Mee and Tarks

[BOYSIE31]

First rule of defending is to close the space down.

How many more goals do we have to give away before they start closing the attackers down

[Quickenthetempo]

It's Dyches tactics to back off.

Even the hard tackling Bardsley backed off for Citys first goal when there was 10 yards between them.

[tim_noone]

It's Dyches tactics to back off.

Even the hard tackling Bardsley backed off for Citys first goal when there was 10 yards between them.

Tbf Bardsley was banged in the back by tarkowski early doors...might account for that.

[claretspice]

Isn't the issue that, by going towards a forward who is running at you at pace, you commit yourself and therefore make yourself more vulnerable to being skinned/having a ball played beyond you?

had no problem with the principle of Bardsley back-peddling against Palace/Zaha and City/Jesus, nor Tarks doing the same against Spurs/Son (for their second goal). But if I had a criticism - more of Bardsley than Tarks - would be that if you're backpeddling, then I assume most defenders would say you've got to make sure you're doing more than just shadowing the forward into an area that he wants to go into, and allowing yourself to be used as a screen for a shot.

As for Kane's two goals on Saturday - the second struck me as rank bad defending (too passive) and the first one which with hindsight we should have defended better, but was in truth mainly a wonderful goal from a striker who took advantage of a split second of hesitation from defenders a bit worried about the movement of Son and Moura.

[randomclaret2]

The huge void in front of them ( aka our 'midfield' ) doesnt exactly help.

[jrgbfc]

Both been allowed to become too comfortable. The prospect of being dropped might shake them up a bit?

[tim_noone]

The huge void in front of them ( aka our 'midfield' ) doesnt exactly help.

What midfield?

[BOYSIE31]

Isn't the issue that, by going towards a forward who is running at you at pace, you commit yourself and therefore make yourself more vulnerable to being skinned/having a ball played beyond you?

had no problem with the principle of Bardsley back-peddling against Palace/Zaha and City/Jesus, nor Tarks doing the same against Spurs/Son (for their second goal). But if I had a criticism - more of Bardsley than Tarks - would be that if you're backpeddling, then I assume most defenders would say you've got to make sure you're doing more than just shadowing the forward into an area that he wants to go into, and allowing yourself to be used as a screen for a shot.

As for Kane's two goals on Saturday - the second struck me as rank bad defending (too passive) and the first one which with hindsight we should have defended better, but was in truth mainly a wonderful goal from a striker who took advantage of a split second of hesitation from defenders a bit worried about the movement of Son and Moura.

Decent shot but he could have lit a cigar up before he hit it

[FactualFrank]

Isn't the issue that, by going towards a forward who is running at you at pace, you commit yourself and therefore make yourself more vulnerable to being skinned/having a ball played beyond you?

Partly, but also the likelihood of our player committing a foul and receiving a yellow card. Which is likely against a team like City.

[scouseclaret]

First rule of defending is to close the space down.

How many more goals do we have to give away before they start closing the attackers down

Amazing how some people’s opinion can be so distorted by a couple of heavy defeats by top, top quality opponents.

Over the time we’ve been in the Premier League, I’d be surprised if there’s a centre back pairing in the division who’ve made more blocks than Mee and Tarks. Certainly it was singled out as one of the major factors in our success a couple of years ago.

[Vegas Claret]

like I said on the matchday thread, Gibson must be dicking about in training big time to not be getting a look in at the moment

[Sarum]

Ben Mee's main strength is his ariel ability. Take a look at the matches where he's scored highly in our ratings: its usually because he was dominant over his opponent in the air pretty much throughout. His reading, timing of jumps and heading are usually very good to excellent, as commented upon by TV commentators. Against sides like Man City and Spurs, however, he is in a completely different situation: very few aeriel duals to win and instead fast paced opponents, with razor sharp passing and movement. He, like most defenders playing for "lower half sides", is not likely to come out on top nearly as often. I rather doubt that Gibson or Long would've fared any better against those two.

