The Defence

[stupers]

Defensively we have been very poor for a number of seasons that is why we are where we are. Conceeding two plus goals a game when attackwise we can,t hit a barn door with a bag of gravel spells disaster. The constant changing of the team only compounds the problem, Aspo quickly said the squad was too big. Unfortunatly its going to take time to sort this mess out, and there are no quick fixes. First and formost we need to pick up a few points, just hope someone can step up!

 

You get the feeling that there might be a couple of changes on Saturday after he's seen the reserves play and he's had the players a whole week. Ultimately though, I think he's going to settle on a starting lineup and stick with it a few games before tweaking it after that. It's what Michael Brown should have done, instead making 6 changes a game.

[onestepatatime]

I've felt that Anderson has been a steady-eddie when I've seen him and feel he could be the influence alongside smith to get the best again out of him.

[Supper swanny]

I don't agree with this 5 at the back formation. Brown started it and Aspo is continuing with it and we keep losing. We have to many defenders on the pitch and last Saturday if you think Tonge and Pugh as well as defensive minded that means 7 defensive players on the pitch. AND we still leak goals. Ever likely we don't score many with 3 attacking players starting and one being Pope who is way past his best.

Id like to see flat back 4, then 4 midfielders and 2 up front. I would go with this,

 

ROOS

Denton

Gibbons

Gunning

Smith (or Anderson, maybe drop Smith for a few games)

Pugh

Worrell

Tonge

Harness

Barnett

Pyke or turner

[Mattholl]

See my big issue with the current situation is that the defence and abundance of defenders is actually having a negative effect on the team as a whole. Playing with a 5 isnt ideal when we dont have quick forwards playing on the shoulder of the opposition back line. With the 5 we are relying on 2 wing backs to provide crosses for the forwards, defensive cover for 3 cart horses at the back and its meaning we either create chances and leave us prone to counter attacks or we sit deep and hoof the ball at Pope. Moving to a back 4 would mean we actually allow the defenders to defend and then we can actually use the 4 wingers we have to effect the game and put in crosses to Pope and Barnett. Personally id play a diamond with the two wingers tucking in when we lose the ball, Worrell at the top and Pugh at the base.

[bogie boom years]

Sounds good

 

Sent from my SM-G901F using the onevalefan mobile app

[Sandyford_Lion]

See my big issue with the current situation is that the defence and abundance of defenders is actually having a negative effect on the team as a whole. Playing with a 5 isnt ideal when we dont have quick forwards playing on the shoulder of the opposition back line. With the 5 we are relying on 2 wing backs to provide crosses for the forwards, defensive cover for 3 cart horses at the back and its meaning we either create chances and leave us prone to counter attacks or we sit deep and hoof the ball at Pope. Moving to a back 4 would mean we actually allow the defenders to defend and then we can actually use the 4 wingers we have to effect the game and put in crosses to Pope and Barnett. Personally id play a diamond with the two wingers tucking in when we lose the ball, Worrell at the top and Pugh at the base.

 

Everyone is possessed about systems and numbers.

The chosen players still have to do their job on the pitch

 

5 3 2 - Does that put too much pressure on the wing back to get all the way up the pitch, to the byline and cross for the forwards to head onto goal. Are the wing backs skilful enough to run 50 yards and then beat a man

 

So we say lets play with a back 4

 

4 4 2 - 2 central and 2 wide men. Inferring that the wide men will get further up the pitch and are more skilful to beat a full back and cross for goal.

Their problem is can they get back and defend in front of an isolated full back

let alone ' tuck in and support the midfield 2 ' against an opposition 3 or 4

 

The answer used so far is to play one up front on his own and use the extra man in midfield. Problem this creates is the wide men then have to move inside up front to support the sole forward , the midfield three have to push up and support the sole forward and not sit back in front of the defence.

 

Do we have the players to do any of the above ? - Evidence so far says no.

[PV1973]

Everyone is possessed about systems and numbers.

The chosen players still have to do their job on the pitch

 

5 3 2 - Does that put too much pressure on the wing back to get all the way up the pitch, to the byline and cross for the forwards to head onto goal. Are the wing backs skilful enough to run 50 yards and then beat a man

 

So we say lets play with a back 4

 

4 4 2 - 2 central and 2 wide men. Inferring that the wide men will get further up the pitch and are more skilful to beat a full back and cross for goal.

