Bringing on Defenders for Attacking Players...

ArmchairCritic

You got pets me too mines are dead
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
16,424
....to see out games. Is it me or does this never ever seem to actually help? Teams just end up dropping even deeper and lose any coherent shape and I really wonder why the feck anyone bothers with this shit. Even when teams see out the game they invariably have a bit of a shit fit at some point and give the opposition a chance. What says the 'Caf?
 
I agree. Not impressed with Blanc at all tonight with his tactics.
 
Silly tactic I feel as it just means that you surrender possession and allow the other team to attack you. It also tells the other team that you aren't going to attack much and they get confidence from that
 
I agree.. I think it just messes up the team shape,losing whatever balance they had upto then.. It seems to create a confusion in the players..

When your backs are against the wall,I usually wouldn't prefer the substitution..Rather just let the same players continue.. Maybe if a substitution is needed, then bring on someone similar.. It allows the players to continue what they were doing without distractions..
 
Everyone seems to do it too. The amusing thing tonight is Blanc had 3 midfielders sitting all pissing night and still needed an extra CB on the pitch.
 
It's such a retarded cowards decision whenever anyone does it. It just helps the other side as they can push on even more. Even more retarded when a goal can knock you out and you have no attackers left on.
 
I've always said that balance is by far the most important thing tactically. Balance in defence and attack, width and through the middle. You then need players that are good at switching between each of these. Players that get back quick enough, unlock counter attacks and spread it across the field from left to right, narrow to wide.

You break the balance and it invites the opposition to out pressure on the unbalanced area.
 
Chelsea had resorted to hoof-ball and all, should be meat and drink for any backline worth their salt, no need for extra bodies.
 
I take the view that it must work statistically because surely no-one would do it.

Then again, players shield balls out for corners even though there's a goal one in a hundred times directly from them.

It's mental if you ask me though. It's just an 'obvious' tactic like bringing a striker on when you need a goal.

You need to identify a weakness in an opposing team and try to exploit it. Just adding a striker tends to do very little.
 
Ancelotti did it as well. Di Maria to Casemiro. Benzema to Varane (though admittedly that was so late it was probably timewasting exercise combine with "protection from setpieces").

I guess it depends on whether the team actually have a formation/game plan to fall into.
 
alastair said:
I take the view that it must work statistically because surely no-one would do it.

Then again, players shield balls out for corners even though there's a goal one in a hundred times directly from them.

It's mental if you ask me though. It's just an 'obvious' tactic like bringing a striker on when you need a goal.

You need to identify a weakness in an opposing team and try to exploit it. Just adding a striker tends to do very little.
Click to expand...

Lost count the amount of times Moyes has gone for it and just shunted shit loads of forwards hoping something will happen.
 
If the other team has three strikers on the pitch and Schurlle + Oscar as well then you clearly need more than four defenders on the pitch if you don't want to concede.
 
Blasphemy said:
If the other team has three strikers on the pitch and Schurlle + Oscar as well then you clearly need more than four defenders on the pitch if you don't want to concede.
Click to expand...

They had Motta, Cabaye, Matuidi all sitting in front. And it's Chelsea's frontline!
 
Casemiro's switch with Di Maria was hardly that defensive. Di Maria was shocking after his penalty miss and Casemiro completely shut out Jojic, which clearly was his instructions.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Lost count the amount of times Moyes has gone for it and just shunted shit loads of forwards hoping something will happen.
Click to expand...

Wenger does it infuriatingly as well. 4-2 down at City and he takes Flamini off to replace him with a striker.

We instantly lose control of the midfield (what control we had), had 30% possession and proceeded to get an absolute mauling for twenty minutes and were pleased to get away with six.
 
We often take a striker off for Garcia or Milner which at first seems quite negative, but it's actually just moving Yaya out the way and pushing him further up where people can't just walk past him to get at the back 4.
 
Don't think blanc understood that attacking would've been a better idea than defending. Chelsea resorting to hoofball gave them an opportunity to do them on the counter. A 4 man attacking block wouldve destroyed chelsea. Poor coaching.
 
alastair said:
Wenger does it infuriatingly as well. 4-2 down at City and he takes Flamini off to replace him with a striker.

We instantly lose control of the midfield (what control we had), had 30% possession and proceeded to get an absolute mauling for twenty minutes and were pleased to get away with six.
Click to expand...

