Page 1 of 1
Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:30 pm
by Steve
I'm not going to go into much detail on this, i'll leave that for someone else. But it's interesting that we've spent an awful lot of money on quality forwards, and while we aren't scoring hatfulls of goals here and there, we have taken a lot of pressure off the defence, and are yet to concede a goal. I know people are saying it's all down to Given, but Given was in goal for half of last season when we still conceding stupid goals, here and there. I know Gareth Barry has a helped a lot with the work he does defensively. But teams have been showing us more respect with the quality we now have, the opposition have been scared to throw too many players forward, and the quality of players we now have going forward means we can retain possession for much longer.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:35 pm
by Slim
I think tevez and bellamy do this really well, they close players down all the way up the pitch. I noticed Ade chasing a player down and forcing him to go forward quicker than he wanted to, Barry whipped in and nicked the ball away. It's the mark of quality which we have in spades and when we click going forward the goals will come.
We knew this would be a problem with so many coming in but we are grinding out what we need to at this point. The real litmus test comes in the next two against the rags and arse, they will punish mistakes so we will have to be at the top of our game. Luckily Robbie and Ade are big game players who can deliver even if we are up against it.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:58 pm
by s1ty m
i reckon opposing managers take a glance at what we have and set up to be defensive. so, we get attacked less. having these high speed attackers is really paying dividends already as teams are totally shit scared of us. and we have not really played great yet. it will come and so will a shellacking for someone. it's gonna happen...
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:22 pm
by Mr Miyagi
It's something the Dutch struck upon in the 60's and 70's. If you play most of the game in the opposition's half then you reduce their chances of scoring.
Also if you press the opposition defenders when they have the ball you win back possession in areas of the pitch that are dangerous to the opposition. Something that was important to the Dutch in the 70's as well. It is one of the keys to Mourinho's success at Chelsea and Porto. I remember the Liverpool team of the 80's were famous for this. Ian Rush used to run his bllocks off trying to win the ball back off defenders.
This is the reason why players like Elano and Jo were not wanted by Hughes.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:29 pm
by Dunne's Half-Time Pint
Mr Miyagi wrote:It's something the Dutch struck upon in the 60's and 70's. If you play most of the game in the opposition's half then you reduce their chances of scoring.
Also if you press the opposition defenders when they have the ball you win back possession in areas of the pitch that are dangerous to the opposition. Something that was important to the Dutch in the 70's as well. It is one of the keys to Mourinho's success at Chelsea and Porto. I remember the Liverpool team of the 80's were famous for this. Ian Rush used to run his bllocks off trying to win the ball back off defenders.
This is the reason why players like Elano and Jo were not wanted by Hughes.
It seems staggering to me that Hughes was slated on here - called a bully and accused of wanting a team of Blackburnesque cloggers for instance - for trying to impose this more competitive approach/bringing inthe personnel to employ it etc.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:47 pm
by Dronny
Dunne's Half-Time Pint wrote:Mr Miyagi wrote:It's something the Dutch struck upon in the 60's and 70's. If you play most of the game in the opposition's half then you reduce their chances of scoring.
Also if you press the opposition defenders when they have the ball you win back possession in areas of the pitch that are dangerous to the opposition. Something that was important to the Dutch in the 70's as well. It is one of the keys to Mourinho's success at Chelsea and Porto. I remember the Liverpool team of the 80's were famous for this. Ian Rush used to run his bllocks off trying to win the ball back off defenders.
This is the reason why players like Elano and Jo were not wanted by Hughes.
It seems staggering to me that Hughes was slated on here - called a
bully and accused of wanting a team of Blackburnesque cloggers for instance - for trying to impose this more competitive approach/bringing inthe personnel to employ it etc.
Lame and pathetic at the time, now we have a midfield and forward line who really do defend from the front with their speed. Its great to watch how the defenders of all the teams we will play this season will be inconvenienced by our competitive nature.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:13 pm
by Mr Miyagi
Dunne's Half-Time Pint wrote:Mr Miyagi wrote:It's something the Dutch struck upon in the 60's and 70's. If you play most of the game in the opposition's half then you reduce their chances of scoring.
Also if you press the opposition defenders when they have the ball you win back possession in areas of the pitch that are dangerous to the opposition. Something that was important to the Dutch in the 70's as well. It is one of the keys to Mourinho's success at Chelsea and Porto. I remember the Liverpool team of the 80's were famous for this. Ian Rush used to run his bllocks off trying to win the ball back off defenders.
This is the reason why players like Elano and Jo were not wanted by Hughes.
It seems staggering to me that Hughes was slated on here - called a bully and accused of wanting a team of Blackburnesque cloggers for instance - for trying to impose this more competitive approach/bringing inthe personnel to employ it etc.
Personally I spent large parts of last season saying this was how Hughes wanted to play. I'm glad we are doing it now because everyone can see for themselves how effective the pressing game is. Most of the successful teams of the last 30 years have been pressing teams.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:03 am
by Steve
Does Robinho have a future with us then?
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:25 am
by Tokyo Blue
Steve wrote:Does Robinho have a future with us then?
I would imagine so. He is not without a work ethic of his own.
I think Ireland has played a role in shoring up the defence as well. He is responsible enough to hold his position and do the job, perhaps against his instincts.
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:37 am
by Dameerto
Steve wrote:Does Robinho have a future with us then?
He put a shift in for the last game he played - I saw him tracking back and pressing quite a bit (for Robi)
Re: Attack the best form of defence?

Posted:
Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:07 am
by DoomMerchant
Dunne's Half-Time Pint wrote:Mr Miyagi wrote:It's something the Dutch struck upon in the 60's and 70's. If you play most of the game in the opposition's half then you reduce their chances of scoring.
Also if you press the opposition defenders when they have the ball you win back possession in areas of the pitch that are dangerous to the opposition. Something that was important to the Dutch in the 70's as well. It is one of the keys to Mourinho's success at Chelsea and Porto. I remember the Liverpool team of the 80's were famous for this. Ian Rush used to run his bllocks off trying to win the ball back off defenders.
This is the reason why players like Elano and Jo were not wanted by Hughes.
It seems staggering to me that Hughes was slated on here - called a bully and accused of wanting a team of Blackburnesque cloggers for instance - for trying to impose this more competitive approach/bringing inthe personnel to employ it etc.
i don't really recall that. Who was it that slated him?