Defence (specifically back 3)

[ASCPFC]

Timber is combative, energetic and is capable of turning away feim opponents.
Nonetheless, he often takes 3 or 4 touches of the ball and doesn't play many one touch passes.
There is little evidence of a developing partnership with Wharton.
Kamada and Hughes have a better partnership with Wharton as they play the ball first time to him in space whereas Timber wants too many touches.

Kamada slowed down any chance of counters yesterday. He constantly passed backwards when we were on the break. Not that I just blame him.

 

[palace99]

Which two CBs are good enough to be the CBs in that system? I wonder whether we might not be better adopting a 3-5-2 system so as to beef up midfield and cover the wide areas - not that I know anything about how systems work or don't work.

i think 3 at the back will work if they play as a tight 3. At the moment we are all over the place. When Glasner had this working well it seemed one had the licence to go forward and the other 2 held. Similarly if a full back goes bombing forward the back 3 shifted over a bit to compensate.

At times we can remain solid and essentially be 5 at the back.

We also need a solid 2 midfielders to provide some protection.

The issues at the moment are we don't have an obvious centre of the 3. Disasi could be that person but his sending off was just stupid (why was he even in that position?) and has highlighted the lack of cover at the back.

Changing the back 3 is not an massive issue IMHO as we need to manage the squad with so many games. Whilst we need to come up with a preferred 3 they can't play every game.

Canvot moving to the right should not be an issue as he is right footed and whilst he did ok covering for MG he is still learning and we accepted a few mistakes. This season the mistakes are continuing and his lack of heading ability is being exploited. He is now becoming a liability.
Richards is the best of the bunch to cover for Disasi but again is not dominant in the air and lacks a yard of pace when he plays on the right.
Honest is young, but has already played in the Champions League and Internationally so is worth the punt.
Lerma is not really a CB but can cover, however, his lack of pace was massively exposed v Forest.

I have no idea what our best 3 are - maybe Honest, Disasi and Richards but whoever is picked they need to play as a unit and not as strangers.

 

[Palacesince64]

Agree, whilst Timber looks a decent addition positionally he is all over the place and needs to be more of a 6/8 rather than a 8/10. Even against Leeds i thought he was too far forward too often and against Forest 1st half and yesterday he left Wharton too isolated.

He might work better in a 433 but with the current formation he needs to be more disciplined.

The fact that Sage hasn't resolved this within a few weeks of him joining is a bit of a concern.

Rafael van der Vaart said much the same after his poor show for the Netherlands. Basically not talented enough to be a 8/10 and thinks He’s too good to be a DM. He needs to understand his limitations and be a good 6.
I think Sage gets it. He hooked him at halftime and dropped Kamada back alongside Wharton. I suspect he might be benched this week with Sarr up front and Kamada in the 6/8 role. Pity Doucoure isn’t fit.

 

[JessieJ]

Chancer Parish saw he could cash in and thought he could wing it until the January window with a motley bunch of loans, frees, and sick notes. After all, it's always the manager who carries the can!

Yep, it's always the trainer. However, re selling Guehi, Lacroix and Munoz, I have opined before that i seriously doubt that the erstwhile chairman of the Board awoke one morning in the summer and thought it was a good idea to sell Lacroix. Contract still ok, Guehi (and we had no chance of keeping him) replacement still not signed. He was imho tapped up by Chelsea or had he his head turned on international duty (or both) and made clear his wishes. Maybe there was really something in the UEFA financial rules that made some kind of big sale necessary? As for saying that Parish deliberately looked only for in the discount bins and A & E depts., I'm not saying that there is nothing in this but if all the rumours had only a gram of truth then it seems that we bid for numerous allegedly better options but none of them wanted to come to CP. I guess we'llnever know. regarding Munoz, well didn't he also want to up and leave? He wasn't the same quality as his previous years but still, better than his replacement (early days hopefully).
So, to the theme of the thread, given the hand he was dealt, I have no clue what the best 3 or either what system is best suited and unfortunately i believe, niether does Mr. Sage!! I do know though, that I'm pretty sure I could coach my team of U-14's how to play through our midfield/defence. To be fair, the different back 3 for every match (correct me if I'm wrong there) stems also from injuries (see above re sick-notes) & missing brain-cells (see above Chelsea reserves). It's also not just the central 3 is it? Many have siad that it's the whole structure/system. Last night i fell asleep on the sofa and woke to see the interviews on MotD. At the end they showed a graphic showing CP as 20th in all defensive stats. Dion Dublin, like him or not, simply stated that he simply cannot recognise any kind of system at all. Well that makes two of us.

 

[park the bus]

Yep, it's always the trainer. However, re selling Guehi, Lacroix and Munoz, I have opined before that i seriously doubt that the erstwhile chairman of the Board awoke one morning in the summer and thought it was a good idea to sell Lacroix.