[jrgbfc]

like I said on the matchday thread, Gibson must be dicking about in training big time to not be getting a look in at the moment

Or maybe Dyche just isn't willing to consider dropping one of his favourites?

[AlargeClaret]

I don't think the issue lies with the centre backs as such (Though Ben Mee always has a mistake in him) it's the almost total lack of a midfield,teams have been slicing through us. I know we've badly missed Drinkwater or certainly his potential,but to have to rely on a slowing Cork and Hendrick in midfield almost defies belief at this level.While Westwood can do a job with some high quality at his side,he's no magic bullet. Though just having our "core" of Taylor,Westwood,Barnes,Bardsley would steady the ship a bit.I'd really liek to see intent from the board though

[dsr]

MotD were criticising Mee for not joining Tarkowski in closing down Kane for goal 4 on Saturday. But they didn't mention that to Mee's left there were two more Spurs players in or around the box, and not a lot of cover. It was an all round problem on Saturday - Spurs had four or five players who were all faster than anyone in our team all bombing forward at once. We were overwhelmed and they scored three belters and one fluke (and one "normal" goal) as a result.

[tim_noone]

MotD were criticising Mee for not joining Tarkowski in closing down Kane for goal 4 on Saturday. But they didn't mention that to Mee's left there were two more Spurs players in or around the box, and not a lot of cover. It was an all round problem on Saturday - Spurs had four or five players who were all faster than anyone in our team all bombing forward at once. We were overwhelmed and they scored three belters and one fluke (and one "normal" goal) as a result.

I'm glad someone at last has realised sons goal was indeed a fluke....

[claretspice]

I don't think the issue lies with the centre backs as such (Though Ben Mee always has a mistake in him) it's the almost total lack of a midfield,teams have been slicing through us. I know we've badly missed Drinkwater or certainly his potential,but to have to rely on a slowing Cork and Hendrick in midfield almost defies belief at this level.While Westwood can do a job with some high quality at his side,he's no magic bullet. Though just having our "core" of Taylor,Westwood,Barnes,Bardsley would steady the ship a bit.I'd really liek to see intent from the board though

Just to be absolutely clear, not a single one if the 5 goals we conceded on Saturday came from Spurs slicing through our midfield. Not one.

The theme, if there is one, is teams going round or over our midfield, primarily by exploiting the fact our wide midfielders (particularly McNeil) are less secure defensively than their predecessors, and also the fact that our full backs are not as good as they used to be.

That's what Spurs exploited for the first two goals, with Son and Moura staying high to exploit that vulnerability. The first two city goals also involved exploiting our weakness defensively out wide.

If there's an argument about midfield two it's that there was too much space between them and the back four. But that's not necessarily a failure on their part. They're the wrong target here - I'm one of Westwood's biggest fans but he (like Barnes) played against Sheffield Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea when we've had similar problems.

[taio]

Just to be absolutely clear, not a single one if the 5 goals we conceded on Saturday came from Spurs slicing through our midfield. Not one.

The theme, if there is one, is teams going round or over our midfield, primarily by exploiting the fact our wide midfielders (particularly McNeil) are less secure defensively than their predecessors, and also the fact that our full backs are not as good as they used to be.

That's what Spurs exploited for the first two goals, with Son and Moura staying high to exploit that vulnerability. The first two city goals also involved exploiting our weakness defensively out wide.

If there's an argument about midfield two it's that there was too much space between them and the back four. But that's not necessarily a failure on their part. They're the wrong target here - I'm one of Westwood's biggest fans but he (like Barnes) played against Sheffield Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea when we've had similar problems.

Not convinced it's as clear as you suggest. Could easily be argued that Son sliced through our midfield (and defence) when he carried the ball almost the full length of the pitch and the same applies for Sissoko's goal (and also when he hit the post and should've scored).

[claretspice]

Not convinced it's as clear as you suggest. Could easily be argued that Son sliced through our midfield (and defence) when he carried the ball almost the full length of the pitch and the same applies for Sissoko's goal (and also when he hit the post and should've scored).

