a little chuckle to himself later tonight.
However I’d rather he had come on up front instead of Wood.
-
- Posts: 2785
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:20 pm
- Been Liked: 711 times
- Has Liked: 88 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
Wood coming on was the final straw. Managed to get back to Manchester in rapid time.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
-
- Posts: 2785
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:20 pm
- Been Liked: 711 times
- Has Liked: 88 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
My biggest issue with 5-3-2 is we don’t have the players to play 5-3-2.
-
- Posts: 1113
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:35 am
- Been Liked: 286 times
- Has Liked: 139 times
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.
Gibson overdue a start and lowton better at raiding down the flank than Bardsley, also got three games in a week.
Not rocket science.
-
- Posts: 10970
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5185 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Why was the defence changed?
The Gibson point doesn't need to be countered because it's completely stupid.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.
I won't bother with the two others, because to counter them wouldn't be 'rocket science'.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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.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 bet no-one saw how this season would turn out for us after last years events.
Re: Why was the defence changed?
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
The manager will not make brave decisions as Gibson should have started instead of him with Tarks in the middle