It's just an impression but I think that Parish had to recoup somehow the money poorly spent in previous windows, so when the offer for Lacroix came in he accepted it. It's basic math. It explains also the high proportion of frees and loans - the kitty is empty.

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

A back four works as unit of 4 defenders, you could see them training before every game, when it was a 4, that is why it is more solid, 3-4-2-1 is a hopeless formation, the 3 CDs don't work with the WBs, they are a unit of 3 not 5, it has to change to a 4, if not i think we could not win another game all season.

What Wing Backs ? Certainly Mitchell has never been one. Every time he gets the ball wide he checks back and passes it backwards. Never tries to run at the defender. Play an extra man in midfield and he can concentrate on defending which he’s very good at.

 

[TheBigToePunt]

There's no such thing as a formation that doesn't work. Two things matter: How it is coached, and what players you have.

Regarding how it is coached, the formation comes a distant second to whether you play a pressing game, a deep block, or something else. We have seen that a Glasner team playing (on paper) the same 343 system Sage uses is generally more sound defensively. For his faults, we don't concede most of those goals yesterday under Glasner. He would have us deep and compact, and ensure everyone is clear on their jobs. It would be the same under Roy, or Pulis. Both of those would use a back 4 but that would not be the point. They would play deeper and more compact, and focus on defensive shape. The formation is not the same, nor as important, as the general tactical approach.

We are a mess at the back because we are so open and because the defence seems poorly drilled in any event. If Sage plays a 433 next week but doesn't change those underpinning facts, results will not improve.

The second thing is the players. For me, you should start by listing the best 11 footballers at your club and see whether that list of names lends itself to a particular formation. If it does, bingo. If not, make as few changes to that list as possible before you do find a formation to suit, and use that. In other words, the formation should be dictated by who your best players happen to be, not the other way around.

That doesn't mean you can't work the other way around. Glasner can't have thought Richards was in his best XI as he started with Chalobah instead. Mitchell was always a slightly odd fit at wing-back. In both cases, however, the strength of the system outweighed having a couple of players in the team who were average individually or out of position a bit. It can be done. You can work system-first.

There is surely a limit, though. A huge problem we have is that a lot of our players are very average. There is not a system in the world that can fix that, but surely you don't pick a system that employs more of the average players and less of the good ones? I know he has been 'injured' and all the rest of it but how can a system that includes deeply-struggling youngsters in Khalili and Canvot, the raw and untried Honest, and the wholly out of form Richards in his wrong position be better than one which includes our top scorer from last year? Or pushes Kamada away from midfield after he finally came good playing there to the forward line where he has so little impact?

That's the key for me. 343 is not a 'bad' system. There is no such thing. It is, however, so much the wrong system for what we have got that it is having a negative effect. I get the idea that if three of our centre backs can't defend then what chance will two have, but I see it differently. If all the centre backs are poor then why on earth pick three of them instead of only two?

Ultimately, though, 343 or 433 or whatever else will not matter if it is not accompanied by a viable defensive origination plan.

 

[thai-eagle]

The only proper solution is, IMO, buying 2 quality CBs.
Cant see that happening though as like someone said above, weve wasted the funds on the likes of JSL, Johnson and Nketiah.

We spent more than 100 mill. on that trio. And now sporting director Hobbs is keen on Rob Edwards as manager!!!!
I wonder what they are doing every week on the training field. Against Brighton who did not even field their best team, we looked like sleep-walking zombies with no idea what was going on. Tough days ahead, think with free-scoring Besiktas and Newcastle Sage is finished. If not before....

 

[RedandBlueSash]

We were blessed with the foundation of Guehi-Lacroix-Richards and were never going to replace them with similar quality, but to go from that to the utter shambles we have now is totally unacceptable.

Appreciate we still have Richards, but tbh he's very mediocre and only looked good alongside the quality of Guehi and Lacroix.

Canvot is raw and shouldnt be a starter. Lerma a back up at best.
Tomiyasu a crock with zero pace and to rely on a Chelsea loanee that couldnt get anywhere near their first team, and another loanee youngster was never going to be enough.

No quality at all, but even worse than that - and this is where Sage and the coaches have failed - is organising them into any semblance of an effective unit. Average players playing worse than the the sum of the parts.

Needs sorting or else we are in serious danger of going down this season.

You say we have given the manager a hodge-podge of inexperienced and 'mediocre' defenders then blame the manager for not magically making them a tight unit?

It is individual errors over and over again that have cost us. Sage has been deprived of Riad and Tomiyasu and Disasi, all three of whom would have been starters in most matches. I don't know if any manager can make this defence work consistently without Riad and Tomiyasu. I do know Disasi has been given little time to bed in and the new players of Anahor and Khalaili need more time.