Son's goal came from our attacking set play, so all semblance of normal shape did not apply.

The other two occasions you suggest - you've hit a point, but they're both super quick counter attacks after we've lost the ball deep in their half, which is something we'll always be vulnerable to against the top sides (like all the other also rans). If you're criticising us for being unable to cope with Sissoko and Son in full flight on the counter then we're guilty. To be done that way twice in 90 on a day when Spurs were full of confidence is hardly a damning indictment.

Our defensive problems om Saturday were predominantly our wide and at full back.

[tim_noone]

Long.....

[taio]

Son's goal came from our attacking set play, so all semblance of normal shape did not apply.

The other two occasions you suggest - you've hit a point, but they're both super quick counter attacks after we've lost the ball deep in their half, which is something we'll always be vulnerable to against the top sides (like all the other also rans). If you're criticising us for being unable to cope with Sissoko and Son in full flight on the counter then we're guilty. To be done that way twice in 90 on a day when Spurs were full of confidence is hardly a damning indictment.

Our defensive problems om Saturday were predominantly our wide and at full back.

I was saying it wasn't as clear cut as this:

"Just to be absolutely clear, not a single one if the 5 goals we conceded on Saturday came from Spurs slicing through our midfield. Not one."

[claretspice]

And like I say, if you want I'll qualify that to leave aside the fifth goal. It's arguable because it's broadly a break down our right (Lowton blamelessly caught up field when Lennon lost the ball) which is why I included it originally, but I'm not going to lose time arguing the point.

The broader point stands. To attribute our problems on Saturday to the midfield being sliced through a non existent midfield is just not accurate. That wasn't the source of our problem on Saturday at all.

[taio]

And like I say, if you want I'll qualify that to leave aside the fifth goal. It's arguable because it's broadly a break down our right (Lowton blamelessly caught up field when Lennon lost the ball) which is why I included it originally, but I'm not going to lose time arguing the point.

The broader point stands. To attribute our problems on Saturday to the midfield being sliced through a non existent midfield is just not accurate. That wasn't the source of our problem on Saturday at all.

The midfield were as equally as culpable as the other players for Son's goal - Cork and Hendrick were in slightly deeper positions than Son when he collected the ball. Dyche seemed particulary frustrated at that goal and rightly so.

[claretspice]

I'm not sure what point your making. I think we'd all agree that collectively someone - possibly a midfielder, possibly a full back, possibly a wide player, none of whom were actually in those positions at the time - should have stopped Son. But it's not a goal resulting from a team slicing through our midfield, which is where we started.

[taio]

I'm not sure what point your making. I think we'd all agree that collectively someone - possibly a midfielder - should have stopped Son. But it's not a goal resulting from a team slicing through our midfield, which is where we started.

The point I'm making is it could easily be argued when you categorically said Spurs did not slice through our midfield for any of the goals. When a player collects the ball on the edge of his own box and carries it before scoring big questions have to be asked of the midfield. Same with Sissoko's goal.

[claretspice]

Going round in circles, but if you're not going to acknowledge the difference when a goal scored is from our set piece, compared to normal play, then this is a waste of both our time.

[taio]

Going round in circles, but if you're not going to acknowledge the difference when a goal scored is from our set piece, compared to normal play, then this is a waste of both our time.

Yes there's normally a difference. But a player picking up the ball on the edge of his own box when we have several players behind the ball, including both central midfielders, and scoring like that inevitably raises questions about how he's allowed to travel through our midfield. Dyche understandably frustrated too.

[claretspice]

He's allowed to travel that far because lots of players allowed him to travel that far. That might include Cork and Hendrick, but McNeil is probably the most culpable. it's no more a goal that reflects on our central midfield than on our full backs or left wing. That's the point.

But it's undoubtedly a bad and frustrating goal to concede, not least because we were having a good spell at the time and were on top.