Their problem is can they get back and defend in front of an isolated full back

let alone ' tuck in and support the midfield 2 ' against an opposition 3 or 4

 

The answer used so far is to play one up front on his own and use the extra man in midfield. Problem this creates is the wide men then have to move inside up front to support the sole forward , the midfield three have to push up and support the sole forward and not sit back in front of the defence.

 

Do we have the players to do any of the above ? - Evidence so far says no.

The wingbacks don't necessarily have to be skilful players like a tricky winger. They just have to find the space and be that player that overloads on that side of the pitch so that they have have the space to get a ball in, or they are overlapping one of the front 3 to get to their cross in. We've seen it a lot from Denton and also when Gibbons has played there too. Both have put some quality balls in to the box and I think I'm right in saying 2 of our goals since Brown left have come from their crosses.

[Supper swanny]

I think we need to take it back to basics as I have previously posted, 4-4-2. I know its not the modern way but lets try something different because this 5-4-1 or what ever it is, is not working. Lets play one of the quicker guys up top with Pope or preferably Barnett to run onto the flick ones etc. 4 defenders, defending and maybe Pugh sitting and the rest to try and get forward to support the front 2. Not rocket science is it?

[PV1973]

Arguably we've put in better performaces with the wingbacks than the previous formsations when Brown was in charge though.

[bogie boom years]

That what aspin is looking at this week with players we've already got he's on you tube explaining what he's doing this week back to basics

 

Sent from my SM-G901F using the onevalefan mobile app

[Paul6754]

Must admit I prefer 4-4-2 over 3-5-2 as the latter allows the opposition space to counter down the flanks especially when Vale are attacking with the wing backs up-field, this scenario was amply demonstrated recently.

 

I hope Aspin can organize the defense better both in open play and set play as Vale concede too many sloppy goals. I assume the players, especially the defense, work on defending set pieces in training but off the top of my head against FGR and Grimsby Vale were guilty of having too few defender in crucial positions and it cost goals.

 

For Grimsby's 2nd goal, as their player was about to pass the ball to their No27 to score I counted 5 Vale players and 5 Grimsby players, the space/between the 4 Vale defenders in the back line was too wide, it didn't take much skill to make the pass. Again insufficient number of defenders particularly in front of the back line and the defensive back line not tight enough.

 

As a back 4 I would go Gibbons/Anderson/Smith/Gunning, touch and go between Gunning and Denton but to get Denton on the field I'd play him on the left of midfield. Also one of the center midfield players should stay behind the ball at all times and one person should organize the defense at set pieces.

[PV1993]

I don't agree with this 5 at the back formation. Brown started it and Aspo is continuing with it and we keep losing. We have to many defenders on the pitch and last Saturday if you think Tonge and Pugh as well as defensive minded that means 7 defensive players on the pitch. AND we still leak goals. Ever likely we don't score many with 3 attacking players starting and one being Pope who is way past his best.

Id like to see flat back 4, then 4 midfielders and 2 up front. I would go with this,

 

ROOS

Denton

Gibbons

Gunning

Smith (or Anderson, maybe drop Smith for a few games)

Pugh

Worrell

Tonge

Harness

Barnett

Pyke or turner

 

Brown didnt start the 3/5 at the back. It’s the system which has seen us play better since Yeovil - even if we haven’t made it count.

[NellyTheValiant]

I've felt that Anderson has been a steady-eddie when I've seen him and feel he could be the influence alongside smith to get the best again out of him.

 

I agree, he's more or less cleared everything with his head when he's played, something that Kay or Smith can't do as neither has the height. I'd go with him over Kay. I'd also Start with Worrall over Tonge and find someone else to replace Pugh too, possibly ADF. There is less need for a def CM when playing 5 at the back.

[Bea Smith]

Do Anderson and Roos really improve our team? I don't really see why we need them at the club.

 

Both played extremely well and made valuable contributions to the result against Cheltenham. Roos is settling in, needs support from the fans, and Anderson would be my first defender on the teamsheet.

 

Another example of players needing a little while to settle, both can have a good season.

[onestepatatime]

Agree. Anderson alongside Smith for me. They complement each other and seem to have a better understanding than Kay had with Smith.

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using the onevalefan mobile app