I suspect time will fix the issue. It's not about giving the manager time, it's about giving the players time.

 

[RedandBlueSash]

There's no such thing as a formation that doesn't work. Two things matter: How it is coached, and what players you have.

Regarding how it is coached, the formation comes a distant second to whether you play a pressing game, a deep block, or something else. We have seen that a Glasner team playing (on paper) the same 343 system Sage uses is generally more sound defensively. For his faults, we don't concede most of those goals yesterday under Glasner. He would have us deep and compact, and ensure everyone is clear on their jobs. It would be the same under Roy, or Pulis. Both of those would use a back 4 but that would not be the point. They would play deeper and more compact, and focus on defensive shape. The formation is not the same, nor as important, as the general tactical approach.

We are a mess at the back because we are so open and because the defence seems poorly drilled in any event. If Sage plays a 433 next week but doesn't change those underpinning facts, results will not improve.

The second thing is the players. For me, you should start by listing the best 11 footballers at your club and see whether that list of names lends itself to a particular formation. If it does, bingo. If not, make as few changes to that list as possible before you do find a formation to suit, and use that. In other words, the formation should be dictated by who your best players happen to be, not the other way around.

That doesn't mean you can't work the other way around. Glasner can't have thought Richards was in his best XI as he started with Chalobah instead. Mitchell was always a slightly odd fit at wing-back. In both cases, however, the strength of the system outweighed having a couple of players in the team who were average individually or out of position a bit. It can be done. You can work system-first.

There is surely a limit, though. A huge problem we have is that a lot of our players are very average. There is not a system in the world that can fix that, but surely you don't pick a system that employs more of the average players and less of the good ones? I know he has been 'injured' and all the rest of it but how can a system that includes deeply-struggling youngsters in Khalili and Canvot, the raw and untried Honest, and the wholly out of form Richards in his wrong position be better than one which includes our top scorer from last year? Or pushes Kamada away from midfield after he finally came good playing there to the forward line where he has so little impact?

That's the key for me. 343 is not a 'bad' system. There is no such thing. It is, however, so much the wrong system for what we have got that it is having a negative effect. I get the idea that if three of our centre backs can't defend then what chance will two have, but I see it differently. If all the centre backs are poor then why on earth pick three of them instead of only two?

Ultimately, though, 343 or 433 or whatever else will not matter if it is not accompanied by a viable defensive origination plan.

Good post. As you rightly state, it is inexperience and basic errors that are the problem and costing us far more than any system. Drilling them over and over on crosses is key and I only hope our defensive coaches are up to that.

It should be pointed out that Khalaili and Anahor are on a steep learning curve and we're been deprived of Riad, Tomiyasu and Disasi of late. We need Tomiyasu and Diasasi to stay fit, to incorporate Lerma more and rely on experience while Khalaili gets up to speed.

We've dropped a flaming pile of s*** into Sage's lap and I worry we will lose a good manager to a snap decision unless we finally get a bit of luck and momentum. We need our key defensive players available, for a start.

 

[johnny the eagle]

You say we have given the manager a hodge-podge of inexperienced and 'mediocre' defenders then blame the manager for not magically making them a tight unit?

It is individual errors over and over again that have cost us. Sage has been deprived of Riad and Tomiyasu and Disasi, all three of whom would have been starters in most matches. I don't know if any manager can make this defence work consistently without Riad and Tomiyasu. I do know Disasi has been given little time to bed in and the new players of Anahor and Khalaili need more time.

I suspect time will fix the issue. It's not about giving the manager time, it's about giving the players time.

Well, they ain`t got time. This should all be sorted when we scout players, and I use the term scout very, very loosely. When players are first looked at, whoever is looking at them should make sure they can hit the ground running. Whoever is looking, it's part of their bloody job to make sure they are good enough for the Premier League, not a Sunday League side.

 

[ASCPFC]

Well, they ain`t got time. This should all be sorted when we scout players, and I use the term scout very, very loosely. When players are first looked at, whoever is looking at them should make sure they can hit the ground running. Whoever is looking, it's part of their bloody job to make sure they are good enough for the Premier League, not a Sunday League side.

Good point. Other teams, for example our opponents yesterday, play their signings and they fit right in. Why do ours take a season to be even average? Only one that fits in is Timber. Which is one out of eight. None of the previous did either. We're still waiting for Strand-Larsen and even Pino to bed in. f***ing ridiculous and points to incompetence.

 

[VinceHilaire]

I am definitely not an expert, but watching Palace for years - one thing stands out - we don’t have a leader at the back, and desperately need one.

Dare I say it, a Lewis Dunk type character to organise, scream, encourage and add that strength at the back and front in set pieces.