[BOYSIE31]

Just to be absolutely clear, not a single one if the 5 goals we conceded on Saturday came from Spurs slicing through our midfield. Not one.

The theme, if there is one, is teams going round or over our midfield, primarily by exploiting the fact our wide midfielders (particularly McNeil) are less secure defensively than their predecessors, and also the fact that our full backs are not as good as they used to be.

That's what Spurs exploited for the first two goals, with Son and Moura staying high to exploit that vulnerability. The first two city goals also involved exploiting our weakness defensively out wide.

If there's an argument about midfield two it's that there was too much space between them and the back four. But that's not necessarily a failure on their part. They're the wrong target here - I'm one of Westwood's biggest fans but he (like Barnes) played against Sheffield Utd, Liverpool and Chelsea when we've had similar problems.

Ha ha Son ran through the middle of it

[claretspice]

[Dark Cloud]

The huge void in front of them ( aka our 'midfield' ) doesnt exactly help.

Exactly this. It's a massive part of the issue and tbf when everyone was slagging off Howe because his Burnley team were playing ok and scoring a few, but had a very leaky defence, I said just this. The defence weren't that bad, but they got absolutely no cover from midfield and were constantly exposed and that's become an issue again right now. I've always liked Westwood, but felt he was rather limited, but crumbs do we need him back!!

[vancouverclaret]

Funny just a few weeks ago people were saying they should be in the England squad, I even heard a commentator say Mee should get a call up.
It's the end of the world when we lose a few games, and we are world beaters with future England manager when we win some.

[Jakubclaret]

Not convinced it's as clear as you suggest. Could easily be argued that Son sliced through our midfield (and defence) when he carried the ball almost the full length of the pitch and the same applies for Sissoko's goal (and also when he hit the post and should've scored).

It’s pretty much what I was thinking he had all the space in the world unopposed, their was nothing really to slice through to be honest it wasn’t existent to begin with. Powder puff resistance take your pick.

[houseboy]

What midfield?

Apparently most teams play with one. I don't know if it's a new concept but it involves players being able to tackle (to break down attacks early) and pass (to start their attacks). It is sometimes called the 'engine room'. Oddly many teams spend most of their time knocking the ball around in the middle of the pitch (thus the term 'midfield') and creating chances for their forwards, some teams even have midfielders who contribute regularly with goals. Of course apart from the occasional visiting team I have never really seen this concept in action so I don't know if it works or not.

[BOYSIE31]

Son's goal came from our attacking set play, so all semblance of normal shape did not apply.

The other two occasions you suggest - you've hit a point, but they're both super quick counter attacks after we've lost the ball deep in their half, which is something we'll always be vulnerable to against the top sides (like all the other also rans). If you're criticising us for being unable to cope with Sissoko and Son in full flight on the counter then we're guilty. To be done that way twice in 90 on a day when Spurs were full of confidence is hardly a damning indictment.

Our defensive problems om Saturday were predominantly our wide and at full back.

Does not mean you cant tackle to win the ball back - there was 6 or 7 around him for gods sake

[alwaysaclaret]

Does not mean you cant tackle to win the ball back - there was 6 or 7 around him for gods sake

Couldn't have put it better myself, problem is that it's dyche's tactic to get 10 men behind the ball, as close to goal as possible as quick as they can and rely on blocks here and blocks there and missed chances, thing is by then it's in the bloody net. But when I say close to goal as possible I mean all in 18 yard box, which simply gives space and time for wingers to exploit and pressure and simply pin us back, we're simply not interested in getting the ball back.

[Volvoclaret]

Surely its Tarks and I?

[Colburn_Claret]

Its always been our preference, to allow people to shoot from distance.
Weve coceded some pearlers the last few games. Sometimes they end up in row Z, sometimes...........

Im more concerned about how flat we start games. We hand the initiative to the opposition from kick off, Watford, Sheff U, Palace. You can't do that in this league and expect not to get punished.
If we dont get in the Geordies faces from the off, we will get turned over again, and they are full of confidence at the moment.