I make it 3 games or so that Moyes has cost us by moving Valencia to RB, who actually isn't an upgrade offensively on Rafael, it's all just so perplexing. Wonder how much of it reflects the emotions of the manager.
 
Manchester Dan said:
We often take a striker off for Garcia or Milner which at first seems quite negative, but it's actually just moving Yaya out the way and pushing him further up where people can't just walk past him to get at the back 4.
Click to expand...

That sounds like it's something you guys work on in training and it actually makes sense, I seriously doubt PSG spend much time work on back fives with long balls being fired in.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
I make it 3 games or so that Moyes has cost us by moving Valencia to RB, who actually isn't an upgrade offensively on Rafael, it's all just so perplexing. Wonder how much of it reflects the emotions of the manager.
Click to expand...

I think sometimes it's a message to the team.
Calm it down - keep it tight - don't take risks.
 
Works most of the time, to be fair. Depends on when you do it as well - if you do it in the 50-60th minute you're asking for trouble. No problem doing it in the last 10 minutes to see a game out though.
 
BobbyManc said:
Works most of the time, to be fair. Depends on when you do it as well - if you do it in the 50-60th minute you're asking for trouble. No problem doing it in the last 10 minutes to see a game out though.
Click to expand...

Yes there are plenty of games which are seen out but I really can't recall it actually making a huge difference in the shape or solidity of a team. Keep the ball, that's all you need to do to see out a game.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Yes there are plenty of games which are seen out but I really can't recall it actually making a huge difference in the shape or solidity of a team. Keep the ball, that's all you need to do to see out a game.
Click to expand...

If the game is seen out then it must be doing something.

By the way are you referring to defenders as in full-backs and centre backs or are you including defensive minded midfielders as well? If it's the latter I disagree with your point but if not, then bringing on a defender usually does have a detrimental effect in my opinion.
 
BobbyManc said:
If the game is seen out then it must be doing something.

By the way are you referring to defenders as in full-backs and centre backs or are you including defensive minded midfielders as well? If it's the latter I disagree with your point but if not, then bringing on a defender usually does have a detrimental effect in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Defenders, not midfielders or more defensively inclined players in the same position.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Defenders, not midfielders or more defensively inclined players in the same position.
Click to expand...

Ah right, fair enough. Yeah I have to agree then, never good to throw a defender into a match already under progress, unbalances the defence and if it's doing a good job without them why change anything? Obviously in some cases it will be useful, say defending a lead against a team like Dortmund or Barca when you are having about 10% possession anyway, more beneficial to have another man in your own box.
 
Don't most players tend to drop deep naturally? It's just their instinct to do so.

Even using us an example, there have been times when Moyes has been shouting at the players to push up, and they seemed to just gravitate towards our goal.
Unless you're a possession team, in which case you can carry on popping the ball about and playing high up the field.
But if the game is balanced, it's natural for the players to drop deep even if the manager doesn't want them to.

As a result, the manager then decides that having a striker in your half chasing back is less effective then having a proper ball winner.
There's also the risk that one of your strikers could give away a penalty or free kick.
 
SpeakTruth said:
Don't most players tend to drop deep naturally? It's just their instinct to do so.

Even using us an example, there have been times when Moyes has been shouting at the players to push up, and they seemed to just gravitate towards our goal.
Unless you're a possession team, in which case you can carry on popping the ball about and playing high up the field.
But if the game is balanced, it's natural for the players to drop deep even if the manager doesn't want them to.

As a result, the manager then decides that having a striker in your half chasing back is less effective then having a proper ball winner.
There's also the risk that one of your strikers could give away a penalty or free kick.
Click to expand...

That's down to poor leadership on the pitch IMO, bringing on another CB just compounds this further.
 
It depends. An extra defender could be the difference on set pieces or to defend hoofball and crosses especially if he replaces a player with poor defensive qualities.

My issue with it is that it usually leads to the team conceding possession and I personally think the best method of defending is keeping possession.

So generally, I'm not a big fan but I think there is exceptions to the rule.
 
RustyS said:
It depends. An extra defender could be the difference on set pieces or to defend hoofball and crosses especially if he replaces a player with poor defensive qualities.