 

[Save Dwindlehurst]

What defence 😳?

 

[JessieJ]

Good point. Other teams, for example our opponents yesterday, play their signings and they fit right in. Why do ours take a season to be even average? Only one that fits in is Timber. Which is one out of eight. None of the previous did either. We're still waiting for Strand-Larsen and even Pino to bed in. f***ing ridiculous and points to incompetence.

I agree, good point. On your however, I'm not sure that that is totally corretc. I really hate to say it but our opponents yesterday have developed a scouting model that exceeds every other in the league and often but complete unknowns, send them out on pre-planned loans for 1-2 years then bring them into the first team squad in the knowledge that some "stars" will be sold for huge money usually to Chelsea, thus paying for further recruitment. Having said that though, our policy, if there is one, seems haphazard at best.

 

[johnny the eagle]

I agree, good point. On your however, I'm not sure that that is totally corretc. I really hate to say it but our opponents yesterday have developed a scouting model that exceeds every other in the league and often but complete unknowns, send them out on pre-planned loans for 1-2 years then bring them into the first team squad in the knowledge that some "stars" will be sold for huge money usually to Chelsea, thus paying for further recruitment. Having said that though, our policy, if there is one, seems haphazard at best.

If other clubs can do it, so can we; it ain`t rocket science. We haven't just landed in the Premier League, and someone somewhere must have thought up some sort of business plan for C.P.F.C. Or have they been just guessing it all along and hoping one day it will all fall into place and come good. We are a bloody shambles and have been for a long time.

 

[JHB]

You say we have given the manager a hodge-podge of inexperienced and 'mediocre' defenders then blame the manager for not magically making them a tight unit?

It is individual errors over and over again that have cost us. Sage has been deprived of Riad and Tomiyasu and Disasi, all three of whom would have been starters in most matches. I don't know if any manager can make this defence work consistently without Riad and Tomiyasu. I do know Disasi has been given little time to bed in and the new players of Anahor and Khalaili need more time.

I suspect time will fix the issue. It's not about giving the manager time, it's about giving the players time.

Riad hasn’t been very good for us when he played. He struggled with the pace and physicality of the Premier League. I am not sure losing him weakens the starting eleven. Also if you are building a defence around him and Tomiyasu you are asking for trouble as it’s a case of ‘when’ not ‘if’ they get injured.

What I would say is you could have peak Bobby Moore, Franco Baresi and Marcel Dessaily in that defence and they’d still struggle if they were constantly faced with three or four on three and no midfield cover. The tactics are wrong

 

[park the bus]

Riad hasn’t been very good for us when he played. He struggled with the pace and physicality of the Premier League. I am not sure losing him weakens the starting eleven. Also if you are building a defence around him and Tomiyasu you are asking for trouble as it’s a case of ‘when’ not ‘if’ they get injured.

What I would say is you could have peak Bobby Moore, Franco Baresi and Marcel Dessaily in that defence and they’d still struggle if they were constantly faced with three or four on three and no midfield cover. The tactics are wrong

They most certainly are.
And Pierre, if you happen to be reading this, I would suggest not 3 centre halves, but 4 - revolutionary I know but these are desperate times! I would have my 4 centre halves in a zig zag formation across the 18 yard box. Outside these 4 I would have my 2 wing backs. The outer wing of the centre halves can go and assist the wing backs as required. Under no circumstances should there by less than 2 centre halves in the 18 yard box at any one time. I would have 2 defensive midfielders, and one attacking midfielder to link up with Eddie Nketiah who will chase around aimlessly up front to make it look like we have some attacking intent. I think this system has as much chance of success as any we have seen to date and we may well concede less than thus far.

 

[Painter]

What Wing Backs ? Certainly Mitchell has never been one. Every time he gets the ball wide he checks back and passes it backwards. Never tries to run at the defender. Play an extra man in midfield and he can concentrate on defending which he’s very good at.

If he checks back and passes it back, how come he has 2 goals this season? Munoz has played 6 games this season with no goals.

 

[OneStevePerrin]

Riad hasn’t been very good for us when he played. He struggled with the pace and physicality of the Premier League. I am not sure losing him weakens the starting eleven. Also if you are building a defence around him and Tomiyasu you are asking for trouble as it’s a case of ‘when’ not ‘if’ they get injured.

What I would say is you could have peak Bobby Moore, Franco Baresi and Marcel Dessaily in that defence and they’d still struggle if they were constantly faced with three or four on three and no midfield cover. The tactics are wrong

Last paragraph is so correct, it’s the whole 11 and how they are set up. Until that changes we will get stuffed when we play teams on form and struggle against the lesser teams (probably losing) It’s more of a mess than it should be!