My issue with it is that it usually leads to the team conceding possession and I personally think the best method of defending is keeping possession.

So generally, I'm not a big fan but I think there is exceptions to the rule.
Click to expand...

Not much of a fan either of the set-piece one either, Smalling for Rafael always pisses me off, I can understand it more however.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
Not much of a fan either of the set-piece one either, Smalling for Rafael always pisses me off, I can understand it more however.
Click to expand...

Varane for Benzema tonight would have been significant at setpieces. Oddly enough at both ends of the field.
 
jojojo said:
Varane for Benzema tonight would have been significant at setpieces. Oddly enough at both ends of the field.
Click to expand...

Smalling for Rafael is more of an issue I suppose because he's nowhere as near as good on the ball. From what I understand Real were really under the pump too and I've seen Pepe's utter brainfart for the goal, I can understand Varane for Benzema. I also hear Dortmund still had shit loads of good chances to win though.
 
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The thing is, when it doesn't, it gets highlighted more then when it does.
 
Normally I'm of the opinion that this sort of thing is stupid, seems desperate and ends up backfiring.

Given Mourinho and Terry's highlighting of how many systems and scenarios Chelsea had practised for last nights game I wonder whether teams practise this kind of thing in anticipation of needing to do it? I have absolutely no idea whether PSG practised it or not but I'd wager they didn't, and if they didn't, why not? It happens often enough.
 
alastair said:
I take the view that it must work statistically because surely no-one would do it.

Then again, players shield balls out for corners even though there's a goal one in a hundred times directly from them.

It's mental if you ask me though. It's just an 'obvious' tactic like bringing a striker on when you need a goal.

You need to identify a weakness in an opposing team and try to exploit it. Just adding a striker tends to do very little.
Click to expand...

Well said. When it works, no one notices, or credits the team with the win "despite" the poor tactics, I think. It's just so noticeable because it so visibly degrades the team's performance and aesthetics, and is such a textbook example of defeatist mentality on the part of the manager that it becomes a very easy scapegoat for a late goal. Conversely, when a manager is too gung-ho late on and concedes, blame rarely goes to him, I find. Instead, it's the poor bastard who was most culpable for the resulting goal that gets the blame - ignoring the fact that he may possibly not have been in that position had there been a fifth defender on the pitch. I'm thinking specifically of West Brom at Chelsea where, rather than just kill the game off, Steve Clarke had his boys faffing about up top, a quick Chelsea break and the Ramires dive for penalty. Sure, that game was the referees' fault, but Clarke was the one ultimately who gave him a decision to make.

That's certainly not to say it's always a good idea - as others have noted, being able to keep possession is hugely valuable when defending a lead. I suppose the logic is that psychologically, that late in a game with a lead to defend, the mentality and the possession are gone anyway, so it makes more sense to have that extra body in defence.
 
It only seems to work when teams are under lots of pressure anyway - PSG last night looked really dangerous on the break and Chelsea weren't exactly putting them under lots of pressure

After Chelsea hit the crossbar twice there was a period of around 20 mins where I felt Chelsea had run out of ideas

PSG defending that bit deeper costs them and with all the defensive players it makes it harder to score themselves
 
IMO it makes more sense to pack the midfield. First at all most defenders are used to play in a unit of four so adding extra defender breaks that set-up. Midfilders are used to playing in a midfield of 3,4 or 5. Adding extra man doesn't shake the unit as much. In addition it allows to break opponents game earlier / further on the pitch, keep the ball or counter more effectively. So if was a manager of a 4-4-2 team i would change to 4-1 (sub)-4-1. I'd even consider throwing a fresh striker there to put pressure on defenders.
 
alastair said:
Wenger does it infuriatingly as well. 4-2 down at City and he takes Flamini off to replace him with a striker.

We instantly lose control of the midfield (what control we had), had 30% possession and proceeded to get an absolute mauling for twenty minutes and were pleased to get away with six.
Click to expand...

All changes are infuriating when you're behind.

I was pissed off in Istanbul when Rafa's idea for overturning a 3-0 deficit was putting on Hamann for Finnan.

If it hadn't worked, you can be sure it would have been brought up as failing to go for it.
 
If there's a plan to it, I understand totally but things like just bringing on a defender when one's behind or throwing in a striker to replace a midfielder when chasing a game is pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.